2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In article , Ed Lake
writes
I'm only assuming that the culprit is familiar with the way things
happen at King's Cross. I'm assuming that he's gotten off the
eastbound Circle line at the same time every weekday for years and
knows that a westbound train arrives at the other side of the platform
moments later. He also knows that as he's going up the elevator, a
southbound Picadilly Line train arrives at an upper level.

He's also away with the fairies, because that isn't how the station is
arranged.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In article .com,
Peter Vos writes
Thanks for clarifying, I have been saying Euston as shorthand for
Euston Square....

Well, stop it. I don't say "York" as shorthand for "New York".

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In message , at
21:31:00 on Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
A factor not to ignore is that the are between the platforms isn't all
open at King's Cross so not exactly cross-platform at the East end of the
Met platforms.

Indeed, and as I described at some length earlier. I was pretty sure the
person describing the theory thought it was a simple island platform.

But this is all academic if, as the police have said today, the explosions
were all caused by suicide bombers.

Yes, but before that news broke, it was still worthwhile trying to set
the scene correctly. The theorists had some very strange ideas about the
layout at the various parts of the KX complex.
--
Roland Perry

2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In article m,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
21:31:00 on Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
A factor not to ignore is that the are between the platforms isn't all
open at King's Cross so not exactly cross-platform at the East end of
the Met platforms.

Indeed, and as I described at some length earlier. I was pretty sure
the person describing the theory thought it was a simple island
platform.

But this is all academic if, as the police have said today, the
explosions were all caused by suicide bombers.

Yes, but before that news broke, it was still worthwhile trying to set
the scene correctly. The theorists had some very strange ideas about
the layout at the various parts of the KX complex.

Can you get treatment for that?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article .com,
Peter Vos writes
Thanks for clarifying, I have been saying Euston as shorthand for
Euston Square....

Well, stop it. I don't say "York" as shorthand for "New York".

K :)

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article .com,
Peter Vos writes
I saw a post saying the KX stop is the only stop on the Circle Line
where trains in both directions are separated by an central island
platform.

This is wrong. Gloucester Road and South Kensington also meet this
description. In addition, Edgware Road and Aldgate have two island
platforms and Circle line trains use the outermost faces (usually but
not required at the former, required at the latter).

Outer Rail trains also have platforms on the right at Tower Hill and
Mansion House.

The question I have is how far would you have to travel in either
direction from KX before the doors that open at KX would be used again?

Edgware Road (see above) and Aldgate.

Kind of odd coincidence the bombs went off there. But examining your
detailed layout it actually looks like the bombs went off right around
Aldgate Junction and Praed Street Junction. Is that true?

If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.

If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

If you have that kind of planning and since they are now saying one
bomber per train, I wonder why they didn't hop off at Edgware Road and
Liverpool Street while leaving the packages behind. The Piccadilly
bomber didn't even have to be on the 311. He could have dropped the
bomb in the luggage vestibule at KXSP or simply tossed it in as the
doors closed.

Curiouser and curiouser.


Would you get as far as Edgware and Liverpool?

No. Circle Line trains don't go to either.

Now yer bein' churlish.... Edgware ROAD and Liverpool STREET

I think the proclivity for abbr. is a cultural thing. In the US we
abbr. everything. It's not New York City... it's New York.. or The
City. It's not Washington D.C. ... its DC. It's not the United States
of America .... it's the US. We don't watch television, but we love
our TV. We don't abuse prisoners at Guantanamo Bay... we hold em at
Gitmo. etc etc.



--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

"Peter Vos" wrote in message
oups.com...
If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.
If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

Even if they had access to the current timetables, the realities of the
Underground (especially the Circle Line) mean that there is still little
chance that the trains will actually get to the junctions at the advertised
time. I just find it implausible that the bombers could choose a specific
time and then be able to be in the chosen spots within a 50-second window.

One other thing strikes me as strange. If we assume the Picc bomber got on
the train at King's Cross, this was only probably a minute or two before the
time of explosion. If the bomb *had* to go off at 0851 he was cutting things
very fine, as all it would have needed was a gap in the service and things
would not have gone according to plan. ISTR that the Picc was disrupted at
the time - perhaps this was a factor.

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

"Peter Vos" typed

Now yer bein' churlish.... Edgware ROAD and Liverpool STREET

I think the proclivity for abbr. is a cultural thing. In the US we
abbr. everything. It's not New York City... it's New York.. or The
City. It's not Washington D.C. ... its DC. It's not the United States
of America .... it's the US. We don't watch television, but we love
our TV. We don't abuse prisoners at Guantanamo Bay... we hold em at
Gitmo. etc etc.

Abbreviation is fine if it does not induce ambiguity, or mislead.

I repeat: Edgware ROAD is NOT Edgware and I have had to reassure
concerned friends that I was many miles from any bombs.

Liverpool Street is NOT Liverpool.

Tottenham Court Road is NOT Tottenham. Abbreviate the former as 'TCR'
and I'm happy; abbreviate it as 'Tottenham' and you're LOST!

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

In message .com,
Peter Vos writes

If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

The bombs were almost certainly detonated manually. The police have said
that no timing devices have been found in the remains.

If you have that kind of planning and since they are now saying one
bomber per train, I wonder why they didn't hop off at Edgware Road and
Liverpool Street while leaving the packages behind.

Dying for "the cause" was an important part of the entire mission.

--
Paul Terry

They say 4 ( was 2 is more likely (was London bombs - the work of ONE man?)
 

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:40:23 +0100, "David Splett"
wrote:

"Peter Vos" wrote in message
roups.com...
If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.
If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

Even if they had access to the current timetables, the realities of the
Underground (especially the Circle Line) mean that there is still little
chance that the trains will actually get to the junctions at the advertised
time. I just find it implausible that the bombers could choose a specific
time and then be able to be in the chosen spots within a 50-second window.

Precisely.

One other thing strikes me as strange. If we assume the Picc bomber got on
the train at King's Cross, this was only probably a minute or two before the
time of explosion. If the bomb *had* to go off at 0851 he was cutting things
very fine, as all it would have needed was a gap in the service and things
would not have gone according to plan. ISTR that the Picc was disrupted at
the time - perhaps this was a factor.

Do you think they actually cared where the bombs went off? The
objective - assuming the current theories as to who it was - was to kill
people and to achieve martyrdom. At 08.50 on a weekday you can achieve
that virtually anywhere on the London public transport network in Zone
1.

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!