Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings/Archive 3

message: Of course, sir. It´s natural, because the Madrid 2004 bombings issue is a mind boggling issue, and no consensus has been reached so far.
Some examples of articles (or sections of article) with mind boggling nature: 
*Reichstag fire
*Gulf of Tonkin Incident
*Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate 
*Kennedy assassination theories
*USS Maine (ACR-1)#Causes of the sinking and #The investigations
*RMS_Lusitania#Controversies
*Hindenburg_(airship)#Controversies
These are disputed issues, just like the Madrid 2004 bombing, so mind bogglingness is an unavoidable effect of presenting the whole picture.Randroide 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southofwatford wrote: ''So if newspaper 1 reports something that is directly contradicted by newspaper 2 then both are reporting "facts" - the mind boggles!'' 

message: --201.54.33.2 12:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehrr...excuse me, sir. This is a pure logic issue: If "El Mundo" is now rapidly losing credibility it is because it has credibility.  One can not lose something one does not have.
-----------
Losing credibility? According to? ... the numbers of readers, perhaps? Since the 11-M, the popularity of "El Mundo" is increasing whereas "El País" (defending the socialist version) is just in the opposite direction. 
"El Mundo" only said that the method (the cromatography) for detection of explosives is extremely sensitive (and this is obviuosly true). Also that this method detect the components of the explosives, not the name of this explosives (and this is also true). All the people with some background in science know that, because is a method used for detencion a lot of substances (not olny explosives). Then, the excuses of the police were very, very poor. Concernings about the credibility of this information is simply ignorance or hypocrisy. 
       
--------
–88.0.31.163 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Mundo's "Experts" in Explosives Analysis 

message: But lets suppose that the Vallecas bag is not a fabricated evidence
Well, even in that case also we have evidence of other explosives:
*Sánchez Manzano famous talk about "Nitroglycerine", while Goma-2 ECO has not Nitroglycerine, but Nitroglycol. Titadine 30 has nitroglycerine. ETA has Tytadine 30. Conclusive?. No, not conclusive, but it is a clue.
::Yeah, he said that he commited an error. See please this section. 
*March 11th, 9:30 in the morning. Policeman Jacobo Barrero founds an unexploded bomb in the trains, later exploded in situ. Jacobo says that the explosive was orange. Titadine 30 is orange. Goma-2 ECO is white.
*Spanish congress hearing: Gómez Pintado, subdirector general operativo of the spanish police says that on the morning of march 11th, Cuadro Jaén told him that the TEDAX said that the explosive used was Titadine.
::"El comisario general de Seguridad Ciudadana me dijo que era Titadyne con cordón detonante"
*The Metenamine issue: Metenamine was found in the Renault Kangoo. Metenamine is used for the fabrication of RDX, an entirely different family of military explosives.
*...and, finally, we have absence of evidence, that, in this case, it is also evidence: The analytical work made in the place of the explosions the same morning of march 11th has NOT been released. Those are the documents "El Mundo" is asking for. Randroide 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of other explosives other than Goma-2 ECO 

message: The article is too long, and the software is moaning a lot.
I propose to create a new page with the "Controversies" section: Controversies around 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings could be the title.
The text in the main article should be "sanitized" to eliminate any "controversial" issue. It should contain only facts accepted by everyone.Randroide 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Well, there is a rumour that ETA "signed" in a subtle form the bombing with initials of the names of the attacked stations: El pozo del Tío Raimundo, Téllez and Atocha.
Yes, this is a rumour or a conspiracy theory, not a legitimate content for the main article. I suggest to create an especific page, where we could also add the issue of "11-M 911 (or 912) days fater 11-S" and the cabalistyc" (sic, yes she said that) implications that the attorney of the case, Olga Sánchez, said to found on that issue.Randroide 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''E'''l pozo  '''T'''éllez  '''A'''tocha 

message: Southofwatford wrote: Nobody is denying that he [Sánchez Manzano] said it [The Nitroglycerine mess], but its also a fact that he has since said he was mistaken
Too much mistakes, Southofwatford. Too much of them in such a grave issue as the worst terrorist attack in Europe.
::*The "mistake" commited with the allegued Metenamine contamination
::*The "mistake" of using the same picture twice to ilustrate the "Vallecas bag" and the Renault Kangoo explosive (!!!).
::*The "mistake" of the "Islamic tape" (an important proof) founded in the Renaul Kangoo returned to the owner of the small van .
::*The "mistake" of the wrong Vallecas bag sent to the judge.
::*The "mistake" of wrong date handwritten in the Vallecas X-Ray plate 
...one starts to wonder if some guys in the spanish police leadership are  seriously feeble-minded, or if they are trying to hide something.Randroide 19:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "mistakes" made by the spanish police 

message: --201.54.33.2 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article about Sanchez Manzano. Even when his declaration are not a probe of the Kangoo being empty (althoug supports it), the important ones are the declarations of those who opened the Van, saying it was empty (ok, there could be thing under the seats and in the guantera, but not so many) those people haven't been called by the judge. It could be extremely easy to call them and clear out it. Platonides 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deceptions of El Mundo 

message: In the Responsability section of the article, one reads "This event took place exactly 912 days after the September 11 terrorist attack on America in 2001.". I think that it should say "exactly two and a half years" instead of "exactly 912 days", otherwise a reader will hardly be able to see what's so special about the 912 days remark.--Húsönd 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because people keep on changing it to 911 days, because that's a popular myth. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well, maybe a solution would be to write "exactly two and a half years (912 days)".--Húsönd 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No opposition, so changed. --Húsönd 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  912?!? 

message: Well, most of the information erased by Burgas00 has been recovered, but it's necessary to recover the neutrality. Burgas00 introduced his opinions about several mass media of Spain, as El Mundo is a conservative media, etc, and deleted the references to false information spread by PRISA: 
*In the days that followed the attacks, too many rumors and deliberate hoaxes were spread, specially in Internet, but also in prestigious media, as the Radio Station SER, where it was maintained that the corpses of suicidal terrorists have been found in the trains . 
Burgas00 tried to impose a political point of view, denigrating to the mass media (the second and fourth newspaper and the second radio station in Spain) that do not defend his thesis. A neutral issue demands to gather all the important points of view (not only PRISA or ABC). I included information about theories from these media (not only the Burgas00's opinions about them):
*as well as accuse affirm that the "three capital evidences on the lawsuit have been falsified by elements on the Policy statements": 
**the knapsackp-bomb that appears in a police station. These bomb would "have walken around Madrid, without the TEDAX (bomb experts at spanish police) had detected it in the El Pozo railway station. Within the sac, a device that could not explode, based on a mobile phone with a unnnecesary SIM card, but that it opportunely lead to a scapegoat few hours before the elections" .    
**A Renault Kangoo van where appear 61 objects, among them rest of dynamite Goma-2 ECO. However, police would have declared that it was empty after reviewing with dogs at the first time. A recent attempt to link ETA to the bombings and to discredit the security forces occurred in May 2006 when the newspaper El Mundo published on its front page that a business card of the basque firm Mondragón had been found in this van. According to El Mundo this important piece of evidence had been omitted in the Police report. According to right-wing conspiracy theorists this proved an important link between the bombers and ETA as well as the "lies" of the government and security forces. Albeit, the firm Mondragón has no relationship with ETA and, more importantly, it was later revealed that, what had been found in the van was a music CD of the popular Spanish 80s rock group "Orquesta Mondragón" in a pile of various other music CDs.    
**A Skoda Fabia that later appears to 20 meters of the Kangoo. Both vehicles would been used by the terrorists. --Gimferrer 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recovering neutrality

message: Southofwatford 11:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision Of Summary 

message: Southofwatford 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation Of A Neutral Article 

message: This statement is inaccurate:
"The provincial chief of the TEDAX, bomb experts of the Spanish police, declared on 12 July 2004, that damage in the trains could not be caused by dynamite, but by some type of military explosive, like C3 or C4."
The literal declaration is the following:
"que tenían claro que no era Titadine porque este tipo de explosivo muerde, es decir, que no tiene corte limpio, en cambio un alto explosivo corta totalmente y una vez visto los resultados de las explosiones podía tratarse de un C3 o un C4, que es un alto explosivo que procede a cortar limpiamente."
They were certain that it was not Titadyne because this type of explosive bytes, that is, it does not cut [the metal] cleanly, whereas a high explosive cuts [the metal] totally and once the results of the explosions were seen, it COULD be a C3 or C3, which is a high explosive that cuts [the metal] cleanly.''
Let me further point out that the agent is reporting first impressions: this was a declaration of the provincial chief's impressions at the site. Nothing implies that he maintained the same opinion on July 12th (page 53 of the indictment, "auto de procesamiento").
Finally, I do think this paragraph overemphasizes C3 or C4, in favour of conspiracy theories. Another expert, one which directly observed one of the bombs that didn't explode (in Atocha), says:
Que por lo que apreció del artefacto y sus conocimientos, podía intuir que se
trataba de un explosivo industrial (dinamita y los del Ejercito, tipo plástico) utilizado
en la Industria y que era de media-alta potencia.
...says that from what he could tell from the artifact and his knowledge, he had the feeling it was an industrial explosive (DYNAMITE and those of the Army, plastic type), used in Industry and of medium-high power
''
Clearly, dynamite is not ruled out by an expert who did see the explosive (pag 51 indictment).
Furthermore, and more important, the indictment (auto de procesamiento) reports in a joint forensic study that traces of dynamite were found in 8 out of 12 explosion sites.  
Therefore, I request that either these counterarguments be included or that the provincial chief declaration be excluded altogether.
–— Southofwatford 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed corrections of fact