[A lesson in NLP tricks!]
“This is really chilling footage, I would describe it John”
– BBC Journo once again expressing a personal opinion, but as a BBC journo (the BBC still, incredibly, can successfully draw upon it’s image of the informed and informative ‘trusted’ institution of Britishness), he has an open passageway into your brain, even though you’ve never het him before and know absolutely nothing about him (esp. his political leanings – or how passionate he holds those views and what what extent therefore that he will promote them)
“What you’re about to see…”
“I’ll show you the first one. The first one. It’s of H.H. HE exists KX underground station and you see him going into Boots…” [footage1] time = 08:59:46 “it’s part of the property there part of the concourse”
“There you can see hi actually entering the shop”
time = 9:05:54-7 (WH Smith sign seen in footage)
“What is striking about all this footage…”
[footage3 – grey] time = 09:53:13-5
“And here is him coming out of KX station onto the main concourse…”
“…what is so striking about it, is the number of people he passes as he wonders outside Kings Cross station.”
At this point the journo talks about the problems/delays/congestion on the tube that day. [back to footage3 – grey] time = 9:53:13- Note almost impossible to identify any person. And he says
“..a lot of people are on their MOBILE PHONES making calls to friends or their bosses saying they are going to be late.”
Really??? Mobile phones at 09:52:29? This is something that should be checked. Note: it’s almost assured the BBC journo didn’t check.
“and here’s H.H. walking with this rucksack amongst them and obviously they are totally oblivious to the danger they face because here’s a man whose carry a bomb on his back and a bomb which he later detonates on the No 30 Bus at Tavistock square and kills 13 people as he does so” – This is lazy pre-concluded supposition. There is no proof he did it. There has been no trial.
[Inside BMA building? footage. Time 09:42-04. Supposed explosion on the bus at 9:42:18]
yet Bus aerial debris footage: VLW 173 time = 09:34:23 BST
Of course the “BMA? footage time and the ‘aerial blast debris time” footage is inconsistent. They differ by 7min 41seconds and TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG TREE: The branches on the left hardly move at all. If this wasn’t ‘explained’ to you, you would have virtually no idea it was describing an explosion. There is NO obvious blast movement up or to the right on the trees left hand side. If this ‘blast debris’ was faked I’d not be surprised, esp. as there only seems to be one shot with ‘hazy blobs’ in it.
Journo goes on about
[how much footage was gone through] in order to get good evidence of the movements of this one bomber H.H.”
Who said it was ‘good’ – the journo. He’s giving you his opinion and his opinion is that it’s good. My opinion (and I’m going to cover it up that it is my opinion) is that it’s bullshit footage and it doesn’t prove anything.
“…there were cameras on some of the busses showing you footage on SOME of the busses, showing you the No 30 thirty bus that he eventually got on”
NLP again. And very clever. He ‘covers’ footage from busses, but not a peep from him about a total lack of footage is available from any specific bus he’s supposed to have gotten onto.
“to piece together his movements on that day…”
Yet more NLP commands telling you what to think. And it’s not pieced together. The timelines once again are inconsistent.
“before he detonated his device”
This is NLP ‘reinforcement’
“on that bus” – my emphasis
more ‘reinforcement’ having been told earlier about the No. 30 bus.
Not once does he expose you to anything other than it’s a ‘fact’ the these guys did it. He never said the word likely, supposed, possible or even the commonly used mild get out clause of ‘alleged”
What a terrible so-called journalist this Ben Geoghagen is. Well, that’s probably why he’s working at the BBC.