Woolwich HOAX (Copious Video Evidence)

First you said that the problem was that people could self identify as something they are not. Instead of addressing and supporting that problem, now you say the problem is the car crash. Which do you wish to discuss?

If the problem is the car crash, what is the data that supports your problem?

What type of car was it?
What did it look like before the crash?
Which direction was the car traveling when it crashed?
How fast was it going?
What caused the crash?
What did the car hit?
What did it do after it hit?
Did the car hit more than one thing?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...f-crime-scene-show-crashed-car-and-blood.html

 

The Red Hand Guy has self identified as a Muslim which is backed up by the picture of him behind Anjem Choudary. If he was indeed a member of Musilms Against Crusades then he couldn't have failed to notice that the English Defence League have adopted the Stone Island clothing brand as an unofficial uniform. There are many references to the fact online. This brand has been associated with football hooligans for quite some time. Why therefore would Red Hand Guy choose to wear a Stone Island hat on the day of the attack? How does wearing a hat with the adopted symbolism of your supposed enemy, a Nato cross, fit in to your theory about self identifying?

Of course a lot depends on whether the now banned Muslims Against Crusades were ever what they were presented as being in the media

http://www.infowars.com/islamic-group-with-british-intelligence-links-threatens-royal-wedding/

On to the car crash.
I have covered my problems with the crash earlier in the thread. Are we to believe that the car, a Vauxhall Tigra, sustained the heavy front end damage from contact with Lee Rigby? This doesn't add up as cars are designed to whip the feet from under a pedestrian and throw them onto the bonnet which may have shattered the windscreen but doesn't explain the level of damage sustained by the car. The other option is that it hit the signpost made of steel tubing writing the car off and leaving the post undamaged and standing perfectly upright. If it didn't hit the post why not as there is no evidence of braking? If it did and it hit where the damage to the car occurred with the speed that the damage would indicate the back end would have been thrown towards the wall as per the laws of physics. The lamp post below the crash scene raises questions as to where exactly the car mounted the pavement and the car would have had to cross lanes of oncoming traffic to get there.

 

Stone Island only sells articles of clothing to football hooligans? Football hooligans are the supposed enemy of the Muslims Against Crusades? Where are you going with this? It makes no sense. It's about the same as asking why the pope wears white robes and a pointy hat on Easter Sunday when everyone knows it's the official uniform of the KKK.

This line of reasoning is the typical specious reasoning of a conspiracy theorist. It's filled with weird innuendo and strange assumed motives. They seem to forget that it's possible for a hat to just be a hat. They seems to forget that people sometimes wear clothes without trying to make a political statement with them. Maybe the attacker chose a Stone Island hat because he wanted to keep his head warm. Maybe he chose it because he's embarrassed about male pattern balding. Maybe he chose it because his mom got it for him for his birthday. Who knows? It's all speculation. It's certainly not direct evidence of anything.

So the answer to my questions are: You only know the make of the vehicle. This is some investigation of the truth you've conducted.

You need to answer these question before you can come to any conclusion regarding how the car was damaged:

 

Unfortunately the only information that you I or anyone else who wasn't on the scene at the time have to go on is the scant snippets of information released by the media. I can only presume that before the crash it looked much like any other Vauxhall Tigra. When exactly this car was involved in a crash is questionable. It may well have arrived on the scene in the condition it is in. As for the direction of travel, it allegedly was coming up the road from a crossroads about 50-60 feet away so that gives a choice of three directions. How fast was it going? Who knows? They allegedly Identified the soldier from his help for heroes T-Shirt and managed to make the decision to mount the pavement to run him down somewhere between the lights and the signpost and managed to stop the car within a foot of the undamaged post without leaving any signs of braking anywhere on the pavement. According to the media it hit the soldier and pinned him against the undamaged post. Whilst I appreciate you playing devils advocate I would be interested in what you believe caused the damage? Was it Lee Rigby's legs or the undamaged steel tubing of the post? Personally I think neither of those scenarios are plausable given the level of damage and the only logical conclusion is that it was neither. I believe it was already damaged and was delivered to the scene on the back of the white lorry which remains unidentified. The crash itself is only one of a long list of discrepancies with the official story. The hat was mentioned more as a point of interest rather than as proof of the event being a hoax.

 

I'm not playing devils advocate.

If you want to discover the truth you have to investigate. Investigations require evidence, data, and testimony. Investigations do not require assumptions. What you believe is plausible or implausible is irrelevant to the truth. What I currently believe is also irrelevant to the truth.

What we have right now is testimony from people who were on the scene, evidence released by officials, and information reported by the media. We all use this information to create our own narratives. We compare our narratives with the narrative of the investigators that have much more information available to them. (This is what you decry as "the official story.")

Regardless of who's narrative you're talking about, an entire narrative to explain a series of events is not proven false simply because you found a point in the narrative that you find incredible. You can't just construct an entirely new narrative built around your assumptions or things that could have been.

Your new narrative alludes to a much more complex series of events that lack any evidence to establish.

You seem to be trying to claim that a damaged car was dropped off a truck in the middle of a busy street without anyone noticing.
You seem to be trying to claim that the people who provided testimony to the media (that Rigby was pinned by the car) don't exist.
You seem to be trying to claim that the individual who filmed everything was part of some crime.

You're making a lot of wild accusations based on your incredulity surrounding damage to the car

The trouble is, when I asked you to elaborate on the car your answers were "Who knows?" and that's "Questionable"

You went from not knowing how fast the vehicle was going, what direction it was traveling, what objects the car hit, and how much damage the car sustained during the crash, to: " I believe it was already damaged and was delivered to the scene on the back of the white lorry which remains unidentified. " That's a completely illogical and unsupported claim based on the data that you do know.

 

As I've said from the beginning my main focus of attention has been the car crash. There are however many others looking at different aspects of the incident. You have made the assumption that the road was busy. I refer you to this article that clearly shows that the road was blocked. I apologise if the author's language offends.http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=12736

 

The road was blocked when? Before the attack? During the attack? After the attack?

What does the author think happens after a car crash on a busy road? Don't people stop and get out to help? Once it was realized that this was no ordinary car crash, did the author expect the police to leave the road open to traffic?

Beyond that, does the author realize that vehicles are mobile and photographs are not? Does the author realize that even if the vehicles were parked, they can be easily moved?

And what about the people / vehicles the attackers left alone? As long as we're playing the "what if" game..if that makes any sense to do...what if the taxi contained a plain clothes officer trying to determine what types of weapons the attackers had? What if the women that walked by were doing the same? These things are also possible, yet you don't here anyone claiming them as what they think really happened. No one thinks the police were MORE responsive than was reported. Why is that?

 

If only we could see the footage from the CCTV cameras on the corner where the traffic lights are and from the Barracks which again is positioned so as to pick up what occurred all the what ifs would disappear. What do you rate the chances of that happening are?. Of course a thumbs up from the alleged attackers would work too as one reportedly blew his off when his gun miss-fired and I can't see an actor being that committed to his role to let anyone cut it off. I think being shot may have left some quite convincing wounds too.

 

"if if if" doesn't sound at all like, "fact fact fact."

 

There was a few other things I wanted to revisit now that I have some free time.

The Vauxhall Tigra has ABS. What evidence of braking were you expecting?

How many times was Rigby hit?

Let's say you get your wish. Then what? Do you examine the evidence without prejudice, or do you try to figure out how this new evidence fits in your theory?

I find that conspiracy theorists have no problem at all casting aside video evidence as altered, manipulated, or fabricated. In fact, they already did to that do the video that was already released.

 

Whilst ABS would reduce the signs of braking it wouldn't eliminate it all together. In order to get on the pavement the car would have had to hit a 4 inch curb at speed which would have thrown the car about and effect the steering and the window of opportunity to correct this would have been very small and would have left some tire marks.
Unless you're suggesting that the car hit Rigby then reversed back to have another go I have no reason to believe that he was hit more than once.
The main concern with the CCTV is whether or not any exists and if not why not?. We have not been shown a single frame that shows how either the car or Rigby arrived on the scene. London has more CCTV cameras per square mile than any other city in the world so the fact that over a month after the event we have not seen or heard of any footage is suspicious.
Going back to what the signpost was made of, it is steel tubing with a wall thickness of between 3 - 3.6mm which it has to be to conform with UK regulations on road signage.

 

When did you go to the scene and search for signs of braking? Tire marks left by fully activated ABS brakes are very difficult to see, let alone photograph.

More assumptions. Exactly where did the vehicle enter the walkway?

It's evidence in a criminal case against the accused. If you want to see it, go to the trial.

I didn't ask what the signpost was made of because you haven't even shown that the vehicle hit it. You don't know the path of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, what the vehicle hit, or how many times the vehicle hit it. Hell, you don't even know if the vehicle still runs.

 

A lot of what you've just posted is irrelevant. A car cannot sustain the level of damage that it did from hitting a person at the speed that the car could possibly achieve on that stretch of road even without having mounted the kerb, fact.
It is impossible for the signpost to have caused the damage without being damaged itself, fact.
It follows therefore that the story given and presented by the media cannot be fact.
If that aspect of the story is false then I have no reason to believe that the rest of the story is true.

 

Please post your Vaxhall Tigra impact test data.

Please post your Vaxhall Tigra impact test data.

Which story given by the media? I've yet to read a story by the media that claims the damage to the car was only caused by either striking a person in the legs, or by the signpost. I've yet to see a story by the media that claims the auto jumped the curb, struck something and was immediately incapacitated. They could have struck something, backed up, driven somewhere else, struck something again.

Before you can make your claims you have to establish the path of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, the objects the vehicle hit, and the damage to the vehicle at each point. The media certainly hasn't tried to recreate this data. Where are you getting your assumptions from?

Why? Let's say the attackers didn't hit Rigby with the car at all. How does that change rest of the story? How does it change the complete timeline of events? Are you trying to claim that if they didn't hit him with a car, they couldn't have tried to cut off his head?

How does the media getting something wrong change the testimony of witnesses, the forensic evidence on the ground, the video footage released, or the statements of the accused?

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/05/crash-tested-opelvauxhall-tigra-twintop-vs-euro-ncap/

Heh.

The actual test results:

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/opel_vauxhall_tigra_2004/192.aspx

 

Here is a photo essay I did on the subject, Woolwich is such an obvious staged event it is hard to believe anyone was taken in by it:

http://anywho.simplesite.com/201858949

 

Yes, totally. Cars have crumple zones.