London bombingf survivor Bruce laiit, and the suicide bomberss that werent
brian | 30.07.2005 00:30
were there any suicide bombers at all? Bruce Laits account is of great relevance to this question, yet it has had little media coverage
'The explosion happened just after Mr Lait and Ms Main, 23, got on the train at Liverpool Street on their way to the South Bank for a rehearsal.
He recalled that the carriage had about 20-25 people in it, from all walks of life, and aged from their teens to over 60.
"I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me," he said.
"We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said.
The impact of the blast made him pass out. As he came to, he wondered whether he was alive or dead.
"We were right in the carriage where the bomb was. I was knocked out. I did not know what was going on.
"I wondered if I was dead or not. I said to myself, you can't be dead because your brain is having conscious thoughts, so concentrate hard. I was telling myself 'wake up Bruce, wake up'."
Royal visit: At Royal London Hospital
Disorientated, he only gradually realised where he was and what had happened.
"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal.
"She was okay but she was in shock because she was trying to deal with the person on top of her who had massive head injuries. We have just found out that this person died," said Mr Lait, who lives in Suffolk.
He too was afraid to move because there was a seriously injured woman lying on top of him.
"I realised someone was lying on top of me. I tried not to move her because I didn't know if she was still alive, or I could have made it worse. This person also died, while on top of me."
At the same time, he slowly tried to work out whether he or Crystal had been injured.
"I thought if I can wiggle my toes I'm okay, and I could, and I asked Crystal to do the same."
Describing the scene as they waited for help, he said: "It was just the most awful scene of death and there were body parts everywhere. There was something next to me. I was trying not to look. I couldn't figure out what it was."
When paramedics arrived, they confirmed that the woman on top of him was dead and carefully moved her body. Mr Lait said the middle-aged woman had blonde curly hair, was dressed in black, and could have been a businesswoman.
He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums.
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.
etc
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
He recalled that the carriage had about 20-25 people in it, from all walks of life, and aged from their teens to over 60.
"I remember an Asian guy, there was a white guy with tracksuit trousers and a baseball cap, and there were two old ladies sitting opposite me," he said.
"We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now," he said.
The impact of the blast made him pass out. As he came to, he wondered whether he was alive or dead.
"We were right in the carriage where the bomb was. I was knocked out. I did not know what was going on.
"I wondered if I was dead or not. I said to myself, you can't be dead because your brain is having conscious thoughts, so concentrate hard. I was telling myself 'wake up Bruce, wake up'."
Royal visit: At Royal London Hospital
Disorientated, he only gradually realised where he was and what had happened.
"When I woke up and looked around I saw darkness, smoke and wreckage. It took a while to realise where I was and what was going on, then my first concern was for Crystal.
"She was okay but she was in shock because she was trying to deal with the person on top of her who had massive head injuries. We have just found out that this person died," said Mr Lait, who lives in Suffolk.
He too was afraid to move because there was a seriously injured woman lying on top of him.
"I realised someone was lying on top of me. I tried not to move her because I didn't know if she was still alive, or I could have made it worse. This person also died, while on top of me."
At the same time, he slowly tried to work out whether he or Crystal had been injured.
"I thought if I can wiggle my toes I'm okay, and I could, and I asked Crystal to do the same."
Describing the scene as they waited for help, he said: "It was just the most awful scene of death and there were body parts everywhere. There was something next to me. I was trying not to look. I couldn't figure out what it was."
When paramedics arrived, they confirmed that the woman on top of him was dead and carefully moved her body. Mr Lait said the middle-aged woman had blonde curly hair, was dressed in black, and could have been a businesswoman.
He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums.
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.
etc
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
brian
Comments
Hide the following 28 comments
Wrong expectations leading to wrong conclusion?
30.07.2005 02:11
Your expectations are incorrect. Initially our immediate perceptions are stored in "short term" which is what lets us move around without bumping into things. Only after some delay does this get transferred to "long term" and it's the latter that we call "memory". A severe shock disrupts the transfer process. No gap is perceived, but this is very much like if you were recording birds singing, turned the tape off a minute or two, then turned it back on (there is no gap in the tape itself, but a period of birdsong has been lost). Were that a recorded conversation the gap would be obvious from the "jump" in the conversation. But our perceptions of our surroundings are more general and all you get is a slight sense of dislocation.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
hes an eyewitneses
30.07.2005 04:27
You must be joking!
Lait's an eyewitness, and a policeman also saw the hole in the floor AFTER the bombing....thats confirmation..You on the other hand are upset by this revelation and prefer to question the legitimacy of the eyewitness. But whats all this short term, long term memory twaddle? What relevance does that have to the policeman? Thats one poor effort to dismiss an eyewitness.
brian
Just a mo
30.07.2005 06:43
The witness may, or may not, be correct in his account. However witness memory problems are well acknowledged in all cases - take a look at google. Everything requires corroboration (which is why in many countries, including Scotland, a single eye-wtiness account is not considered sufficient evidence to go to court).
I think we have to take the original piece as part of a much wider body of information and then make judgements.
Observer
Freedom of speech
30.07.2005 06:58
Alec
would it be possible
30.07.2005 07:51
It would usefull if when there was a big event like the London Bombings IMC could set up a page where all the witnesses statements could be gathered. Also news reports that gave exact times and other data that could be cross checked against police statements. The police tend to look for evidence that proves their case, I have had personal experience of this, if there were at least 10 witnesses 8 said I didn't do it and 2 said I did the cops have two witnesses and brought the case against me, it was thrown out on only the proscution evidence.
But it proves the point. The cops do not look impartially at the evidence they only try to prove their case.
When it comes to a serious crime like bombing a tube train they might well find a dodgy connection or evidence that doesn't fit. As with the brazilian guy who was guunned down at Stockwell the original statements made it sound as though he was almoat certainly tied up with a bunch of terrorists and that the police had good reason to shoot him. It only came out afterwards that he was nothing to do with any muslim group and could have come from any of the Latin american, spanish, Italian ect communities that are a permanent fixture in London.
It would be very interesting to see how some of the corporate news stories develope and trace their original source.
Hot Dog
same old same old ...
30.07.2005 10:05
1. Ignore it. Head safely in the sand, there is nothing you have to do to change your lifestyle (or if you don't have one, just your life!). Get on with shopping, watching tv and more shopping (oh, and don't forget to go to work - they need your labour to keep themselves in power).
2. Attempt in someway to contradict it. Whether out of misplaced loyalty to your bosses (yes, there are 'spooks' etc operating here, they plant disinfo, attempt to divert attention away from crucial issues and generally involve themselves in character assasination and focus on personalities) or out of a sense of your own importance and superiority (hint: use expressions like 'conspiracy loon', 'ickist' and such like ... remember, it is easy to wind someone up, any child can do it and so can you). Some might even do it out of a sense of conviction, that things are ok the way they are (after all, no one is starving - at least not where it counts: here!) and of course, 'why would they lie to us'?
3. Confront it. The most difficult of the options; might involve losing trust in the father figure of state and commerce. Also might involve actually changing the way you do things and the way you relate to society and the world in general.
Means motive and method.
Who benefits.
These are the criteria with which all modern functioning judical processes operate.
Crank up your grey matter and force feed whatever info is availble through these criteria ... first though, abandon everything you believe in and desire. This is a naked lunch, or else it is just another meal whose taste is drowned in a deluge of pleasent flavourings ... hmmmm ... time for a nap.
Meanwhile here is something, that if looked at closely, might assist you ... one way or the other:
Ignore it: don't look
Contradict it: you don't have to look, but even if you do, you can still shout [me] down as a 'conspiracy loon'
Confront it: yes, difficult isn't it? We are under attack, being exploited (emotionally) and subject to forces beyond are control ...
... forces beyond are control ... yes they would like us to belive that one wouldn't they?
... bio-electric conscious beings ... a phenomena of conscious intelligent energy concentrating against the background entropy of the universe .. here down on dark earth ...
... you got to feel sorry for the monsters that make this their reality ... they have a choice and so do you.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
for jackslucid
30.07.2005 11:21
So - here's something for you & all the other 'Al-Qaeda = the state' supporters to check out - run a search for Google's cache of the now deleted forums at firdaus.org. If the bombers weren't there working themselves into an Ali G style jihadist frenzy sometime over the last year I'd be surprised.
Dirty Kuffar
Physics
30.07.2005 11:59
In this case, it is more than likely that the force of a blast, or rather the changes in ambient air pressure that followed it, acted very much like a sink plunger. As the blast wave rolled out, air would be sucked in underneath, either ripping open the floor, or else sucking debris through a hole that may have resulted from the blast.
Would any of you more scientific types like to shed some more light on this?
artaud
Ahem
30.07.2005 12:05
Prove it. On you go. What evidence do you have?
Its just a theory, isn't it? A handy way to explain away those who don't agree with you.
Wait, no! I must be a spook!
Observer
Be careful with "cui bono"
30.07.2005 12:28
When you attempt to uncover motivations using "cui bono" you need to consider the question in terms if the beliefs of the proporsed actor, what THAT person thinks might be of benefit to themselves and their cause. You beliefs about what should be "good" for this person or the cause is not rrelavent. So when trying to analyze in terms of "qui bono" keep in mind........
1) The "truth" doesn't matter. The actor you are considering may not share knowledge of or belief in that truth. You need to go by what THEY knew or believed.
2) The eventual outcome does not matter. The actor you are considering would have made a decision without benefit of hindsight. You need to go by what THEY thought was going to happen.
3) What you think that person SHOULD have desired doesn't matter. You need to go by what THEIR goals might be, not what you assume their goals might be.
Gte any of these wrong and "qui bono" analysis gives you false results.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
Interesting but in no way conclusive
30.07.2005 12:59
I agree that the description of the hole is interesting. However the comment that he doesn't remember a bag being where the bomb went off seems fairly meaningless to me. It's not as if you get onto a train and remember the presence and location of every person and every bag. Additionally the account suggests that he was sitting in a seat, where the view of much of the floor, particularly by the doors where the bomb was reported to be, would have been obscured anyway.
Although his hole description is interesting there are any number of reasons why this may have been so. Trauma related memory diistortion is one, but more likely are others such as the nature of the explosion in a confined space, or even the investigators having already cut away part of the train as evidence. We just don't know.
Aside from all that I'm disinclined to believe a conspiracy involving vast numbers of police and rescue workers because there would be too many people to keep quiet. I'm very open minded to the idea of the bombings being carried out, organised or funded by an unknown political or commercial interest, however, I believe that this would involve leaving a trail for the police to innocently follow rather than having them involved. Conning or manipulating stooges to detonate the bombs on the trains would have been so much easier than any broad conspiracy to plant the bombs under the trains or on the track and then cover up the evidence of that afterwards.
Basically, I've given this one plenty of thought and I reckon it's a red herring. Like I say, I'm open minded to there being some sort of cover-up but although this witness account is interesting it just doesn't fit into any plausible scenario, at least as yet. Sorry.
Paul
factoids opinion & conjecture
30.07.2005 16:25
Ahh! You greedy so and so ... you want evidence AND proof?!?
... I'm no expert ... physics ... show me show me ...
What do you believe?
Are others peoples drives the same as yours?
... freedom from oppression expolitation arbitary utitlity [theirs] ...
No.
They hate our freedoms.
God bless [fill in the blanks].
Nobody ever got rich from setting up the competition to fight each other .. did they?
Philosophy might help ... a bit ...
Try LSD ... it don't half fuck you up, but the clarity at the point of comedown ...ah ...
If that fails ... get a fucking job ...and stop pandering to my half baked lizard obsessions you losers.
Everyone knows that [islam] is evil ... says so in the bible or something.
It's probably to late anyhow, the tipping point has come and gone ...
... let it slide ... enjoy.
I'm more cryptic than you (oh no you're not) and in future I will post under a whole different set of names just to wind you up, to invent believable nonsense ... oh, wait a minute, Ive been doing that already - but darn it, would you beleive it (without proof), someone has started posting under those names too.
Honest, I am arturd, skepelectic, magoo[t] an those others are just wannabees ...
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Eidetic memories
30.07.2005 22:57
He could do if he were to suffer from advanced Asperger's. Then again, he might not have been too keen to talk to the cameras.
Alec
Paul
31.07.2005 02:32
Although his hole description is interesting there are any number of reasons why this may have been so. Trauma related memory diistortion is one, but more likely are others such as the nature of the explosion in a confined space, or even the investigators having already cut away part of the train as evidence. We just don't know. '
==========================
'may'...????
Its amazing how armchair critics know better than eyewitnesses..A big bag on the floor would e both noticeable and memorable. A policeman was the first to point out the holes edges opened upwards.
Explosions even in confined spaces(ad how confined was that carriage?) still do not leave holes withe edges opening towards the explosion.
It seems Bruce Laits account has stirred both the credulous left and the spooks on this site.
brian
Witness Accounts
31.07.2005 06:23
I think, therefore, that we have to have a much rounder view of all the evidence before us pending which any conclusions would be premature.
Observer
what we remember on trains
31.07.2005 10:22
but people regard me so suspicious.. colourfull clothes leather jacket eg...
it gives me reason to emmorise what they do to their luggage.
people hold to it, cling to it.. pull it closer etc,,,
although i dont have any intend to remember these incidents, i actually have surprisingly many pictures of luggage in my 'long time ' memory..
perhaps i do have this aparagus thing ofcourse
but for me it would be most naturally after an explosion like that to try and remember what i saw just before it.
There fore i treat an eyewitness like this thus:
i belief he has seen what he said. Perhaps there was a bag that he overlooked,
or a person that he didnt associate with the location of teh bomb,
But chances are he looked at that spot before it happened, and didnt see anything.
chances also are he thinks that a bit wacky..
and remembered it better then u usually would, becus he may have been thinking over it,
even lying under that dead woman.
With things like the floor was bend up...
it seems we will never know, if he says the floor was bend up...
perhaps it just was, perhaps we will never know, becus perhaps they dont want us too.
arguments like the police may have sawn it out before they evicted the living victims from
teh train however dotn seem very plausible. if they did they have been removing evidence, before the survivors would notice.. i think such a thing wouldnt have passed unnoticed..
imagine ur lieing there wounded and the police comes and removes the piece of train
where the explosion hit, and leaves you:)
i dont think taht can happen:)
onix
Brian's Bag
31.07.2005 11:18
Presumably Brian, as an armchair critic yourself, you travel on London Underground in the rush hour regularly and therefore speak from direct experience? This guy got onto a crowded train at rush hour, and before it arrived at the next station, 2 minutes away, was almost blown to pieces.
So he has a photographic memory, no-one was standing up (unlikely) so he had a clear view of the entire floor, anyone who had a bag that day had a small one on their lap (no luggage racks), and after regaining consciousness he wakes up in the wreckage underneath a dead body knowing exactly how far he was thrown by the blast and therefore exactly where his seat (on a symmetrically designed train) was in relation to where he regained consciousness and in relation to the hole which is pointed out as he was dizzily escorted away.
I'm sorry Brian, but this stuff is just too flimsy, and beyond that the wider theory doesn't make any sense. Why a mass conspiracy covering up bombs under the trains? There is no other evidence and no plausible motive. Why would anyone put a bomb under the train when it's so much easier to put one inside it?
Paul
er, and the clincher is....
31.07.2005 12:46
why would he say his comments to be quoted by the press?
if he was suffering from trauma - would the doctors have advised caution?
Did the press make it up...???
Quote him out of context?
the only reference I can find to this testimony
is on this cambridge newssite
so that means the rest of the media
ignored it
why?
The Queen sure perked him up though, didn't she?
shes simply looking the guy in the eye
as one of the witnesses that could
potentially bring her down
and her madman
prime minstral
BLIAR
paul c
Paul
01.08.2005 03:01
It wasnt so crowded he couldnt note the people near by. It doesnt take a photograohic memory to recall the circumstancs of an incident moments before. The bomb bags were claimed to be big haversacks....not easy to overlook.
Your reply is worse than flimsy. Its without substance.
'Why a mass conspiracy covering up bombs under the trains?'
Ever hear of the Lavon affair, of 1954? the purpose of that bomb conspiracy was to demonise muslims.
'Why would anyone put a bomb under the train when it's so much easier to put one inside it? ''
Thats what Bruce Lait and the policeman notice....Its easier and safer to place a bomb at an earlier date, than risk getting caught in the blast or by passengers.
brian
You will believe what you want to believe...
01.08.2005 09:28
For a few others though, it means believing a totally implausible version of events with next to no evidence, usually because it seems a bit exciting and makes them feel clever. This is the bona fide conspiracy theorist.
The saddest thing is that the bona fide conspiracy theorist undermines the credibility of *anyone* who questions the official version of events, and leads them also to be dubbed 'conspiracy theorists'. This in turn supports the mainstream media and the status quo. Whoever really organised this is looking at us and laughing very hard.
So, believe whatever you like, you've probably never travelled on a tube train, you clearly don't know anything about explosives, and you think the second hand account of one man is sufficient evidence for an entire conspiracy. Who am I to argue?
Paul
Paul
01.08.2005 12:53
Disassociate!
magoo
I have issues
01.08.2005 13:41
Disassociate!"
Or I could just fuck off. Which would be easier do you think? Discuss (not)
magoo
very grown up
01.08.2005 17:42
magoo
Paul, whatever are you going on about?
02.08.2005 03:08
Bruce Lait is an eyewitness at the Aldgate bombing, not the police. His story is reported in a Cambridge paper. You seem not to like his account because it belies the story youve come to believe.
I have indeed travelled on a tube train , thank you very much.
brian
Round and round we go
02.08.2005 16:52
The last time this nonsense was raised, I pointed out that there are probably good physical reasons why an explosion might create that effect. A bomb on the line would probably not have created a crater of that type, or the other damage to the roof of the carriage. Whatever the shape of particular holes, it seems most unlikely the bomb was anywhere but inside the train carriage.
I also pointed out that you have to treat witness statements, particularly those filtered through journalistic eyes, with caution.
I also pointed out that the initial reports on the day were saying police were checking for bombs on the line - it took some time to establish that suicide bombers were likely suspects.
chatterton
Investigation Is All We Need
02.08.2005 23:27
This must also be, then, said of the LIARS who are feeding us this enormous yet wholly unsupported Conspiracy Theory about "ze terrorists", just as it is the most politically-adventageous for them.
"it took some time to establish that suicide bombers were likely suspects."
Right. They had to find some patsies first, then get the media back "on script", and bury the stories which contradict these unproven yet oft-repeated claim.
"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" Goebells.
Gov't Liars' Theory Lacks Proof
chatterton
03.08.2005 02:37
Even greater caution is to be exercised over arm-chair theorists' nonsense.
Who knows what the police did or did not do... you are far too credulous in accepting the official story.
brian
black hats, white hats
03.08.2005 10:29
Thats what becomes of being evil ... the swine will not even obey natural laws ...
Thank god (the white one) that we have people 'who are no experts' who can set us straight here, reminding us of our duty to believe those in whose trust lies[sic] our safety.
Thanks guys ...
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com