A.J. Hustler
05-10-2006, 07:37 PM
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-the-real-story-of-7-7-%20a-refutation.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'real' story of 7/7 - a refutation
On the ten month anniversary of July 7th the Sunday Observer published a centre-spread article, 'The 'real' story of 7/7' (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769440,00.html). Based on the independent and public research of the July Seventh Truth Campaign comes a step-by-step refutation of that article by J7 Researcher, Kier.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The 'real' story of 7/7 - a refutation.
My comments in bold.
------------
THE REAL STORY OF 7/7
It was England's worst terrorist attack, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700. This week, the Home Office publishes its official account of the London suicide bombings of 7 July. Using police and intelligence records, Mark Townsend presents the definitive account of how four friends from northern England changed the face of western terrorism
Sunday May 7, 2006
The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769440,00.html)
3am Hasib Hussain rolls sleepily from the sofa in the living room of his parents' home in Holbeck, Leeds. Dressed in the grey T-shirt, jeans and trainers that would become familiar to millions, the 18-year-old wanders through the red-bricked terraces of Beeston and waits outside the front door of his best friend, Shehzad Tanweer.
------------
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the above scenario occurred. According to his father, Hasib Hussain was last seen by a family member at around 3.30pm on July 6th. On this basis, it cannot definitely be stated at what time he actually left the house, let alone where he went immediately after doing so.
------------
3.15am In a deserted and dark Colwyn Road, Hussain and Tanweer, 22, stand beside a silver-blue Nissan Micra that Tanweer had hired days earlier. Although their movements at this stage are not captured on CCTV, it is thought they are now joined by Sidique Khan, 30, whose role as a primary school teaching assistant in Beeston had earned the respect of those still sleeping in the surrounding streets.
------------
The only factual statement here is that they were not captured on CCTV. Therefore, again, how can it be stated with any certainty exactly what they did. Interestingly, the article refers to a "silver-blue Nissan Micra". Are they sure about that? This same newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1574573,00.html)refers to it as a 'blue Nissan Micra' in an earlier report; The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1696094_1,00.html)reported it as a red Nissan Micra; The Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=362927&in_page_id=1770)described it as a 'silver Nissan Micra'. If the media can't even cohesively report on the simple issue of a car's colour, what hope is there for the rest of the story?
------------
3.30am After a short drive across south Leeds, the trio pull up outside 18 Alexandra Grove, Hyde Park. Inside, lying in the bath upstairs, is the bomb-making factory that Khan had put together using recipes from the internet. Primitive in essence, the peroxide-based explosives were made from drain cleaner, bleach and acetone, bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops. Costing a few hundred pounds, the London bombs, based on a derivative of TNT called triacetone triperoxide or TATP, were paid for by Khan. No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda. Speculation that the four suicide bombers used the services of an Egyptian chemist studying at Leeds University are dismissed in the Home Office narrative, to be published on Thursday.
------------
Once more, where is the evidence that Khan made the bombs? Why should anybody be expected to accept that he was the 'ringleader' when the authorities have not explained why they believe this to be the case, other than the fact that he was the eldest. The statement that the explosive components were 'bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops' directly contradicts the reports that Lindsay spent £900 on perfume (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15747958&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--scent-from-hell---name_page.html) in three different shops in the Aylesbury area. This had apparently attracted the suspicion of his bank, who had rather curiously decided to hire private detectives to investigate Lindsay's spending habits.Moreover, saying 'No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda' appears to contradict a report in the very same edition of the newspaper which carries this article today. The report is entitled "7/7 ringleader 'had direct link with terror cell" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769381,00.html) and also directly contradicts US Government consultant on Terrorism in Europe, Evan Kohlman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1561987,00.html), who after viewing the supposed al-Qaida-produced video of Mohammad Sidique Khan, said:
"There is zero percent doubt this is al-Qaida." He said the Khan tape was produced by the al-Sahab video company, which is controlled by al-Qaida, and the claim of responsibility for the July 7 attacks was done in the same way as its admission of carrying out the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001. Mr Kohlmann said: "I find it a little bit depressing that people don't realise this is al-Qaida's calling card. It shows how little some understand about al-Qaida."
Are the public going to receive an explanation for the question of exactly who - if it was not an al-Qa'ida 'claim of responsibility' - edited that video it to make it seem as if it was an al-Qa'ida production by intersplicing the scenes of Khan with those of Ayman al-Zawahri?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this whole story is messed up....
the timeline article says that there was no support from al-quaeda....
but then the refuter (the writing in bold) mentions an article brought out the exact same day saying that there is a direct link from the 'ringleader' of the london bombers, to al-queada...
now, is there a link or not.....having no support from al-queada does not necessarily mean there is no direct link, does it???
the main thing i would like to bring up, is that this is how the illuminati works, they bring out several different articles both mentioning different "facts", to confuse people about what to believe, and just little changes in wording can mean oh so much (like the 'no support from al-queada' and 'direct link to al-queada' discrepancies)...
even check the links to the other articles on the different colours of the nissan micra yourself....the articles do all mention the car being different colours...so which one is true??? this is how they confuse everyone...
I remember pulling an all-nighter the night before the bombings, playing poker, about 5am or so here in the west.., and then turning on the radio and searching the updated news and conspiracy sites to hear and see the first and initial reports on the attacks saying that there were 7 bombs that exploded.....then an hour or so later, that changed to 6 exploded....then it was 3 exploded, and 3 not exploded....they do this to confuse, like i have said....but you might say..."well, they get more information as it continues and might be confused in the beginning scrambles", but aint no way you can mess up someting like "7 bombs exploding" or "6 bombs exploding", the reporters were told 7 for a reason..the illuminati needed to get their numerology in there..and it was probably also so people knew right away (atleast those who are aware of what is going on) knew that it was 7/7/7 and was the illuminati who was responsible...just incase they didn't catch how 7/7/2005 = 7/7/2+0+0+5=7/7/7, they would see, 7/7 and 7 bombs, so a different 7/7/7...but actually, it would have really been....7/7/7/7... hell, i wouldn't be surprised if there were more sevens....
anyways...the london bombings had/has the illuminati's signature written AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL over it.....now go read the rest of the above refutation of the 'official' story...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'real' story of 7/7 - a refutation
On the ten month anniversary of July 7th the Sunday Observer published a centre-spread article, 'The 'real' story of 7/7' (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769440,00.html). Based on the independent and public research of the July Seventh Truth Campaign comes a step-by-step refutation of that article by J7 Researcher, Kier.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The 'real' story of 7/7 - a refutation.
My comments in bold.
------------
THE REAL STORY OF 7/7
It was England's worst terrorist attack, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700. This week, the Home Office publishes its official account of the London suicide bombings of 7 July. Using police and intelligence records, Mark Townsend presents the definitive account of how four friends from northern England changed the face of western terrorism
Sunday May 7, 2006
The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769440,00.html)
3am Hasib Hussain rolls sleepily from the sofa in the living room of his parents' home in Holbeck, Leeds. Dressed in the grey T-shirt, jeans and trainers that would become familiar to millions, the 18-year-old wanders through the red-bricked terraces of Beeston and waits outside the front door of his best friend, Shehzad Tanweer.
------------
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the above scenario occurred. According to his father, Hasib Hussain was last seen by a family member at around 3.30pm on July 6th. On this basis, it cannot definitely be stated at what time he actually left the house, let alone where he went immediately after doing so.
------------
3.15am In a deserted and dark Colwyn Road, Hussain and Tanweer, 22, stand beside a silver-blue Nissan Micra that Tanweer had hired days earlier. Although their movements at this stage are not captured on CCTV, it is thought they are now joined by Sidique Khan, 30, whose role as a primary school teaching assistant in Beeston had earned the respect of those still sleeping in the surrounding streets.
------------
The only factual statement here is that they were not captured on CCTV. Therefore, again, how can it be stated with any certainty exactly what they did. Interestingly, the article refers to a "silver-blue Nissan Micra". Are they sure about that? This same newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1574573,00.html)refers to it as a 'blue Nissan Micra' in an earlier report; The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1696094_1,00.html)reported it as a red Nissan Micra; The Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=362927&in_page_id=1770)described it as a 'silver Nissan Micra'. If the media can't even cohesively report on the simple issue of a car's colour, what hope is there for the rest of the story?
------------
3.30am After a short drive across south Leeds, the trio pull up outside 18 Alexandra Grove, Hyde Park. Inside, lying in the bath upstairs, is the bomb-making factory that Khan had put together using recipes from the internet. Primitive in essence, the peroxide-based explosives were made from drain cleaner, bleach and acetone, bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops. Costing a few hundred pounds, the London bombs, based on a derivative of TNT called triacetone triperoxide or TATP, were paid for by Khan. No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda. Speculation that the four suicide bombers used the services of an Egyptian chemist studying at Leeds University are dismissed in the Home Office narrative, to be published on Thursday.
------------
Once more, where is the evidence that Khan made the bombs? Why should anybody be expected to accept that he was the 'ringleader' when the authorities have not explained why they believe this to be the case, other than the fact that he was the eldest. The statement that the explosive components were 'bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops' directly contradicts the reports that Lindsay spent £900 on perfume (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15747958&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--scent-from-hell---name_page.html) in three different shops in the Aylesbury area. This had apparently attracted the suspicion of his bank, who had rather curiously decided to hire private detectives to investigate Lindsay's spending habits.Moreover, saying 'No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda' appears to contradict a report in the very same edition of the newspaper which carries this article today. The report is entitled "7/7 ringleader 'had direct link with terror cell" (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769381,00.html) and also directly contradicts US Government consultant on Terrorism in Europe, Evan Kohlman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1561987,00.html), who after viewing the supposed al-Qaida-produced video of Mohammad Sidique Khan, said:
"There is zero percent doubt this is al-Qaida." He said the Khan tape was produced by the al-Sahab video company, which is controlled by al-Qaida, and the claim of responsibility for the July 7 attacks was done in the same way as its admission of carrying out the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001. Mr Kohlmann said: "I find it a little bit depressing that people don't realise this is al-Qaida's calling card. It shows how little some understand about al-Qaida."
Are the public going to receive an explanation for the question of exactly who - if it was not an al-Qa'ida 'claim of responsibility' - edited that video it to make it seem as if it was an al-Qa'ida production by intersplicing the scenes of Khan with those of Ayman al-Zawahri?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this whole story is messed up....
the timeline article says that there was no support from al-quaeda....
but then the refuter (the writing in bold) mentions an article brought out the exact same day saying that there is a direct link from the 'ringleader' of the london bombers, to al-queada...
now, is there a link or not.....having no support from al-queada does not necessarily mean there is no direct link, does it???
the main thing i would like to bring up, is that this is how the illuminati works, they bring out several different articles both mentioning different "facts", to confuse people about what to believe, and just little changes in wording can mean oh so much (like the 'no support from al-queada' and 'direct link to al-queada' discrepancies)...
even check the links to the other articles on the different colours of the nissan micra yourself....the articles do all mention the car being different colours...so which one is true??? this is how they confuse everyone...
I remember pulling an all-nighter the night before the bombings, playing poker, about 5am or so here in the west.., and then turning on the radio and searching the updated news and conspiracy sites to hear and see the first and initial reports on the attacks saying that there were 7 bombs that exploded.....then an hour or so later, that changed to 6 exploded....then it was 3 exploded, and 3 not exploded....they do this to confuse, like i have said....but you might say..."well, they get more information as it continues and might be confused in the beginning scrambles", but aint no way you can mess up someting like "7 bombs exploding" or "6 bombs exploding", the reporters were told 7 for a reason..the illuminati needed to get their numerology in there..and it was probably also so people knew right away (atleast those who are aware of what is going on) knew that it was 7/7/7 and was the illuminati who was responsible...just incase they didn't catch how 7/7/2005 = 7/7/2+0+0+5=7/7/7, they would see, 7/7 and 7 bombs, so a different 7/7/7...but actually, it would have really been....7/7/7/7... hell, i wouldn't be surprised if there were more sevens....
anyways...the london bombings had/has the illuminati's signature written AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL over it.....now go read the rest of the above refutation of the 'official' story...