London bombings conspiracy theories

[Mid]

There's an interesting article in The Guardian about 7/7 conspiracy theories.

What I found particularly interesting was the insights into how some of these theories are flamed by placing too much emphasis on early news reports. Quote:

I asked passengers what they had seen and experienced and was told by two survivors from the bombed train that, at the moment of the blast, the covers on the floor of their carriage had flown up - the phrase they used was "raised up". There was no time to check their statements as moments later the police widened the cordon and I was directed to the opposite pavement, outside the Metropole hotel.

Moments later, Davinia Turrell, the famous "woman in the mask", emerged from M&S together with other injured passengers and I followed them into the hotel. It was from there that at around 11am I phoned a hurried, and what I now know to be flawed, audio report to the Guardian. In the report, broadcast on our website, I said that it "was believed" there had been an explosion "under the carriage of the train". I also said that "some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up, raised up".

It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.

Also interesting is the comments of one of the survivors of the blast who has been targeted by these nuts:

"Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life," says North dismissively. "Where conspiracy theorists go with this is that the train never ran, so the bombers were never on the train, or the bombers were lured to Luton and then taken away and killed and their body parts were placed on the tube later to incriminate Muslims. They just take these small anomalies, which is what you will get in any rolling, multi-sourced news investigation, and make it into evidence of a conspiracy."

Anyway I thought I'd share an interesting piece.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

7/7 theories, shaken, not stirred.

Okay, then it must have been done by those same underground people who popped out of the streets of Newark in "War of the Worlds."

 

[gumboot]

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

 

[Johnny Pixels]

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

 

[gumboot]

They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

I honestly wonder if "the truth" is even considered. They seem more like cruise missiles than that "thing" that hit the pentagon. They've got a target and they home right in on it... blinkers locked and loaded...

I bet if I got all my friends together in a room to watch LC I could tell you in advance which ones would buy it and which ones wouldn't.

-Andrew

 

[Mancman]

The basis of the London bombing conspiracy theory is a grainy CCTV image that apparently has a ton of discrepancies, and the fact that the bombers bought return train tickets, or something. It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

 

[gumboot]

It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

Conspiracy Theory 101

* Make sure it isn't watertight so you can change it if you need to.

Check!



-Andrew

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

It's the same problem as we see with the release of scientific study results. The results are released for public peer review and the general public takes them as the "new gospel".

A study is released saying "coffee is good for your colon". Other scientists see this and set up other studies to confirm, or disprove, the initial study. Meanwhile, general media takes the original study and runs with it. New "coffee pills" come out, blah blah blah. Then the follow up studies are published, and in some cases, disprove the initial study. People then see it as "science doesn't know anything" rather than seeing the whole thing as part of the scientific process.

 

[Pardalis]

Conspiracy Theory 101

* Make sure it isn't watertight so you can change it if you need to.

Check!



-Andrew

* Make sure that whatever the attack, it was self-inflicted

Check

* Make sure not to blame murderous terrorists

Check

 

[JPK]

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

I guess these people never saw any of the hoax phone calls that Howard Stern fans make durring live news reports. Most news stations will put someone on the air "live" if they think they are getting an exclusive. They do not check out who it is. This is the type of evidence that CT'ers cling to.
JPK

 

[tacodaemon]

I've seen arguments from people on the Loose Change forum about people's initial reactions, or initial news reports. They don't seem to understand that rolling news channels will report anything they get their hands on that may be remotely true, and then clarify later as they get more information. They also don't seem to understand that first impressions aren't as accurate as careful analysis after the event.

Gerard Holmgren, one of the no-planes-hit-the-WTC people, actively rejects information from more than a day or so after 9/11. Although he does have an explanation for doing so (he thinks that after a couple of days of media coverage, all the people on the scene had been brainwashed into thinking they had seen planes that weren't really there). Lucky for him, this allows him to stick to early phone-in TV reports from people who weren't in the right position to see the planes, or who perhaps didn't notice the second plane because they had been too busy staring at the burning North Tower to notice a 500-mile-an-hour object in their peripheral vision, etc.

 

[realitybites]

Gerard Holmgren, one of the no-planes-hit-the-WTC people, actively rejects information from more than a day or so after 9/11. Although he does have an explanation for doing so (he thinks that after a couple of days of media coverage, all the people on the scene had been brainwashed into thinking they had seen planes that weren't really there). Lucky for him, this allows him to stick to early phone-in TV reports from people who weren't in the right position to see the planes, or who perhaps didn't notice the second plane because they had been too busy staring at the burning North Tower to notice a 500-mile-an-hour object in their peripheral vision, etc.

What I find interesting is that the people that reject the findings from any investigation that was done a week out from the attacks (or later) are normally the same people that want to RE-OPEN 9/11.

If you're gonna claim that anything that wasn't immediately reported that day had been faked in some way, shape or form, then what good would an investigation 5 years after the fact do?

 

[Johnny Pixels]

And of course the people who change their stories after a while haven't done so because of any form of critical thinking and analysis. They've been bought/threatned by the government. It makes the whole CT adventure into a self-contained, self-preserving bubble. Once the initial plot is hatched, evidence either fits, and is accepted, or disproves and is rejected as disinformation, inaccurate or lies.

Like flight 93. The plot doesn't allow for a plane to go off course, because the whole thing was planned by the government, and so that doesn't fit in with the theory. Therefore the phone calls were faked, evidence was planted, there's something wrong with the crater.

I've had quotes from firefighters on 9/11 posted at me with the word "explosion" highlighted, even though reading through, most of the quotes say, "we thought it was an explosion, but thinking about it, it wasn't".

It's like having a patient come into hospital with a shaving cut and a gunshot wound, and the doctor treating the shaving cut.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

I vote for "Loose Caboose".

 

[Mid]

I didn't even know there *was* a London Bombing conspiracy. I've been missing out.

So what are they going to call their compelling video documentary? "Loose Trains" has already been taken...

-Andrew

I didn't realise it was quite so indepth, but then again I shouldn't have been that surprised given some of the strange theories put forward by the 9/11 cranks. I think hanging around here and hearing some of the stories of general wooish is gradually making me despair about humanity.

 

[The Pig]

The basis of the London bombing conspiracy theory is a grainy CCTV image that apparently has a ton of discrepancies, and the fact that the bombers bought return train tickets, or something. It's not exactly watertight to say the least.

I can't post the link but there's another shot from the same camera at a different time on the BBC website. Comparing both images, the discrepancies explain themselves. The CTs don't seem to have seen it.

All that's left is a blurred face. That'll probably be good enough to keep it afloat though.

 

[gumboot]

Once the initial plot is hatched, evidence either fits, and is accepted, or disproves and is rejected as disinformation, inaccurate or lies.

The insane thing is that stuff like changes of opinion aren't just seen as lies and dismissed, they are seen as EVIDENCE of a cover-up. When an expert comes out and says "I made a mistake, the offical version is correct" they think that's conclusive evidence to further support their little reality.

That's what makes their little CT so perfect - they are able to turn anything that doesn't support their theory into additional evidence. I think that's why it feels like CTers have an invisi-crete wall around them.

Because, if you think of it from their insane point of view, IF the government IS behind it, experts suddenly changing their stories days later IS further evidence. In a weird kind of way.

Basically they're a lost cause. All we can hope is we catch the attention of neutral parties before they are sucked into the vortex of CT logic from whence there is no return.

-Andrew

 

[David Swidler]

It's not a real conspiracy theory unless it involves the Mossad in some way.

 

[ond_magiker]

What I find interesting is that the people that reject the findings from any investigation that was done a week out from the attacks (or later) are normally the same people that want to RE-OPEN 9/11.

If you're gonna claim that anything that wasn't immediately reported that day had been faked in some way, shape or form, then what good would an investigation 5 years after the fact do?

It may find flaws in the previous investigation, thus proving the conspiracy. Not actually proving anything, of course, except in the mind of the CTist. Dabbling in conspiracy theories is after all as much about disbelieveing the official version than finding an alternative.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I vote for "Loose Caboose".

Seconded.