bomb alerts and stuff

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1366 of them)
Hang on, this theory was reported a couple of days after the bombings, wasn't it?

Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

NYTimes today reports that there is evidence that the four bombers may not have known it was a suicide mission:

where has the NY times been? that theory was the daily mirror splash two weeks ago on saturday; it had been doing the rounds in this office for two days before that. jesus christ.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

This return ticket/were they duped? thing has been being bandied around for at least a fortnight - I read it in the Independent On Sunday the week before last. At the time I said "That was my theory!" but I wasn't very serious and I agree with PJ Miller's Weetabix comparison.

x-post

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

hands up who *supports* the shooting of innocent civilians.

So you've not seen any media commentators or people on the internet saying "tragic mistake, but we musn't blame the police or try to prevent them doing it again, and besides he really shouldn't have ran...", then?

Flyboy (Flyboy), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

TS: shooting of vs bombing of...

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

That's hardly the same as encouraging the police to go out and shoot random people in the street. (xpost)

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

course i have seen commentators say that, flyboy, but no-one has supported the shooting of innocent civilians. i'm fairly sure the police don't want to do this again.

"However horrific the bombings in London on 7th July and however important it is to secure the safety of the public, there can be no excuse for the police adopting a shoot to kill policy which guns down innocent people in cold blood."

i mean are they fucking kidding? 'in cold blood'?

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

Well, I hadn't heard it before. Otherwise I would have been bandying about my Weetabix comparison for two weeks.

Read over someone's shoulders that one of the failed bombers thought he was going to get 80 virgins in paradise. Yeah, right, who does he think he is, fucking Magnum?

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

Yeah isn't it usually 72 virgins? Why's he so special he's getting 8 more?

Colonel Poo (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

I overheard the newsdesk next to me getting excited about this upping of the virgin quotient earlier.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

So it all boils down to jealousy that some guys are getting 80 virgins in this life. I just KNEW it was a sexual inadequacy issue.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

guy caught in brum (using TASER -- wdn't this have worked as well in stockwell) might well be the warren st bomber.

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:49 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I didn't know there was a standard number of virgins. It's like four and twenty blackbirds.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

it's a whole lotta awkward fumbling either way!

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:54 (twenty years ago)

I like the idea that the number is just down to their own lack of ambition in this regard i.e. "think of a really big number!" "ooooooohh....80!"

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

"I've got 104 friends"

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

It's true. Or rather it might be true:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm

Apparently, if it is him and he cooperates with the police, he'll get a "discount" on his virgins.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:07 (twenty years ago)

Richard Branson has a beard. COINCIDENCE?? I THINK NOT.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:08 (twenty years ago)

I don't know if this was mentioned before but didn't anyone find it a bit odd that one of the four would-be-bombers photographed is wearing a top with 'New York' on it?

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:09 (twenty years ago)

this rucksack thing is getting out of hand. glad i have a man-bag.

no, sociah, you are the first person ever to note the ironing there!

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:11 (twenty years ago)

it's quite a popular thing, to have, on a top

as is "CUBA" and others

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:11 (twenty years ago)

the tabloids certainly got excited about the NY top. "A MOCKING REFERENCE TO 9/11" said many. and, er, the sunday her4ld.

the newsdesk next to me

what, all one of them? :)

as for the virgins ... i thought it was round here that someone posted a vastly amusing "72 virgins 'bitterly disappointed'" headline after the failed bombings last week. wherever it was, it made me laff.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:14 (twenty years ago)

I believe young people today wear the names of places emblazened on their apparel.

Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:15 (twenty years ago)

'72 Virgins Call for Peace, Fingerbang'

N_RQ, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

I had no idea! xpost

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

'72 Virgins Call for Peace, Fingerbang'

-- N_RQ (bl0cke...), July 27th, 2005 3:18 PM. (later)

Who's Fingerbang? Any relation to Fingermouse?

Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:24 (twenty years ago)

That's tweeing the tone.

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:26 (twenty years ago)

I have got one from Sociedad.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

Yaffi lifts a finger...

fingerbang was the boyband formed by cartman in southpark.


koogs (koogs), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:40 (twenty years ago)

I still don't get it.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 13:41 (twenty years ago)

Photo of 'Bombers' has been Doctored... http://strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/07/big_newsphoto_o.html

...according to a random blogger.

James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

HE'S A GHOSTIE!

Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

I love conspiracy theorists, especially ones who believe that running a grainy JPEG through an "Edge Detect" filter counts as "analysis".

From elsewhere on that site, and about the July 7th bombers:

It's beyond doubt that these four Muslims were framed. They were most likely hired as MI6 spies, sent to Pakistan and then brought back and told they were to take part in an important exercise to test national security. Give them the rucksacks, get them on the trains and then detonate the bombs remotely.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

I thought the bloke's arm was bent at the elbow.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

The funniest conspiracy claim on that website has to be a quote from a Guardian article that appeared on July 9th. It's about a website that claimed responsibility for the bombs, and where it is hosted:

Website that carried al-Qaida claim has connections to Bush family

The server in Houston has intriguing connections. Everyone's Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about £17m).

Renowned for his charitable work, Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president's navy secretary.

(the headline is from the conspiracy website, the rest of the post a quote from the Grauniad)

It's funny because my former employers - a tiny web-retailing company - host their websites on that company's servers! I just thought we were using a rather cheap hosting supplier - I didn't realise we must have been best friends with the Bush family too!

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

Hello,

I am the 'random blogger' to which you allude above. My site is www.strangeisnotafruit.blogs.com , firstly thank you for stopping by. The story regarding the odd looking CCTV footage is in fact an interesting case study but not the sum total of evidence showing that the London Bombings were an inside job(far from it). You may also be interested to note that the picture you mention can be found, in identical form as presented on my site, from all mainstream media websites as well official government sites. It may well be an optical illusion though on further study the bending elbow theory is actually highly implausible.


Nevertheless I am not a big fan of grainy picture evidence myself and am not a fan of conspiracy theories either.....accept the ones that are true ;0)

I hope that you will stop by again and review the data on my site, I welcome constructive feedback and only wish to know the truth and expose the liars.


Thanks for your time,

Kind regards


Phil

Philip Howe, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:36 (twenty years ago)

I took a quick look and may easily have been wrong (and I don't have fantastic eyesight) but I would like it if The Bending Elbow Theory were to become as famous as, say, the Grassy Knoll.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:42 (twenty years ago)

xpost

You are completely mad.

Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

I have considered removing the doctored photo article from my site as I have a pet hate for grainy Jpeg conspiracy evidence myself, however of all the photographic evidence of any case I have ever studied before, this one picture strikes me as the most ominous and frankly surreal. If his elbow were above the bar you would expect to see atleast some space seperating both the railing and the darker area-his jacket/arm, in fact there is no space and even if his arm is bent, which I think it is, still the railing ough not to be visible in the way that it is.

For all intents and purposes you are probably loooking at an edited picture. For more on this story go to www.breakfornews.com , they have run a more indepth expose on the doctored photo.

Please stop by my site again, If you want to hear real questions being asked in regards to the London Bomings and other such evils I asure you you will find them on my site. Hell, you may even find yourself asking questions you didn't even know existed. I'm a man of reason and logic, not a tin foil hat wearer.....in fact hats don't so me at all so being the vain guy I am I would sooner have my brain cooked and filled with instructions from the big eyed grays on who to kill when i reach chapter 5 of 'catcher in the rye' than wear a hat ;0)


Kind regards to all and especially anyone affected by the London Bombings,

Thanks for visiting,

Phil

Philip Howe, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

The "section of railing" near his elbow looks like a band around the sleeve (which is a pretty common feature of many jackets). If you look at his other arm there is a similar band, though much less is visible. It is also at a steeper angle, therefore not appearing to be a section of the rail. The elbow bands and railing do look similar, but it's a very grainy photo, and even on his left sleeve the angle looks just a bit off to be the railing. Also, as said above, you would have to go to some extra effort insert his arm *behind* the rail in a doctored photo.

nickn (nickn), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 22:46 (twenty years ago)

I'm hardly a photoshop expert, but as far as I know, dropping somebody falsely intoa picture involves cutting around that person, and then sticking them in. Now to drop them in and cover up everything behind them except that bit of railing, you'd also need to have gone out of your way to trim around that railing and specify that this should be in front of the thing you'd added, not behind it.

And obviously that wouldn't have happened unless the person creating the forgery wanted it to be obvious that it wasn't real. So yeah, I think this theory is quite obviously bunk.

JimD (JimD), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:08 (twenty years ago)

Ah, sorry, people have already made that point, I should read more carefully.

JimD (JimD), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:09 (twenty years ago)

It's probably far more likely that it's a shitty cheap CCTV camera and the screengrab was taken of a mix of two slightly different frames.

James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Thursday, 28 July 2005 00:16 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/visualsonic/blase/tubenote.jpg

Way to go Britons!


(post #1000)

I'm Hi, Jared Fogle (ex machina), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:00 (twenty years ago)

DAC Clarke released a second picture of the Shepherd's Bush suspect on Wednesday.

The first picture had shown him at Westbourne Park Tube station wearing a short-sleeved dark blue England football shirt and dark trousers

uh oh! ban football!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 28 July 2005 04:35 (twenty years ago)

(x-post) How silly! How silly!

Since when did England have dark blue football shirts?

There was a very heavy police presence on the underground this morning. I was quite impressed.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 28 July 2005 07:01 (twenty years ago)

The busses were practically deserted this morning. It was nice, as I got the bus-driver seat all to myself right up to Waterloo. But still, rather strange.

It Is What A Man Does Which Demeans Him, Not What Is Done To Him (kate), Thursday, 28 July 2005 07:04 (twenty years ago)

So do the police have reason to believe that Thursdays are likely target days?

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Thursday, 28 July 2005 07:20 (twenty years ago)

yeah -- weirdly empty bus. is it just people being scared of thursdays?

N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 07:34 (twenty years ago)

"I never could get the hang of Thursdays..."

Masonic Boom (kate), Thursday, 28 July 2005 07:35 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.