Photo of London Bombers Doctored

It wouldn't surprise me if it was doctored, but seriously it doesn't look that way. There bar does not overlap his arm, that's the building or whatever behind the fence, and his arm just happened to line up with the edge. Also, his face is strange but it doesn't really appear to be the bar, perhaps he was wearing glasses or something? And as far as the halo, they are in front of a reflective surface, that could explain it, besides whatever filter was applied to "analyze" the picture is a really shitty way to try and prove anything, considering the way it works.

 

Alright, the yellow line follows the edge of the building, the green roughly the outline of his arm. And the part circled in blue, well, that does look kind of strange, unless there is something behind him maybe. Oh well, I was just bored and felt like having a closer look.

 

And besides, if the did edit someone into the photo, the person would be in front of the bars. I mean think about it, they would be pasting someone on top of the picture.
Oh, and there are three reflections on the building in the background.. So if they went to the trouble to do that, would they have really done such a sloppy job on the person himself?

 

the way that edge filter works is it finds edges, it would search for things such as this and hilight (I'm to tired and headachy to spell) them further out than they really are,





this is a similar filter just with some colour, the opacity of both images is at 50% so you can see the original, notice how bright things (like the hat) go outwards and dark things (like the guys face) go inwards that filter would avrually amplify any sort of disconnect that already appeared from the blurry picutre, it is after a mathematic algorithm and tries for strait lines (again I know I misspelled that I just don't care right now)

 

So my theory that the guy has an elbow and bent his arm is evidence of "mental enslavement"?

Isn't there a possibility that when your ridiculous innuendo and substanceless allegations are confronted with actual facts and logic, you simply restate your high opinion of yourself and exit stage left for some other thread where you can complain that nobody ever has facts?

Face it, you flee from facts. You flee from argument. Just as you fled from the thread about the "1,000 person drill" you will flee from this one. You can only repeat what the conspiracy theoriest tell you to think. Your idea of research is visiting echo chamber conspiracy websites and repeating verbatim whatever they tell you to think.

You cannot prove that the photo is doctored and you cannot explain what the point of doctoring the photo would have been. You cannot even explain why your theory - a superimposed image - isn't consistent with the doctoring evidence you claim to see. The whole thing is meaningless obfuscation as if pages and pages of posts debating a grainy photo can distract us from the real point - what the hell do the this have to do with the Illuminati conducting a false flag operation?

There are plenty of people in the UK who hate Britain and preach hatred and violence against it. They have on several occassions gone to Israel and Iraq to conduct suicide bombings, and nobody has ever claimed the Illuminati made them do that, in fact their acts were celebrated and publicised by their ideological brethren. There was nothing about the London bombings that was especially complicated or difficult and beyond the capabilities of determined individuals.

You are simply in automatic conspiracy mode, the autopilot response you have been brainwashed to give. The 9/11 attacks were "technically impossible" and "defied physics" so you simply repeat the same thing in this case, without thinking. How can you tell a false flag attack? When pressed the identifying characteristics of a false flag operation appear to be nothing at all, i.e. the definition can always be appplied with no evidence whatsoever. Lick feebly tried to pretend the attacks were "too sophisticated", but when pressed nobody could name anything that was especially complicated. You claimed the official explanation was "ridiculous" but what exactly is ridiculous about it? Nothing. It just is, because you have been programmed to say that automatically.

 

The rat has fled the thread.

 

I distance myself from this particular theory, I think it is a complete disinformation campaign to make people who question the london bombings easily defeated in an argument about it due to bringing up this easily debunkable theory. It is just like the "pod people" after 9/11, theres no proof that there were pods on those planes and it just makes people who question 9/11 look like idiots. Here are the real investigations that should be looked at..

Terror Excercises of Multiple bombs going off simultaneously in the same spots underground as the real attack (Many believe that this was used as a cover for the operatives who actually carried out the attack):
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

The Fact that Netanyahu was tipped off BEFORE the bomb even went off...to not continue to the trains, if he had not been warned he would have died, why didn't the rest of the people get that warning?
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=2205_0_1_0_C
http://www.wtvq.com/servlet/Satelli...3979&pagename=WTVQ/MGArticle/TVQ_BasicArticle

That The Media first reported that the bombs were of military origin, and this information had been received from credible sources within the investigation, and then suddenly the story was turned around to say they weren't
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298515.ece

Investigate these things and don't be distracted by the disinfo like this supposubly "Doctored" photo.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Here we have some concrete evidence of rat not even believing his own shit. As soon as one pointless cut and paste post is debunked, he flees and moves on to another. Pattern?

 

Really? So the fact that it doesn't make sense must in itself be a conspiracy because the explanation can't be that someone came up with a moronic conspiracy theory? Are you saying Rat, who as he often tells us does a lot of research, has fallen for Illuminati propaganda?

I asked Rat about this one before and he fled the thread. For starters, the article contradicts itself as it says it was a 1,000 person exercise and then the quote says it was an exercise carried out for a 1,000 person company. Secondly, the article clearly suggests the "exercise" involved a bunch of people in a conference room, and says nothing about people actually in the underground system. So how does a couple of risk consultants in a conference room provide cover for terrorist bombings? This is not explained, because Alex Jones is confident his readers don't think about these things. And is it really such a coincidence that risk consultants, whose job it is to consult on risk including terrorist attacks, would be talking about bombings in London when London has already been bombed on multiple occasions and everyone thought was likely to be bombed again?

There are contradictory reports on that, but none of them claimed he was "to continue to the trains". This is an example of how theories slowly mutate to sound more believable. For starters, do you think Netanyahu takes the subway to conferences? No. Secondly, the bomb was not in liverpool station, it was on a train in a tunnel near the station. In any case, he could not possibly have been hurt in a hotel which is much too far away from the underground to have even the remotest possibility of being damaged. That's why they call it the underground, you know, its underground. Way underground. People went down there to be safe from bombing raids in WWII. Finally, do you think the Illuminati would have allowed Netanyahu, surely a senior Illuminati figure, to schedule a conference at the same time and location as a planned Illuminati bombing? And that they would immediately get someone to announce that they had been warned to the press?

Are you saying the possiblity of the media being wrong is just to unrealistic to imagine? Are you saying that people wouldn't have used either kind of bomb to as "proof" of a conspiracy?

 

Pointbreak, why can't you just admit you work for the government? You are a COINTELPRO agent.

The fact is, there was a 1,000 person drill taking place on that same morning, at the same time, and at the same locations. I don't believe it is a coincidence.... not after the drills we saw that corresponded with the attacks on 9/11, which also occured at the same time as the attacks.

Of course you ignore this.

You can side with the government all you want, but I smell a rat.

 

nevermind

 

For all I know, those coincidental drills COULD mean something. However, that doesn't change the fact that this picture is probably not doctored.

 

Yes, I work for the Illuminati. I am a shape changing time travelling lizard jew and I live under Denver airport.

This is Rat at his finest - when challenged, covering his ears and eyes, and then just repeating what Rense told him to think.

There was no 1,000 person drill. I have pointed this out multiple times, and you ignore it because its inconvenient. The video clip makes no reference to a 1,000 person drill, this is something that was put in the article because the authors was confident that people like you will never fact check, merely obey. In fact the consultancy group has said the exercise involved a handfull of people.

The drill did not take place at the "same locations". Again, while conspiracy believers repeat that as instructed, there is nothing in the video interview to back that up. Its called embellishment. Since you don't check source materials, you would never figure it out. The "drill" was based on a scenario which envisaged tube bombings, but it does not say that the drill took place in the tube. The clear implication from the video is that the drill took place in a conference room at somebody's company.

You also conclude that this was a "cover", because you have been instructed to come to that conclusion, yet you never explain how a couple of risk consultants in a conference room provide a cover for anything. Its a cover because its a cover, stop asking questions! People who ask questions are suspected Illuminati, just think as the conspiracy theorist tell you to think!

What's interesting here is the evolution of this story. All we have is this short video yet the conspiracy theory spreads like wildfire, and the farther it travels the less and less it matches up to the original video. Consultants working for a company with 1,000 employees mutates into a 1,000 person exercise, exercise mutates into drill, a scenario of bombs in the underground becomes an exercise taking place in the underground, throw in the unexplained concept of the "cover" and presto! PROOF OF CONSPIRACY!

 

Pointbreak, provide an article or link that says there WASN'T a Drill on the same morning, in the same underground, Rat and I have provided many links that said there was, even audio and video clips...you have provided nothing but your word...so evidence please?

 

For fucks sake man you have to pay attention! I'm using YOUR tape! YOUR tape does not say it was a 1,000 person drill! YOUR tape does not say the exercise took place in the underground! YOUR articles are contradicted by YOUR tape! I have said this over and fucking over and you and Rat just keep repeating what Alex Jones tells you to say!

This is ridiculous. Alex Jones says it was a 1,000 person drill and then provides a tape which doesn't say it was a 1,000 person drill, but since Alex Jones says so that means its the truth.

You are only demonstrating that even the most minimal efforts to check out your conspiracy theories are too much. So much easier to just believe.

 

Pointbreak, I never said nor cared about the fact that it was 1,000 people involved in this drill, that doesn't make a difference, the fact to point out is that there was a drill going on off bombs going off in exactly the same spots as they did in london.

 

For the tenth time, the drill did not take place in the underground. The tape says no such thing. This is pure fabrication. I have said this over and over again and the tape back me up.

Why is this so hard to get through to you? Because it isn't what you want to hear?

 

Pointbreak, This is what Power said...just for the record so everyone on this site knows "POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," You think that saying "the railway stations WHERE IT HAPPENED this morning" doesn't mean the same as saying underground....he obviously means the underground railway stations but doesn't bother saying underground because everyone already knows it was underground, but you can believe what you want and interpret it anyway you want, that's how i interpret it.

 

He says the scenario involved bombings in those locations, he doesn't say the exercise was taking place at those locations. That's the part where you need to lie to help fit things into your conspiracy.

Where does it say anything about people in the underground? it doesn't. This is not in the underground. This is a conference room at somebody's office, exactly where you would expect risk consultants working for a private company to be. If you were providing risk consulting services for a travel company on what to do in the event of a tsunami, would you go out and have people splash around in the ocean? No, you'd sit around a conference room and ask them what arrangements they have in place and how they would work. This is blindingly obvious.

You are not interpreting, you are fabricating. Alex Jones told you that it took place in the underground so even though the tape doesn't say that, you believe it.

 

This is what Peter Power said in a auto response to everyone who sent him an email about his claim of the drills going on that same morning..."It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events."

How do you know that all they would do on a "DRILL" is sit in a room, i am sure some of them were sitting in a room talking about crisis management, but to my belief a drill actually involves people doing the act, just like drills here in America where they tell an agent to walk on a plane with a gun and see if he can get away with it, if he doesn't than the airline industry is informed of the drill and the man is let go, why do you think on 9/11 the air traffic responders were quoted as saying many many times after hearing of hijacked airplanes "Is this realtime or part of the drill" because they actually put those planes where they would be if they were really being hijacked, that is why I believe when Peter Power says there was a drill, they sent man who were hired of middle eastern descent, told them they were getting fake bombs and to try and go onto those trains to see if it would be possible, if it was, than new security measures would be put in place, this is what those men were TOLD, but in reality they were real bombs...