London Woolwich Knife Attack: Conspiracy theories debunked by Infowars

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josh Heuer

Active Member
What folks discount is how much can be learned about you from things like what you buy with your credit card. Target is able to figure out a woman is pregnant just by what she buys, before she buys things like baby items.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



I would be careful how I worded that...you aren't so much 'learning' about someone as you are making conjecture based on statistics. Isn't that the same as when people see videos of, say, reactions to horrible incidents, and no one appears to show real sadness? Aren't we just conjecturing based off of what we believe to statistically most likely? It's a stretch, but I feel it's the same concept, maybe not involving numbers per se, but involving the use of data, and coming to a conclusion based on prior outcome data.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Check out some the articles on what Target is doing. They have figured out what products a pregnant woman buys and they couple that with her age and other info and they are very accurate.

What we BELIEVE is not statistics, it is an opinion.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Phone records are just who called who and when. It's about 1/100000th the space requirement of actually recording the phone calls.

And what possible reason could they have for collecting and holding that data on everyone?

You think that is ok do you?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And what possible reason could they have for collecting and holding that data on everyone?

You think that is ok do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database
Text of Verizon order:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/full-...ing-verizon-to-hand-over-data/article/2531272

No, I don't think it's okay. I think it's an overreach, and that information should be subject to a court order on an individual basis. It's legally dubious.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Phone records are just who called who and when. It's about 1/100000th the space requirement of actually recording the phone calls.
How many terrorist did they catch ? Do You believe every lie they spew out of their lying mouths ?
 
J

Joe

Guest
What do you think?
Ok you answered that :) . It just seems like eveyday theirs a new scandal and this one isn't just supported by the Whitehouse . Lindsey Gramnesty says its a good thing ? Keep us safe ??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok you answered that :) . It just seems like eveyday theirs a new scandal and this one isn't just supported by the Whitehouse . Lindsey Gramnesty says its a good thing ? Keep us safe ??

It SEEMS that way because you follow Glen Beck. What is there really: Benghazi, IRS, Journalist subpoenas, and this rather old story (the Verizon thing is just the most details look into what was already known to be going on). Beck (and Fox News, etc.) try very very hard to make everything be "Obama's Watergate".

Not that I approve of Obama's administration in every way. But you need a little alternative perspective.
 
J

Joe

Guest
It SEEMS that way because you follow Glen Beck. What is there really: Benghazi, IRS, Journalist subpoenas, and this rather old story (the Verizon thing is just the most details look into what was already known to be going on). Beck (and Fox News, etc.) try very very hard to make everything be "Obama's Watergate".

Not that I approve of Obama's administration in every way. But you need a little alternative perspective.
Benghazi Is only old like fast and furious because the administrations stall tactics . Benghazi hasn't even been a year and its doesn't matter how old a story is because its been hidden from the press . Thats their little game to stretch it out because your typical American has the attention span of a 5 year old . NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...ecifically-targeted-americans-not-foreigners/ I actually think you need a alternative perspective. as well Mick
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Threats like this have been known for decades. I recall in the 80's that we in the British military were banned from wearing our uniforms out of barracks. There was a real fear of random attacks from the IRA and much based on the murder if an army recruiter in a car park. We used to get in real trouble if caught hitching a lift back to garrison. The rational was some Irishman could just swerve his car and take you out. Personally I was obsessive about security. We lived on a council estate and no one knew what I did for a living. My ex wife used to tell people I went to sea and it was not until I returned from the first Gulf War they realised (I was washing all my kit and had it all out to dry and a neighbour spotted it all and got nosey).

I am amazed attacks like this are not more common place.

For a soldier to be killed in the battle front is very sad but understandable. To be brutally murdered at home in broad daylight just makes my blood boil! It's just not right. I hope they lock them up and throw the keys away.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://rt.com/news/peacekeeping-afghanistan-woolwich-somalia-388/

Good video analysis of the hype... 'Oh the attack had nothing to do with U.K foreign policy'.

As the trial date is set for the two men accused of the Woolwich murder, debate reignites about the role British foreign policy played in stoking fury. Some UK residents tentatively agree that while the action was wrong, sentiment was far from misplaced

For a soldier to be killed in the battle front is very sad but understandable. To be brutally murdered at home in broad daylight just makes my blood boil! It's just not right. I hope they lock them up and throw the keys away.

I bet they think that as well whilst they are sat at home having their dinner and a drone flies in through the window.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy, with respect, it is difficult to follow your thinking. You started off with an idea of people being tracked in Afghanistan, and Sherrifs with mobile phones and speed cameras in the UK catching speeders, and you equate these things with facial recognition in cameras and phones. It is not compulsory for you to purchase one of these phones, or TVs and you are conflating the involuntary with the voluntary.

Then whe I do not see the sinister nature of your fears, that makes me happy to surrender all the rest of my rights to the state - wrong. In the UK we have more CCTV than most other places, but it only has a marginal effect on crime prevention. It does have a good effect on convictions though. Again, as a non-criminal I am unconcerned. You need to demonstrate, with facts, a situation in which the State can abuse this. What is your definition of 'control' as I have no idea what you mean.

Yet again you have gone from... 'The technology doesn't exist... what facial recognition technology are you talking about' to 'I see nothing sinister in it... let the state spy on me I have nothing to hide'. Well that may be the case at the moment but one day even you may become sick of the totalitarian state sqashing your civil liberties... but even if you don't, as you seem so embedded and invested in it,... others do mind.

As far as your 'debunking' goes, you have demonstrated that either i) you don't know what you are talking about, (and as an officer in the British Army, I doubt that), or ii) you are pretending you know nothing and disputing the allegation, presumably to get the sheep back grazing nicely in the field.

But it is out now, (the same as the spying on everyone which was also 'debunked', well that nonsense is now really 'debunked' with Snowden's proof... lol

(As an aside, I must point out that Mick, on another thread, (PNAC), said he would only really accept whistleblowers testimony if it was backed up by documentation... well we see what the cost is when that happens. Thank you Edward Snowden for your bravery.)

Of course facial recognition and iris recognition (precursored in Afghanistan and Iraq as I said and was ridiculed for saying) it is only for 'anti terrorism' purposes (an lol hardly seems appropriate... and we 'all' (obviously not Foxy sheepy people) know that includes us all.

http://rt.com/usa/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/


Birthmarks, be damned: the FBI has officially started rolling out a state-of-the-art face recognition project that will assist in their effort to accumulate and archive information about each and every American at a cost of a billion dollars.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reached a milestone in the development of their Next Generation Identification (NGI) program and is now implementing the intelligence database in unidentified locales across the country, New Scientist reports in an article this week. The FBI first outlined the project back in 2005, explaining to the Justice Department in an August 2006 document (.pdf) that their new system will eventually serve as an upgrade to the current Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) that keeps track of citizens with criminal records across America .
“The NGI Program is a compilation of initiatives that will either improve or expand existing biometric identification services,” its administrator explained to the Department of Justice at the time, adding that the project, “will accommodate increased information processing and sharing demands in support of anti-terrorism.”
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Check out some the articles on what Target is doing. They have figured out what products a pregnant woman buys and they couple that with her age and other info and they are very accurate.

What we BELIEVE is not statistics, it is an opinion.

Statistics aren't fact on a grand scale. The only fact I see is that they use statistics to single out pregnant women to send them offers about things they are statistically more likely to buy. Doesn't mean all women will want these things. It doesn't mean all pregnant women are more likely to follow these shopping trends. It's a good attempt at marketing, but nothing more. Seems a little impersonal to me though, having a retail/grocery chain obtaining personal information about me (although it never specified exactly which details they used) to recommend things for me. I prefer smaller mom and pop stores where you actually have an easier time getting to know the employees personally. But that's really beside the point.
Anyway, staying on topic...
What ever become of the blood discrepancies? Why are their videos showing blood on the sidewalk where the body was dragged (near the car crash) and another shot showing no blood on the same sidewalk? Did I miss something?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Can you show us the videos so we know what you mean. From what I have read the only calls of a hoax originated in the US and Truth Frequency Radio.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/0...wich-attack-truthers-who-claim-it-was-a-hoax/

I did some digging and couldn't find the exact footage I remember. Unfortunately, this is the only video I could find. It's incredibly annoying, but gets the point across. There are pretty clear shots of the sidewalk at points having no blood but there is also at least one good overhead photo showing the blood trail (and I know there was video footage at least showing it briefly but can no longer find it. I'll keep looking). Again, annoying video, but what's the explanation for blood on the sidewalk and blood not on the sidewalk? Or am I missing something?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Why do you need it explained? Is it compelling enough for you to think the act was staged? You think the soldier didn't die, it was a dummy?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I did some digging and couldn't find the exact footage I remember. Unfortunately, this is the only video I could find. It's incredibly annoying, but gets the point across. There are pretty clear shots of the sidewalk at points having no blood but there is also at least one good overhead photo showing the blood trail (and I know there was video footage at least showing it briefly but can no longer find it. I'll keep looking). Again, annoying video, but what's the explanation for blood on the sidewalk and blood not on the sidewalk? Or am I missing something?

Well it is really simple. It is not a pool of blood which would be raised. It is a smear. You cannot see it due to the camera angle and an uneven pavement. In the video there is a women in a blue/black gilet and she is seen talking to the other attacker in this photograph a few moments after the video.
woolwich-1905251a.jpg

You can just about see the end of the trail but nothing to the left hand side but look how uneven the pavement is. It is all a problem with the light and angle of view.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Note Biggerdave is using the UK sense of "pavement"

UK: Pavement = sidewalk (on the left above)
US: Pavement = the road (on the right)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well it is really simple. It is not a pool of blood which would be raised. It is a smear. You cannot see it due to the camera angle and an uneven pavement. In the video there is a women in a blue/black gilet and she is seen talking to the other attacker in this photograph a few moments after the video.
woolwich-1905251a.jpg

You can just about see the end of the trail but nothing to the left hand side but look how uneven the pavement is. It is all a problem with the light and angle of view.
She had some nerve, I gotta say... Hands in pockets as well! I can't even imagine what she had to say to him.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Why do you need it explained? Is it compelling enough for you to think the act was staged? You think the soldier didn't die, it was a dummy?
I didn't say he didn't die or there was a dummy. I just asked why I could see blood in one shot and not another. Does ANY question make me a conspiracy theorist? Biggerdave at least tried to help answer my question.

So it's just a case of lighting and the camera angle that makes the blood not visible? Kind of like an optical illusion I would say.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Not an optical illusion, just not the proper angle and lighting. BIG Difference.

 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Not an optical illusion, just not the proper angle and lighting. BIG Difference.



Right, which creates an optical illusion. the lighting/angle creates the effect that a sidewalk without blood is there, when in fact, a sidewalk with blood is what's really there. An optical illusion.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I didn't say he didn't die or there was a dummy. I just asked why I could see blood in one shot and not another. Does ANY question make me a conspiracy theorist? Biggerdave at least tried to help answer my question.

So it's just a case of lighting and the camera angle that makes the blood not visible? Kind of like an optical illusion I would say.
I will echo what Cairenn said in that it is not an optical illusion as that is something is that the brain perceives different to the reality of what it sees. With this you just can't see it. There is a simple way to test it in so far as look for a similar looking pavement and lightly chalk on it and then look on at different angles and distances.

I do think Peter had a valid point in questioning why you wanted it explaining, especially given the nature of the source material you presented. Sometimes the context of the question is asked can make one look like a conspiracy theorist.

On a personal note I spent most of last night looking through Youtube videos around the idea this was a hoax and found the whole thing quite upsetting. I have never heard such a pile of shite come out of the commentators mouth. There seems to be an issue with the no blood angle. This is all based around the following photograph.

original blood.jpg

Many photographs have been released apparently no blood trails but you can see them if you look carefully. I have highlighted a couple of areas from this photo taken from a bus. The marks on the ground seem to be the same as to the photo above, just again it is from a different angle (and paving slabs are rarely smooth).

bus shot.jpg

So the blood is there it is just people seem to have chosen not to notice it. Which brings me to a general accusation of lack of blood after getting hacked to death. This has been banded around by a number of youtube warriors. I would rather not link to the actual videos but I am sure you know what mean, "There would be blood gushing everywhere!!", "He should be laying on pools of blood!!" blah, blah, blah. Now it is this sort of thing that makes me angry. What do they base this on? I have no bloody idea except to think it was the last time they watch Friday the 13th or something. A cleaver makes a relatively poor weapon as it is relatively blunt as compared to a carving knife. You need to use it with force and its action is to tear rather than slice. The lad was also wearing a sweating shirt and the material is quite difficult to "hack" through. The skin can still be torn underneath but the material can be intact (try it at home with an old sweatshirt and a melon of pork belly). Even then the material will absorb a hell of a lot of blood rather than it pooling. I make the presumption that the lads body went into shock and that can cause muscle contraction as well as normal contraction of the blood vessels. Also consideration has to be taken into when the poor buggers heart stopped. Once that happens so does blood flow and the flow from any arteries. My point is the lack of blood is not that surprising and I understand that from experience.

Finally I am amazed at the lack of understanding as to the reason for the hoax/false flag, even among the few people from the UK. The claim is the government are trying to stir hatred against muslims. That makes no sense and seems a stupid way of going around things and there is enough going on anyway. e.g. last year a group of lads were arrested on their way to bomb an EDL meeting. Their trial was a month before the attack and they were sentenced a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/10/six-would-be-terrorists-edl-jailed

Prior to the trial things had been kept out of the news and such events usually do. While they are not commonplace it would be far easier for a government to advertise such things rather than organise an elaborate hoax. Admittedly the EDL are left wing but at their demonstrations there is always a presence by anti-facist groups (myself included) and as a generalistion people don't seem to like bombs.

There is probably no need for a debunk but I thought it would be useful if anyone elses happens across this site after seeing a youtube video.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It still isn't an optical illusion, it just not in the view you can see.

The Google street view of my house, doesn't show a house, it shows a bunch of bushes that in my front yard around the trunk of a tree (It is sort of grown up and jungle like). It is NOT an optical illusion, the bushes are blocking the view.

Try googling optical illusions to see the difference.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
="Biggerdave, post: 52556, member: 1188"].
Once that happens so does blood flow and the flow from any arteries. My point is the lack of blood is not that surprising and I understand that from experience.

A point ignored by conspiracy theorists. It is not known when the victims heart stopped. it may have been early in the attack, at which point the blood loss would become much slower and certainly not "spurting".

On a personal note I spent most of last night looking through Youtube videos around the idea this was a hoax and found the whole thing quite upsetting. I have never heard such a pile of shite come out of the commentators mouth..

I share your abhorrence with these individuals. They cite Sandy Hook (in particular) and the Boston marathon bombing etc. as suspicious because they percieve a lack of evidence therein. It is hard to imagine how the Woolwich murder could contain any more evidence, and yet they still claim "false flag"!
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
A point ignored by conspiracy theorists. It is not known when the victims heart stopped. it may have been early in the attack, at which point the blood loss would become much slower and certainly not "spurting".



I share your abhorrence with these individuals. They cite Sandy Hook (in particular) and the Boston marathon bombing etc. as suspicious because they percieve a lack of evidence therein. It is hard to imagine how the Woolwich murder could contain any more evidence, and yet they still claim "false flag"!

I have been very shocked at my own reaction to seeing some of the videos, especially at the mocking theme to them. Now don't get me wrong I have a very dark sense of humour e.g. I did comment to friends that it seemed a very extreme way to implement defence cuts. Heel we once found a mummified corpse and I tried to give it a drink of water as he seemed to be dehydrated. I spent a great deal of time trying to show the idiocy of their claims on the videos, I even wrapped a leg of pork in a sweatshirt and attacked it with my meat cleaver while my son filmed it. Thankfully I have held back from making a Youtube video of it but that was my motivation, but I did find it to be ghoulish.

I don't want to breach the politeness policy but what sort of crazy are some of these people? I totally agree that events should be questioned and scrutinised but why would that be your priority? Have they no empathy at all? I hope the lads family have not seen the videos as I am certain it would destroy them. There is a guy laying dead in the road and all some people can do is laugh. What sort of deranged mind finds the need to doctor video evidence? Maybe these people need to have their internet bubble popped and be forced to work in the real world, say in an A&E and see the reality of life.

Sorry for the rant.
 

Noblelox

Member
Well it is really simple. It is not a pool of blood which would be raised. It is a smear. You cannot see it due to the camera angle and an uneven pavement. In the video there is a women in a blue/black gilet and she is seen talking to the other attacker in this photograph a few moments after the video.
woolwich-1905251a.jpg

You can just about see the end of the trail but nothing to the left hand side but look how uneven the pavement is. It is all a problem with the light and angle of view.
Yep, That's what I also concluded. Light source and oblique angle of camera to subject. Just the colour of the coolent running away also highlight the same effect. I also used a video from the guys by the bus. It shows the assailent pacing the pavement (sidewalk) and as he blocks the sun that blood trail becomes visable.
Now I'm not particularly bright but in comparison to these CT'ers I feel like a genius lol
 

Noblelox

Member
There's a lie, disinfo as they like to say, being passed around like an STD within the conspiracy groups. It's from the begining of the video from one of the lads who filmed the murderes rant to camera. It shows that the lad is filming inside at the front of the bus. He's filming the victimand the killers. On that film is audio of kids talking in the background. The lie is of a girls voice audio which someone has translated as "there's another little film scene yet". This lie is to back up the theory that the whole thing is a film set (yeah I know:rolleyes: ). When you listen to it the girl actually says "there an ambulance on the scene yeah." I know the audio isn't crisp but what they've done is slowed the audio down and put subtitles to the girls speach. In one video it's repeated 4 times. I had posted plenty of comments with a clearer link to that section of video. It is without subtitles and at normal speed. Interstingly the view count for that video went up.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
The Woolwich murderers have been convicted 11 minutes ago! Guilty verdict.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25427562

How anyone could think that this was a false flag operation is inconceivable. I'm glad it is finally over, at least for the sake of Lee Rigby's family, and I hope that they are able to find some closure. It was torture for them to have to sit in that courtroom and listen to these raving lunatics rant on remorselessly about murdering their son!
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Those are *questions*?!
Is there a way they could have lawfully killed him?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Actually yes - self defence (or defence of others) for example, and if anyone asks whether it was self defence then the answer has to be explicitly given, not just assumed.

So it may seem trivial - however it is a belt and braces approach to a conviction - showing that all questions have ben addressed.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
I recall seeing this interview....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/44...urder-trial-told-how-Fusilier-hacked-to-death

It's irrelevant to the debunking of any ludicrous conspiracy theory about the events of the day, but it could suggest that Pvte Rigby had already died before the attack began. That, at least, would be merciful. His autopsy said he died from stab wounds but given that the attack began immediately, one might hope it's still possible that he was unaware .
 
Last edited:

Brainiachick

Active Member
Those are *questions*?!
Is there a way they could have lawfully killed him?

That is the sad thing about law - all arguments no matter how bizarre must be heard - Article 6 of the Human Rights Act makes provision for that. There is no question as to what their intention and execution of that intention was. They confessed to the whole world on video right after murdering the defenceless young man and made admissions in court but excusing it as 'soldiers of Allah'. I really didn't hear anything about their Counsel making any formidable or half-smart argument on their behalves. 'Soldiers of Allah' is no legal defence - so it is murder. No mitigating factors - cold blooded murder.

Their argument is clearly to make an extremist point as Anders Breivik's was to make a point on racism - clearly these undesirables could have tried insanity pleas but that would be counter-productive to their twisted manifestos. I'm glad they were boldly stupid and not smartly smug - at least they'd live it up in prison.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
There was a lot of false claims about this. essentially conspiracy theories. although the shock people had here and blatant bias and prejudice clearly shows there is more afoot than meets the eye. after all we kill people in their countries. i wasnt surprised at all that they wanted reprisal. i am surprised there is not more. they must be good people judging by their lack of vengeance relative to all the people harmed in brown peoples countries.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
after all we kill people in their countries.

The attackers were British citizens raised in London. They really have no justification for this murder, neither of them served in Iraq or Afghanistan and it seems they are attempting to reconcile their wrong doing through some misguided interpretation of religion.
 
Last edited:

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
... it seems they are attempting to reconcile their wrong doing through some misguided interpretation of religion.

I think that logic seems to be a bit reversed. They set out to murder, their actions guided by their misguided interpretations, not the other way around. Also, for radical Muslims it doesn't matter what country you are born in or a citizen of, your allegiance is to the faith, and by extension to your brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the crux of the matter, and is paralleled by most of the world's Jews support for Israel, no matter how it behaves. It can be seen in Iranian citizens proclaiming their willingness to die for Palestine. It can be seen by the 'soldiers' of Al Qaeda moving from one country to another to fight for their cause. This lack of borders is what frightens the anti-Islam crowd so much, the idea that crimes committed by their nation might be reacted to by citizens of their nation who see a bigger whole. Of course, their error (the anti-Islam folk) is in painting all Muslims with the same brush. It would be like me thinking all American Christians thought and behaved like the Westboro Batshit Church.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
I think that logic seems to be a bit reversed. They set out to murder, their actions guided by their misguided interpretations, not the other way around.
You're right, my post does read that way. I was responding to Gary cooks previous where he went on to mention attacks against "brown peoples countries" and it seemed to me that he was making reference to nationality more so than the religious background.

It can be seen in Iranian citizens proclaiming their willingness to die for Palestine. It can be seen by the 'soldiers' of Al Qaeda moving from one country to another to fight for their cause.
Yes, I agree in the sense that people in those regions are "called to the cause" if you will. However most of them grew up around these struggles and wars which makes a little more sense than recently converted zealots trying to cover their actions by saying its in vengeance for "their women and children" whom they've ever actually been involved with. And that's the bit which clinches it for me - if they're been to the wars or attempted aid work or similar and been personally affected as a result, one could almost see where their reasoning lies (not that it makes their actions any more right).
It seems instead that they'd rather just rage for the sake of it then use religion as a cover.

Probably my simplistic view of it, but what a disgraceful act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top