London bombing: Why do details change over and over again?

[John Doe II]

London 7/7: Why do so many details change again and again ?
by Team8+

Analysing the development of the investigation into the London bombing one is surprised to find out that many details of what is supposed to have happened that day changed in the course of the days after 7/7.
Here an overview.

Timeline:
The exact time of a crime is very important. Therefore the transformation of this detail might be crucial.
While today it is said that the first three blasts happened within 50 seconds the first reports were very different:
“0851 Seven people die in a blast on a train 100 yards from Liverpool Street station
0856 21 people die in a blast on a train between Russell Square and King's Cross stations
0917 Five people die in blast on a train at Edgware Road station
0947 An unknown number die in a blast on a bus at Tavistock Place.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659331.stm
(Remark that the complete timeline mentions that already at 8:49 (!) an incident at Liverpool Street was reported to the Police)

So, instead of a simultaneous attack it was at first considered to have happened within 26 minutes.
The change in the media was made on July 9:
“Yesterday police revealed that, contrary to earlier reports, the bombs on the underground had not occurred over a 30-minute period as had been previously thought. There had been speculation that this meant a solo bomber could have placed the devices on the tube trains.
But after analysing technical data provided by the London Underground, the police confirmed the three devices detonated within moments of each other.”
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525246,00.html

The explanation is now that “confused tube staff took nearly 30 minutes to tell police there had been explosions on the underground.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15729266%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=7%2d7%2dwar%2don%2dbritain%2d%2dwhy%2dweren%2dt%2dthe%2dpolice%2dcalled%2dfor%2d26%2dminutes%2d-name_page.html

No immediate emergency call?
No ambulance needed?
The only source that proved that the bombing happened before are the “technical data provided by the London Underground”?
This is hard to believe.
But let’s believe it for the moment:
It still implies that the blast at Liverpool Street was reported to the police at once.
The one at King’s Cross Station with 5 minutes delay and only in the third case the staff was confused.
This discrepancy between the reaction of the different staff members at different locations is hard to believe because of the following detail that is also part of a transformation:


What happened?
For quite some time what happened in London wasn’t considered to have been due to bombs and explosives:
“0933 Passengers are told that all London Underground services are being suspended because of a power fault across the network, PA reports.
0924 British Transport Police say the incident was possibly caused by a collision between two trains, a power cut or a power cable exploding. Police report "walking wounded". “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659331.stm

So, the explanation given by “Mirror” for the 26-minutes-delay (and therefore the transformation of the timeline): “They thought the chaos was caused by problems with the power supply, a derailment and someone trapped under a train.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15729266%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=7%2d7%2dwar%2don%2dbritain%2d%2dwhy%2dweren%2dt%2dthe%2dpolice%2dcalled%2dfor%2d26%2dminutes%2d-name_page.html
is very unlikely.
All three incidents had the same problem. In all three cases for some time (and longer than 26 minutes!) other causes were considered than bombs. So the quoted confusion appeared in all three cases.
Why then effected it only in one case the reporting of the incident to the police? Is it likely that no officials were contacted at Edgware Road Station? Is is likely that nobody who at once knew what happened there hadn’t heard of the other two incidents? Turn it as you like the 26-minutes-gap still needs explanation.


Meeting point of alleged bombers:
First it was reported that the four met at 8.20 at Luton:
“Four men, between 18 and 30, three of them with West Yorkshire addresses and all of them British, met up at Luton station before boarding a Thameslink train to King's Cross last Thursday morning. (…)
Closed circuit television film from around 8.20am that day shows the four young men , all with identical large rucksacks similar to those carried by infantry soldiers on their backs. The four appeared relaxed.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527404,00.html

I think I read somewhere that 8.20 at Luton would be too late to make it for 8.50 at the blast points. Is this correct?
Anyway.
Today the story is different.
Now it is only Hussain who was at 7.20 at Luton (so one hour earlier!):

(keep in mind that this photo doesn’t have a time stamp)
“Bearded Hussain, struggling to carry his deadly military-style backpack, was caught on a CCTV camera at Luton station at 7.20am.
Hussain, who had travelled to Luton by car from his home in West Yorkshire that morning, boarded a Thameslink train to King's Cross.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15738484%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dthe%2dlost%2d81%2dminutes-name_page.html

and they met at 8.26 but not at Luton but at King's Cross:
“At 8.26am, Hussain and the three other bombers were picked up by a camera at King's Cross station before they set off to detonate their explosives.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15738484%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dthe%2dlost%2d81%2dminutes-name_page.html

And then the story changes again!

“Police have released a CCTV image of the four London bombers as they set out from Luton on their bombing mission.
They have also confirmed the names of all four men for the first time.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Germaine Lindsay, 19, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Shahzad Tanweer, 22, were pictured in Luton at 0720 BST on Thursday 7 July.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4689739.stm#

Now, as in the first story they all are together in Luton. But they meet at 7:20 already.
But now another question arises:
How come a photo in Luton was made from Hussain alone?
Why not of the other three as well?


Explosives:
“The explosive used in the London bomb attacks was almost certainly military TNT originating from former Soviet satellite countries, intelligence sources said yesterday.”
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bfbf76d8-f33a-11d9-843f-00000e2511c8.html

This is a clear statement but then the story changed the mastermind appeared and much less sophisticated material:
“The University of Leeds biochemistry teacher has been identified in the British media as the man who rented a Leeds apartment, which police called a "bomb factory," where the explosives for the London attacks are thought to have been assembled.
Police sources quoted in British newspapers said investigators now believed the explosive used was TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a compound that can be made from easily purchased chemicals and is similar to the material used by attempted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britbombs16jul16,1,7185243,full.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

And the beginning very professional material one can only get with “good” connections then material that basically everybody can produce at home…
Why does the story change?
And shouldn’t it be only a question of a simple analysis to figure out what kind of material was being used?


Timing device:
This detail of the story changed over and over:
Did the Police find timing devices? Or at least does the Police believe that they were used?
Based on evidence recovered from the rubble, investigators believe some of the bombs were on timers, a U.S. law enforcement official said. The official would not further describe the evidence.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/070805_nw_bombings_london.html

Very concrete is the following article:
“British investigative authorities have reportedly found two timing devices used by terrorists in yesterday's bombing attacks in London.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1410263.htm

The conclusion is interesting as well:
“The reported discovery has prompted speculation that at least two of the four bombs which exploded in London's Underground rail network and on a bus were detonated remotely.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1410263.htm

But for very strange reasons the finding of the timing devices is “transformed”:
“The police have found no trace of timing devices on their bombs, indicating that they detonated them themselves, knowing they too would die. »
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10335891
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/terrorism/s_351871.html

But after the timeline was changed to a simultaneous attack the problem occurred how the alleged bombers could have managed that: only explanation seemed to be a timer (a cell phones would create other problems of explanations). Therefore some article simply state that the use of timers is believed (even if they weren’t found):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/09/AR2005070901248.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks/?section=cnn_topstories

But if they used timer then can they still have been suicide bombers? What the sense of remaining where a bomb will go off if it will go off if you leave nonetheless?
Latest turn of the story therefore:
“THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.
Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html

Combing the different stories: They had a timer hence the possibility of the simultaneous attack but simply didn’t know they would die on the spot.
To be honest: I’ve problems believing this explanation: If one is exactly at the location of the bomb when it goes off how can in all four cases papers of identification survive?
Still a question:
Why was no detonator found?


Suicide bombers:
The same transformation can be seen concerning this issue.
“Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said no evidence suggested that the attacks involved suicide bombers but that officials hadn't ruled out the possibility. »
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/070805_nw_bombings_london.html

Then everybody speaks of “suicide bombers”.
Only to back-pedal again:
“THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html


Fundamentalists or not:
Although no proof so far has been presented linking the London bombing to al Qaeda the question how fundamentalists the alleged bombers were is of course central to the investigation. Would you be surprised that this detail changed, too?
At first the alleged bombers were reported to be not fundamentalists:
“One local resident described him as "a nice lad".
"He liked to play football, he liked to play cricket. I'm shocked."
Another resident said he was just a "normal kid" who played basketball and kicked a ball around.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677601.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15729250&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=7-7-war-on-britain--he-has-gone-to-london-with-some-friends--name_page.html

Then comes the changes:
In the case of Lindsay a whole article deals with this issue:
“KING'S Cross Tube bomber Jermaine Lindsay was obsessed with Islam - and bare-knuckle fighting, it emerged yesterday.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742957%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2dprize%2dfighter-name_page.html

And the other three alleged bombers:
“Mohammed Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain and Shehzad Tanweer - were banned from mosques in Leeds because of their extreme views.
A source close to one mosque said: "They were being too radical and I think they were supposed to be meeting in other people's houses."
Another elder said: "They were kicked out for inappropriate teachings."”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742957%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2dprize%2dfighter-name_page.html

Though in the “Guardian” things sounded a bit different:
“Razaq Raj, a senior lecturer at Leeds Metropolitan University, said yesterday he knew that three of the bombers -Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Mir Hussain and Mohammad Sidique Khan – had been banned from local mosques but did not know why.
"At Leeds Metropolitan University and Leeds University there are no radical groups," Mr Raj said.
"If there was a problem, I would report it. I've never had to. The last thing we want is radical groups in Leeds."”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1529899,00.html

I’m wondering if this detail will change again at the very moment it is officially accepted that the four alleged bombers didn’t know that they were on a suicide mission ….


Linday’s first name:
On July 15 the name of the fourth alleged bomber is revealed:
Lindsay.
But there is a problem with his first name:
“(He) changed his name from Lindsay Germaine to Lindsay Jamal when he converted to Islam.”
(Agence France Press, 9/15/01)
He is named:
Germaine
Germain Morris
Jermaine
Jermaine Maurice
Jermalne
Jamal

But before the fourth bomber was offically named Lindsay he even had other family names :
“Bombed the Picadilly Line train at King's Cross
Named locally as Eliaz or Ejaz Fiaz, 30, nicknamed 'Jacksey', although police have yet to confirm his identity. He is thought to have lived in a house in Dewsbury, where the plotters may have held meetings. »
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1692402_2,00.html

Or try this:
“In Dewsbury, police had sealed off one end of a cul de sac of redbrick semis at Lees Holm. They led away a young mother and her baby. The woman is believed to be Hasina Patel, who moved into the house at Christmas with her husband, Rashid Sacha, thought to be the fourth man the police are hunting.”
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1527437,00.html

Why so much confusion over his name?
As far as I can see he was the only alleged bomber not to leave identification papers. How then was he identified so quickly while many victims couldn’t be identified so far?


Lindsay’s age :
Everywhere reported as 19.
But now read this:
“Yesterday, it was claimed that Lindsay was tracked by FBI agents when he visited relatives in America.
British officials had asked the US to keep tabs on him while he stayed with family in Cleveland in 1994 and 2000.
At that time, his mother Mary reportedly lived in the city and has since remarried.
During the 2000 visit, the FBI put him under close surveillance.
He entered the US despite being on a terrorist watch list, but on his return British intelligence allegedly lost track of him.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742957%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2dprize%2dfighter-name_page.html

I’m not really sure but I don’t think that British officials will have asked the US to keep tabs on 8-year-old….


The mastermind:
On July 10 the mastermind is revealed: Mustafa Setmariam Nasra:
“Mustafa Setmarian Nasar- also known as Abu Musab al-Suri - a Syrian suspected of being Al Qaeda's operations chief in Europe, according to unidentified investigators cited in British newspapers The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday.
Nasar, 47, allegedly played a key role in setting up an Al Qaeda structure in Spain and was indicted there in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. Last year, the U.S. offered $5 million for information leading to his arrest. »
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/326743p-279325c.html

He is indeed the perfect mastermind and a direct link to al Qaeda.

He has only one problem that basically all journalists fail to see: He is in prison:
On November 14, 2001 the New York Times reported:
“The Spanish police arrested 11 people today, mostly Islamic warriors with experience in Afghanistan or Bosnia, and accused them of recruiting volunteers to carry out attacks on behalf of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, Al Qaeda.”
Nasra is one of them:
“Two of Mr. Yarbas's main contacts in Afghanistan were Anwar Adnan Muhammad Salah, alias Cheij Salah, and Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, also known as Abu Musab, who were in charge of training camps in Afghanistan.”
(New York Times, 11/14/01)

So they had to look again.
On July 14 they Agence France ¨Press announces that “British police have identified the man thought to be the mastermind behind last week's bombings in London” : Magdi El-Nashar.
“The University of Leeds biochemistry teacher has been identified in the British media as the man who rented a Leeds apartment, which police called a "bomb factory," where the explosives for the London attacks are thought to have been assembled. Police sources quoted in British newspapers said investigators now believed the explosive used was TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a compound that can be made from easily purchased chemicals and is similar to the material used by attempted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britbombs16jul16,1,7185243,full.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

Besides the proofs found in his appartement there is another simple link:
“El-Nashar was said to have been a friend and former roommate of the fourth, Lindsey Germaine, a convert to Islam of Jamaican descent who lived in Aylesbury, about 140 miles miles away from the other suspects.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britbombs16jul16,1,7185243,full.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

What’s amazing though is :
He has almost the same name as the first claimed mastermind!

What’s bizarre though is that el-Nashar not only left traces of his bomb factory (keep in mind that on 7/7 he was in Cairo and therefore in a safe haven) but also left almost all his belongings in the UK as he planed to return.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britbombs16jul16,1,7185243,full.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
In his case as well all witnesses stress that he was far from a fundamentalist.



Certainly this list of changing details is not complete but maybe a good starting point.

Conclusion:
There are way to many transformations in the story of what happened on 7/7 in London. They certainly do need further investigation but given Blair’s word that there won’t be any real investigation one can only hope that British people will demand it.

[wli]

1. it stinks to high heaven

I've been assuming false flag until the state exonerates itself.

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Well

they trying hard to make all the facts fit

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. I was up real early the morning of the bombings

the first reports that came out of London kept insisting that the cause of the explosions was a power surge. Some power surge, yeah right. It was only when the bus blew up that the authorities were willing to admit to the media that a terrorist attack was in progress.

[madeline_con]

4. Could be several things going on...

It's possible that:

The guys didn't know they wouldn't get away, died so they couldn't be made to give info.

During the confusion, the cell phones were jammed. People reported being unable to make calls due to heavy volume. A person trying to detonate a bomb with a cell phone would be forced to keep trying, causing blast delay. He wouldn't give up, if he didn't want anyone involved to be left alive.

Not knowing for sure what caused the problem in the underground, it may have taken some time to ascertain, and then get through via cell or radio to other security staff.

Other possiblity: scramble for a CYA by British government. Different reporters using different sources for info.

>>"Based on evidence recovered from the rubble, investigators believe some of the bombs were on timers, a U.S. law enforcement official said."<<

The US sends Bushco employed guys to put spin on situation, he could be talking out of his ass.

EDIT added:

>>“One local resident described him as "a nice lad".
"He liked to play football, he liked to play cricket. I'm shocked."
Another resident said he was just a "normal kid" who played basketball and kicked a ball around.” <<

When do you ever hear anything but shock from those around a guy who does something nuts that kills a bunch of people?

[John Doe II]

6. Answers

"A person trying to detonate a bomb with a cell phone would be forced to keep trying, causing blast delay. He wouldn't give up, if he didn't want anyone involved to be left alive."

It's hard to believe they used cell phones. Especially in the underground. That would be really stupid:
"Investigators doubt that cell phones - used in the Madrid train attacks a year ago - were used to detonate the bombs in the Underground because the phones often don't work in the system's tunnels, the official said."
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/070805_nw_bombings_london.html

But even if this was the case then they why would they have been killed as well. Using a cell phone would be a very save way not to die. Moreover the blast delay can't be explained because it still changes nothing about the claim that the blasts happened at the same time.

"Not knowing for sure what caused the problem in the underground, it may have taken some time to ascertain, and then get through via cell or radio to other security staff."

But then why in the first case they happened to come through at once. At the second place several minutes later and at the third only 26 minutes later? Moreover the Mirror article that tries to explain the 26 minutes gap nowhere talks of the problem of coming through.

"Different reporters using different sources for info."

No explanation simply because all media accounts got the 26 minutes gap for a couple of days. Then it was changed to a simultaneous attack in all media accounts.

[DemonFighterLives]

5. Totally amazing work!

This information spells conspiracy and I don't mean al qaeda.

The 4 bombers reminded me of the 4 tramps from the Kennedy Assassination. The 4 tramps did have something to do with it though.

I'll put my hat on like a good boy now! :tinfoilhat:

[Piperay]

7. Can't get their stories straight

this whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test. x(

[janedoe]

8. This has the same stench as the 9-11 timeline!

This has the same stench as the 9-11 timeline!

The 9-11 timeline kept changing and doubled back on itself , getting tied in a knot. (As Sen. Mark Dayton pointed out.)

You've tracked down a lot of good stuff. Thanks!

So, when will the next event happen?

Shall we take bets? If so, I'll take 9-11-05.

[John Doe II]

9. Well,

check out this thread about the parallels:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4127013

[janedoe]

20. Impressive!

[madeline_con]

10. Check this out...

From the other thread...

>>"On 911 the crash time of AA 77 and UA 93 are/were in dispute."<<

American Airlines Flight 77... London bomb on 7/7

United Airlines Flight 93....

I'm taking 9/3 as next attack. Not sure where, though. :scared:

[cire4]

11. Good research....except for the meeting times/points.....

First it was reported that the four met at 8.20 at Luton:

The Guardian article that you link to never actually says this. It simply says that the four were captured on camera at 8:20 and based on the sub-headline "Suspects shown on CCTV at King's Cross," we are likely to assume that they were referring to the King's Cross meeting when they mentioned that they were seen at 8:20. The article does report that they first met at Luton, just not at 8:20. All it says that they were seen together at 8:20 at King's Cross.

Now it is only Hussain who was at 7.20 at Luton (so one hour earlier!):

The Mirror article that you link to never says that it was ONLY Hussain who was at Luton. Rather, it just says that cameras captured him at 7:20 at Luton Station. That picture of him was obviously super imposed to get maximum facial detail. The original picture could have very well contained pictures of the three other bombers, but was not released because the faces of the other bombers were not the focus of the investigation at this point (remember- they were trying to appeal to the public to find the missing 81 minutes of this guys journey). So just because the picture only shows Hussain does not mean that he was the only one at Luton.

and they met at 8.26 but not at Luton but at King's Cross:

The article just says they were all captured on camera at 8:26 AM. Not that they met...I am beginning to see that this is just crummy journalism above all else. Other articles have consistently maintained that the first meeting point was Luton station and the Mirror article should have made that clear.

The only real qualm that I notice is the 7:20 AM time of capture at Luton. One picture shows Hussain at 7:20 and the other picture shows the other 3 at 7:20. Hussain is obviously in completely different poses in each picture. However, people's body motions can change alot in a minute. So maybe both pictures were from 7:20 AM...(I think a second counter would be much helpful here)

[John Doe II]

12. Thanks

Thanks for your answers.
Still I believe that the original analysis is correct.

The first report is of the meeting is:
"Four men, between 18 and 30, three of them with West Yorkshire addresses and all of them British, met up at Luton station before boarding a Thameslink train to King's Cross last Thursday morning.
It appears that the four, described by security sources as "cleanskins" - with no convictions or known terrorist involvement - reached their rendezvous via two or three hired cars, one of which had been located yesterday at Luton station. Explosives were found in the car, police revealed last night.
Police were also examining a second car found at the station. It was taken to a storage facility at Leighton Buzzard.
Closed circuit television film from around 8.20am that day shows the four young men, all with identical large rucksacks similar to those carried by infantry soldiers on their backs. The four appeared relaxed."

The only place mentioned is Luton here. The time of the photo is 8:20.
I agree that it might be sloppy journalism and that there is still the explanation possible that the article talks of a photo taken at 8:20 at King's Cross. as indicated in the sub-titel: "Suspects shown on CCTV at King's Cross" But in that case: Why is this photo never published. The only photo of all four is from Luton and has a clear time given: 7:21
Therefore I think it's save to assume that we're talking about the Luton meeting here. Only that it happened at 8:20. which makes the attack at 8:51 literally impossible.
Btw: Why is there no photo of the four arriving at King's Cross?


Second report
The Mirror article is as follows:
"Bearded Hussain, struggling to carry his deadly military-style backpack, was caught on a CCTV camera at Luton station at 7.20am.
Hussain, who had travelled to Luton by car from his home in West Yorkshire that morning, boarded a Thameslink train to King's Cross.
Dressed casually in a dark anorak-style jacket and dark trousers, he looked like thousands of other young tourists heading for the capital.
At 8.26am, Hussain and the three other bombers were picked up by a camera at King's Cross station before they set off to detonate their explosives."

The article clearly implies at me that Hussain was alone in Luton. Why was it only him that was caught on CCTV? Why is there no close up of the other three? The two photos that are posted in the OP are from clearly different angles and moreover the one only showing Hussain has no time stamp on it.
And again where is the famous photo from King's Cross?

Third report
All four met at Luton at 7:21. Evidence is a photo from CCTV.

So, I think your caution is understandable and well-founded, yet I think that we can maintain the differences in reporting are more than curious. The two photos raise more questions than they answer.
Where are the photos all journalist are talking about?

[John Doe II]

13. Why

is this here in the 911 forum?
Why do other threads about the London bombing stay in the General discussion section where they do belong?
Sorry, I don't get it.

[John Doe II]

14. London bombing: Why do details change over and over again?

Just posted on General discussions but it might be of interest here as well:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4127011

[hack89]

15. You are right..

in every other news coverage I have ever read for any crime, natural disaster, or political scandal, the first account on the first day was always 100 percent correct in every detail. This story changing as they talk to different people and learn new facts is very suspicious and a obvious sign of a conspiracy.

[LARED]

16. Yes an obvious sign;

of course if the first account was 100 percent correct every conspiracy theorist would be saying that was an obvious sign of a conspiracy as well.

It's a very tidy world for them.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

18. I read most of it

It's just that trying to make a conspiracy out of a the normal manifestations of a story is pointless.

The information you provided tells me that the story has changed because the information has changed, not for any dark reasons, but because it takes time to sort through all the information to get a higher level of accuracy.

I do investigations all the time at work and miscommunicated or misunderstood information is very common.

[JackRiddler]

19. It's a very tidy world for you

Apparently your earthshaking observation that "miscommunicated or misunderstood information is very common," which I would have never known if not for you, is accompanied by an uncanny ability to always know when this is the case.