FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The 'son of 7/7' trial At Kingston
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:39 am    Post subject: The 'son of 7/7' trial At Kingston Reply with quote

the Trial at Kingston
April, 2008


The 'July 7th' trial started this week at Kingston Crown Court. Here is Rachel's comment upon it:

Quote:
Thursday, April 10, 2008
'I have to do this thing for our future'
"Sweetheart, not long to go now. And I'm going to really, really miss you a lot.

"I'm thinking about it already. Look, I absolutely love you to bits and you have been the happiest thing in my life. You and your mum, absolutely brilliant.

"I don't know what else to say. I just wish I could have been part of your life, especially these growing up – these next months, they're really special with you learning to walk and things.

"I just so much wanted to be with you but I have to do this thing for our future and it will be for the best, inshallah, in the long run.

"That's the most important thing.

"You make plenty of Dua for you guys and you've got loads of people to look after you and keep and eye on you.

"But most importantly I entrust you to Allah and let Allah take care of you.

"And I'm doing what I'm doing for the sake of Islam, not, you know, it's not for materialist or worldly benefits."
The video shows a doting young father, kissing the head of his brown-eyed two-year-old baby girl, nestling in his arms in a pink dress. She is reaching for the camera with her chubby hands and kicking her legs with happiness. Her smiling 'uncles' laugh as the father records his farewell on a home-made video. One 'uncle picks her up, doffs his cap and places it on the baby's head, another flexes his biceps and grins for the camera.

'What's your words of wisdom?', the father asks the men.

' A few words of wisdom - kill everyone there is', another man replies. Smiling broadly.

I could barely make it out, but there it was. The video of a man going to Pakistan ,who at that point, in November 2004, did not expect to come back. The tapes were handed over by his wife to a friend, who passed it to the police after four bombs killed 52 innocent passengers and injured hundreds more.

The loving father was Mohammed Siddique Khan, the 'uncles', his fellow-suicide-bombers Hasib Hussein and Shehzad Tanweer. The other uncle, his alleged close friend and conspirator Wahid Ali.

I watched the video in an annexe to Kingston Crown Court with some of the bereaved families and it made me want to weep, because there was such love, and such hate, which became such murderous poison, as he cradled a sweet pink rose of a child, amongst his laughing friends.

It was one of the last videos shown after a day of the CPS's careful presentation in their opening speeches. We saw CCTV footage - never seen in public before - of the 7/7 bombers sky blue Nissan Micra, hired from a Leeds car rental firm, leaving for London in the early hours of 7 July 2005, departing from 18 Alexander Grove, (the bomb factory address.)

Stopping at Woodall Services on the westbound M1 at 4.53am, Shehzad Tanweer in white trousers and white branded sports top with a black coat stopping to put petrol in at 4.51am, then entering the petrol station shop at 4.54am, returning with a carrier bag of goods, ( sandwiches and snacks) - and the car driving away at 5.14am.

Then, fellow-bomber Germaine Lindsey, who bombed my train and killed 26 fellow-passengers, waiting at Luton station. Walking from the car park where he parked his burgundy Fiat Bravo to the entrance of Luton station at 6.41am. Moving about, sometimes off-camera in the ticket hall for three minutes. Walking to the exit again, his mobile in his left hand, at 6.44am. Getting back in his car and repositioning the Fiat nearer the ticket hall.

At 6.51am the Micra arriving containing his three companions, his fellow shahid - and parking next to the Fiat in the wet, puddly car park. At 6.53 there is movement between the two vehicles and the boot is opened and closed several times. At 7.14am Lindsey goes back into the ticket hall, a minute later, he returns to the group and at 7.16am the men put on their rucksacks and leave the car park for the station. At 7.25 the men are on the concourse, getting onto a Thameslink train bound for London. At 8.25am the men arrive at Kings Cross station, move to the London Underground network and separate at 8.26am.

They apparently believe that the next time they see each other will be less than an hour later in the gardens of Paradise.

Next we saw footage of the exploded train at Edgware Rd. We saw footage of the Aldgate train explosion, seen from the platform. Passengers crouching in shock, smoke pluming and billowing, two police officers going to the platform. Then the same platform again from a different angle. Then stills of the exploded carriage are shown. Torn apart, as lives of the living and dead were torn apart.

Next, we are shown stills of the Piccadilly line train, the one I was on. I have seen the pictures of the inside of my carriage, but these were from the outside, and they were worse, because I could see how close I was to the bomb, and the debris on the tracks. Not bodies, just clothes. They had carried the broken bodies away. But I saw what I thought were clothes on the day; they were not piles of clothes, they were people. I remembered.

Then we saw the CCTV of teenager Hasib Hussein, who did not detonate his bomb at 8.50/8.51am as his 'brothers' had done.

We heard how witnesses saw Hussein waiting on a bench on the Northern line platform at 8.45am, exiting the Northern/Victoria line escalator,

We then saw CCTV of him exiting Kings Cross Underground station at 8.54am, then heading through Boots at 8.59am. Moving across the main railway station concourse at 9am, bending over outside next door shop WH Smiths where I have stopped so many times, and fiddling with his rucksack. Making a purchase, something that looks like a battery at 9.04am. (The woman serving him reaches down to the side of where the cigarettes are sold and hands him a small item; from memory, that is exactly where the batteries are. I cannot see what else it could be)

At 9.05, Hussein leaves the King's Cross concourse, heading out of the railway station, and by 9.07am he is out of the station, crossing York Way and heading into McDonalds at 9.15am , as rain falls. Two minutes later he is out of McDonalds and heading up Gray's Inn Rd, towards Euston Rd, making calls on his mobile. By 9.20am he is in Euston Rd, having slipped on a pair of sunglasses.

He took the 91 bus to Euston Square, where the driver told the passengers to get off. Hussein boards the number 30 bus, heading for Tavistock Square.

Then we saw CCTV footage of the exploding bus shot from inside the reception of the British Medical Association. The man at the desk, a woman in reception, ducking for cover, as the explosion happens, then the receptionist man going to the door, where the red bus, torn apart is smoking outside. Thirteen more people are dead. Next we saw the footage from the bus in front of the No.30, the passengers jerking in shock as the bus explodes behind them
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

My Comment, on the above dialogue:
This is utter baloney, a fairy-tale from Hell. I have just been up in Dewsbury, discussing Khan’s visit to Pakistan in December 2004-February 2005 with his wife’s brother Arshad Patel. This nightmare-dialogue was allegedly taped in secret by Hasina Patel as her husband said goodbye to her!

Khan’s letter of resignation from Hillside Primary school sent in December 2004 to headmistress Sarah Balfour concluded by saying ‘Its been great working with you and I will be in touch when I return.’ But the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) wants people to believe that Khan left his wife with an 18-month old child and pregnant with another, not expecting to return.

Whatever Tanweer and Khan did out in Pakistan, they must have done together. I think there is testimony from an uncle of Tanweer’s in Pakistan that he was not into ‘Jihad.’ I heard some arguing in Dewsbury that the two of them had gone to a ‘Jihad’ training camp to learn how to use a gun etc, but that this would have been in the nature of military service where young men are given some degree of military training, without necessarily expecting to fight; and they would not have learnt how to make bombs. I really don’t know. Dialogue such as ‘' A few words of wisdom - kill everyone there is', another man replies. Smiling broadly’ would have been impossible, because there was no intention to go and fight.

Then Khan returned to England in February 2005 and apparently got on quite OK with Hasina. Would she really have continued living with him had she taped such horrific dialogue and secretly betrayed him by handing it over to the authorities? Hasina’s interview with Julie Etchingham* made clear she never saw anything in the least suspicious that would have led her husband to commit such acts -
Quote:
H.P.: I would say he was a good Muslim, that's what I felt he was then.

Julie Etchingham: But you didn't have any sense even at this stage, because we now know that even at this stage he was involved in something more extreme, you never had any inkling of that at all?

H.P.: I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams, never. If we watched TV and if there was a war or you see people suffering and obviously you comment just like anybody would, it was nothing beyond what was normal, what anybody else would say.

Asked about the posthumous video, she replied: ‘‘To me that's not my husband, what I saw on TV is just a completely different person.’ So, if there was some alter ego of Sidique Khan, which utterly contradicted and negated everything which all those who knew him thought about him, his wife Hasina did not ever get to see it.

After she was arrested and kept for seven days in solitary confinement in Paddington Green in May 2007, without charge, her comment upon being released on May 16 was to call for an independent public enquiry into the bombings. Why would she want to do that, if she had heard such dialogue as is here alleged?

* 27 July, 2007 Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1277315,00.html

Minor detail: I confirm the blue colour of the Nissan Micra! Arshad's wife clearly recalled this. It was hired July 1st and Khan and Tanweer were driving about in it. Khan was last seen by anyone on Tuesday 5th as he took his expectant wife to the hospital for a scan in it. Then he vanished. Hasina's pregnancy terminated on the morning of the 7th in consequence (IMO) of her shock and bewilderment at her husband's disappearance just when she so needed him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

astro3 wrote:
This nightmare-dialogue was allegedly taped in secret by Hasina Patel as her husband said goodbye to her!

It was said in court to be one of several videos that Khan made:
Quote:
One of London's suicide bomber’s recorded a fond farewell to his baby

One of the London suicide bombers made a series of poignant home videos saying goodbye to his baby daughter as he prepared to die, Kingston Crown Court was told yesterday.

In one recording Mohammed Sidique Khan introduced baby Maryam to her “uncles”: his fellow July 7 bombers Shezhad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain and their alleged conspirator, Waheed Ali.

Khan made the recordings in the days before going to Pakistan to join the jihad in November 2004. He had been due to take the trip nine months earlier but asked for a delay as his wife, Hasina Patel, was heavily pregnant and he wanted to see his unborn child, the court was told.

One message for his daughter made clear that Khan would not see her again and that “he was going to his death”, the prosecution claimed.

source

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This nightmare-dialogue was allegedly taped in secret by Hasina Patel as her husband said goodbye to her!


No, it was 2 videos. Both taped by MSK. Hasina was not filming nor was she in the room. There are, I understand, more videos to come - in the first day, only some clips were shown since this is presenting an outline of the case when opening the prosecution's argument - as per usual practice in trials

1. With him and his fellow-bombers Hasib Hussein, Shezhad Tanweer and his friend Wahid Ali, a defendant in court. The men were described as 'uncles' to the little girl.

2. Taped by MSK saying good bye to his daughter. From his words it is clear he does not expect to see her again.

The tapes were made 14-16 November 2004 before MSK set off to Pakistan, where he was expecting to die in a martyrdom operation.

However, whilst in Pakistan, he changed his plans and returned to the UK. He rang Hasina his wife.

Hasina's diary entries for the period were shown in court.

18 Nov Siddique leaves
19 Nov Siddique rang
20 Nov Siddique phoned
21 Nov Siddique rang
24 Nov S rang
25 Nov S rang. Good news.
26 Nov S rang. Good news. Back by Feb?
29 Nov Siddique rang

After his death on 7/705, a friend of hasina handed the tapes to the police. They had previously been given to her for safekeeping by Hasina Patel.

Speculation about how much Hasina knew about what and when and whether she agreed with her husbands martyrdom plans or knew about them is not a good idea at this legal stage of proceedings, when only what is said in court can be reported.

More detail on who went to Pakistan and when is to be heard on Monday, as the case continues - we have heard only the opening day of the CPS argument thus far.

This was the first day of the trial and was the prosecution's opening statement. It is an overview of the Crown's case. You can expect to see more evidence presented - and challenged - in much more detail later.


2. To make the case against the 3 men in the dock, the CPS have to

a) prove that MSK, Tanweer, Lindsey, Hussein bombed London with home-made bombs on 7/7 as per.

b) that the 3 men in the dock conspired to help them do so, which includes showing their links with the 7/7 bombers, their association and mindset and sympathies, as well as evidence linking them to attack-planning and reconnaissance.

Please note *deep breath*.

The men in the dock who knew and were close to MSK et al, and their defence team

are NOT challenging that MSK etc bombed London as per a) .They accept a).

They will argue b), the CPS have said as much.

Got it? They are not challenging that part of the CPS argument, the evidence ( forensic and CCTV) which shows the 7/7 bombers did it.

That means that they accept it as true. Truthful. Factual. A Fact.



Do you not think, if you were facing 30 years for participating in a bomb blot and helping bombers - who were innocent and who never bombed London because the bombs were in fact a dastardly plot by Jews/Mossad/M15/Illuminati/whoever to discredit Islam -

do you not think you might mention it and run it as part of your defence?


(A rhetorical question, given the nature of this site)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
2. To make the case against the 3 men in the dock, the CPS have to

a) prove that MSK, Tanweer, Lindsey, Hussein bombed London with home-made bombs on 7/7 as per.

b) that the 3 men in the dock conspired to help them do so, which includes showing their links with the 7/7 bombers, their association and mindset and sympathies, as well as evidence linking them to attack-planning and reconnaissance.

Please note *deep breath*.

The men in the dock who knew and were close to MSK et al, and their defence team

are NOT challenging that MSK etc bombed London as per a) .They accept a).

They will argue b), the CPS have said as much.

Got it? They are not challenging that part of the CPS argument, the evidence ( forensic and CCTV) which shows the 7/7 bombers did it.

That means that they accept it as true. Truthful. Factual. A Fact.

To which they are pleading Not Guilty.

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel said:
Quote:
Got it? They are not challenging that part of the CPS argument, the evidence ( forensic and CCTV) which shows the 7/7 bombers did it.


Is there going to be 7/7 forensic evidence presented as well as the CCTV? If so, is this from London ( the trains and bus) or Leeds (bomb factory, for instance) ?

_________________
Follow the numbers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prole wrote:
Rachel wrote:
2. To make the case against the 3 men in the dock, the CPS have to

a) prove that MSK, Tanweer, Lindsey, Hussein bombed London with home-made bombs on 7/7 as per.

b) that the 3 men in the dock conspired to help them do so, which includes showing their links with the 7/7 bombers, their association and mindset and sympathies, as well as evidence linking them to attack-planning and reconnaissance.

Please note *deep breath*.

The men in the dock who knew and were close to MSK et al, and their defence team

are NOT challenging that MSK etc bombed London as per a) .They accept a).

They will argue b), the CPS have said as much.

Got it? They are not challenging that part of the CPS argument, the evidence ( forensic and CCTV) which shows the 7/7 bombers did it.

That means that they accept it as true. Truthful. Factual. A Fact.

To which they are pleading Not Guilty.


Yes Prole - do you think I can't read? Or something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This ‘July 7th’ trial is one in which as expected no-one is questioning the official line about what happened on that day. Khan’s pal Waheed Ali will be found guilty on what looks from here like mere suggestion and innuendo. The new anti-terror laws have eroded the old-fashioned principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Ali will presumably be found guilty because
1. He took a weekend visit to London with Hasib Hussein and Tanweer on 16/17 December 2004. Their wanderings around London were followed using mobile phone call records.
2. He downloaded some web-material – admittedly of a disturbing nature, concerning the assault upon Islamic nations by the US/UK, eg showing some torture scenes at Abu Girab.
3. His DNA was allegedly found in the Alexander Grove ‘bomb factory.’
Um, have I forgotten anything? No, that should do for 30 years.

Last Thursday was indeed sensational because a sequence of CCTV film was shown, including the famous single frame of the Four entering Luton station! That allegedly-faked photo appeared (I’m told) along with others as the Four entered – Well, next week or sometime they should be re-showing that film, so keep your ear to the ground as to when that will be.

Humour section.
The tube carriages were ripped apart by – wait for it – black pepper and peroxide hair bleach. So forget all that complicated stuff about TATP. If you have black pepper in your kitchen and peroxide hair bleach in the toilet, then frankly you should just give yourself up! As reported in The Metro on Monday 14th April (1),
Quote:
The deadly devices were made of a mixture of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide so 'unique' that the bombers must have had help designing and building them, Neil Flewitt QC, prosecuting, told the jury at Kingston Crown Court.
The 'improvised' explosive mixture was made in a bath at the Leeds house, packed in plastic bags and kept cool with ice-packs.

So, that’s what they were brewing up in the bath! The testimony of a Mr Clifford Todd, the Chief Investigator with the government's Forensic Explosives Laboratory no less appears here. His conclusion? ‘Jurors were told the "unique" bomb mixture was made up of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide.’ (2)
So did Waheed Ali shake in the black pepper maybe? Sounds more fun than all that hassle with acetone and sulphuric acid to make the TATP. As we have no photos and no witnesses to this and as Al-Nashar the PhD biochemist who was renting the flat was released with no charges, it all seems kinda unlikely.

Before spending tens of millions of pounds of public money on these terror-trials I suggest that the Prosecution should be obliged to demonstrate that the ingredients it is alleging can in fact go bang. We’ve heard quite a lot of crackpot chemistry of late, what with the Heathrow liquid bomb hoax (trial now proceeding) and the Chapati bombs 21/7 trial.

1. www.wikio.com/news/Pepper?wfid=53069576
2. 15.4.08 The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/15/nterror115.xm l,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is most valuable to have Rachel record this list of Khan’s phone calls, and kindly share it with us, as it was shown in the Court and taken from Hasina’s personal diary:
Quote:
18 Nov Siddique leaves
19 Nov Siddique rang
20 Nov Siddique phoned
21 Nov Siddique rang
24 Nov S rang
25 Nov S rang. Good news.
26 Nov S rang. Good news. Back by Feb?
29 Nov Siddique rang
Did Rachel copy this down quickly as it was given in court, or was she given a Press Pack or something with such details? It would be helpful as regards how this data was obtained.

It must surely be evident, that this list of daily phone calls from Pakistan to Khan’s lovely young his wife in England, starting the on the very day he arrived, is not very well compatible with the Prosecution’s story, that he had intended to leave England forever after saying goodbye to her, the baby etc - because he was going to become a martyr after going to some Jihad training camp. That is the Prosecution’s case! He could have been talking to her about his relatives in Pakistan and some kind of family business.

I’m querying the date which Rachel gives for Khan’s videos having been made, of mid-December, see my thread on this topic. I suggest they were made at least a month earlier and I don’t at all accept that they were ‘farewell’ videos. Can she supply any evidence for this date?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is quite clear from Rachel's comments that

a) she has attended the trial, and done the cause of truth a great service by recounting some of what has transpired

b) her critics do not seem to have attended the trial (correct me if I am wrong here), and yet given their misgivings, shouldn't they, in order to ascertain what has happened?

c) the defendants do not seem to contest the fact that those widely believed to have carried out 7/7 (Khan etc) did so. A very important point. Surely people facing 30 years in jail would argue the plot was non-existent if they believed it to be so?

d) Possibly, we now have a prima facie answer to the question as to why CCTV footage of the 7/7 bombers was not released earlier--it was being held back for use as evidence in this trial.

It seems here that a lot of evidence highly pertinent to 7/7 is being aired in this court--anybody seriously interested in contesting the official version of events really should be there watching it. In case any of you are interested, this is called research. And before any of you ask why I haven't attended court, I don't feel the need to, as I am not a 7/7 cult member. I do, however, thank Rachel for attending, and reporting back, despite the pain & distress it must cause her.[/i]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excuse me I was there, and you and Rachel are greatly missing the point in saying that the defendents should have contested the basic 7/7 story. They have clearly been given legal advice that (a) their chances of staying out of jail now are very slim, and (b) they would be better off not contesting the main 7/7 story. That in no way means that they themselves believe the official story, as Rachel is suggesting.

Mr O’Hara spare a thought for how completely racist this setup is. Entering the Court you see ten white males wearing wigs, OK maybe one white woman and nine men, and the only coloured persons in the court are the three accused. One saw just the same thing in the July 21 trial at Woolwich. There is no possibility of anyone seeing their point of view.

Khan Visits London - June 2004
On Monday 14 April, I saw the previously-unreleased CCTV footage of Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay visiting London on 28 June shown at Kingston Crown Court. There they were, bobbing up and down the escalators. From their Thameslink train they went to Charing Cross then Kensington. Does not that effectively refute the whole ‘dummy run’ story? That story seems to differ from the ‘Official Account’ of 2006 which just said they were ‘picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time.’ Or, have I missed something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astro3 wrote:
Excuse me I was there

Fair enough: I only asked

Quote:
and you and Rachel are greatly missing the point in saying that the defendents should have contested the basic 7/7 story. They have clearly been given legal advice that (a) their chances of staying out of jail now are very slim, and (b) they would be better off not contesting the main 7/7 story.


They may well have been given such legal advice: however, defendants do not always have to take such advice. In one case (the GANDALF conspiracy trial) the defendant who followed my advice against that of his lawyers (including Ken McDonald QC) never served one second in jail--others did. If the defendants do indeed believe there was no 7/7 plot, then they would be remiss not to argue this. Is not such a trial the best place to do so?

Quote:
That in no way means that they themselves believe the official story, as Rachel is suggesting.


If they do not contest this story, now, at their trial, third parties (including the public) will believe they accept it, and quite reasonably so, in my view. If people facing 30 years in jail aren't prepared to state the truth as they see it, why should anybody else infer from such silence they do contest it? You would need some pretty strong counter-arguments to counteract the influence of those videos, I'd say. Or don't you agree?

Quote:
Mr O’Hara spare a thought for how completely racist this setup is. Entering the Court you see ten white males wearing wigs, OK maybe one white woman and nine men, and the only coloured persons in the court are the three accused. One saw just the same thing in the July 21 trial at Woolwich. There is no possibility of anyone seeing their point of view.


You tell me there is institutional racism in the legal system: agreed. However, can you perhaps tell me the colour composition of the jury? And did the defendants choose their (presumably white) counsel themselves, or not?

Quote:
Khan Visits London - June 2004
On Monday 14 April, I saw the previously-unreleased CCTV footage of Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay visiting London on 28 June shown at Kingston Crown Court. There they were, bobbing up and down the escalators. From their Thameslink train they went to Charing Cross then Kensington. Does not that effectively refute the whole ‘dummy run’ story? That story seems to differ from the ‘Official Account’ of 2006 which just said they were ‘picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time.’ Or, have I missed something?


Is this footage shown genuine? If so, irrespective of the official account, what were they doing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larry O'Hara wrote:
astro3 wrote:
Excuse me I was there

Fair enough: I only asked

Quote:
and you and Rachel are greatly missing the point in saying that the defendents should have contested the basic 7/7 story. They have clearly been given legal advice that (a) their chances of staying out of jail now are very slim, and (b) they would be better off not contesting the main 7/7 story.


They may well have been given such legal advice: however, defendants do not always have to take such advice. In one case (the GANDALF conspiracy trial) the defendant who followed my advice against that of his lawyers (including Ken McDonald QC) never served one second in jail--others did. If the defendants do indeed believe there was no 7/7 plot, then they would be remiss not to argue this. Is not such a trial the best place to do so?

Quote:
That in no way means that they themselves believe the official story, as Rachel is suggesting.


If they do not contest this story, now, at their trial, third parties (including the public) will believe they accept it, and quite reasonably so, in my view. If people facing 30 years in jail aren't prepared to state the truth as they see it, why should anybody else infer from such silence they do contest it? You would need some pretty strong counter-arguments to counteract the influence of those videos, I'd say. Or don't you agree?

Quote:
Mr O’Hara spare a thought for how completely racist this setup is. Entering the Court you see ten white males wearing wigs, OK maybe one white woman and nine men, and the only coloured persons in the court are the three accused. One saw just the same thing in the July 21 trial at Woolwich. There is no possibility of anyone seeing their point of view.


You tell me there is institutional racism in the legal system: agreed. However, can you perhaps tell me the colour composition of the jury? And did the defendants choose their (presumably white) counsel themselves, or not?

Quote:
Khan Visits London - June 2004
On Monday 14 April, I saw the previously-unreleased CCTV footage of Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay visiting London on 28 June shown at Kingston Crown Court. There they were, bobbing up and down the escalators. From their Thameslink train they went to Charing Cross then Kensington. Does not that effectively refute the whole ‘dummy run’ story? That story seems to differ from the ‘Official Account’ of 2006 which just said they were ‘picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time.’ Or, have I missed something?


Is this footage shown genuine? If so, irrespective of the official account, what were they doing?



Everything you say is fair comment IMO.

The question does beg itself, however......how is it that in so many major terrorist trials the accused sit back like a bag of potatoes and accept (seemingly) everything that goes on around them without comment.

The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four did not speak up for themselves either as I remember....in spite of the fact they had nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes with which they were charged.

For ordinary people the prospect of being convicted of a charge of terrorism and receiving a long jail sentence must be extraordinarily intimidating. These people must be very vulnerable to whatever poor advice they seem to so often get from their lawyers.

One is inclined to wonder if their counsel is always necessarily acting in their best interests.

These people are not like we who debate these issues on this site. They are often likely to be poorly educated. They will lack awareness of the big picture and the vision to realise that they might do themselves a very big favour by standing up for themselves and aggressively challenging the narrative that is, ever so neatly, being laid out before a court....by a bunch of lawyers of questionable integrity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rachel
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 211

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astro3 wrote:
Excuse me I was there, and you and Rachel are greatly missing the point in saying that the defendents should have contested the basic 7/7 story. They have clearly been given legal advice that (a) their chances of staying out of jail now are very slim, and (b) they would be better off not contesting the main 7/7 story. That in no way means that they themselves believe the official story, as Rachel is suggesting.

Mr O’Hara spare a thought for how completely racist this setup is. Entering the Court you see ten white males wearing wigs, OK maybe one white woman and nine men, and the only coloured persons in the court are the three accused. One saw just the same thing in the July 21 trial at Woolwich. There is no possibility of anyone seeing their point of view.

Khan Visits London - June 2004
On Monday 14 April, I saw the previously-unreleased CCTV footage of Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay visiting London on 28 June shown at Kingston Crown Court. There they were, bobbing up and down the escalators. From their Thameslink train they went to Charing Cross then Kensington. Does not that effectively refute the whole ‘dummy run’ story? That story seems to differ from the ‘Official Account’ of 2006 which just said they were ‘picked up on CCTV near Baker Street tube station later in the morning and returning to Luton at lunch time.’ Or, have I missed something?


'Coloured people'?

Larry, this poster 'astro3' was only there on Monday, he did not see the CCTV being shown . His remarks about the legal advice given to the defendants are inaccurate speculation as anyone who knew the background of the lawyers would know. There is a Muslim woman in a hijab on the defence team of one of the men as well, not that anyone's religion or race is a hindrance or a help in seeing justice served; it should be irrelevant.

Astro3 is a holocaust denier, as I have just found out to my disgust. Because of this, and the fact that this site seems happy to have an antisemite racist peddlar of lies posting, and hassling survivors and bereaved, this is the last time I shall ever post here. What I have found out about the beliefs of some of the posters here is sickening and stomach churning.

You can PM me on the other board or email if you want to find out more
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astro3 wrote:
Quote:
Last Thursday was indeed sensational because a sequence of CCTV film was shown, including the famous single frame of the Four entering Luton station! That allegedly-faked photo appeared (I’m told) along with others as the Four entered – Well, next week or sometime they should be re-showing that film, so keep your ear to the ground as to when that will be.


Can anyone confirm this? Rachel?

_________________
Follow the numbers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dontbelievethehype1970
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:
this is the last time I shall ever post here.


With respect, thats been said before !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel wrote:

Astro3 is a holocaust denier, as I have just found out to my disgust. Because of this, and the fact that this site seems happy to have an antisemite racist peddlar of lies posting, and hassling survivors and bereaved, this is the last time I shall ever post here. What I have found out about the beliefs of some of the posters here is sickening and stomach churning.



It is good to be here to witness the last of the vile abuse you so liberally dump upon the heads of many persons of integrity whom I know to be decent, modest and much more sensitively and honestly discerning than yourself.

Sickening?

You said it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we perhaps stick to the subject? I mean Rachel always does work through hate and rage, or she always has as long as I've know her. I'd be happy to have a debate with her on the topic she mentions, in public or on some other forum, but please not here.

Testimony of Mohammed Junaid Babar
Thursday 17 March – Kingston Crown Court

The Court heard from supergrass MJB speaking from his New York prison via a video link. On 3.6.04 he had pleaded guilty to charges of supporting and financing Al-Qaeda, and ‘material support for terrorist activities.’ According to the Wiki section on him he is serving life but has a deal for a reduction if he co-operates ‘with any investigation or prosecution by the US attorney’s Office'. He was the star witness in the case of the seven ‘terrorist’ suspects arrested in Britain in March 2004 as part of Operation Crevice. One is shocked that a British court will hear evidence from so obviously biased a witness.

In July 2003 near Islamabad he claimed to be running a ‘terror training camp’ and a chap called ‘Ibrahim’ from Bradford UK arrived. This was ‘without doubt’ Sidique Khan the prosecution assured the court (MJB made no comment upon this). MJB offered Ibrahim to come to his camp and receive training in ‘small arms training’ but Ibrahim turned this down on the grounds that he had already received such. Ibrahim’s reason for his 3-4 week visit was in order to fight in Afghanistan. He had previously attended a training camp in Kashmir prior to 9/11 and had gone to Afghanistan to fight, after doing that training. He could speak Urdu and Punjabi. He talked to MJB, mainly about how much it would cost if his family came over?

Comment: I greatly doubt whether this was character was Sidique Khan. If MJB’s is the only testimony this court can come up with putting MSK in a Pakistani terror-training camp then I suggest they should just give up. His brother-in-law Arshad believed that MSK’s visit in the summer of 2003 to Pakistan was for family reasons and did not involve any ‘jihad’ training. No way would MSK want to bring his family over to Pakistan to live there, he was proud to be British.

Other topics:
I met Gareth Pierce the renowned civil rights layer and she is defending Waheed Ali (the pal of Khan who flexed his muscles in the home video that Khan made). I expressed my view that he was innocent and she looked me straight in the eye and replied: ‘O yes, he is, totally, he is totally innocent.’ Well if that’s Gareth Pierce’s view that is good enough for me!

Then I also met the equally renowned lawyer Imram Khan – he is defending the other two! Well this should be interesting. I had spent quite a while hassling him at his smart office in Holborn to try and get an audience with his client Hasina Patel but to no avail. It will be very well worth while to hear either of these two speaking, when the Defence puts its case.

I commented to Gareth Pierce that the one thing we really wanted to hear in such a trial was a rap by the lads in the dock, with their opinions concerning the various webs of circumstantial evidence that are being woven around them. ‘O no’, she replied, ‘that won’t happen for a long time – if at all’.

One who has been attending this trial commented to me that Rachel’s comments on this site seemed quite accurate, and she confirmed that the HP ‘diary’ of phone calls of Khan phoning her from Pakistan in November 2004 had indeed been read out in the trial – so I guess Rachel has shorthand and can note these things down quickly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 17798
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've heard Rachel was on Newsnight this evening, Thursday. Has anybody seen it and what did she say exactly?
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Larry O'Hara and Rachel (whateverhernameisbecausewedon'tknow). What a wondrous disinformation couple. Perhaps they should meet up and make babies. They would certainly serve whatever cause they are serving, but it certainly isn't this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rachel was quoted by atro3 as saying:
Quote:
We saw footage of the Aldgate train explosion, seen from the platform. Passengers crouching in shock, smoke pluming and billowing, two police officers going to the platform. Then the same platform again from a different angle.


Was there a timestamp on the Liverpool street footage?

_________________
Follow the numbers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:




Everything you say is fair comment IMO.

The question does beg itself, however......how is it that in so many major terrorist trials the accused sit back like a bag of potatoes and accept (seemingly) everything that goes on around them without comment.

The Birmingham Six and The Guildford Four did not speak up for themselves either as I remember....in spite of the fact they had nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes with which they were charged.

For ordinary people the prospect of being convicted of a charge of terrorism and receiving a long jail sentence must be extraordinarily intimidating. These people must be very vulnerable to whatever poor advice they seem to so often get from their lawyers.

One is inclined to wonder if their counsel is always necessarily acting in their best interests.

These people are not like we who debate these issues on this site. They are often likely to be poorly educated. They will lack awareness of the big picture and the vision to realise that they might do themselves a very big favour by standing up for themselves and aggressively challenging the narrative that is, ever so neatly, being laid out before a court....by a bunch of lawyers of questionable integrity.


Another answer is that the prosecution carefully selects its victims.
After all everybody knows the 'war on terror' is fake, even those prosecuting, even the journalists, even Rachel North.

Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction there are no bearded islamic terrorists under everybodys train carriage.

There appears to be a pattern emerging here. Of 'evidence' appearing years after an event. If its images and CCTV everyone has been asking for we might soon get it. The 'war on terror' is currently like an out of town hypermarket. It overstocks rubbish trying to flog it. The problem is the people in general aint buying it. They have much more pressing concerns such as paying their bills or keeping their jobs.

Nobody has seen any of the alleged bombers on any bus or any tube carriage simply because they weren't there. No amount of storytelling or manufactured evidence will change that UNDISPUTABLE FACT. Only one thing might. If they have sub-contracted the videos to a made in China company and they are sold for 99p in Poundland or somewhere like that. Once I see a video like that for sale there I might even change my mind Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larry O'Hara
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 96
Location: depends

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokeman wrote:
Larry O'Hara and Rachel (whateverhernameisbecausewedon'tknow). What a wondrous disinformation couple. Perhaps they should meet up and make babies. They would certainly serve whatever cause they are serving, but it certainly isn't this one.


truth is what I'm interested in, so those of us who genuinely want to hold the secret state to account aren't lumped in with loony-tunes/cultists/the deranged. That you have not answered one thing I have said, but instead engaged in abuse, tells me just what cause you are serving.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
....by a bunch of lawyers of questionable integrity.


Sorry. I take that back.......Gareth Pierce has an awesome record that cannot be knocked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
goldenballs
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Location: stratford upon avon, England

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trial by media gone mad.

Is it just a coincidence that all this publicity surrounding terror attacks comes just as this trial happens? This on top off headlines including "Terror fanatic 'let off'". Can there really be any unbiased jury for this trial?

http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=74614

Quote:
Abu Izzadeen - also known as Omar Brooks - appeared in Kingston Crown Court today with seven other men on a variety of charges relating to the support of terrorism.

The 32-year-old from Hackney, east London, made headlines previously when he heckled the then Home Secretary John Reid at an event.

He was convicted of terrorist fundraising and inciting terrorism overseas. The jury failed to reach a verdict on a third charge of encouraging terrorism.

Eight men in total appeared in the dock today, six of whom were found guilty of supporting terrorism in some form.

One defendant was found guilty, while the jury was unable to reach a verdict in another case.

Most of the charges relate to speeches that were made at Regent's Park Mosque on November 9, 2004 – a date which coincided with the Holy month of Ramadan known as the 'Night of Power' and after US forces began their attack on the Iraqi city of Falluja.

The men will be sentenced tomorrow.

(JM/KMcA)


http://www.terror-alert.co.uk/

Quote:
Current UK Terror Threat Warning Level
Severe


http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=74621

Quote:
Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that the 19-year-old was arrested on Thursday afternoon and a controlled explosion carried out at his home in the Westbury-on-Trym area shortly after 2am on Friday morning.

Around 30 people from 14 neighbouring homes were evacuated as a precaution.

The arrest followed a number of covert enquiries by Avon and Somerset Police. They confirmed that they were continuing to liaise with various relevant agencies and partner organisations to further the investigation into this individual and his alleged criminal activity.

Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts said: "This is likely to be a prolonged, complex and sensitive enquiry which may take some time."

She stressed that the arrest had been made "to prevent harm" and warned that those who had been evacuated might not be able to return to their homes until much later on Friday.

The materials blown up in the controlled explosion will be examined.

Police have said that it is too early to say whether more arrests would be made in the investigation.

Anyone with any information is asked to contact police on: 0845 456 7000 or Crimestoppers anonymously on: 0800 555 111.

(KMcA/JM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
astro3
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know why Rachel is presuming to tell people on what days I was present at the Kingston court - (April 16th, above) Last week I was there for three days, Mon Tues and Thurs.

Thursday 24th April, Kingston Crown Court: the Khan home videos

‘Mariam, keep strong your Imam. Learn to fight, fighting is good.’ This is, we heard, the advice that MSK was giving to his 18-month old baby daughter on a home video. Call me suspicious, but we have no record at all of Khan getting into a scrap, and quite a bit about his skill in non-violent conflict-resolution. We were today showed two parts of a home video that Khan made, dated as 26 October and 16 November 2004, when he left for Pakistan on the 18th. He was clearly saying goodbye to his beloved daughter (her face heavily pixellated out in this showing) for his three-month departure, but was he saying goodbye forever?

One couldn’t clearly see his mouth for some of the rather doubtful expressions we here heard – about his renouncing his life for the holy jihad war and leaving his beloved (pregnant) wife, her mother and his daughter. He did ask both his friends Hasib H. and Waheed Ali if they would both ‘say a few words of wisdom’ in a somewhat jocular manner, and I couldn’t quite hear the replies. But the Defence counsel expressed the view that one of their replies ‘just kill them all’ was meant to be a jocular expression. No comment! This home video or some part of it was handed over by Hasina Patel to a friend on 8 July 2005: that struck me as quite odd, she had just suffered a miscarriage the day before and no-one then had any idea that MSK was to be implicated in July 7. This friend then passed them onto the police.

If these startling words were really in the video, implying a horrifying and terminal future, then would it really be just left in a drawer, and his wife carry on as if she had no inkling of what was to come? She has very clearly testified that she did have no such inkling (on the Sky Julie Etchingham interview).The Court today agreed that there were no charges against her, and that when she had been arrested in May 2005, no evidence had been found to implicate her over foreknowledge of a plot. Tomorrow some more of the home video will be shown with her in it.

I was told that on the 23rd, the day before, film had been released showing MSK and Waheed Ali in London sometime in 2004, under surveillance, i.e. this was not just a CCTV camera image.

18 Alexandra Grove was described as the bomb-making factory, used from 15 June 2005. Two homes were mentioned in Dewsbury: 69 Lees Holm the ‘marital home’ of MSK and HP, and 10, Thornhill park Avenue the ‘family home of the Patel family’ where the farewell video was shot.

A moving poem by Waheed Ali to MSK was read out, four lines, of which I only noted the first two: ‘The Gates of Memory I will never close / How much I miss you no-one knows’ - given a date of 17.12.03 One wishes he, sitting in the court, could have been allowed to tell us about its context.

We also had Hasina’s diary read out and shown to us, chiefly for its record of MSK’s phoning her 8 times in 10 days starting on the day he flew out to Pakistan. That might not sound as if he'd made some gut-wrenching decision to abandon her and Britain forever to go and fight in Afghanistan (and remember that was J. Babar's testimony given a few days earlier, that he met MSK (Aka 'Ibrahim') in Pakistan and he had wanted to go fight in Afghanistan)

Her diary also records Samantha Lewthwaite coming over, maybe invited with ‘Jamal’ her husband.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is the time-stamp on the CCTV clip saying 07.47 ish?

Didn't the device go off an hour later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377649.stm

Confused

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2

Dave Sherlock's:

http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum

http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Newspeak International wrote:
Why is the time-stamp on the CCTV clip saying 07.47 ish?

Didn't the device go off an hour later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377649.stm

Confused


Maybe the time on the CCTV is GMT not British summertime....?? That would show an hour earlier, wouldn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes in would,so logically does that mean some CCTV in some areas are GMT and some are BST?

What with efficency of everything being persued at great length nowdays,
surely the times would be standardised throughout the country!

On the news tonight the video shows 07.46, followed by another caption detailing the time of the bomb in big bold letters 08.50, with no explanation at all!

Are they f**king with us?

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2

Dave Sherlock's:

http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum

http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Further,if it is GMT what about the all other images are they an hour out the badly photo-shopped CCTV pic of the 4 outside Luton station 07.23?
Or the alleged images of the 4 in the car park 07.18ish?

I would have thought the time stamps have to be synched to real time.

BST starts around the end of March,a long way from July 7th!

?

_________________
http://www.myspace.com/glassasylum2

Dave Sherlock's:

http://www.myspace.com/GlassAsylum

http://www.myspace.com/chemtrailsuk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the third TrackerNet image from Aldgate annotated. The times are from the LUL Working Timetable and state when the trains would be in the position they are in if on time.



edit: broken image

Try:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=42&view=fi ndpost&p=11983120

_________________
Follow the numbers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005 All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group