London 7/7: How to be Good - Part 1
"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.
71 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 suspen