Like 9/11. NO Proof by Photos, but Evidence for False Claims.

[medienanalyse]

See these 7/ photos:

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/index1.html

Wrong date. They are so stupid.

[KJF]

1. Practice run

From the Guardian, 20 September 2005:
Detectives released new CCTV images of the men at Luton station and also at King's Cross station in London on June 28. The men were also pictured entering the underground system.

The trip followed the same route the suspects are believed to have taken on the day of the suicide bombings that killed 52 innocent people, police said.

Detectives found the images after discovering train tickets and receipts during searches of some the suicide bombers' homes. After analysing thousands of hours of CCTV footage, police concluded the men were on "an apparent reconnaissance mission to the capital".

"It is believed the visit on June 28 might suggest the suspects were carrying out reconnaissance of potential targets on the London transport system and checking the time of the journey they intended to take on the day of the attack," a police spokesman said. "Other cases here and abroad have suggested that terrorists do visit possible targets as part of their planning."

The images show Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay meeting at Luton train station around 8.10am. They bought tickets and shortly afterwards boarded a Thameslink train to King's Cross where they were captured on CCTV arriving and walking through the train station at approximately 8.55am.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1574256,00.html

[Andre II]

2. "Practice run"

Is there any proof that this was indeed a practice run? No, nothing. It could also have been a visit to London to go shopping.
So, these photos prove exactly nothing. And the name "practice run" is nothing but an unproven allegation.
But interestingly "Der Spiegel" presents these photos without any specification that they aren't from July 7 in a row with photos from the victims of the bombing. Not a single photo in the series shows the alleged bombers on July 7. Therefore the composition of the series of photos is poor journalism to put it mildly or pure propaganda to be harder.
But these photos DO PROVE something else:
That there were indeed plenty of CCTV cameras at Luton and King's Cross (besides as we know there are also cameras inside the tubes).
WHY IS THERE NOT A SINGLE PHOTO SHOWING THE FOUR ALLEGED BOMBERS IN LONDON ON JULY 7?
Why is there no photo from them boarding their last train?
Why is there no photo from the CCTV cameras inside the tubes?
Where are the many eyewitnesses who saw the alleged bombers waiting for the train, boarding, sitting iniside.

Has anybody seen any conclusive proof about July 7?

[medienanalyse]

7. Thanks Andrè II

"WHY IS THERE NOT A SINGLE PHOTO SHOWING THE FOUR ALLEGED BOMBERS IN LONDON ON JULY 7?"

I agree - except there IS a photo, obviously faked. You find the "original" on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and i am just doing some research if I find more.

But more important is they try to "sell" the photos from june as 7/7 ones. Like the portland photos which are in public opinion evidence for Boston.

They have no unfaked ones from 7/7. That is the point, and they furiously try to SELL the wrong ones. That seems to be the cause for 21/7: to provide some evil looking wrondoers including photo evidence.

[Tobias]

8. Disinfo - you´re on Bush´s payroll?

medienanalyse wrote:

I agree - except there IS a photo, obviously faked.

Sheesh! Pray tell: why in hell do ya think it´s "obviously faked"??



Please, medienanalyse, I really would like to share your secret knowledge!

But as long as you do not proof that (and you won´t be able to proof), I just think that´s boring, because you always shout out "Huu, look how they fake, do not believe them etc. p.."

Now you will again change the topic, won´t you? My suggestion: ask me, if I´m able to proof that the photo is not faked!

Another possibility: just be sulky and do not answer at all!

[Andre II]

11. This photo ain't from London

sorry.
It's from Luton.
Do you have any pic showing the four in London on July 7?
Should be easy. See all the pics from June 28 at King's Cross. Certainly there are similar from July 7.
No, you can't find them.... Hm, maybe they have never been published.
Certainly there are photos from inside the tube as they all had CCTV.... No, nothing neither.
Certainly there are many many eyewitnesses recalling having seen the alleged bombers waiting at the platform and inside the trains.
Post them here and please enlighten me.
I'm interested in facts not in some personal attacks as other people are here...

[Tobias]

12. right, a mistake from medienanalyse, but the point is

that medienanalyse declared there IS a photo (from London), but it´s faked. So he probably means the photo from Luton (near London), but the point is: why in hell should it be faked?

[Tobias]

9. You are lying. You are Bush´s little helper. Sorry, but check your facts

medienanalyse wrote:

But more important is they try to "sell" the photos from june as 7/7 ones.

Frankly speaking: Your are lying, medienanalyse. You hope that most readers here do not understand the german SPIEGEL and the context. For somebody who understands the context it is clear that it´s okay that SPIEGEL doesn´t give a hint if the photos are from June or from July; they just wanted to show any pics of them and the date doesn´t care in this context.

So let´s look to the english SPIEGEL, which show´s the same photo. The SPIEGEL writes:

An image taken from a CCTV footage dated 28 June 2005 showing (Center from L-R) Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shahzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay, three of four presumed London suicide bombers approaching Luton Train Station during an apparent dummy run of their July 7 attack.

So they don´t "try to ´sell´" the photos were from 7/7!



Source: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTM3NjEmbnI9MQ_3_3,00.html

What you are doing is: you´re crying, "SPIEGEL, CNN, BBC and so on are lying". For proof you bring only big big NONSENSE. So the reaction of the readers will be: "hmm, well, if the conspiracy theorists, the criticals, the non Bushists are talking such a bullshit, then I´m changing the side. I´m pro Bush now, and I´m trusting Spiegel and CNN." That´s what some people might think.

This is your effort. Therefore I call you Bush´s little helper.

[Andre II]

10. Watch your language and your manners, boy

Medienanalyse is talking about the German "Der Spiegel" and the article in German.
My German isn't perfect but I can figure out if the date is mentioned or not:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,415765,00.html

Click on the pictures and see if you find any hint by "Der Spiegel" that this is from June 28 and not July 7.

So, sorry, I don't accuse you of lying. I do have manners. And I don't have the habit of using the word BS all the time answering other people's question....

[Tobias]

13. "dumb like shit" - that´s medienanalyses language, see

his website: "Blöd wie Schifferscheiße".
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/index1.html

I already pointed out that in the context of the Spiegel-story the date of the photo is not interesting. But that´s again not the point. The point is that medienanalyse declared, "they" (whoever this is) would "sell" the photo as from 7/7.

As I already proofed, this is not the case.

[Andre II]

14. Nonsense

Do I have to explain you the difference between the language chosen for a titel of an article and language chosen to answer other people?

As I already proofed, this is not the case.
This is complete and utter nonsense. You've proven this in the English version of "Der Spiegel". Can we agree that "Der Spiegel" is German and the article in German is decisive??

And here you have a wonderul composition of photos of the alleged bombers on June 28 and the victims on July 7 but not a single of the alleged bombers on July 7! Well, what else is this than proving Atta was aboard AA 11 with a photo from Portland Airport although he had to change flights in Boston.
These photos prove NOTHING.
Especially stupid to call this officially "dummy run" if one of the three was even missing.
So, sorry, you have priven absolutely nothing. The effect by the composition is simple: Convince the reader that the four did it on July 7 but showing photos from June 28 without pointing out that they were from June 28.

[Tobias]

16. Changing the topic - as I predicted

"These photos prove NOTHING."

You´re again missing the point. The point was that medienanalyse declared the photo was "obviously" faked. And the point was that medienanalyse declared, "they" (whoever this is) would "sell" the photo as from 7/7.

So you´re changing the topic again.

Isn´t that what I predicted above?

"Now you will again change the topic, won´t you? My suggestion: ask me, if I´m able to proof that the photo is not faked!"

I find it strange that you´re sulky because of "personal attacks" or "insults" when you all the time behave like that.

So let´s stay on topic, okay?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tobias]

20. 4 statements of Andre = 4 wrong statements.

Andre II wrote:

When did I insult you??

You didn´t. And I didn´t say that. I said I find it strange that you´re sulky because of alleged "personal attacks" or "insults" when you behave like you did.

But honestly speaking your claims are indeed an insult -- to my intelligence.

Andre II wrote:

You write in post 9 that "Der Spiegel" clearly points out the pics were from June 28.

Wrong. I wrote: "For somebody who understands the context it is clear that it´s okay that SPIEGEL doesn´t give a hint if the photos are from June or from July; they just wanted to show any pics of them and the date doesn´t care in this context."

And the english SPIEGEL clearly points out that the pics are from June.

Andre II wrote:

But I've proven they didn't.

The german Spiegel didn´t, right. That was what I said. You´re fighting against a straw man.

Andre II wrote:

So, what actually did you prove concerning the article by "Der Spiegel"??

I explained that even DER SPIEGEL didn´t "sell" a pic from June as one from Juli. SPIEGEL just used any pics from the terrorists for illustrating its text.

Andre II wrote:

Stay on topic ok!

Oh, I´m sure you once again forgot the topic....

The topic was that medienanalyse declared the photo was "obviously" faked. And the point was that medienanalyse declared, "they" (whoever this is) would "sell" the photo as from 7/7.

Medienanalyse didn´t prove anything of that. He even didn´t clearly state which pic he believes is faked (at least I didn´t get that, medienanalyse´s texts are really vague, cryptic, so...)

[JackRiddler]

18. Fact

Der Spiegel German caption online to the "28.06" photo (published Sep 20 2005) says:


20.09.2005 Druckversion
Ankunft am Bahnhof Luton: Die Selbstmordattentäter Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shahzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay

"Arrival at Luton Station: The suicide bombers..." . Nothing about a date or it being a practice run. (Note use of "and" instead of "und", indicating the names were cut and pasted from an English text.)

A degree of fakery is involved here, selling the alleged practice run as the actualy bombing run. And "practice run" is a label. What proves it?

[medienanalyse]

21. Thank you Jack

this caption phenomenon explains a little bit the speed of editing they had in the SPIEGEL headquarter.

I see that they were so quick just to publish whatever they had, and now there is nearly no photo left for 7/7 ...!

There are other photos or films mentioned by the independent which I have never seen. Who knows something about that:

"08.26 - The four are filmed on the concourse above the Thameslink platform and heading west towards the London Tube system. 08.30 - The four men are seen hugging.""

[KJF]

15. You must have seen this:

Hasib Hussein 47 minutes before he blew himself up.

Isn't there supposed to be a video of them? Have you looked for that?

[Andre II]

19. Four alleged bombers

Yes, I do know this pic.

But it shows only Hussein who had nothing else butu looking around in a shop and going to McDonalds.
Besides the pic doesn't even have a time stamp.
So, it proves again nothing.
Where are the photos from July 7 that are taken from the same spot as the one from June 28 showing all four eg at King's Cross????????????

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

4. Yeah, well WHO says it was a "dummy run"? nt

[Tobias]

5. For medienanalyse this is "Evidence for False Claims" - that´s NONSENSE

This is the topic here.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[medienanalyse]

22. More clear. More photos. Better edited.

is the file

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/bilderschwund.html

now.
And I add again: who knows photos showing the four with a data stamped in the photo itself on 7/7 ?

In fact I do not know one from Kinfs Cross.

And I cannot remember photos treated with dalse stamps from 8/11.

[Tobias]

23. You´re still making cheap cheap propaganda.

Look at this pic and do some meditation:



And then look what you wrote: "Offensichtlich wurde hier ein falsches Datum übergeblendet."

You just took a very bad crapped pic from 7/7 and compare it with a better quality pic of 28/6.

I call this fakery, pixelwixel, and in the end: Bush-helping.

Btw, you wrote: "Das Foro gibt es übrigens auch bei der Metropolitan Police ganz ohne Datum."

Don´t you have eyes, medienanalyse? Look at the first sentence: "See larger version of CCTV image of the suspects at Luton station (right) - "

That image is with the date!

Oh, again, how cheap ...!

[medienanalyse]

24. correction

Since I learned that the photo provided by the Metropolitan Police has a better resolution I rely on the better one and I changed it in my file.

This is different too, but the comparison is not so much evident.

Anyway: the main sentence stands: since we know the SPIEGEL photos we are enriched by getting less. Less photos which are conncted with 7/7.

http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/bilderschwund...

[Tobias]

25. Thanks...

After these corrections Wisnewski and other Pixelwixels at least won´t link to your site ... you should be happy about that..!

I don´t have the time to provide you with more infos about other mistakes / bias on your site.

May be later ...