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
- They relentlessly attempt to force those who have identified flaws in an Official Narrative to generate speculations of their own
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?'
(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)