Tuesday, November 09, 2010

I can't believe it's not a proper inquest pt5

There's a new post up at the J7 Inquests blog:

It is a thorough deconstruction of the anomalies which J7 has identified in the alleged evidence that places alleged bomber Shehzad Tanweer at the scene of the Aldgate explosion on 7/7

As well as being significant in itself, the comments underneath that post are also worth reading. There are a couple of thought-provoking observations about the nature of the damage caused on the 7/7 train carriages, and also a series of contributions from what appears to be the same anonymous commentator...

"How about he bent or crouched over the rucksack, which was on the floor, to detonate it? Or held it in his arms and triggered it?"

"You'll get your answer today when a survivor will testify that he saw Mohammed Sidique Khan detonate a bomb in his rucksack which was on the floor of the carriage. QED and time for you to put an end to your speculations"

"Are you accusing Mr Biddle of lying? What possible motive would a man who's had both legs blown off have in protecting the conspiracy that ruined his life? Don't tell me he's been 'got at'"

"The piece of shinbone was removed in hospital and passed to the scientists for DNA testing. It belonged to Tanweer. PS I was working at the forensic lab at the time."

"Are you accusing forensic scientists of fitting up Tanweer? "

"The answer to your question is no. I've only been in forensics for a mere 15 years. Can you give us a quick rundown of your forensic experience please?"

It turns out that, Daniel Biddle, the survivor who was going to 'testify that he saw Mohammed Sidique Khan detonate a bomb in his rucksack which was on the floor of the carriage' did not say that and actually referred to a small rucksack on someone's lap

This is a big difference, as the nature of the damage and injuries reported from the carriage is consistent with a large device at floor level, not a small device at waist level

Apparently, 15 years of relevant forensic experience does not equip the commentator to distinguish between statements which refer to...

Small rucksack on lap


(Large) rucksack on floor

This is no Gil Grissom we're dealing with here

The style of the commentator's attack is an illustrative example of some of the strategies that apologists for Offical Narratives employ...
  • They insult and patronise in an attempt to provoke an emotional response

  • They ignore effective responses to their insinuations and simply move on to a new line of attack
and above all
  • They relentlessly attempt to force those who have identified flaws in an Official Narrative to generate speculations of their own
This is not the behaviour of someone who holds a point of view that they know to be well-supported. This the behaviour of someone who is either unconciously dissonant or consciously deceptive. This is what you do when you know you are defending a flawed position

And it doesn't help when, as illustrated by the following misguided comment I just saw under an Aangirfan post,
truthers play right into the hands of those who would distract you from the weaknesses in their fairy story...

"Maybe they just paid the guy off and he figures he's lost his legs in a bombing so why not profit from it. Even bomb victims can be ready to serve tyranny, either that or brainwashed at some point. These people did 911, so magicking up this "witness" is hardly beyond them."

To put it another way
  • Imagine you arranged to meet someone at a certain time and place
  • They don't turn up
  • The next day you phone that person and ask them why they didn't show
  • The person says 'But I was there!'
  • You say 'No you weren't'
  • The person then says 'If I wasn't there where do you think I was? And why? And with who?'
Would you be so daft as to even start to answer those questions?

(It's worth noting that after nine years of bullshit about holographic aircraft, space beams,
MI6 vs CIA vs Mossad, LIHOP/ MIHOP/ BUNNYHOP, etc etc, 9/11 Truthers are finally realising that it might just be better to stick with fundamental facts that as wide a number of them as possible can agree to be 'True'... DECLARATION: NO MUSLIMS PROVEN INVOLVED IN 9/11)



Anonymous said...

To be accurate...
the stuff on J7 inquest blog about what DB says, is that he mentions a "small rucksack on his lap" not "Small bag on lap" but of course, the significance of the lap/floor discrepacy isn't lost.

Stef said...

fair point

Biddle referred to 'a small camping rucksack on his lap'

I've amended my post, thx

Stef said...

...and even though the anonymous comment I discuss does not refer to the size of the bag this is of significance given the home-made nature of the explosives that were allegedly used on 7/7

There's also the small matter that the rucksacks seen in pictures of the alleged 7/7 bombers released thus far seem to be in the 55-70 litre bracket. It's hard to believe that anyone would describe them as small

Stef said...

Biddle's testimony does appear to conflict with these surprising nuggets from a couple of years back...

"It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.

"Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."

"The bombers were not wearing the rucksacks at the time of the explosions, but had instead put them down on the floor of the bus and Tube trains"

The Antagonist said...

I don't know quite how you managed to separate those particular anonymous comments from the rest of the discussions taking place on the J7 Inquests blog. After all they look like the sort of perfectly innocent, normal, decent comments of a very well balanced and right minded individual.

Nothing rabid, maniacal, or Strangelovian about them at all, no sirree!

Stef said...

To my knowledge there is no eye-witness testimony of Asian men tossing bank cards and gym memberships along the length of rush hour train carriages on 7/7

...before standing up/ sitting down putting their small/ large rucksacks on the floor/ their laps and blowing themselves up some distance from/ adjacent to their devices made from military grade/ home-made explosives

Confused? That's probably the idea

Stef said...

"Nothing rabid, maniacal, or Strangelovian about them at all, no sirree!"

I was expecting matey to lose it at some point and start fantasising about anyone who disagrees with his point of view being slaughtered by one of the suicidal fanatics we supposedly make apologies for

that, or accuse us of being blood-thirsty ghouls, feasting on the suffering of the bereaved and maimed

they're the usual two outcomes once the bullshit runs dry

The Antagonist said...

And let's ignore entirely the more-than-passing interest in proceedings, and the foreknowledge of what will happen, that results in a comment like:

"You'll get your answer today when a survivor will testify that he saw Mohammed Sidique Khan detonate a bomb in his rucksack which was on the floor of the carriage. QED and time for you to put an end to your speculations"

Even if they did get the floor/lap deal a bit wrong.

The cognitive infiltrators really need to up their game a bit. We're not in Kansas any more.

Word: HypeDiv (Official Hype Divs, seems like an apt enough term of reference for the commenter type highlighted in your post.)

Stef said...

The relevant chunk from the transcript of Biddle's testimony...

Q. [MR KEITH] Do you recollect him carrying anything?
A. He had a rucksack, like a small, black camping rucksack.
Q. Was he holding it or carrying it in a particular way that you can recall?
A. I remember it being on his lap.
Q. Mr Biddle, not unsurprisingly, the story of how you survived the bomb at Edgware Road has been widely reported in the press and around the world and a number of reports have purported to give accounts of your experience and memories of that day, and in those accounts there are repeated references to the possibility that the man might have been wearing a rucksack on his back, and that is what you recollect.
A. I've said all the way along from the very first statement I gave to the police he had it on his lap.
Q. Did he have one rucksack or two, or one or two bags? Was there anything else that he was carrying?
A. No, I just saw one rucksack.
Q. Can you tell us a little bit more, if you can, about the size of it?
A. I would say it would be about so big. It wasn't -- it was one of those sort of small camping rucksacks that you often see people that are going hiking would carry, so it wasn't like a full-sized camping rucksack, it was just a small to medium-sized camping rucksack. As I say, so big.

Even without seeing Biddle's gesture that description clearly reads like someone who wasn't into outdoor pursuits, and who didn't know the terminology, trying to describe a 20-30 litre walker's day sack

Stef said...

NB The J7 post on Biddle's evidence is now up