Posts
"This is the largest criminal inquiry in English history."- Sir Ian Blair
The Day the Bombs Came
The heat is on, on the street
Inside your head, on every beat
And the beat's so loud, deep inside
The pressure's high, just to stay alive
'Cause the heat is on
- Glen Frey
A fitting opener to an article about the explosive 7 July story that nobody in the mainstream media wants to touch. Perhaps the mainstream media won't touch it because they, like the authorities, are guilty of a mass-deception of the most egregious and elaborate proportions.
The charges are as follows:
1. All mainstream media stories about the alleged movements of the alleged London bombers on the morning of 7 July are factually incorrect and, thus far, entirely false.
2. The Metropolitan Police statement about the movements of the alleged bombers during their press conference in relation to 7 July was factually incorrect and has remained uncorrected.
3. All of the 'evidence' from which the alleged movements of the alleged bombers as issued and vaunted by the Metropolitan Police and the mainstream media is circumstantial, speculative and, even then, of highly questionable origin and very far removed from any sort of compelling evidence that could turn circumstantial evidence, speculation and presumptions of guilt into what appear to have become generally accepted facts about the days events.
These charges are the result of independently established and officially confirmed facts about the actual movements of the Thameslink train services from Luton on the morning of 7 July and the independently established and officially confirmed facts about the times at which the blast trains left King's Cross.
The remainder of this article presents facts about the events of 7 July that no mainstream media outlet has dared to report, or check for themselves. Those roving newshound journalists in the mainstream media that have bothered to check the first few facts of the 'official' story of what happened on the 7 July have remained incredibly silent about the results of that research, leaving ordinary members of the public to investigate, discover and report the facts that underlie what happened in London that fateful day in July.
The Day of 7/7
First, a brief recap of the generally reported and accepted version of events is called for. The issue here is from whence one should take the overview of what happened on 7 July. In order to avoid any controversy about the source of information for what happened that day, let's take the advice of a Detective Inspector Neil Smith at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of New Scotland Yard who says:
"I would strongly recommend the BBC website, which not only gives the broad information you seek, but also gives written and pictorial accounts of the events of that morning and the days that followed."
From the BBC London Attacks In Depth page, this is the story of 7 July:
TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS
Early on 7 July, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammad Sidique Khan travel from their West Yorkshire homes to Luton by hire car.
At Luton station they meet Germaine Lindsay from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. The four are caught on CCTV as they enter the station.
The four bombers board a train for London King's Cross. Each carries a rucksack packed with explosives.
At King's Cross they fan out - Tanweer and Khan take the Circle line in opposite directions while Lindsay takes the Piccadilly line south.
Their bombs explode at 0850.
Nothing is known of Hussain's movements until 0947 when he blows up a bus in Tavistock Square.
That, give or take a few minor details which nobody seems to care about much, is the story of how 52 people died and 700 were injured in the attack on London. The evidence to support this version of events consists of just three photographs, included here for completeness.
The first image is of the four alleged suicide bombers together outside Luton Thameslink station.The image is timestamped 07:21:54 07/07/05 and was released by the Metropolitan Police as the first piece of evidence showing the four alleged perpetrators of the 7 July atrocities. This image has been published as the full image seen here and also in various cut down, cropped versions with digital effects applied.
The second image is a rather curiously cropped image of one of the alleged suicide bombers, Hasib Hussain, allegedly as he boarded the 0740 Luton train to King's Cross. Given the lack of any unique point of reference demonstrating that this photo was taken at Luton station, or even a timestamp, this photo could have been taken anywhere at anytime.
The third image is a photo of Hasib Hussain again, this time walking out of Boots at King's Cross into the main concourse. We are told this picture was taken at 0900, almost ten minutes after we are told the bombs simultaneously exploded on the London underground. The scene shows what appears to be Hasib Hussain photographed, by a CCTV camera that may not be there, exiting Boots at a rather odd angle into the main concourse that, by now, one might think would be filled with passengers evacuating the station after the blasts that had occurred on the Piccadilly line train that was just 100 yards into the tunnel on its way to Russell Square.The three photographs shown above and allegedly taken from the day of 7 July are judge, jury and executioner for the four young men they depict, for the 52 other lives that were taken that day and the only explanation for survivors and the families of the dead and injured.
The stories of the alleged bombers will never be heard, nor will the alleged bombers ever stand trial. Their story has already been written by the authorities and the media and has remained, until now, almost entirely unchallenged.
The Duty of the Press
It is the duty of the press, if not the authorities, to observe certain guidelines while going about their business of reporting the news. The following guidelines from the Press Complaints Commission are ripped straight from Bloggerheads (thanks Tim) and contain pretty much all you need to know about the Press Complaints Commission:
1 - Accuracyi) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
All of which are rather pertinent points to bear in mind in relation to 7 July, since the original stories of power surges and train collisions, for the mainstream media has presented nothing other than inaccurate, misleading and distorted information about the movements of the alleged bombers.
How the Bombs Came
With the duties of the press in mind and a degree of faith - hitherto unreached but much anticipated by The Antagonist - that readers of these pages are imbued with the ability to draw for themselves the only logical conclusions that can be drawn from the presentation of simple, factual evidence - even if this does contradict the generally reported and accepted version of events - The Antagonist presents links to mainstream media coverage of the events of 7 July along with the offending, inaccurate, misleading or distorted information contained there-in for those who might feel motivated to ensure that the precious few facts that exist about the day that 52 people died at four locations on 7 July are reported correctly.
From the Daily Mirror:
CRICKET.. TO CARNAGE - THE MAKING OF A SUICIDE SQUAD
What is certain is that at 7.48am they boarded the Luton-Moorgate service. Forty minutes later they got off at the King's Cross Thameslink Station where they were captured on CCTV.Source: Daily Mirror
That the alleged bombers caught the 7.48am Luton service and arrived in London forty minutes later is far from certain at all. The 7.48am didn't leave Luton until 0756 on 7 July and didn't arrive in King's Cross until 8.42am, some 22 minutes after its scheduled arrival time of 8.20am. By 8.42am on 7 July two of the bombed trains had already left King's Cross without two of the alleged suicide bombers on board.
Maybe a broadsheet such as The Telegraph might have checked a few facts about the events of 7/7 before publication of stories which purport to offer the truth about what happened that day but that fail to get anywhere near it. Unfortunately not, as evinced by the incontrovertible headline, "If only we had been alert, say regulars on the 7.48 to King's Cross Luton", from which the following excerpt is taken:
As their morning newspapers confirmed that the suicide bombers had travelled on the packed Thameslink train service, bankers, secretaries and doctors on the 07:48 service to London contemplated the possibility that the worst terrorist attack in British history might have been averted if only they had seen something.Source: The Telegraph
How about Channel 4 News which, ordinarily, blows the socks off all other mainstream news roundup programmes. They state:
Breakthrough in bomb enquiry
The four terrorists were seen by a witness boarding the 7.48am Thameslink train to King's cross arriving into the city centre at 8.20am.
This, as we already know, is not the case. The alleged bombers may have been seen by an eye witness boarding the 7.48am Thameslink train to King's Cross sometime between 07:21:54 and 0756 (the time the 0748 departed on 7/7) but they certainly weren't seen arriving into the city centre at 8.20am on the 7.48am from Luton. The alleged bombers might have been seen at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.42am but certainly not 8.20am, not at King's Cross Underground station and not on the morning of 7 July.
What about The Times, that bastion of integrity that it is held to be and which now has in its employ Tony Blair's magus-Spinmaster General, Alistair Campbell. Could The Times check a few basic facts and get the times right? As if you need even ask.
In a Focus Special entitled 'The Web of Terror published on 17 July, The Times ran with:
They struck out of the blue. But at least one of the bombers was known to MI5. David Leppard and Jonathan Calvert investigate
A CCTV camera filmed them as they prepared to board the 7.40am train to King’s Cross. Near them was another man who might or might not have been an accomplice or even a potential fifth bomber — but he disappeared into the crowd.
At 8.26am the train pulled into King’s Cross and the four were again caught on CCTV.Source: The Times
A few days previously, on 14 July, an article in The Times entitled "CCTV pictures show London bus bomber" again states the alleged bombers caught the 0740 Luton train:
Hasib Hussain, an 18-year-old from Leeds, is shown in a CCTV image mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40am train to King's Cross.Source: The Times
The 7.40am Luton Thameslink train is the train the Metropolitan Police announced to the assembled world's media at a press conference that the alleged bombers caught on 7 July so, one might think, this 'fact' might have some truth in it.
The 0740 service from Luton did not run on 7 July.
Over a month later, on 20 September, following the release of CCTV footage showing just three of the alleged bombers making a day-trip to London on 28 June (the 'dummy-dummy run'), the Times contradicted both itself and the Metropolitan Police:
July 7 bombers rehearsed suicide attacks
July 7: All four take a 7:48am Thameslink train to King's Cross, arriving around 8:30am before dispersing.Source: The Times
That this is such a simple fact to check, the first fact that any decent, investigative journalist worth their salt would confirm or deny before publishing any account at all of what happened that day, makes the announcement even more curious.
The BBC, the bombs and the Press Complaints Commission
The BBC has been rather more pro-active in its endeavours to correct factual inaccuracies in its reporting of the events of 7 July, a precedent which was set by their much heralded, primetime 'documentary' 7/7: The Day The Bombs Came, originally broadcast on 16 November 2005, some four months after the events on which it reported. The programme would have been more appropriately titled, '7/7: After the Bombs Came' ignoring entirely, as it did, the all-important HOW the bombs came.
Only weeks previously, on 27 October, the BBC's Horizon programme, The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation: What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?", forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman claimed to offer a psychological profile of the suicide bombers that the same edition of Horizon stated caught the 0748 train from Luton to King's Cross on 7 July.
Since then, the BBC appears to have gone to great lengths to remove from its web site every single reference to the time of the train on which the alleged bombers travelled to London on 7 July.
The following image shows Google search results linking to three stories from the BBC news web site which contain the phrase 'from luton'.
Notice the third result under the heading "BBC NEWS | England | Police search two 'bomber' cars" and note also the line quoted from it, "Passengers on the 0748 Thameslink from Luton to King's Cross". Follow the link to that story and the phrase about which train the alleged bombers caught from Luton is noticeably absent.
A search for the 0748 phrase Google throws back three links, all to the BBC's own web site, all of which contain the 0748 train time in their Google summaries and all of which have had the 0748 line removed from the linked articles.
Curiously, the timestamps of the BBC articles seem to be unchanged from what would appear to be the original publication date, even though the content of the article has changed rather substantially.
The clean up campaign to remove the few 'established facts' from the public domain, at least as far as the BBC is concerned, has begun. The formal apologies for publishing this factually incorrect information are, however, very noticeably absent.
Variations on a theme: The Death of Journalistic Integrity and the Old Media
Different media, different channels, different newspapers all with different journalists, researchers and conflicting stories, is almost forgiveable, despite the existence of easily verifiable facts which underlie those stories. Different and conflicting stories about the devastating attack on London in July, which to this day remain factually incorrect, published by the same newspapers, editorial teams and media channels is entirely unforgiveable.
What is also unforgiveable is that these stories remain uncorrected despite the facts regarding the officially confirmed activities of both the Thameslink and underground trains that morning and despite this information having been available, albeit via a rather circuitous route for ordinary members of the public, since the day of 7 July.
Maybe no 'proper' journalists had the time to check the facts in their haste to hit front page deadlines with the biggest and best stories of the devastation that befell London on the morning of 7 July. And, maybe the heady world of international news reporting is so fraught with reporting the same three stories for weeks on end that nobody has yet had the opportunity to check the most basic of facts about the attack on London. That the media didn't bother to check or haven't run with the results of what checking the facts revealed, is understandable if you understand anything about the nature of the world's mainstream media.
But is it possible that the Metropolitan Police did not know that the 7.40am Luton train did not run on 7 July when they announced it at their press conference? Is it any coincidence that the charge being levelled at the Metropolitan Police about the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes - one of misleading the public - is precisely the same charge which can be levelled at them in relation to the events of 7 July?
Compare and contrast these charges against the Metropolitan Police with the release of a glut information about the 'failed attacks' on 21 July, the day the alleged bombers had no bombs, intended only a demonstrative act and whose court case is now on the verge of being thrown out of court because they had no bombs or any intention to kill anyone.
The Only Logical Conclusions That Can be Drawn From The Presentation of Factual Evidence
A few days short of the five-month anniversary of 7 July, after nearly five months of police investigation and five months of media coverage, anyone who has been following the events of 7 July with any real desire to understand what happened that day can know little more than they did at the time it happened. While we know a great deal about the death and destruction that occurred in London that morning, we know absolutely nothing about the way in which that carnage visited upon London.
Yes, there is a generally accepted version of events as taken from the BBC News web site on the advice of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of Scotland Yard and as quoted above. Yes, we have seen three CCTV images of the alleged bombers purportedly taken on the day of 7 July and, yes, we have seen a video which is alleged to be Mohammed Siddique Khan uttering phrases about soldiers and war.
For some, it was this video that finally sold them on the idea that it was four, young, British-born Muslims who had somehow drifted into extremism. A recent Radio 4 'documentary' on Mohammed Siddique Khan suggested that Khan's radicalisation happened as a result of going Paintballing, a 'guerilla warfare-like activity", claimed Nasreen Suleaman in a show that you can now no longer listen to via the BBC web site.
In the same show, friends of Mohammed Siddique Khan - all of whom referred to him by the Anglicised version of his name, Sid - suggested repeatedly that the 'Khan video' was not of their friend Sid. Further, as also reported elsewhere, they claimed the person in the video did not look or sound like Sid. These claims by those that knew Khan since childhood, like the facts about the times at which the trains left King's Cross, or which Luton train the alleged bombers caught on the morning of 7 July have become all but lost in the vast amount of noise created by the media and authorities.
This leaves the world with manifold stories from both the media and the authorities of the events of 7 July all of which are based on misleading assumptions or distortions which - at least as far as the media is concerned - 'once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published'.
This is a link to the online version of the Press Complaints Commission complaints form. Details of the guidelines are given above. You know the rest.
The task of getting the police to correct their factual inaccuracies is a different matter and one, if the leaked IPCC documents into the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July are anything to go by, is going to prove rather more difficult to organise without some form of people's inquiry into what happened in London on 7 July - a 7 July Truth Commission, perhaps.
69 comments:
Great post. it´s an absolute act in a relative world.
Ok, so various journalists got their facts wrong. Doesn't consitute a conspiracy. Fairly obviously, the terrorists caught the 0724, which although officially on time, could have left at 07.24.59, giving them a good three minutes to get from the station entrance at 07.21.50 to "platform 1 or 3". Why didn't you find out de facto which platform it left from that morning Sherlock?
And why haven't you considered that they might have taken a Midland Mainline train from Luton to St Pancras, which shares its underground station with Kings Cross?
More correctly, Anonymous, many journalists got the facts wrong in every single media report of the movements of the alleged bombers where a reference is included to the alleged suicide bombers catching the 07:40 or 07:48 Thameslink trains from Luton. These inaccuracies are to be expected from the media in their daily quests to fill in all the spaces between the adverts but the press must, in line with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice, correct their factual inaccuracies once they have been identified.
Quoting, once again, from the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice:
"A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published"
This is precisely what the article, 'London 7/7: How to Be Good' calls for - a correction of the mis-leading statements and distortions which, now they have been recognised, must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
Once the media have corrected all their factually inaccurate stories, perhaps the 'journalists' responsible for conconcting the fictional stories of the alleged movements of the alleged suicide bombers on 7 July will finally ask the questions which they should have been asking since 7 July and to which everyone deserves the answers.
You state that, "Fairly obviously, the terrorists caught the 0724". If you can provide links to any official sources, or even any mainstream media reports, that support your supposition, please post them here.
With regard to the Midland Mainline and your suggestion that the alleged bombers may have travelled via Midland Mainline to King's Cross St. Pancras station, the alleged bombers were apparently caught on CCTV outside King's Cross Thameslink station on 7 July, not King's Cross St. Pancras. Again, if you could provide any links to any official sources, or even any mainstream media reports, that support your Midland Mainline argument, please post them here.
As for the matter of which platform the alleged suicide bombers allegedly used to depart Luton that morning, this fact can only be established after we know precisely which train the alleged suicide bombers are alleged to have caught.
Thank you for your efforts to help discover the truth.
"Fairly obviously, the terrorists caught the 0724,"
How is it fairly obvious, since absolutely no source gave this as the train which they caught?
Statements such as that are formed just as much from conjecture as the rest of this story...which is unavoidable really, when there is so much factually inaccurate reporting of it.
I would love to see an explanation for the cropped picture of Hasib Hussain, allegedly taken inside Luton station at 7.20 am
"The picture shows Hasib Hussain, 18, at the Luton train station at 7:20 a.m."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LondonBlasts/story?id=940198&page=1
When he hadn't, according to the timestamp on the CCTV image taken outside, even entered the station until 7.22.
Perhaps he missed his cue, and decided to 'come in again'.
Thanks for adding that information, Kier.
The last five months have shown that the mainstream media appear to have absolutely no interest in telling the truth about quite what happened in London on 7 July 2005.
Only with enough public pressure on the media organisations to correct the many factual inaccuracies in their reporting of events of that day will they finally begin to ask the questions to which everyone deserves the answers.
"The last five months have shown that the mainstream media appear to have absolutely no interest in telling the truth about quite what happened in London on 7 July 2005.
The media said these men caught a train from Luton to Kings Cross.
These men did just that.
Whether they departed at 0748 or 0724 in no way affects this nor constitutes a fictional account of what happened.
The fact that you are yet to suggest what bearing this detail has suggests you know this already and are just wasting space.
At the same time you are doing this you suggest things like "The stories of the alleged bombers will never be heard".
There was of course that pre-recorded and al Qaeda produced mission statement video, the purpose of which was precisely this as it is for all suicide bombers that record them.
So your beef is with the media for referring to the 0748 train instead of the 0724 train as though this makes any difference.
Meanwhile you are happy to completely omit the existance of this evidence recorded by the suspect himself.
You surpass the media in lack of integrity and standards and are far and away the greater source of disinformation, coverup and deceit in this case.
Anonymous said
"Whether they departed at 0748 or 0724 in no way affects this nor constitutes a fictional account of what happened."
Not for the first time, the point has been missed. Neither the police nor the media have ever given 0724 as the departure time of the train the men took.
The salient point here is that instead, the police and media have stated that they either took a train that was not in service that day, or alternatively, a train that would have left too late in order to place them at Kings Cross at the time the police claim to have footage of them being there. If they couldn't have got to Kings Cross at that time, then they could not have been the perpetrators. If the men took the 0724 train, then this is what should have been reported. But it wasn't.
Anonymous said
"There was of course that pre-recorded and al Qaeda produced mission statement video, the purpose of which was precisely this as it is for all suicide bombers that record them."
Which 'al Qaeda' is being referred to here? The one to which Robin Cook referred the day after the bombings, where he wrote in The Guardian:
"Al-Qaida, literally - the database, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." ?
Or the one to which Tony Blair referred to himself back in July as "Not an organisation" ?
The organisation whose supposed leader died in December 2001 (and his funeral attended by and testified to by the president of Pakistan), but who amazingly managed to make a video of himself 3 years later - atoundingly looking absolutely nothing like himself?
The organisation referred to by Paul Routledge on 5th November 2004, where he said
"al-Qaeda is a figment of the imagination of Pentagon and CIA war gamers - but it is a mightily useful weapon for war. Not the war against terrorists but the real war against the common sense of voters - the shock and awe campaign against us.
They seek to dupe you and me into a state of permanent panic about the fantasy threat of terror striking on the Tube, or in my backyard in North Yorkshire."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/paulroutledge/tm_column_date=05112004-name_index.html
And this video....the one in which Sidique Khan made no reference to London, trains, buses, bombs or, indeed, suicide, but some vague ramblings about being a soldier at war. I am not 'omitting the existance' of this video. I am putting it into context, firstly by comparing it to the numerous statements given by the people closest to him, who knew him best as a caring, compassionate and Westernised individual.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10355948
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1561938,00.html
I am also saying that in a court of law it would certainly not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that Khan detonated a bomb on a train at Edgware Road, since at no point during the recording does he make any such reference.
Anonymous, your final paragraph is rather unnecessarily, and I am sure unintentionally, obtuse. Bearing in mind that even respected physicists are inferring that the US government lied about 9/11...
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
...it is not a completely unreasonable suggestion that such a thing can happen anywhere.
It is not a crime to refuse to blindly accept a confusing story spoonfed to the public by a media which is controlled by a govermnent which has been proven to lie and obfuscate the facts on many occasions.
If what you are saying is that people should believe unquestioningly everything they are told, or never express an alternative opinion, then it could be suggested that it is actually people such as yourself who are the "greater source of disinformation, coverup and deceit".
IM not disputing that the 7.48am train didnt run that day but you havent said where you sourced it from - I take it you checked this personally?
Thanks.
It was the 0740 train which did not run from Luton that day. Many media reported this as being the train which the men took on the morning of July 7th.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1697662_3,00.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005320483,00.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/18/acd.01.html
The 0748 did run that day, but left Luton late and ran with delays and so did not arrive at Kings Cross Thameslink until 0842 - 16 minutes after the police say they have CCTV footage of the men at Kings Cross mainline station. This footage has never been released, despite the police saying that they would.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/793
The police did not say in their press conference which train the men took from Luton, but the media state that they obtained their information from the police.
Basically, the 0740 should not have been so confidently reported as being the train which the men took, since they could not have taken it.
Similarly, the 0748 should not have been reported, since they would have arrived in London too late to have got on the underground trains in time to detonate the bombs, had they caught that train. In the BBC's Horizon programme, broadcast in October, they stated that the men had caught the 0748.
This report below even claims they took the 0720, which would have been physically impossible since they were still outside the station at just before 7.22.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641602005
If they did take the 0724, which would also have been difficult since they only had about 3 minutes to get into the station, buy tickets and then get across the station to the right platform, then this is what should have been reported. It's an easy enough fact for the police to check - there should be CCTV footage of the men at Luton station, boarding the train, being on the train, and alighting from the train at Kings Cross Thameslink.
There is more info and a very good summary of this issue here:
http://www.officialconfusion.com/Articles/traintimes.html
The source for the train times from Luton to Kings Cross on July 7th was Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail.
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database.htm
Look, surely the facts of the matter are that either these three were on the trains that blew up or they weren't. If they were, then they got to King's Cross by some means or other. If they weren't, then where are they?
@ Kier
Not for the first time, the point has been missed. Neither the police nor the media have ever given 0724 as the departure time of the train the men took.
You are missing the point. We know that the police have never said this. For christ's sake we just read an essay length article dedicated to that topic.
How does this effect the trains blowing up with the bombers on board ? Not at all ? There's the salient point YOU are missing.
Do you in any way dispute the fact that whatever departure time they had these guys still travelled from Luton to Kings Cross then detonated bombs on separate trains ?
Which 'al Qaeda' is being referred to here?
I just told you. The one that's been responsible for the production and distribtion of videos for Osama, al-Zawahri and other suicide bombers.
And this video....the one in which Sidique Khan made no reference to London, trains, buses, bombs or, indeed, suicide, but some vague ramblings about being a soldier at war.
What was that supposed to be ? You trying to suggest it wasn't a martyr video without having the balls to put your credibility on the line and actually state that ?
That was you knowingly burying your credibility over something not even you believe.
I am not 'omitting the existance' of this video.
I was addressing the blogs author. If you are him then yes you did omit it just as I stated.
I am putting it into context, firstly by comparing it to the numerous statements given by the people closest to him, who knew him best as a caring, compassionate and Westernised individual.
And secondly by.... ?
Might I suggest a good way to put it in perspective would be taking it and then comparing it to every other identical martyr video you've seen which (coincidently I'm sure) also get made by people who subsequently blow themselves up.
After all I think with about 4mins searching I could discredit all of the Iraq Prisoner abuse images in exactly the same way with comments from the family and friends of those US servicemen.
Face it. When if your theory involves disbelieving a premeditated taped confession based on the required response of a family member with all the weight of "oh my boy would never shoplift" then your theory is done.
Anonymous, your final paragraph is rather unnecessarily, and I am sure unintentionally, obtuse.
Not inaccuarate thought. I'll assume this is why you didn't disagree with what it said.
Oh dear.
I apologise for the fact that what I have written is so hard to understand. I will try once more.
It is not at all clear that the 'bombers' took a train from Luton to London. You, anonymous, are of the view that they must have done this - yet where is the evidence? Witnesses seeing them board the train? None. CCTV of them boarding the train? None. CCTV of them on the train? None. CCTV of them at Thameslink station? None. All you have supplied is supposition. There is no evidence, other than circumstantial (ie some documentation which miraculously survived a blast which humans did not) that places those men in London that day.
Here is the salient point: Unless it can be proved that the men took a train from Luton to London, then it cannot be a certainty that they were in London that day. And of course it is important which train they took - if we're told they took a train which didn't even run, then it can't be assumed that the men were the perpetrators.
So in answer to the question
"Do you in any way dispute the fact that whatever departure time they had these guys still travelled from Luton to Kings Cross then detonated bombs on separate trains ?"
Yes. I do. Because we have not been seen proof that such a journey occurred. A grainy photo taken outside the station does not prove that they caught a train to London.
Anonymous said
"Which 'al Qaeda' is being referred to here?
I just told you. The one that's been responsible for the production and distribtion of videos for Osama, al-Zawahri and other suicide bombers."
I clearly should not have tried to be ironic there should I?
Let me try another way. 'al-Qai'da' is nothing more than the mujahideen which was recruited and funded by the CIA under the Reagan administration in the 1980s in order to defeat the Russians. The US was in love with the idea of Islamic Militants when it suited their purposes. Osama bin Laden - or should I say 'Tim Osman' was a CIA asset and his family was smuggled quietly out of the US by the government in the aftermath of 9/11. I wonder if there can be anyone who sees nothing strange about that.
Anonymous said
"What was that supposed to be ? You trying to suggest it wasn't a martyr video without having the balls to put your credibility on the line and actually state that ?"
Sorry...I believed I had in fact done just that, but again, for your benefit, anonymous, I am indeed suggesting that video was a fake. Just like the 'bin Laden' video I also referred to in the same comment.
Anonymous said
"I was addressing the blogs author. If you are him then yes you did omit it just as I stated."
I am not the blogs author. I was simply trying to address a point that had been made to the author in order that I might not be accused of the same thing.
Anonymous said
"And secondly by.... ?"
I did state my second point, which was:
"I am also saying that in a court of law it would certainly not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that Khan detonated a bomb on a train at Edgware Road, since at no point during the recording does he make any such reference."
Anonymous said
"Not inaccuarate thought. I'll assume this is why you didn't disagree with what it said."
So, incredibly, my disagreement with that paragraph was still unclear to you. Okay....just for you, anonymous....that final paragraph was extremely obtuse and extremely inaccurate and I thoroughly disagreed with every ill-informed, ill-judged word of it.
I tell you what. I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to Kings Ctross but I can tell you for a fact that Germaine Lindsey was on my train, and that a bomb went off in carriage one.
I can vouch for the fact that Germaine Lindsey got onto my train at Kings Cross because one of the passengers who was also on carriage one with me TRIED TO GET ON BEHIND HIM and couldn't,because thw carriage was rammed, so went to the next carriage.
He recognised Germaine from the pictures shown on the news.
I don't get why you are all gettign your knickers in a knot over which train they used to get there: there were *loads of cock ups that morning and hardly any trains seemed to be on time, the point is that the train was bombed and 26 people on my train died. As a boring old eye witness and survivor who runs a group for 90 other survivors and witnesses I'm sorry if that upsets the exciting fun you're having making up theories, but the truth is shocking enough without going off at random tangemts.
What are you actually saying? That the bombers did not bomb the trains? Or what? Just come out and state your hypothesis. Who bombed my train?
I can tell you Germaine Lindsey got on, and I can tell you what happened when the bomb went off, but I don't suppose you are interested in the truth from eye witnesses and people who were flipping well there.
Especially as I have started writing for the media. I expoect you will rationalise this by deciding I don't exist and am some kind of psy-ops operation designed to throw conspiracy theorists off the scent and mislead the public. I don't know why I bother actually, but all this stuff about 'alleged' bombers insults the hell out of me. A BOMB WENT OFF IN THE CARRIAGE 7 FEET AWAY AND I WAS BLOODY WELL THERE. There's nothing 'alleged' about it. Sheesh.
Anyway, what's your 'explanation' of the shrapnel in my wrist bone and the blood drenching my face and hair? Go on, I'm dying to know...
Hello Rachel, thanks for stopping by and adding your two-penneth. For the purposes of this reply, I shall assume that you have read the article to which these comments are attached and that you have understood the simple point that - if facts have anything to do with July 7th - the narrative we have been fed by the media and authorities is not the case. Further, this assertion is based on factual evidence about the times of the Thameslink and Underground trains that morning, all of which have been officially and independently confirmed to be the case by the train operating companies involved.
You may choose to ignore these facts but they are still facts and they aren't going anywhere any time soon.
So compelling are the facts about the actual movements of the trains that morning that people are now actively complaining about the factually inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting that has taken place since July 7th under the guidelines laid out by the Press Complaints Commission with whom I am sure you are familiar.
One might have thought that July 7th survivors would welcome any independent public efforts to try and establish the truth about what happened in London that fateful day but, from your comments here, there and just about everywhere, it appears that you would rather questions were not asked in favour of accepting the current 'narrative' of British born suicide bombers while waiting for the government to issue another narrative in the form of the public inquiry that they have denied the British people twice.
Let me also clarify the use of the word 'alleged' in relation to the alleged suicide bombers. Had the alleged bombers still been alive today, they would still be 'alleged' bombers until such time as charges had been brought, evidence presented and a trial had convicted them of the crimes of which they stand accused. In relation to July 7th, a trial will never be held and, as explained in the article on which you are commenting, there exists no official evidence that proves beyond doubt that the four young, British men accused are responsible for what happened that day. Until such time as conclusive proof has been presented to the British people, I shall continue to prefix the words 'bombers' and 'suicide bombers' with the word 'alleged'.
It is most Interesting to me, and perhaps very telling, that you "don't give a stuff" how the alleged bombers - and presumably the bombs they are alleged to have been carrying - arrived on the same train as you that morning. It is also a very interesting attitude for someone so closely associated with the horrific events on July 7th and who has chosen to write very publicly about their own, personal experience on July 7th - and indeed their own personal experience in relation to a possibly unrelated incident some years previously.
That you have the audacity to state publicly that you "don't give a stuff" how the alleged bombers and bombs arrived much defies my sense of reason, which is how you appeared on this blog in the first place. HOW the alleged bombers and bombs arrived is the story of HOW you got shrapnel in your wristbone while standing just seven feet away from one of what were originally reported on the day seven explosions that occurred in London on the seventh day of the seventh month. Can it be true that you "don't give a stuff"? The incredulity at your attitude is increased manifold when one factors in the many, many voices not being heard from July 7th, including the voices of those in your survivor group, King's Cross United.
In fairness, some of these voices have recently been aired on your blog in relation to the government's second refusal to conduct the public inquiry into July 7th, so let's have a look at what the hitherto unheard voices from your survivor group have to say for themselves:
FIONA: My first reaction was, well I'm not surprised. This was closely followed by ‘What's the point anyway?’ Because, as with any inquiry, the Government will come off completely clean of any wrong doing as it is never their fault. We want answers but we won't get them, that's not to say the government shouldn't try, they at least owe us that.
JANE: I am sure that even if an official enquiry happened they wouldn’t get to how survivors have been ‘supported’. I am still really pissed off about not being invited to the 7/7 centre survivor meeting. I feel that I have to be quite determined to sort things out myself.
Two quotes from two survivors in the survivor group that you yourself run, both of whom do not believe that any government public inquiry will uncover the truth that they deserve. Your own blog is the source for these quotes and already there are voices with concerns that a government-run public inquiry will not establish the truth, yet it is a government-run public inquiry for which you are calling.
Does it not concern you that members of your survivor group believe that the public inquiry for which you are calling will be useless becase "the Government will come off completely clean"? It certainly appears to concern Fiona and Jane and indeed Amy, Emily and Mark. Quoting again from your blog:
AMY: Also they knew about the bombers a year beforehand. I reckon that is why they are not doing a public enquiry. If they did then a lot of crap would come out that they just don't want anyone to hear. I think we should air our views on this or some of us should.
Knowing that the 'intelligence' services allegedly knew about the alleged bombers a year beforehand is enough to make some people who were there ask questions and assert that they should air their views, and rightly so. Are you suggesting we should ignore the fact that the intelligence services had knowledge of alleged suicide bombers? How would you explain that to Amy, or do you not give a stuff about Amy's views either?
Factor in the awareness that British intelligence services have been involved in the adminstration and running of the Irish Republican Army for 20 years and I am curious to know if that in any way jades your view of the merits of a government-run public inquiry.
Emily, sums it all up rather succinctly and perfectly with:
EMILY: I personally think the whole thing is suss - if you think about it there were apparent "power surges" all morning, I was even told there was a fire at Caledonian Road - (funny how on that same morning 4 bombs went off) - to me that whole morning was as though commuters were being put off travelling into London it was as though someone knew that something was going to happen on the underground - how funny we haven’t heard anything about the power surges since!!!!!!! No wonder they don’t want a public enquiry....’
At least one survivor is aware that the original stories reported that morning for those above and below ground were of power surges, delays and a fire at Caledonian Road and they too find it 'suss' that the story changed rather dramatically to one of suicide bombs carried by four, young British men. Do you still purport that you "don't give a stuff" about how the alleged bombers and bombs arrived, even though at least one person in your group has expressed her concerns about the story change? I can perhaps understand you questioning those who were not there, but how can you ignore those in your survivor group who were there and who still have the same basic questions about July 7th as the rest of us?
You claim there are 90 in your survivor group. Where are the other faces, voices and questions of the hundreds of other survivors and eye-witnesses that were on the Piccadilly Line that morning? We already know the Piccadilly Line train was especially busy on July 7th owing to the fact that the Piccadilly Line had been "suspended between King's Cross St Pancras and Arnos Grove from 07:57 to 08:28 due to a defective train at Caledonian Road". Caledonian Road is the station which Emily recalls only too well that there was talk of a fire on July 7th. Do you give a stuff about that? Where are the blogs and regular articles in the Sunday Times from anyone other than 'Rachel North'?
Susan, another survivor quoted on your blog, makes the point that she, 'certainly had no support from any public office- no one has called or written'. In spite of this you call for a public inquiry from the same government and public offices who have failed Susan and countless other survivors and families of the victims who claim they have been 'sidelined' by the authorities for five months, even with regard to the memorial service held on 1/11.
Do you honestly expect the same public offices to be any more useful now than they have already shown themselves to be? If the quotes of the other members of King's Cross United are anything to go by, they don't buy that notion and, as I'm sure you are only too well aware by now, nor do rather a lot of people. Should we confine that information about the earlier suspension of the Piccadilly Line to the memory hole - to the just-another-officially-confirmed-fact bin about the actual, confirmed train movements on July 7th - and not let it get in the way of a good yarn?
Quoting another King's Cross United survivor from your blog:
MARK: Whilst I would welcome a public inquiry, I have to ask myself one question... what is the point? This government has set up inquiry after inquiry (Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly to name one) with Tony Blair's own people in charge, to tell the gullible country what they want them to hear. The fact of the matter is this one would be no different and the truth will still never come out and vital bits of information kept secret. It makes me feel sad we live in a world like this but politics is a dirty business run by dirty people.
Mark makes a very pertinent point about the nature of public inquiries, just like the one for which you are calling, and refers specifically to Dr David Kelly (RIP) and the wealth of lies told by the British government prior to the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq where, according to George Bush, 30,000 human beings have been killed on the basis of lies.
Are members of King's Cross United aware that you "don't give a stuff" about how the bomb appeared in your carriage? Have they read how you confirmed in the Sunday Times the Piccadilly Line explosion time of 0856, curiously enough the same time annnounced by the Metropolitan Police and six whole minutes after the revised timings that were issued on July 9th and which became the narrative? Do they not find it odd that your account and the Metropolitan Police account concur on the time of 0856 but that both are in conflict with the revised time of 0850 issued on July 9th?
When did you write your article that appeared in the Sunday Times on November 27th? July 7th? July 8th? Or more recently?
For those that missed the article: "What I also remember is how the passengers of the 08.56 Piccadilly line train began to hold hands, to talk to each other, to save each other from the panic that could have erupted at any moment."
Is the fact that your own account in the Sunday Times and the original timings announced by DAC Brian Paddick both give the time of the Piccadilly Line explosion as 0856 to be ignored? Is the fact it took two days for the authorities to revise their timings from 0851, 0856 and 0917 to 'almost simultaneous' explosions at 0850 to be ignored also? Another one for the memory hole?
How could you have failed to notice the six minute discrepancy between your account published on November 27th and the official, revised narrative of events available since July 9th and which, of course, would have been included in whatever documentary you watched that made it all so clear? And, given that this discrepancy was made so publicly nearly five months after July 7th, with editors in the process and everything, with what level of credulity can we read anything else you have written?
Quite apart from the many questions about the events of July 7th, and having read just a few of your rather reactionary responses to anyone who has a story different to yours, or the official 'narrative' (0850, not 0856 stated in your Times article) and who dares to ask questions, there is one question to which I am repeatedly returned to about 'Rachel North' and her story:
Whose interests is 'Rachel North' representing?
Is it the interests of the survivors of King's Cross United who don't believe a public inquiry will get them any closer to the truth or answers that they deserve? Is it the interests of the hundreds of other survivors that were lucky enough to emerge from the underground that morning and who rightly demand answers? Is it the interests of the families of the dead who want answers about how their loved ones were taken from them that day?
In whose interests are you so vehemently opposed to any questioning of the narrative?
How supportive can any group be if their public representative appears to ignore that members of the group have no faith in a government approved public inquiry but yet is still busying herself rallying support for that same public inquiry? Are your calls for a government-run public inquiry representative of those, even within your survivor group, who have no faith in a government-run public inquiry?
How about an independent people's inquiry conducted by the people and for the people? That need wait for no-one.
Returning to your Sunday Times article, which I read with much interest on 27th November, "Rachel's Story", about which you wrote on your blog, "I was able to tell my personal story in my own words". In that article, you wrote:
"People later asked me what it was like. They said they couldn’t imagine it. For a long time I couldn’t say. It was like a dream you can’t remember, a puzzle you can’t solve. But then I saw a television documentary about the bombings."
You will have to forgive those of us who find it curious and inconsistent that you claim you had no memory of what happened until you "saw a television documentary about the bombings" and that you now claim "I can tell you for a fact that Germaine Lindsey was on my train, and that a bomb went off in carriage one".
In summary, it appears that some of the survivors from King's Cross United do not believe that the public inquiry for which you call will tell them anything close to the truth yet, as their very public cross-media, multimedia representative - appearing on TV and radio broadcasts, broadsheets, tabloids, blogs, forums, people's comment threads, and, very probably, a cinema near you soon - you openly state that you "don't give a stuff" about how the alleged bombers and bombs visited upon London. That, all by itself, is unforgivable and is a public insult to the dead, the maimed, the crippled and the injured - those people whom you claim to represent.
I have stated elsewhere that the second denial by the government of a public inqury into July 7th is a stage-managed effort by a provably mendacious and murderous government and administration with the intention of dragging out talk of an inquiry to give the appearance that, eventually, sheer weight of public pressure and petitioning forced them into it. Of course, once conducted and published, the inquiry will be as illuminating as previous public inquiry whitewashes (see Mark's quote above) and nobody will then have any right to say they didn't have their public inquiry.
Who benefits, 'Rachel North'?
Certainly not those King's Cross United survivors that you claim to represent and whose claims that a public inquiry will be of no benefit and certainly not any of the other survivors whose voices have yet to be heard.
To end on something that vaguely resembles a positive note, at least you have finally asked the one question on which July 7th hinges: "Who bombed my train?"
Hello Rachel
With the greatest of respect for the trauma you and many others have suffered as a result of the events of July 7th, I really fail to see how flinging insults at people who are simply trying to establish a truthful account of those events is going to help anyone.
I don’t know of any of us who is ‘having exciting fun making up theories’….all that has been done here and on other forums you have no doubt visited, is the identification of the very many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the ‘official’ version of what happened that day.
By saying that the men could not have got to London in the way in which we have been told that they did, is not a theory. It is a fact which has been verified. They could not have caught the 0748 train, not the 0740. We were told that they did. Therefore, it’s neither unreasonable nor illogical to be suspicious and wonder what else we may have been told that is not based in truth.
It is not ‘exciting fun’ to face the unpalatable facts of state sponsored terrorism, something which has been in existence for centuries – there are even documented accounts of it during the time of the Roman Empire.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/
In 1995, the Paris Metro was bombed. It was blamed on Islamic Extremists, yet all the evidence points to the Algerian Secret Service being the real perpetrators. This is not a theory that some conspiracy nut made up – it was researched and published by a mainstream journalist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1564933,00.html
In 1996, after being briefed about an MI6 funded plot to assassinate Colonel Gadhafi of Libya, which failed, killing many innocent civilians, David Shayler, a counter-intelligence officer resigned from MI5. He then submitted a series of articles blowing the whistle on his previous employers because he could no longer be complicit with operations such as that, where secret services perform acts of terrorism and then blame them on other groups for political purposes. There are many Muslims all over the world tortured and locked up on laughable evidence simply to create a climate of fear and intimidation – for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. David and his partner Annie Machon, also a former MI5 employee have information which points to the innocence of two Palestinians, Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh, now in their 10th year of a 20 year imposed prison sentence for explosives offences.
http://www.freesaj.org.uk/ (Click on MI5 cover-up confirmed)
I also suggest you visit http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/, where you will find background links to genuine investigative research forums such as the one at http://www.team8plus.org/news.php and suggested background reading such as ‘NATO’S Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe’ by Daniele Ganser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
In 1984 a policewoman named Yvonne Fletcher was fatally shot in St.James Square in London by a bullet which was claimed to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy. This created a massive backlash of hatred towards the Libyans by Westerners, yet it has been proven now by forensic examinations that the bullets which killed WPC Fletcher could not have been fired from the Libyan Embassy, but from another building in St.James Square.
http://vialls.net/zionist/yvonnefletcher.html
If you take the time to click on other links I have supplied in previous comments to this article, you will see the same type of thing regarding the attacks of 9/11. It happens, Rachel.
I doubt very much you will bother to do this research though, since the basis of your argument for ‘not giving a stuff’ how the ‘bombers’ got to Kings Cross, is that you know someone who claims he saw the back of back of Germaine Lindsay’s head. You state:
“I can vouch for the fact that Germaine Lindsay got onto my train at Kings Cross because one of the passengers who was also on carriage one with me TRIED TO GET ON BEHIND HIM and couldn’t, because the carriage was rammed, so went to the next carriage.
He recognized Germaine from the pictures shown on the news”
How could he have recognized his face when as you clearly state – even putting it into capitals to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR – that he was standing behind him, trying to get on to the carriage. You then say this person went to the next carriage, so I can’t even see how he would have been on carriage one with you.
Regarding the frankly ridiculous statement given by ‘anonymous’, also in this comment thread, that my main theory is based on the many character testimonies of the alleged bombers by the people that knew them, I think I am making it clear now that is just not the case. That one point I made was one of many in showing how incongruous it is that four ordinary young men who were well integrated into Western Society should, without it appears now the help of a ‘mastermind’, simply decide to go to London and bomb it.
Also, again responding to the absurd claim made by ‘anonymous’ that the Iraq Prisoner abuse images could be discredited in the same way – that is not a valid comparison. The Iraqi prisoner abuses are well documented with photographs showing not only the abuse, but the service personnel in the act of committing the abuse. They are also shown grinning and giving gestures such as ‘thumbs up’ signs, illustrating that they were complicit and in full knowledge of what they were doing. There is no such evidence in this case. Do we have photographs of the alleged bombers grinning and pointing at their bombs? No. We have one still CCTV of them outside Luton Station, and another still image of one of them exiting a chemist store.
Like The Antagonist asks: Who benefits?
The day after the bombings, Jeff Buckley wrote an article entitled ‘London Calling’, and said:
“I can’t help but question the timing and motives of such an attack. Why did it happen now and whom does it benefit?
Tony Blair has stated, along with other terrorism experts that this bombing is linked to the beginning of the G8 Summit in Scotland – To cast a cloud over the proceedings. Of the several countries represented at the G8 Summit, only The United States, Great Britain, Japan, and Italy are over in Iraq right now. Why coincide a bombing with an event, only a few hundred miles away that has so many other countries present that are either neutral or opposed to the war? Why risk bringing in further support for the occupying forces from those countries?
The leaders of Russia, France, and Germany have since pledged their support and solidarity in the wake of the bombings. How does this help any “Islamic Militant” cause? Great Britain’s Ministry of Defense had just, days before, announced that they were going to be pulling massive numbers of troops out. Why do something to reverse that course of action? There is no benefit from executing this bombing if you happen to be a terrorist, strategic or otherwise. If you were to look at this act from a “cost/reward” perspective, it would be akin to gambling with the rent or taking your life savings to the dog track. It makes absolutely no sense.
So, exactly who does this benefit?
My heart goes out to the victims of this heinous act. You’ve done nothing wrong to deserve this and please don’t take my absence from the bandwagon as my condoning this cowardly act or being any less disgusted by it - I’m just not ready to point the finger of blame at a random group of Arabs just yet. Having witnessed the depths to which my own leaders have sunk to get what they want, I am not willing to be pacified with tales of “Islamic Militants.” Having seen regimes in the past and present manufacture their own disasters and evidence to mobilize and fortify public opinion for their own wars of conquest, I refuse to grant the governments of The United States, Great Britain, or Israel a get out of jail free card on principle this time around. For they are the ones who benefit most from this event, not any particular “Islamic Militant” group and certainly not any of the insurgents in Iraq.
So, when you see the headlines dominated by this story and the mounting evidence of lies, deception, and treason being forever pushed to the backburner, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?” Before you throw your support behind administrations that only have doublespeak, deceit, and death to show for their efforts, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?” And, before you allow yourself to be steamrolled and swept away by the inevitable surge of jingoistic retaliatory euphoria, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?”
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1039.html
Rachel, you say
“A BOMB WENT OFF IN THE CARRIAGE 7 FEET AWAY AND I WAS BLOODY WELL THERE. There's nothing 'alleged' about it. Sheesh.”
I am not, and have not, suggested bombs didn’t go off on tube trains and on a bus that day. All I am saying is that there are many questions surrounding how it happened.
To say you ‘don’t give a stuff’ how the men got to London is just as insulting as you claim it is to come to blogs such as this and see what you perceive to be conspiracy theories. For the sake of the people killed, injured and affected by the events of July 7th and all of us who deserve a rational explanation – and one which is not based on the reasoning of a government which has been proven to lie on many occasions, in order to remove the civil liberties of ordinary people. I certainly do ‘give a stuff’, when, as I repeatedly say, the people we rely on to give us the truth of what happened insist that the men’s journey into London that day was one which has been proved to be impossible.
Hello Rachel
I would be very grateful if you could answer two questions. First, do you know how many drivers were they in the cab of the train you were on? Second, do you know anyone who noticed the number on the front of the train?
Hi
First of all, I think maybe I can understand how people like Rachel feel about all this. The train I was travelling on coming home from work the other night suddenly stopped and the lights went off, plunging us all into darkness. Some young girls near me started saying "Oh God, Oh God, I'm frightened!" I shouted out "Don't worry, it's just an electrical fault, you're ok!" I could however feel a slight feeling of panic deep down inside me which thankfully never got any further as the lights came back on and the train set off again. For a few moments I had imagined how utterly terrifying it must have been to be on one of those tube trains when the explosions happened, let alone to have been injured at all, unthinkable to have reached down and felt your now detached leg lying there beside you, as that lovely young man (whose been on Breakfast TV) did.
I think maybe if you have experienced something like that and you hear other people who were not there disputing what happened – you feel angry. I think the anger comes from fear and this also is the root cause of why so many people just “switch off” and don’t want to hear about the “facts” we “conspiracy theories” are disputing.
Rachel, I used to hear people in the 1970’s suggesting that it was MI5 that had carried out some of the bombings and feel angry with them for saying this – like I wanted to smack them on the face. I was not involved in any of these incidents. I have no knowledge about any inconsistencies re IRA incidents – I have not looked into it – this is in the past now – I am more concerned about what is going on NOW and it is because I am very concerned about what I do now see going on (I’ve a feeling it has always gone on – it’s just that at some point you wake up and begin to notice).
The first thing I noticed was when George W got elected and the disputes re vote counting in Florida (What on Earth has this got to do with the London train “bombings” you may be wondering, Rachel – for me a lot). Somehow I knew Bush was very bad news and felt something was going to happen. When we had 9/11 I felt it was ludicrous to accept that the Twin Towers could just crumble straight down like that – just like they had been detonated. I also thought it was ludicrous that the CIA etc had no knowledge of what was planned (until it had taken place) as I am well aware of Echelon and the seemingly millions of American “spy” bases like Menwith Hill near me. They are listening in to our phone calls, reading our emails, etc all the time – yet a plot to fly several planes into key US targets somehow completely passed them by?
I was told by clever people about “pancake theory” (apparently made up on the day!) which accounted for how the towers came down – and weren’t the “terrorists” clever – they managed never to speak on the phone or use emails etc!
It was only when I met up with the “Reinvestigate 9/11” people (only this year) that I realised quite how many people shared my views re 9/11 and quite how many unanswered questions there still are concerning that day.
I’ll admit I did not immediately feel that the 7/7 bombings had also been in some way “staged” (I’m not saying this now either – just that again there are so many “odd” things about that day – again, so many unanswered questions.
What I did think at the time was how “convenient” it was that these “suicide bombers” had sprung just when they did. I had been up to Edinburgh a few days before on the “Make Poverty History” march. Although all I had seen was a lot of people who care very much about millions of children being allowed to die of starvation in Africa – after that day it all seemed to be reported by the Media as a big punch up! Then, Bang! The bombs went off and the agenda was back to fear and violence and some peoples’ desire for “revenge.” Now do you really think those political leaders who met in Edinburgh at the G8 Summit really give a toss about “making poverty history”? If they did, don’t you think they would have done this long ago? Do you think they want to put an end to War? If so, wouldn’t they have done it long ago? There is a lot of money to be made out of promoting and insisting conflict – billions of dollars by the Arms Trade.
Who benefited by the events of 7/7? Perhaps we should consider this here.
Christ, you really don't like it when someone argues with you, do you? I expect yuou will twist my words, read selectively, do all the usual crap that happens when I have tried to answer conspiracy theorists before but here goes anyway.
1. I do not care which train they caught, how they arrived at Kings Cross. Or whether the media reported this small detail of the train times wrongly. It is not important to me. I do care, passionately that the bombers bombed the trains and the buses. I care that they killed and maimed with their bombs, I care why they did it. I also care that conspiracy theorists lie and lie and say that the bombs were 'power surges'. This makes me angry. Very angry indeed.Because power surges do not tear bodies in to pieces, make the carriage fill with vile smoke, cause the walls to drip blood.I have seen on discussion forums how my descrpition of how dark it was has been used to support this revolting LIE, that there were no bombs. I find this indescribably offensive.
I expect if you were bombed and people were killed and injured screaming behind you and some wierdo told you that it was a power surge not a bomb, and thus you were effectively a dupe/confused and then inferred that you were a publicity-seeking liar you might feel a tad angry too.
2.'seven feet away from one of what were originally reported on the day seven explosions that occurred in London on the seventh day of the seventh month'. More conspiralunacy. There were 4 bombs, I was 8 feet away, grow up, what are you trying to make out? The clues are there. You're mad.
3. Myself and some of my group are hardly big fans of the government, and have little faith that the narrative they promise will naswer the questions, which is why we want an independent enquiry, even if it turns out to be a white wash. It's the best we'll get and it's the best starting point. We're not asking for conspiracy lunatics to have their own 'independent enquiry', thanks all the same, don't make me laugh. You are not independent at all, you have an agenda to proive that this was some kind of Black ops and you continually focus on irrelevancies, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your preconceieved ideas.
That's one of the reasons I'd love an independent public enquiry, to shut up the conspiracy theorists. And please note how I hav efaithfully reporoduced the words of my fellow passengers - if I have an agenda as you claim why would I publish their contributions at all?
4. 'Where are the blogs and regular articles in the Sunday Times from anyone other than 'Rachel North'? '
Well, have a look, why don't you? I really am surprised that you have missed the testimony from other victims. There's lots of links on my blog for a start. Perhaps this is more indications that you only look for what you want to see. Try Kirsty, Jane, Richard aka Ian, try Amy, Christina, try Gill Hicks, Garri Holness... try Jaqui, try Angelo - for god's sake - LOTS of us have spoken out. Look at the linked blogs of other survivors on my blog. I am not the only victim and in any case I have always said I speak only for myself. Nice smear, now piss off.
5.' What I also remember is how the passengers of the 08.56 Piccadilly line train...' I've answwered 'Prole' on this before, on urban 75, on my blog and I will answer it here as well. That was how all the papers referred to the train, so that's what we called it. It doesn't actually refer to the time of the bombings. FYI, I got on at 8.42am at Finsbury Park, the bomb went off at 8.50 or 8.51, I walked down the tunnel and my partner has a text from me at 9.16am sent from Russell Square.
6. 'Whose interests is 'Rachel North' representing?' Oh look, here we go. More smears. Yeah, I'm a psy-ops undercover lizard government agent honey. Wear a tin foil hat, then you'll be safe from my lies. I'm the governments best mate. That's why I criticise them all the time and was protesting in Parliament Square about civil liberties last fortnight, that's why I called out against the 90 days without charge legislation. Jeez.
7. 'You will have to forgive those of us who find it curious and inconsistent that you claim you had no memory of what happened until you "saw a television documentary about the bombings" and that you now claim "I can tell you for a fact that Germaine Lindsey was on my train, and that a bomb went off in carriage one".
Crap. I have written consistently since July 7th and you can check the original post and the time of it archived on the BBC and on Urban 75, as well as on my blog. I have not changed it, and I cannot amend it once posted so it is a faithfrul record from late at night on July 7th. You can read the original account and compare it, surprised you haven't bothered to do this, considering your obsessings over the trivial detail of whether the media reported the bombers train time from Luton correctly. And you claim to be capable of pulling off an independent enquiry? Ha!
Whilst watching the documentary I began to have physical and distressing flashbacks of the smells and sounds of Carriage one post the bomb, which I graphically describe in the piece. That part of the piece is lifted from a blog entry I made straight after the programme, where I typed up the flashback sensations as I had them. I use 'flashbacks' here in the correct technical sense of PTSD physical re-experiencing of the traumatic event via the senses. Previously I had been diassociating from it and was unable to describe the taste, the physical violence an BODILY SENSING of the event as I had found it too distressing to articulate. I do not use flashbacks in the film-maker sense , as a narrative device to fill in information.
For the last time, the media reports about exactly what train the bombers took to get to Kings X is not important to me, but the truth about why they bombed us and the aftermath IS. Ok? So they misreported a small detail, I am not bothered, I care passionately aboyut far more imprtant things . Like the truth, and I care about my fellow passengers.
Liars like you, who insult the dead - as well as the living - with your shit about power surges, fill me with revulsion. Liars who will not admit that 4 young men hated us so much they suicide bombed us. Liars like you who are obsessed with making a sick fairy story about black-ops and passing this vile sick crap about the internet. Who will slur me and twist my words to make their pathetic case. You revolt me and I so angry that I shouldn't even be winding myself up by engaging with your sick fantasies. You know nothing of what went on on that train. One of my group has toild me how he tried to get on behind Lindsey, couldn't and moved to carriage 2, and that is enough for me, I have every reason to trust him and none, NONE to trust you.
Numeral said...
Hello Rachel
I would be very grateful if you could answer two questions. First, do you know how many drivers were they in the cab of the train you were on? Second, do you know anyone who noticed the number on the front of the train?
Tom was the driver who helped us out, I believe he was travelling with another driver as well.
Nobody looked at the number on the front of the train, are you mad? We'd just been blown up. This was not a trainspotters convention.
One more.
''So, when you see the headlines dominated by this story and the mounting evidence of lies, deception, and treason being forever pushed to the backburner, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?” Before you throw your support behind administrations that only have doublespeak, deceit, and death to show for their efforts, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?” And, before you allow yourself to be steamrolled and swept away by the inevitable surge of jingoistic retaliatory euphoria, be sure to ask yourself, “Who benefits from this?”
I've pointed out that I was against the war, and that I have spoken out many, many times against the current government;s curtailment of civil liberires, but do feel free to igniore that.
I've tried consistently to bring people together and have called for the opposite of retaliation, but instead for unity - but feel free to ignore that.
In fact, feel free to ignore everything I say, everything I have done, everything I speak for. Feel free to slander me with your lies and drivel, feel free to lie and bitch and wriggle about hunting for crap to support your stupid theories. Ignore the fact that I have devoted myself to fighting for civil liberies, to calling for unity, to providing and getting support for survivors, which helps me and helps them. Ignore the fact that I'm asking for an enquiry so that support and the response to the next suicide bomb can be better managed. Just ignore me. I'm inconvenient for you, I disagree with you, and I always will, and I can do without feeling that I have to defend the truth, and myself, against your sick fantasies.
And for the record, here is 'the antagonist' twisting my words to support the power surge lies
http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/07/bbc-survivor-blast-discrepancies.html#c113200854839965697
I rest my case.
Rachel said: `Liars like you, who insult the dead - as well as the living - with your shit about power surges, fill me with revulsion.`
Power surges is what we were told on the day Rachel, it is also what London Underground said in a reply to me when I questioned them about why they didn't know via the drivers of these trains that these events had occurred.
This was the reply from Robert Wolstenholme, Customer Service Advisor, London Underground:
"I'll answer your questions in the order and form you asked them.
1. Yes, all Tube trains have radio contact with their line control.
2. I'm sorry, but I find this question a little strange because it seems to assume that the drivers did not alert the control centre. I'm not sure what information you base this assumption on, but it isn't accurate. Our network control had been alerted to all the incidents within minutes of them happening. Your question also seems to assume that the drivers would have known instantly that the incidents were bombs, but this also isn't the case. They reported what they knew, often the symptoms rather than the cause (so to speak), which itself may not have been immediately clear.
3. Mercifully, no member of our staff was injured in any of the explosions. I understand that there was damage to the cab of at least one train where the windows were shattered.
4. Again, I'm afraid it's not accurate to say that the information given about a power surge was a 'story'. When the explosions happened, obviously they broke the track circuit. On the computer systems at network control, such a big break would look the same as a power surge. It's worth pointing out that we have never been the victim of a terrorist attack of this kind before, but on 28 August 2003 a power surge knocked out about half of the network. Such a surge can be accompanied by explosions. In other words, all the evidence we had at the time (including the information from the drivers) and our experience pointed to a power surge, so that's what we said it was. This information was given in good faith."
That some of us are suspicious that the story later changed to alleged suicide bombers, when the original information from the drivers and London Underground was power surges, makes me wonder who the 'liars' actually are. Those who question the State, or the State that is well practiced in the art of lying? That people die based on lies requires us to look no further than the big lie of WMD, which TRULY fills me with revulsion.
I can't believe you are still bulshitting on about bloody power surges. That they originally thought it was a power surge was because they were not in the carriage, ( though Tom our driver came into the carriage - but he had lost telephone contact when the exploding BOMB knocked out the connection wires that were halfway up the tunnel walls). As soon as the survivors emerged, everyone knew it was a bomb and said so. That this took time to filter through on a chaotic day does not mean that the 'power surges' story was true and we are liars. Power surges might cause small explosions, but not the devastating force that ripped through the carriage, with the orange light and the pulverising force maginified by the narrowness and depth of the tunnel. It would not blow off Gill Hick's feet, nor would it rip off Garri Holbess leg, nor throw bodies onto tracks, and into the air onto the rooof of the train, nor tear people into unrecognisable fragments.
Power surges?
Tell that to the dead, the people who loved them. Look at the injuries, maimings, the shattered eardrums, the human debris smashed into people, the blood that splattered our faces. The choking smoke , the flash of light, the smell of haor and peroxide and burnt meat.
People were torn to pieces. People DIED. I saw what I wish I had never seen, dim though the light was before I left that carriage. I know, I am friends with injured people, I know the bereaved, I know the police officer first on the scene and the driver, I have met Blue Watch, I can tell you - categorically - that we were bombed. How dare you. Words, for once, fail me.
You are a disgrace. An absolute, sickening disgrace. How do you explain the maimings and the deaths with your twisted lies? Can you not stop for one moment and consider how insulting your stories and fantasies are to us who were there?
I see that you can 'notify blogger of objectionable content'. I might just do that.
A quote: 'I personally think the whole thing is suss - if you think about it there were apparent "power surges" all morning, I was even told there was a fire at Caledonian Road - (funny how on that same morning 4 bombs went off) - to me that whole morning was as though commuters were being put off travelling into London it was as though someone knew that something was going to happen on the underground - how funny we haven’t heard anything about the power surges since!!!!!!! No wonder they don’t want a public enquiry....'
A source: Emily, July 7th survivor from the Piccadilly Line, King's Cross / Russell Square blast and a member of King's Cross United.
Emily had been passed a link to prison planet when she said that. Nonetheless I faithfully reported what she said, since I, unlike you, do not twist and ignore what survivors say to fit my own agenda. Hell, she was and is angry, so am I, so are other survivors at the lack of a public enquiry. Anyway, she'd ben sent the stuff about Visor and Peter Power and the theory that it was all a secret drill and there was something suss.
Whereupon other survivors showed her this comprehensive debunking of the prison planet claims,
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372¶sStartAt=2
and there you go.
I too was told there was a fire at Cali Rd, abd that this was why the trains were delayed and over crowded. Initially it was thought to be surges, but POWER SURGES DO NOT BLOW UP CARRIAGES AND SHRED PEOPLE.
The tubes are delayed and there are closures and problems all th etime. It is natural when you are survivor and not getting answers to your questions to suspect the worst - but if you asked Emily was it a power surge on our train - or any other survivor - they's tell you piss off. And rightly so.
Rachel said: "It is natural when you are survivor and not getting answers to your questions to suspect the worst", without mentioning what questions survivors are not getting answers to.
Members of the public, like myself, are also not getting answers to our questions.
Is it therefore natural for us too to 'suspect the worst'?
It is not natural for you to insist that power surges killed people when it was suicide bombs, no. It is in fact, fucking perverse. And quite mad.
Rachel said: " It is not natural for you to insist that power surges killed people when it was suicide bombs, no. It is in fact, fucking perverse. And quite mad."
I have certainly never insisted that "power surges killed people ....". I AM saying that the story changed from 3 power surges at 8.50 8.56 and 9.17 to synchronised bombs carried by suicide bombers.
You yourself have mentioned the time of 8.56 as being the time of the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train.
And so what is your theory Bridget?
Out with it. Have you actually got one? Or just a load of stuff about a train times?
Please answer the following questions. I have amswered yours, here, on Urban 75 and on my blog. Your turn.
Do you think there were bombs on the trains or not?
Yes, or no?
Do you think bombers got on the trains or not?
Yes, or no?
Do you think bombers detonated the bombs on the trains or not?
Yes? Or no?
Yes? No? Which?
"Christ, you really don't like it when someone argues with you, do you? I expect yuou will twist my words, read selectively..."
An accusation that I can easily level right back at you, Rachel.
You clearly only selectively read my post where I made this point:
"I doubt very much you will bother to do this research though, since the basis of your argument for ‘not giving a stuff’ how the ‘bombers’ got to Kings Cross, is that you know someone who claims he saw the back of back of Germaine Lindsay’s head. You state:
“I can vouch for the fact that Germaine Lindsay got onto my train at Kings Cross because one of the passengers who was also on carriage one with me TRIED TO GET ON BEHIND HIM and couldn’t, because the carriage was rammed, so went to the next carriage.
He recognized Germaine from the pictures shown on the news”
How could he have recognized his face when as you clearly state – even putting it into capitals to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR – that he was standing behind him, trying to get on to the carriage. You then say this person went to the next carriage, so I can’t even see how he would have been on carriage one with you."
Because even after I asked you to explain this anomaly, you say:
"One of my group has toild me how he tried to get on behind Lindsey, couldn't and moved to carriage 2, and that is enough for me"
So, he wasn't on carriage one with you, like you originally stated, then. Is it not surprising that people are confused when even the people who were there that day can't give a cohesive account. Either he was on the carriage with you or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, he can't be an accurate witness to who was on carriage one.
You say you were 7 feet away from the bomb - yet when the author of this blog quoted you saying that, you respond:
" 2.'seven feet away from one of what were originally reported on the day seven explosions that occurred in London on the seventh day of the seventh month'. More conspiralunacy. There were 4 bombs, I was 8 feet away, grow up, what are you trying to make out? The clues are there. You're mad."
Why did you respond to someone quoting the distance that you yourself said you were from the explosion by changing the distance you said you were from the explosion?
Can you really not see why people would find that strange? I would think not, since you are so determined to stick so doggedly to the version of events you have been told happened - that it was suicide bombers who bombed your train - that you can do nothing but fling nasty insults at people who dare to question it.
For the record, I personally think it was bombs as opposed to power surges which blew up those trains - I just don't feel we have been told the truth about who put them there. It clearly matters not to you, but if the police and the media have told the truth about which train the men caught, then those men could not have been at Kings Cross at the time when the bombs went off. Therefore, they could not have bombed the trains. End of story.
If the police and the media have not lied about which train they caught, then they have lied about the time they were at Kings Cross. Either way, a lie has been told - and one, as much as you would like to ignore it completely, is rather central to the whole question of who bombed those trains.
If you expect people to listen to the accounts of the people who were there that day, then why aren't you listening to the accounts of the people that knew those men, not just their families, but friends, colleages and acquaintances, all of whom have described them as the least likeliest group of suicide bombers ever. Just two days before he was alleged to have blown up the No.30 bus, Hasib Hussain was discussing his plans for his future with his parents, how he would support himself through the place at University he had just won (contrary to the false reports in the media that he didn't even sit his GCSEs) and telling his mother of the car he planned to buy when he'd saved enough money. I suppose that sounds like a suicide bomber to you, but it doesn't to me. Nor does someone with a 14 month old baby whose wife was newly pregnant, another man whose wife was imminently due to give birth and another man who'd recently graduated from university and gave his time voluntarily to teach football and cricket to children.
What do those tiny details matter? Nothing, I suppose, since they were Muslims, and by definition it seems now, automatically haters of anything Western. Despite the fact that they were Westerners themselves and had strong relationships with people outside of the Muslim Community.
I am not trying to tell you what happened that day. I am only saying it could not have happened the way we were told. The details of it do not add up. If it bothers you so much to hear people with opinions based in the now undeniable evidence that we were not told the truth about 'terrorist attacks' such as 9/11, then why continue to wind yourself up by coming here? If you are so sure that you are right and that everyone who's expressed a view which happens to be different to yours is 'sick' and to be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theorist', then I suggest you go away and comfort yourself that we're all mad, that you are sane.
The fact of you being on one of the trains which were blown up that day doesn't make you any better qualified to give the whole story and state the entire truth of what happened that day than anyone else, as much as you seem to think it does. All it qualifies you to do is talk about what you saw and experienced in the one event out of four which occurred that day. So, your dogmatic and self-righteous attitude is totally without justification.
1. James, a KCU passenger queued next to Germaine Lindsey at a platform 5 or 6 people deep, they both tried to board the train together.
Lindsey got on, and James couldn't, he got onto carriage 2 instead. He clearly saw Lindsey as they stood next to each other, they saw each other's faces. One got on the train and then one couldn't - James slipped behind Lindsey as they boarded the door, or tried to.
Here I admit a typo, I said James was 'on my carriage', I meant 'on my train', and I am happy to clarify - he got on carriage 2. As I said. Apologies for the initial typo. It was a genuine mistake)
3. Ive always said I was 7-10 feet from the bomb. I started c. 7 feet away from the middle set of doors where he entered, and after the explosion I was about c. 10 feet away, on the floor. I pointed out that the person was saying '7 feet - 7 bombs 7 days - seventh month '- and generally getting themselves into a tizz about the number 7 came over as a bit loony in my opinion. I have 7 goldfish, is that relevant too? My partner was born on 7th May - is that a details you need? *sigh* There were 4 bombs, not 7, and I was not mystically placed 7 feet away in the sense of that MEANING anything arcane - nor does the fact that there were at one stage 70 people in Kings Cross United have cosmic significance. That some do get obsessed with numbers says much about them. But it really is irrelevant, so deal with it. Please.
4. By the way, the bombs went off at 8.50am in carriage one, train 311, driven by Tom and accompanied by Ray Wright who was to accompany Tom to Acton Town having got on at KX. Ray has given permission to let me give his name. I hope that this fact helps you and other peopel who are keen to know such details. And because I continue to answer genuine questions, in the hope of the truth being heard, I have just checked bomb times with Kings Cross United for you. We agree - 8.50am.
5. I referred to the train as 'the 8.56' as that was what we were told it was called and how it was generally described so that is how we referred to it. As anyone who uses the Tube knows, the trains don't run on time so I attached no mystical significance to the time. For all I knew, 'the 8.56am train' might refer to the fact that it was meant to change drivers or arrive somewhere else at 8.56am. Hope that clarifies confusion.
And when the bomb went off, and I wrote about it late at night on 7th July, I thought then it was 8.55/8.56am, and said in my original survivor diary 'about 5 to 9' - but my watch was fast. I definitely texted my partner at Russell Square at 9.16am, and he still has the text. I worked out later, when I was less shocked, that if the bomb HAD gone off at 8.56am there would not have been enough time for me to get down the tunnel. And now the group have just confirmed it; 8.50 it was. I sincerely hope this helps you as I know you set great store by these things on this website and others like it.
6. Glad you agree it was bombs, Kier. Many people on this sort of site don't, which I find disgraceful, for reasons I will explain agin in more detail later.The Antagonist insists for example that no-one was killed on the bus - it was stuntmen and pyrotechnics, which I think is like being a Holocaust denier since I know people who were on the bus when it exploded. And if I come across as angry, well, that is because I am not sure if you realise just how angry I am , and how angry other survivors are and bereaved, when we hear such things. I have been seething about these lies for months. Fianlly I decide to let it out. At least now when I am angry, I find it healthier to be angry and to say so, rather than just read the lies and shake and weep with rage.I have perhaps some hope that it will shake some people who enjoy conspiracy theorising out of their complacency and make them see that spreading lies is deeply hurtful. And it has real conswequences for real people.
7. Your point about which train they got, to make their way to KX - I am simply certain that the man Germaine Lindsey got onto the train and bombed it, and I trust witnesses and the police on this. Therefore I am unruffled about whether there were early journalistic errors in initial reports of what time train they got. This does not make me heartless scum. I can see that you are all terribly excited about it, but it is not really a detail that worries me. There is enough verifiable truth in what survivors and police and otehr witnesses say for me to let small inaccuracies go with ease. What really bothers me is that young men got on trains and suicide bombed them. I feel sure that any confusion over which train they caught will sort itself out in due course. I don't think it was a lie, I think it is genuine early confusion and misreporting for no sinister reason, just that things get misreported quite often. I gave a short interview to the Observer last weekend to call out for other survivors to join KCU - oine last puish as we approach 6 months on - and the writer got 2 major detaisl wrong - the depth of the tunnel and the exit station of most passengers - which kind of proves my point - even though I gave him the right info, mistakes do happen often.
8. I do find, unfortunately, believe they were suicide bombers. That doesn't make me anti Muslim, nor pro-civil liberty curtailment, nor a terrified and Government-loving sheep.Have you read the piece about Khaled Al- Berry on my blog for example, an ex-extremist? When I wrote that I spent several hours considering what drives young men to such hatred and the nature of the death cult that Islamofascism is - note - not Islam, this is a hideous perversion of it. And yes, I have spent time on this subject of Islam, studying theology at college, re-reading the Qu'ran and Islamic scholars since 7/7, talking to muslim friends. That the family and friends of the 4 bombers are shocked and denying of their loved ones terrible end is unfortunately not proof that they were NOT indoctrinated into a perverse set of beliefs - when any murder hits the headlines, watch colleagues, neighbours, families of the murderer all say blankly to camera - 'but he seemed so nice! So quiet!'. So I do believe they were suicide bombers. I feel a terrible pity for them as humans, as well as an utter hatred of what they did. My anger is more directed towards the lying filth who preach this perversion of Islam, who never, it will be noted, volunteer to strap the bombs on themselves or into their own rucksacks, but instead prey on the furious, nihilistic young men to do it for them. Those who peddle vile lies get the sharpest end of my wrath. And always will do. Whether fundemtalist hate-preachers, or fundementalist conspiracy theorists, or holocaust deniers, or neo Nazis, anyone who pushes irrational lies for reasons of power and hatred.
You do have to remember that these men will have been told that they were doing a great and glorious thing, and that nothing in this life matters as much as joiing Allah in Paradise. Khan says as much in the 27 minute video. Wives, kids, jobs - are of no consequence to the holy soldier. That is the nature of a death cult.
9. I come here because I care about truth, and I am not on my own, I am part of a group of survivors, I know dozens of people who were affected by that day. I have heard dozens of witness accounts, talked to dozens of people. That morning in July has a profound and ongoing effect on my life and on other lives. I keep sayiong, I know not only survivors, but bereaved, I know police, first responders, station staff, the train drivers, fire officers. And I care about them, I care about all of us. And I also have access to a very great more information than you. And if that makes me appear self righteous, then tough. It is hard to be anything else when you know what happened and you are dealing with people who don't, and weren't there, and won't listen. And who quite often do appear to be mad.
I care that you do not tell lies about us, I care that people understand that there were real bombs, real suicide bombers, wake up and understand, and do something about it. Like what? Well, if you look at everything I have said and done since the bombs, what I believe people should do is draw together, talk,reach out. Try to understand why some men are so filled with hate that they kill. Look at the poitics, at whether what we call multculturalism is just segregation and poverty in disguise. Safeguard and cherish our civil liberties. Admit our faults where we have them and apologise, fearlessly point the finger at those preaching hate and tell them its not ok, and ask Muslims to help us flush out the hatemongers from within their community - our community.
Deciding that there are no bnombs, or the Governemtn did it, is to my mind a terrible and dangerous thing - the answer lies in being grown up enough to admit the truth and to ask why Khan, Lindsey et al got to that stage of nihilstic hate - and dealing with it. It may be painful. But living in a fantasy land gets us nowhere.
And that is why over the last 2 days I have cared enough to come here and argue with you people. I admot that I have been rude - but you have been attacking me and what I believe in, people have thrown very grave insults and insinuations my way - which I can cope with - but to deny the bombs ever happened I cannot forgive, and will not apologise for calling those who say such things deluded - and that is being charitable.
Wake up. You are clearly all very passionate about this - why not apply that passion to somethign worthwhile - safeguarding civil liberites, understanding geopolitical causes and consequences feeding pathological ideology, how angry young men can be and why and who fans their anger into death cult hate? You clearly care, so why not care about something REAL?
Rather than pissing about with the numbers of trains and the details of train timetables?
I don't have to come herre and argue with you, much as I didn't have to protest about civil liberties beign eroded on parliament Square before Christmas, or march against Iraq, or set up KCU. But I do these thing sbecause I care about people, I care about truth, and it is part of who I am.
I'm back at work on Thursday, so these quiet few days after Christmas is a chance to let go of a lot of things that have been bugging me for months. I'm gald I fought back against these lies. I'm gald that I have pointed out what some of your webfriends have been saying. It needed to be said, and I feel a damn sight better for saying it.
Thanks
Rachel, I hope you come back and read this because I think it is important that you understand why I am saying what I am. You seem to think there is some sort of correlation between believing the official story and caring passionately about the people involved in it. That is not the case. I cannot imagine the horror that you and others went through that day and I want to know why it happened just as much as you do. I am just not willing to believe, without thoroughly researching and questioning, what seems to be an incongruous account of who bombed London on 7th July. I wish that you had not taken this as a personal attack on you, as you clearly have.
Thank you for clarifying about James and Germaine Lindsay and also about the carriage. That is the first time in all the months I have researched this that I have come across someone who says they can attest to the presence of one of those men. I had hoped to find many more.
Lindsay’s wife, Samantha, gave an interview on the 17th July, where she stated:
“He wasn't the sort of person who'd do this. I won't believe it until I see proof,"
“Samantha Lewthwaite, the wife of the Jamaican suspect, told The Sun newspaper she refused to believe her husband was among the bombers "until they have his DNA."”
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/12144869.htm
Yet in a later interview, published on September 23rd, she said:
“The next day they showed me Jamal on CCTV and said his DNA proved he was one of the bombers. My world collapsed”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1793594,00.html
So, she clearly stated on July 17th that she had seen no DNA proof of her husband being the bomber, and was also clearly unconvinced of his guilt. Yet later on she says she was told there was DNA proof by the time she’d given her first statement and was convinced already on July 14. This is the kind of anomaly which concerns me.
The ‘bombers’ were identified incredibly quickly, apparently due to the unique injuries sustained:
"Amid the bloodstained wreckage of the Stagecoach bus, they recovered one particularly disfigured body in which the force of the explosion had led to decapitation.
None of the other victims, it is understood, had met such an end. The injuries were noted: suicide bombers are often decapitated by the force of the explosives they strap to their bodies.
The body met Hussain's description, which had been sent out from Hendon."
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641602005
Yet we were told these men were not wearing strap on explosives but were apparently carrying them in rucksacks and had put them either on seats or on the floor. This anomaly also bothers me. We are being told these bodies were identified on the basis of injuries sustained by strap-on explosives, even though we were also told this is not how the bombs were carried.
An honest, accurate account of the events of that day was all that was being asked for by the original article on which we are commenting. I am surprised that you would expect not to be argued with when you come to a blog where it is clear that the author has an opinion so converse to your own and has its foundations in a very different place to yours.
You have found an explanation for what happened that day which clearly resonates with and satisfies you. That’s fine. I however, and many others are not satisfied with that explanation and until such time as it has been conclusively proven that these men were suicide bombers – which it by no means has, since the police still refer to them as ‘suspects’ – I will continue to look at all other possible explanations and be concerned about all the aspects which don’t add up.
You seem to think that people can validly criticize the official story only if they have an alternative scenario or theory to present to you. Nobody here is obliged to do this, just because some are saying that the official theory might not be the correct one.
Regardless of whom you believe committed this act, and the things which make you believe it so, I don’t think that puts you in a position to arbitrarily decide what a relevant detail is and what isn’t. The issue of the train from Luton is not a “trivial detail”, when as I repeatedly say, the whole issue of whether those men got have got to London in order to be the perpetrators rests on it.
I am genuinely upset and sorry that what you read here distresses you so much, but you must accept that people are allowed different perspectives and it is not a crime to voice an opinion. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, told a lie about you or any other survivor of that event. You are right that the testimony of the families, friends and people who knew those men is not proof of their innocence; it is just one more thing that makes me question this whole story. The basis on which it seems a lot of people have decided their guilt was that they were reported to be devoted Muslims and that two of them (it was incorrectly reported as three) regularly visited Pakistan – despite it emerging later that they did not visit so-called ‘terror camps’ while they were there.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believed what we were told about 9/11 and I believed what we were told about 7/7 until all of a sudden it stopped making sense and I started spending night after night researching the realities of other events such as these. So I did not have a ‘preconceived idea’ of who committed this act. I have not had ‘exciting fun’ having to see how my previous ideas about the world and how it works were not grounded in the place I thought they were. I know I am not the only person that this happened to this year either – many others started to ‘wake up’ and start being suspicious about what we get told about who commits these atrocities and the reasons why.
I don’t see how it is insulting to those who died and were injured that day to suggest we might be blaming innocent men. Is it somehow better and less insulting to die at the hands of Islamic Extremists than anyone else? Nobody should have lost their life or suffered that day, and it is precisely because I care very much about what happened to those people – including you, Rachel, whether you want to believe that or not - that I want to establish the truth and get a credible explanation for the numerous flaws in the story we’ve been given.
To Kier
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote in your comment, it resonates completely with me and I am sure with many others who are spending endless hours researching and writing about these events.
I too 'woke up' after the events of 7th July. It was as if a truly malevolent force had been unleashed. At first I felt it intuitively and then the more I read and tried to understand what had happened, the more my suspicions increased. This has been intensely uncomfortable and difficult. How much easier it would be to just believe what we are being told! I, like you and others, and hopefully there will be more, have a great need for the truth, as only the truth stands up to rigorous investigation. I cannot bear deceit, nor forgive it.
i came across a quote from Rumi which I often read that seems to explain this awakening:
Whenever a feeling of aversion comes into the heart of a good soul,
it's not without significance.
Consider that intuitive wisdom to be a Divine attribute,
not a vain suspicion:
the light of the heart has apprehended
intuitively from the Universal Tablet.
I cannot beleive I have actually wasted twenty minutes reading this pap written by ill-informed narrow minded fools! I only have one small response as I refuse to give you idiots any more of my time.
Someone (who I cant be bothered to check your name and I will label "IdiotX") said that all tube trains have "radio" contact. Radio? Is your head made of luncheon meat? How would you expect analogue radio frequencies to pass through 3.8m diameter winding tunnels 50-90ft underground? Digital frequencies would be up to this task, however the tube network was constructed largely by Victorian labourers (you know, the Victorians, those little people in funny hats you see in black and white photos from over a hundred years ago) and a circuit communication system is installed. The tracks conduct power to the train so what do you think the cables on the side of the tunnels are for? Do you think they are there to look pretty? Like some sort of industrial tinsel? Do you, "IdiotX", have some sort of absurd vision of pre-war tube train drivers communicating on their Nokia Blue Tooth headsets? Workers on the platforms use static phones built into the walls to communicate to above ground. And what do you think a radio network would be powered by? Cheese? As a loss of power via the tracks might, you might realise actually prevent a radio system working. Anyway, this is one of many absurd points "IdiotX" Kiev, and a few other molluscs choose to present on this site. Have you ever tried to use your phone on the underground? It's about as useful as shark bait speedos!. Hence the fact that communication was lost, this showed up as the trains had simply stopped, any sensible person would suspect a loss of power. Oh and when was the last time you saw a suicide bomb scene? As you seem to think that presented with something like that you would immediately recognise it? Why would anyone suspect a suicide bomb? In retrospect of course it is obvious, but seem to enjoy spending what excuse of a life you have agonising over a few confused facts, which I admit were wrong, but are justifiably wrong and were corrected very soon after. Where are you people actually from? Have you ever actually used the Underground? Because you seem deluded in some way.
I'm sure you will enjoy attempting to convince me, and I challenge you to do so as I will enjoy simply shunning more of you claims. Get a life, Anon'
p.s. one more time, Idiots!
Two very simple points from Robert Wolstenholme, a CSR at
London Underground:
1. All tube trains have radio contact with their line control.
2. Our network control had been alerted to all the incidents 'within minutes' of them happening.
Maybe it was cheese-powered radio as you suggest, maybe it wasn't. Either way, line control knew within minutes.
Hi Anonymous,
I have already made my main points, which if you didn't understand, feel free to go back and read them again. If you have a specific question about anything I've said, then I would be only too happy to clarify.
Aside from that, there is little point in responding to someone who has only joined a debate with the intent - as the abusive tone of your comment suggests - to goad people by being aggressive and rude. It wouldn't really serve you, I or anyone else, to have it conducted that way.
I'm aggresive and rude? Ok yes, I will give you that, I was aggresive and rude. But justifiably so, I refuse to re-anlayse any of your points "antagonist" as they are utterly ludicrous after only one reading. So the network was alerted to all incidents? What justifies an incident? A train inexplicably stopping that's what. Stop being so vague and an absolute moron! Yes, I am once agian being abusive, can't you handle people being directly rude to you, as you were to survivors and victims? You are cowards. Get some perspective. I am actually stunned to disbeleif that I have discovered you two, and however many more of you that are out there. You have succeded in your task to annoy me, I am annoyed! The only reason anyone would make such points would be to antagonise those who are left most vulnerable by the events of July 7. You seem to assume I am trying to debate points with you in an orderly fashion, but I am not. You may think that I am immature, because thats what I am, immature, yet even a teenager such as me can see that you are completely dispicable! You are fools to an infinate degree.
"Maybe it was cheese-powered radio as you suggest, maybe it wasn't. Either way, line control knew within minutes." - Antagonist,
I did not suggest cheese power, I assume someone of your obvious lack of common sense beleives radio systems can be powered by something other than electricity. Cheese is merely one of many objects which you seem to assume are able to provide " phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge..." to an elecrtical circuit.
Also, line control knew within minutes, this does not refer to any radio communication being involved. They were "alerted", so what? Who alerted them and by what means? Any amateur GCSE level history student knows to question every aspect of any source and in who's interest it is to present that side of the story.
One question Kier, how long is a piece of string?
How many "minutes"? does 2 minutes constitute "minutes"? does 87 minutes constitute "minutes"? Does three hours, twelve minutes and 37 seconds constitute "minutes"?
The whole point your blog, although I don't agree with what you are suggesting, is to question details and anomalies. If you wish to do this, fine. But please analyse all sources equally. Good luck! I may hear from you in twelve years when you conclude what "99% of the British Public already know"*.
*quote by me, at 15 minutes past 2 while enjoying a brew and a biscuit at home.
Anonymous, aka "Senior Van Helden"
Bridget, Kier and Antagonist, one word: Rumbled! Lol :)
Hi again Anonymous,
I know I told you I would gladly clarify any point I have made that you did not understand....but since the only question you have directed at me personally is regarding a point I did not make and have never made, I find it impossible to answer you.
The issue of the underground trains and how contact was made between the drivers and line control is an issue I have never raised, since I have not investigated it. This is something that the Antagonist and Bridget Dunne have been working on. I am aware that you stated that you "refuse to re-analyse" any points made here, but I do suggest you would do better to address your questions to the original authors of whichever points you want further explanations to. If your assumption is that the Antagonist, Bridget and I are all the same person using different user IDs, then you would be mistaken.
In response to your rhetorical question 'How long is piece of string?', however, my answer is: As long as it is perceived to be by whomever is observing it at the time. Basic physics.
I recommend a very good book called 'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart for more information on quantum phenomena and mind/object perception issues.
Best wishes,
Kier.
Having just re-read through my last comment and wondered if it came across as sarcastic, I want to assure you that there were no such intentions behind it. My only motivation for responding was that you seemed to be wondering why I, or anyone else, hadn't come back to answer your questions, Anonymous.
I am not here to attempt to outwit people, nor am I trying to gain some kind of moral high ground, since I don't think there's any to be gained. My reluctance to engage in discussion with you stems from your approach that anybody questioning a heavily flawed account of what happened that day - and is also reluctant to dismiss these flaws as simple errors in reporting and beaurocratic incompetence - is by that virtue accusing anybody, particularly survivors and witnesses of the events, of being liars.
I am not doing any such thing, so I think you are mistaken to label every person - and there are many - who looks into what happened on July 7th, whether or not you believe they are 'morons' for doing so, as despicable conspiracy theorists. People are entitled to ask as many questions as they like, however frustrating it might be for those who believe they already know the answers.
Anyway, since you made it clear that you didn't come here to debate points in an orderly fashion, I will leave it here - just in case you think I am trying to convince you to accept some pre- conceived conspiracy theory of mine, which I don't have and have never offered. All I, and others have done, is investigated the myriad other reasons why 7/7 might have occurred. I am just sorry you find it so very offensive and annoying.
Best wishes,
Kier.
Could i put something forward to you? 3 million people use the undergrond each day, so it's a fair assumption that tens of thousands were on the system when the incidents happened.
If you had to evacuate the entire system as quickly as possible would you tell them:
a) that there have been power surges, therefore they must leave in an orderly fashion, which they did.
b) there have been a number of bomb explosions and we do not know if there will be any more.
I would personally side with a), it would stop the entire system and passengers would not question it. Especially as many trains were stopped within tunnels.
We all saw what happened when Shia pilgrims panicked over rumours of a suicide bomber in baghdad. 1000 killed, and no bomber. This theory also stands up to analysis as the bombs were intially thought to be staggered.
Also, the police had to confirm bombs only when the No.30 exploded as it was blatantly obvious.
I would appreciate your comments.
Tony-superior
I received this reply from London Underground when I asked why power surges were announced if the knew that bombs had exploded.
27/Jul/2005
Dear Ms Dunne
Thank you for writing to the Mayor recently with your concerns about the Tube.
Your e-mail has been logged at his office and passed to me to answer from London Underground's point of view.
I am sorry for the delay getting back to you. I'm sure you'll understand that we have a large volume of correspondence to deal with at the moment.
I'll answer your questions in the order and form you asked them.
1. Yes, all Tube trains have radio contact with their line control.
2. I'm sorry, but I find this question a little strange because it seems to assume that the drivers did not alert the control centre. I'm not sure what information you base this assumption on, but it isn't accurate. Our network control had been alerted to all the incidents within minutes of them happening. Your question also seems to assume that the drivers would have known instantly that the incidents were bombs, but this also isn't the case. They reported what they knew, often the symptoms rather than the cause (so to speak), which itself may not have been immediately clear.
3. Mercifully, no member of our staff was injured in any of the explosions. I understand that there was damage to the cab of at least one train where the windows were shattered.
4. Again,I'm afraid it's not accurate to say that the information given about a power surge was a 'story'. When the explosions happened, obviously they broke the track circuit. On the computer systems at network control, such a big break would look the same as a power surge. It's worth pointing out that we have never been the victim of a terrorist attack of this kind before, but on 28 August 2003 a power surge knocked out about half of the network. Such a surge can be accompanied by explosions. In other words, all the evidence we had at the time (including the information from the drivers) and our experience pointed to a power surge, so that's what we said it was. This information was given in good faith.
I am dismayed by reports in certain sections of the media that the term power surge was used as some kind of cover story until we were ready to reveal the truth. Indeed, I have to say that I take issue with calling it a 'story', as this seems to imply that we deliberately misled people. This is nonsense. As soon as we had evidence of what had actually happened, we made that information public.
5. Most trains now have CCTV and it is being added to older trains as they are refurbished and fitted on new trains as standard. You may have seen the images from train CCTV of the 21 July Oval suspect.
6. I understand your point about the time helping eye witnesses. It is now clear that all three explosions were between 8.50 and 8.51am. Of course we have the track data to know exactly when each train left each station, but I think that any eye witnesses should concentrate on the run up to the key time of 8.50am.
I hope that I have answered your questions, clarified the situation and set your mind at rest.
Please contact us again if you need any help from London Underground in the future.
Yours sincerely
Robert Wolstenholme
Customer Service Advisor
Customer Service Centre
0845 330 9880
Until the bus exploded, power surges were the explanation given, and given in 'good faith', according to London Underground.
Neither is there any suggestion in this reply that power surges were used as an explanation to evacuate the stations in an orderly manner.
So you have agreed with me. Thank you, I lookforward to you talking more sense in the future.
Tony-Superior
Tony: Thanks for reading and taking the time to add your comments.
I concur it is entirely possible that the notion of power surges was given at the time of the incidents in order to ensure an orderly evacuation from the Underground. That said, this does not remove the considerable anomalies from the 'official' version of events. The article to which these comments are attached demonstrates how the existing 'narrative' contains fundamental factual errors which have led many to question the story of what happened that day.
I believe that at the time something occurs - e.g. a bomb going off, or a power surge occurring - a snapshot of that moment can be represented in an entirely binary fashion. All influencing factors involved in the event are contained in that snapshot and can be represented as being the case, or not being the case. So, in relation to the official story:
Did the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross run on the morning of July 7th?
No.
Did the 0748 Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross arrive in time for the alleged bombers to catch the bombed trains?
No.
Have we been told that the alleged bombers caught anything other than either of these trains?
No.
Current estimates assume that a person is likely to appear on CCTV some 300 times a day yet has any CCTV footage showing the journey of the alleged bombers been released to support the 'narrative' in which they caught a train that didn't run, or a train that wouldn't have got them to King's Cross in time to catch the bombed trains?
No.
Was Peter Power running a 1,000 man anti-terrorist security rehearsal operation on July 7th rehearsing bombs going off in precisely the stations they went off in that morning?
Yes.
Despite Channel 4's apparent 'debunking' that there was anything at all untoward about Peter Power's rehearsal that morning (all based solely on a later retraction by Power after he too had recovered from the shock of real bombs going off in the middle of his rehearsal operation), has the media entirely glossed over this alarming coincidence of events?
Yes.
Has Peter Power been used as an independent security consultant with no special connection to events of July 7th?
Yes.
And so it goes on. As a direct result of the many inconsistencies and apparent coincidences that day, a great many people have a lot of questions to which no answers have been forthcoming for over 6 months and I think this list of people includes a lot of those who were there and whose voices we are not hearing for some reason.
The state has twice refused the people an inquiry.
Last time I checked, a grand total of 331 people appeared to believe that a government inquiry would provide any of the answers that the victims, the injured, their families and the rest of London's commuters and the British people deserve. And this is despite a full public launch, backed by cross-media communications through newspaper and magazine articles, interviews and the Internet.
Compare this to the Piccadilly Line that was at crush capacity, just shy of 800 people on just one of the trains involved in one of the incidents.
I think this speaks for itself.
For those of us above ground that morning and following events via rolling news channels and radio broadcasts, the story was power surges until such time as the diverted Number 30 bus exploded in Tavistock Square. On the day the bus was the only visible image of what occurred and there are a very great number of anomalies the diverted number 30 bus too.
And so the questions about the bus, the journey of the alleged bombers, and why one simultaneous suicide bomb didn't detonate until 57 minutes later, 0947 - as, or immediately after, the underground had been evacuated.
In closing, as I write this response to you, it occured to me that if the hub of London's underground, overground and mainline stations was being evacuated from 0850 onwards and a young man with a rucksack full of explosives and the intent to kill as many people as possible happened to be right in the thick it - as one was apparently shown to be, outside Boots at 0900 that morning - the most effective detonation point, the detonation point that would have caused the greatest number of casualties, would have been right there in the midst of that evacuation, not on a bus round the corner and certainly not 57 minutes later than the simultaneous 'burning cross' incidents apparently intended for the underground.
Why should I take any of your points? You are after all the same person who compared 30000 litres of industrially produced hydrogen peroxide liquid bleach (or bleach ingredients) which chemically burned on the M25 to 4.5kg of home-made solid state explosive acetone peroxide.
In my opinion this voids anything you say. Where is the comparison? One is Inflammable, one is Explosive. One is a cleaning agent, one is explosive. One is 30000 litres of liquid hydrogen peroxide, one is 4.5kg of solid acetone peroxide. NOT EVEN THE SAME CHEMICAL!
I suggest you retake Chemistry O-level.
As for Hussain, as I said Northern Line was diverted via Piccadilly line/Piccadilly Circus. He would have clashed with Lindsay, but you choose to overlook these things.
Regards
Tony-Superior
(btw my name is Tony-Superior and not "Tony")
You are also the same person who beleives bombs disintegrate everything within a pre-determined proximity to a molecular level.
Does November 6th mean anything to you?
November 6th, the day after bonfire night. I attempt to go out and feed the birds, yet stumble upon countless pieces of litter strewn over my property. I find countless wooden splints on the lawn, multi-coloured plastic cones, one in the pond, one in the flower bed and endless bits of cardboard tube. Some even on the kitchen roof!
Being a proud gardener I gather the pieces together, would you beleive it? 5 wooden splints, 5 plastic cones, 5 piles of broken up cardboard. On the side of one piece I can see a slogan "lunar-rocket" It could easily be someones name.
In conclusion, if a bit of recycled cardboard can survive a (frankly stupidly large and illegally imported) chinese rocket from a distance of zero metres. Then I suggest many other inanimate objects also could do so, including ID documents.
Regards
Tony-Superior
"The picture shows Hasib Hussain, 18, at the Luton train station at 7:20 a.m."
Kier- "When he hadn't, according to the timestamp on the CCTV image taken outside, even entered the station until 7.22."
Kier- "If they did take the 0724, which would also have been difficult since they only had about 3 minutes to get into the station, buy tickets and then get across the station to the right platform,..."
Ever considered the clocks were wrong? Unlike the Japaneses train system the British one is let just say , a little rough round the edges, slack even, hardly efficient.
Many points to do with the train times can be put down to simple human error. (or ultimately to the privatisation of UK railways)
Someone forgetting to update the timestamp on the CCTV tape recorder at Luton station does not constitute a conspiracy theory or government cover-up.
As for the time getting to the paltform, this would be minimal. Luton station is tiny, and 7.20am is way before rush hour so there would be no queue for tickets. I think, though im not sure it only has two platforms. You don't even have to cross the line to board southbound trains.
I also find it very hard to beleive that no trains went through Luton to Kings Cross between 7.20 and 7.45. Luton is on the main Edinburgh to London line. The route of the famous Flying Scotsman. And of course Luton-London is prime commuter-belt. So it is not only served by Thameslink, but by national rail providers also, i.e. Midland Mainline etc...
Do we know if they pre-bought tickets? Or reserved them and got them on a credit card from the machine? All would speed them up. I'm willing to accept that there are many things we will never know. And I would guess as "Sid" was the "ringleader" he would have bought them as a group, one purchase of 4 tickets.
As I have previously stated, none of this actually matters as they DID board and bomb the underground and the no.30. You have to compare two or more sources to constitute evidence.
For example:
a) train time anomalies suggest they didnt board,
b) ID documents found at the scene prove they were there, and therefore did board.
c) Eye witnesses prove Lindsay boarded the Piccadilly train, therefore they did board.
Simple.
You could of course argue that the government planted ID documents, or simply lied. We haven't seen them after all. But you would now be descending into a "Truman Show" level of paranoia.
Regards,
Tony-Superior.
@ Tony-Superior
You referred to:
4.5kg of home-made solid state explosive acetone peroxide.
As someone who has no science O Level, I defer to others where explosives are concerned. One thing that does interest me is the fact that the story changed from military explosives (with timers) to home-made explosives (made in a bathtub?) detonated with button like devices by suicide bombers.
Someone who does know their stuff I've copied and pasted here:
Thus far we have been told that the explosives were:
1. "C-4" - London Times and UPI, quoting French antiterror officials Christian Chaboud an Roland Jacquard
2. "not home-made explosive. Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we do not want to say at this stage." - Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick http://abc.net.au
3. "simple, relatively easy-to-obtain plastic explosives, not the higher-grade military plastics like Semtex that would have killed far more people" - Andy Oppenheimer, consultant for Jane's Information Group (Oppenheimer then changed his story to TATP)
4. "TATP" - the current spin based on the "discovery" of the bomb bathtub and the 2nd batch of "miraculous dud bombs" on 7/21 that were hailed as a "forensic goldmine."
Explosives 101
How do explosives blow up? The operative word is "blow," i.e. gas expansion. A more or less rapid chemically-produced gas expansion can go from bruising your face, as in an auto airbag, to severe wounds, as in a fireworks accident, to knocking your head off, as with high explosive like TATP, TNT, or C-4.
The power of an explosive depends on:
1. the top speed of the expanding gas, called detonation velocity. If it's supersonic, the shock wave adds to the force of the explosion and you have a high explosive (dynamite, TNT, C-4, TATP). If it's subsonic, you no longer have a detonation but a deflagration (black powder, rocket propellant, hydrocarbon explosions). RDX, the explosive that C-4 is made of, has a detonation velocity of 27,000 fps. Of the explosives used by Palestinians, TNT has a DV of 22,300 fps, and TATP has one of 17, 200 fps.
2. the time it takes for the gas to reach that top speed, called brisance. The combined effect of DV and brisance make RDX almost twice as powerful as TATP.
3. the heat generated by the chemical reaction, which almost always is what makes the gases expand so rapidly. The heat of the explosion also causes flash burns in victims and emits light, which is why almost all bangs are associated with a flash. All except one: TATP. TATP produces no heat and no light. Consequently, no one can see the "flash" of a TATP explosion or suffer flash burns from it.
TATP burns the spinmeisters, not the victims
The following story blows two large and one medium-sized holes in the current TATP story for 7/7: Nobody can be burned by a TATP bomb, nobody can see the "flash" of a TATP bomb, and TATP can be identified on a bomb site.
Israeli invention detects TATP explosives
Israel Insider, January 27, 2005
Researchers from Israel's Technion in Haifa have developed a device to detect the kind of improvised explosives increasingly used by Arab terror groups. The new detector, named the Peroxide Explosive Tester (PET), looks like a three-color ball-point pen. The device releases three chemical mixtures that change color upon interaction with the suspected explosive materials.
(. . .)
"To our great surprise," PET's inventor, Prof. Ehud Keinan, Dean of the Technion's Faculty of Chemistry, wrote in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, "we discovered that TATP is very different from all other conventional explosives in that it does not release heat during the explosion. It explodes by rapid decomposition of every solid-state molecule to four gas-phase molecules. This rare phenomenon, scientifically known as 'Entropic Explosion', is reminiscent of the rapid reaction that produces gas in the safety air-bags of cars during accidents."
The London tube trains had no fuel that the blasts could ignite and the double decker's fuel tank did not catch fire. Therefore if TATP was what blew up the London tube trains, no one should have suffered burns. So if the government is right about TATP, all these people are lying about seeing flashes, and they're cheating the health care system by pretending to have burns.
Source
To be honest, I don't have any knowledge on this subject and don't intend to learn. I also don't really fancy doing a google search on it, we're bordering on a very sensitive area.
I do know this quite informative page exists though, most of it makes no sense to me but you get the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide
You're right about it being an "entropic explosion", however, from what I gather an amount of heat is still expelled. Although this is much less than other exposives.
All I can suggest is, I imagine you would still get friction burns from a TATP explosion. And a (relatively) small amount of heat from close range would still burn.
There is no way people are lying about seeing the flash and burns, why would they? And why would so many have the same account?
But, the information on Wikipedia suggests that there are many other options they could go with...
"Even for people who synthesize homemade explosives, there are many far safer alternatives. Even nitroglycerin is not nearly as sensitive as acetone peroxide."
The sensitivity of it may have led to an earlier detonation on the no.30 than intended. Especially as its volatility rises as its temperature does. This sounds like a reasonable assumption.
I would assume either the police have simply lied to throw any copy-cats off the scent of what they actually used. Which is fair enough.
Or, that people sustained friction burns and other burns. The use of TATP would also fit as both the bus and trains show no charring. As for the flash, maybe this was actually just the detonator. Bangs were still heard with the failed 21/7 attacks, just the detonator blew the window out on the Hackney Road bus.
As I said, I don't think it helps any of us to have an online discussion about this VERY dodgy subject. Neither of us actually know anything about the subject and I don't intend learning now.
Regards
Tony-Superior
So who was shot at Canary Wharf? Did that ever come out?
To Social Democracy Now
I am working in an an office in the West End, doing an advertising job. I have been doing this since mid May. My first name is Rachel, I call myself Rachel North or Rachel from North London when I write since I do not wish my surname to appear in the national media. Why? Because as a rape survivor who has written about her experiences I am legally entitled to anonymity and I was grateful for that protection during the intense and ongoing media interest in the event sof 7th July which I was caught up on. See 'Rachel's Story in the Sunday Times.'
I have published many pieces of writing about 7th July, the first being an account on the day which was published on urban 75. This became a survivor blog which was picked up and run on the BBC homepage and can still be found there if you google BBC News London explosions survivor diary. I continue to write a blog. I have also interviewed fellow passengers ( at their request) for the Sunday Times and the Evening Standard and have written a great deal since July 7th. The events of that day made me write, which has helped me to deal with the events of that day and to find a means of drawing together with strangers to find hope - one of the positive things for me to come out of the horror, the other has been the privilege of becoming friends with so many of my fellow passengers, ordinary people like me whom I would never have met.
So in answer to your question, there 's quite a lot of stuff out there from me, and for no other reason than a) I was on the train near the bomb b) I have written about it c) people like the way I write and aske dme to keep writing d) I was volunteered as media spokeswoman for the survivor group when we spoke to the media ( in order to let fellow passengers know we existed) because my advertising job has given me some training to help with dealing with the media. I've written about all this on my blog.
I didn't see Germaine Lindsey, another passenger queued next to him, tried to get on behind him, then moved into carriage 2 because it was so crowded he couldn't get on the train.
As to you saying I do not show a lot of 'curiosity' about 7th July - 'curiosity' is not the right word - I am haunted by it, it upsets me deeply, it is ever-present in my life as I and others try to recover from what we saw and felt that day. That is why I am actively campaigning for a public enquiry and regularly criticising the government.
However I have seen nothing to make me think that it was not suicide bombers. And I have access to a very great deal more information than you.
You are talking to a real person, who was feet away from the bomb, is part of a close knit community of people who were there on that day and in regular contact with survivors and bereaved, police and TFL staff, nurses and yes, investigative journalists. So I don't really papreciate all this crap about being called a liar, or a COINTELPRO agent or any of this nonsense some of you people come out with. I am lucky to be alive. I dislike having my near -death experience reduced to some conspiracy theorist's fantasy, when I live with it every day and so do many others. Some of whom have visited this blog and pointed this out as well.
I am quite fed up with all of this but since there seems to be quite a nasty little campaign going on to infer I am a Government agent of disinformation - a vicious smear, if the sources of the smear weren't clearly so laughably paraniod conpiracists - I pop in here now and again just to point out that I am no such thing. As the most cursory research would have revealed. Call yourselves 'truthseekers'? Call yourselves' independent investigators'. Ha.
Don't make me laugh.
@ http://www.blogger.com/profile/2022146
You gots to be a MASSIVE moron to think of the events of 7/7 in such X-Files-esque terms.
Why is it so hard to accept the version of events as reported by the "mainstream" press?
Anonymong: The X-Files is a TV show and you really shouldn't go confusing anything you see on TV with any sort of reality.
Second, in answer to your question: NO EVIDENCE.
Tony-Superior wrote
As for Hussain, as I said Northern Line was diverted via Piccadilly line/Piccadilly Circus. He would have clashed with Lindsay, but you choose to overlook these things.
This is very interesting. Can you say more about it?
As a Muslim, a writer, and above all someone who has very closely observed and monitored the rise of militant islam in Britain over the past couple of decades (yes it does stretch back that far, perhaps longer, except that tactical vote buying and political correctness kept a lid on things), i have found some of the comments on this site to be in extremely poor taste.
Following the tragedy of 7/7, i personally spent a week in the towns of Beeston and Dewsbury which is where three of the four bombers came from. I have now done enough research into this tragedy to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the 7/7 atrocity was indeed carried out by the four "alleged" bombers. To suggest otherwise is a gross insult to the memory of those who died and to the living nightmare and the very slow healing process of those who survived. There may be doubts about the train times, about the sequence of events etc., but lets not forget that there was massive chaos and confusion following the bomb blasts and a lot of initial reporting was done on the basis of hearsay and second hand reports.
To even attempt to create a conspiracy theory out of such a wickedly tragic event defies belief.
Yes, i do believe that there should be a full, independent public inquiry. It wont shut up the conspiracy theorists of course, but it could clear up some rather thorny issues e.g. how much the security agencies knew about the bombers? what were they doing in Pakistan? why, when a former hells angel turned IT expert tried to warn the intelligence agencies about these guys, were his pleas ignored? also there is the tricky issue of relations with Pakistan, a so called "frontline state" in the so called "war on terror". There are people in Pakistan who know full well what Khan and Tanvir got up to when they were there. Trouble is some of these people are in very powerful positions in Pakistan and in the present climate it is highly unlikely that anyone, least of all the British government would want to upset the apple cart too much.
So guys we are not going to have a full, independent inquiry. Forget it, its not gonna happen. So enjoy the conspiracy theories, but please show some respect for the bereaved and those who survived and have had the courage to speak out.
Anwar spake thusly: "I have now done enough research into this tragedy to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the 7/7 atrocity was indeed carried out by the four "alleged" bombers. To suggest otherwise is a gross insult to the memory of those who died and to the living nightmare and the very slow healing process of those who survived."
From this statement alone it would appear that during your week in Leeds and Beeston, you did not happen to speak with the families of the accused.
On the eve of the first anniversary, the father of Hasib Hussain was quoted by the Daily Mirror as having seen no evidence, forensic or otherwise, that proves the veracity of the allegations against his son. It is clear you did not speak to Mr Hussain, or other relatives of Hasib Hussain, and that you did not speak to the family of Mohammad Sidique Khan, who have made similar claims.
If you have EVIDENCE that proves the guilt of the accused, then the same call goes to you as any other individual or authority who claims to have the definitive version of what happened: RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!
Until then, for you, or anyone else, 'to suggest otherwise is a gross insult to the memory of those who died and to the living nightmare and the very slow healing process of those who survived.'
Oh, it's you, again. Bored at work, again.
I can only imagine that you must have forgotten your previous abusive comments on this blog which followed effortlessly on from this and this:
As a reminder of conversations past, you have previously said:
=========================
I think you are worse than paraniod, i think you are a disgrace and should take down these lies at once, you ghoulish hyena who shits on the graves of the dead
--
Posted by Anonymous to Anything that defies my sense of reason.... at 1/05/2006 01:18:32 PM
=========================
To which my response was this:
=========================
Thank you, 'Anonymous', at EMAP Plc for your kind, considered comments.
--
Posted by The Antagonist to Anything that defies my sense of reason.... at 1/05/2006 01:35:37 PM
=========================
At the time, you attempted to pass off your abusive comments as those of a work colleague and I have no doubt you will endeavour to pass off responsibility for this latest outburst, yet again. Nothing if not loyal and honest.
Still, I know you're responsible for these comments, you know you're responsible for these comments and, once again, so does everyone else.
A few words of advice; If you will insist on maintaining multiple personalities that appear in various places around the Internet, you may want to imbue some of them with a slightly different vocabulary to your own.
Have not yet had time to read the whole of this interesting site but just wanted to throw this into the mix re the events of 7/7.
I was recently speaking to an aquaintance who is a teacher & had been due to attend an education conference in the Russell Square area on 7th July. Shortly before the conference she received a letter saying the event had been cancelled, which in the event was very lucky for her since if she had attended she would very likely have been travelling in one of the affected tube trains. After 7/7 she got a letter from the event organisers saying "following the cancellation of the conference due to 7/7". She immediately contacted them and pointed out that the event had been cancelled before 7/7 but they were insistent that the event had only been cancelled on the day itself, due to the attacks, and that her letter must have been an administrative mix-up.
I don't know any more details than this and it would be difficult to find out any more from the person herself since she is fixated on her lucky escape rather than anything else.
Until recently (December 2005) I used to think that the petrodollar was the product of the USA $ being the reserve currency. I then later found out that it was the product of an agreement in 1973 between the Saudis/ Kissinger (in exchange for `protection') when the USA elite were no longer able to hold the USA economy together (when USA $ came of the gold standard) & needed credit expansionary steroids to prop up the regime such as be enabled by the petro$ (functioning as an `unlimited credit card'). Causing 2/3 of world trade to be denominated in the $ in spite of the USA budget/ trade deficit & other even graver liabilities - the establishment of such also helped them fund the arms race bankrupting the USSR at the price of bankripting themselves (But this does not matter as the can simply print $$, exporting their institutionalised inflation to the rest of the world). I was then forced to conclude that an elite that had over 27 years gotten away with such a manouevre would feel itself so psycho politically omnipotent that it would be psychologically capable of executing September 11th itself to provide it with a pretext to prop up the petro$ via the `Long War'. This goes perhaps a bit further to elaborating on the capability of the regime to carry out such a Grand Strategy of Tension op(motive provided by the Project For New American Centuary). Though I would NOT contend is in & of itself conclusive.
Anyone unfamiliar with the 9/11 Truth Movement should see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296&q=alex+symposium
Particularly interesting is how a steel framed building like `Building 7' fell down without even being hit by a plane.
when doing a search on google for the "passengers on the 0748 thameslink from luton" click on the [cached] link
image one
as shown on the above picture.
on the top of the page result page click on the [cached text only]
as shown here:
image 2
you'll get the original picture lable, and you can compare it with the updated one.
this is the original
image3
the update:
image4
God Bless
tomtom: Thanks for the comment, but none of those image links seem to work?
Time's up. Choose your sides. For one, I'm convinced we're faced with the most threatening force in all history.
I was a sceptic, about this and not least 9/11. The more I read, the more I'm disconcerted. I face the horrific reality that our democratic governments are actually engineering this stuff. It really is time to think. Is chat enough? Think about what you're going to do. What are you going to do?
Our lives are dead-boring until we put some life into them with a few well-chosen bloody words.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, Jnr.
Post a Comment