Thursday, August 19, 2010

July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps

July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 1

Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far - Part 1

Ten months after the events of 7 July 2005, on 11 May 2006, the Home Office published the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July' (here-in referred to as the Official Report).

The Official Report has since been discredited owing to a factual inaccuracy, namely the departure time of the train the accused are alleged to have taken from Luton to Kings Cross. This error was announced to Parliament by the Home Secretary on 11 July 2006.

The Official Report was designed to replace a full and independent public inquiry, yet has already been proven to be inaccurate. Furthermore, additional errors in the report have also been acknowledged, again with regard to key aspects of the statements made.

Mind the Gaps Part 1 and 2 endeavour to highlight some of the many anomalies, inconsistencies and outright errors in both the official report and media coverage of the events of 7/7.

| Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |

Mind the Gaps Part 1 - Gap Summary

THE 'IMPOSSIBLE' TRAIN JOURNEY

Once the authorities had decided the affected trains had left King's Cross underground station, and were not heading towards the station as originally reported, and the Metropolitan Police had eventually decided the scope of the investigation had widened to include possible suicide bombers, it was originally announced that the alleged perpetrators had taken the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th.

An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning and that the 0740 had been cancelled. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton Station at the time.

It was also reported that the accused had taken the later 0748 train, but with reference to the actual Thameslink train times on July 7th, it was found that this scenario could not be correct either. The 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate. The information about the departure times of the Underground trains from King's Cross was obtained by J7 researcher, with full details here. Nor did the 0748 reach Kings Cross Thameslink in time for the men to have made the journey to Kings Cross Underground station to have been captured on CCTV “shortly before 8.30am” as the police stated.

A scheduled 0730 train was delayed and left Luton station at 7.42am on July 7th. This train also arrived at King's Cross Thameslink station too late for the accused to have caught the affected Underground trains, arriving as it did four minutes after the first of the affected trains had already departed Kings Cross.

The accused were shown on a single CCTV image taken from outside Luton station, apparently entering the station six seconds before 7.22am, or so the timestamp on the image would indicate. On this basis, the earliest train alleged sucide bombers could have caught would have been the train that left Luton at 7.25am. This train arrived at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.23am.

The Government narrative of the London Bombings states that the accused caught the non-existent 0740 train and that it arrived at Thameslink at 8.23am. The narrative then says that the men were caught on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.26am, whereas it was previously reported that this sighting had occurred at Kings Cross mainline station.

The narrative then claims the men were seen again, four minutes later at Kings Cross mainline, where they proceeded to split up in different directions, giving the impression that each man was off to board a tube train. The quickest route from Thameslink to the tube lines is through an underground subway but the narrative does not specify their alleged route from King's Cross Thameslink station to the mainline station.

TFL Journey Planner advises to allow 6 minutes to transfer between King's Cross Thameslink station and the mainline in the rush-hour, which doesn't allow sufficient time for the accused to transfer between the Thameslink and the mainline stations. The narrative states:

"The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system."

From the concourse of which the narrative is speaking, there are four possible routes:

1. Back down to the Thameslink platform at which they just arrived
2. Down to the northbound Thameslink platform
3. To the main exit out onto the street and
4. To the underground via the subway.

By saying the men were "heading in the direction of the London Underground system", the narrative is implying the men took the underground subway route. There have recently been refurbishments at Kings Cross station which now allow access from the Thameslink station to all tube lines. However, in July last year, it was only possible to access the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines this way. Therefore, this route would only have facilitated the journey of Lindsay, who is alleged to have boarded the Piccadilly Line train; the other two men who were alleged to have been on the Circle Line trains would have had to have found an alternative route to the Circle Line platforms, necessitating their splitting up and making it extremely unlikely they would have been seen together again at 8.30am, as the narrative reports.

If we bear in mind that the eastbound Circle Line train left first, at 8.35am, and that Tanweer was reported to have still been on the Thameslink platform at 8.26am, they would have had to have moved at a fast pace for him to have caught this train. There are no reported witness sightings of four men with large rucksacks running. It is extremely difficult to see how Tanweer got to the Circle Line platform so quickly, if he either had to go overground or take a complicated journey to the Circle Line platform from another of the only platforms he could have reached via the Thameslink subway.

We must also factor in that the narrative states:

"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."

The narrative does not give a source for this information, so it is unclear whether the sighting was by CCTV camera or a witness, nor does it give the exact location in Kings Cross station. Nor is it clear whether the sighting is of the accused, else the narrative would surely have stated 'the 4 men' rather than '4 men fitting their descriptions'. However, this scenario of the men splitting up could only have occurred in the underground ticket hall of Kings Cross mainline station. There is only one entrance to the underground at Thameslink and also from the main concourse of the mainline station, so it would not make sense for the men to have "split up" there.

Also confusing is that the Metropolitan police stated in a press conference that the men were already at Kings Cross mainline by 8.26am when they appealed for information about the movements of Hussain "between 8.26am at King's Cross and 9.47am on the no. 30 bus when the explosion occurred."

This states that 8.26am was the last sighting of the men, as opposed to the time of 8.30am given by the narrative and it is hard to see how they could have been on the concourse at Thameslink station at 8.26am and also at Kings Cross station at that time.

In conclusion, the incorrect train given by the narrative cannot be put down to simple error. Even if the men had taken a train from Luton which actually ran that morning, it still would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to have been sighted at Kings Cross at the time they were said to have been seen, or for them to have caught the underground trains which were later bombed.

The narrative even says there were witnesses on the non-existent train who believe they saw the men. How could this be so when there was no such train? The anomalies in the narrative account regarding the train, its arrival time and how the men could have been sighted at Kings Cross only serve to cause much confusion.

Update: On July 11th 2006, the Home Secretary John Reid announced in Parliament that the Official Report was wrong in giving the time of the train that the suspects took from Luton to London as 7.40am. This led to relatives of the bomb victims renewing calls for an inquiry into the July 7th bombings as it raised concerns about the accuracy of the rest of the report. Strangely, Scotland Yard said that the official account had been produced by the Home Office and police had never given it the time for the train.
A spokesman said the mistake may have come from erroneous first-hand witness accounts of the timing it had received and then passed on. Where could the Home Office, who produced the Official Report have obtained the train time from but the police, who were conducting the investigation? It is also doubtful as to whether or not "erroneous first-hand witness accounts" would have been given to any other source than the police. It is also odd that the police only pointed out the error a year after the event and two months after the Official Report had been released.
Perhaps it was a coincidence that the July Seventh Truth Campaign had raised this issue in the national media not once but twice in the space of a week, just before this announcement was made. It is also still unclear, in the light of this clarification by the Home Secretary, why the 7.25 train was never given by any official or media source as being the train that the men took and no witness has stated they saw the men aboard it.

THE TIME DISCREPANCY AT LUTON STATION

The narrative states that the men entered Luton station at 7.15am and passed through the ticket barriers on to the platform. This contradicts the timestamp of the one CCTV frame of them, released by the Metropolitan Police Service, where they appear to be entering the station at 7.21:54. It would not make much sense for the men to enter the station at 7.15am, buy their tickets, pass through the ticket barriers and then exit the station only to enter again at 7.22. Again, the narrative contradicts information already in the public domain and no reason is given for this glaring discrepancy..

THE CCTV IMAGES

The image which was released of the four figures entering Luton station is of extremely poor quality and on closer examination contains strange elements. When magnified, the reflection in the mirrored building behind the men shows an incorrect reflection of Hasib Hussain’s legs. They should, obviously, be the opposite to the direction of his legs in the foreground of the picture, but they are in fact, a duplicate.

There are other anomalies in the CCTV image, which have been discussed at length.

However, the strangest aspect of the CCTV images given for July 7th is that only one still frame has ever been released apparently showing them all. It is an extremely poor quality picture, yet the camera that captured it was capable of taking a much higher resolution image only nine days before.

A complete sequence of images was released for the men taking a trip to London on June 28th 2005. This day was reported to be a ‘dummy run’ or a ‘terror rehearsal’ but it is hard to see how this conclusion was drawn. Only three of the four men are present, they are making the journey at a much later time of day and do not visit the stations where the explosions occurred on July 7th. On this basis, it does not appear to be a ‘rehearsal’ at all.

An image of Hasib Hussain was released which was cropped and had no timestamp. This image was reportedly taken inside Luton station and stated by the police to have been taken at "approximately 7.20am".
According to the timestamp on the photo outside the station, this is two minutes before he even went inside the station. It is odd that the police should be giving approximate times. The image should have had a timestamp on it also, giving the definite time it was taken, so why should approximations come into it at all? There is also no explanation as to why it was necessary to crop the picture, removing all background and making it hard to see where the photo was actually taken.
A third image was released on October 2nd 2005 of Hasib Hussain apparently exiting a Boots store onto the concourse of Kings Cross station. There was no explanation as to why this image was released so much later than the others. It was said to have been taken at 9am, yet Kings Cross was already being evacuated at 9am. There are no signs of this in the CCTV picture.
There has been no CCTV showing the men in the car park at Luton station, on the train from Luton to London, at Thameslink or Kings Cross or on any of the tube platforms. According to Hazel Blears, this is due to the "ongoing investigation" when questioned by an MP.
For an in-depth analysis of the CCTV images and Khan and Tanweer videos, see the 'evidence' analysis page here.

THE ODD CHOICE OF CAR

If the reports that Tanweer specifically hired a Nissan Micra for the journey to London are correct, then these do not make sense on more than one level. Firstly, it appears that he had hired the car some days before the 7th, because it was so overdue that a representative from the car hire company had coincidentally turned up at his house to retrieve the car the same day that the police raided it.

Tanweer himself drove a Mercedes, a much more spacious car to accommodate three not insubstantially sized men, four rucksacks, a large amount of spare bombs and cool boxes to store them in. It makes little sense to hire a small car such as a Micra for such a journey. One might argue that the hiring of the car was Tanweer’s way of covering his tracks. However, he hired the car in his own name and used his own credit card to pay for it; illustrated by the company rep going straight to his house when the car became overdue for return. This suggests Tanweer felt there was no reason to be covert about hiring the car and therefore might just as well have driven his own car.

THE CHANGING COLOUR OF THE NISSAN MICRA

Up until September 2005, the colour of the Micra was universally reported as being red. Then it changed to blue and silver-blue.

One explanation for the reporting of the car being ‘red’ was that it may have been confused with the other car, apparently used by Germaine Lindsay, which was, according to the narrative, a red Fiat Brava. However, the narrative goes on to say that the Brava was towed away for not having a ticket. According to some reports, the car had been towed away on the day of the attacks and was apparently discovered in a compound in Leighton Buzzard, in which case, no reporter would have even got to see this car in order to confuse it with the Micra. The narrative reports the colour of the Micra as being light blue.

THE BOMBS FOUND IN THE CAR

It was reported on July 18th that nine bombs had been found in the car at Luton station car park, although the car in which they were found was erroneously referred to as Lindsay’s Fiat and the narrative states that the Fiat was not there.

By July 27th the amount of bombs found in the car had risen to twelve. Pictures were released of these bombs, strangely not by the police but by an American news channel ABC.

These photos were ‘obtained’ by ABC news, and referred to in their report stating that there were twelve bombs, even though the next day it was reported by other media that the number of bombs found was, in fact, sixteen.

The finding of the bombs in the cars curiously echoes the way in which a trail was similarly found to incriminate the suspected 9/11 hijackers and the Madrid bombing suspects. The 9/11 suspects apparently left their car in the car park of Logan airport, which contained an Arabic flight manual for a 767, a copy of the Qu’ran and a fuel consumption calculator.

The Madrid suspects were traced through their apparently careless abandoning of a van near the train station car park which contained spare detonators and an Arabic tape of Qu’ranic quotes.

Perpetrators of any kind of crime, let alone one of this magnitude, tend not to leave such an easy trail straight to them and their possible associates.

THE EVEN MORE LETHAL BOMBS LEFT BEHIND

Even more curious than the bombs being left in the cars, is why they left them there at all when it has been recently stated, and confirmed by the narrative that there were no other suspects involved with the attacks of July 7th. This rules out the possibility that other potential terrorists were waiting to retrieve the bombs later on to carry out further attacks.

If it was a suicide mission then there is hardly any logic to leaving behind any bombs at all, especially ones that have been shown by the ABC pictures to be even more capable of causing carnage than the ones actually used. Why leave behind not only the spare bombs but a spare rucksack, which was first reported to have been left under the passenger seat, although this report suggests the rucksack was left in the boot of the car.

Why load up a rucksack with bombs that nobody was apparently going to carry? The bus bomb, horrific as it was, might well have been far worse had it gone off on the bottom deck in the centre, rather than at the rear of the upper deck. These issues are not consistent with the alleged intention to cause "maximum carnage".

The narrative does not mention in detail what was left in the car, only referring to "other items consistent with the use of explosives." The narrative suggests that explosive devices found in the car (without stating which car) are of a different and smaller kind than those used in the attacks. It suggests these were possibly to be used for "self-defence" or a diversion in case the men were intercepted during their journey. This line of reasoning does not appear to contain much logic. If the men happened to be stopped on the way to London, then using bombs as a diversionary tactic to allay suspicion that they might be terrorists would be rather absurd.

THE NON-EXISTENT CCTV ON THE BUS

Two days after the attacks, it was reported that Scotland Yard sources were disappointed to find that the CCTV on the bus was not working, and they would therefore have no footage of the person responsible for the attack actually on board the vehicle. The source said:

"It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out this atrocity. We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if there was a technical problem but there are no images."

The report went on to say that the bus had four cameras - one covering people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck scanning the length of the vehicle.

An employee of Stagecoach, the company which runs the bus which was bombed gave an anonymous statement saying that there was no reason why the CCTV should not have been working since they are maintained more than once a week.

An ex London bus driver confirmed that the CCTV cameras not working on the bus was an unlikely scenario.

THE BUS DIVERSIONS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS OF THE SCENE OF THE BUS BLAST

The Stagecoach employee referred to above also pointed out that the No.30 was the only bus to be diverted from its usual route that morning. However, this appears to be far from the case as two other buses that would not normally pass through Tavistock Square have been identified in Tavistock Square ahead of the 30.

Photographic evidence exists showing a number 205 whose usual route between Paddington and Whitechapel a short distance ahead of the number 30 and also a 390, whose usual route is between Notting Hill Gate and Archway, ahead of the number 205.

Also in Tavistock Square that morning, heading the opposite way, were a No.59 and a No. 68, both of which include Russell Square on their usual routes.

Neither the 30, the 205, nor the 390 would have any reason to pass through Tavistock Square on their usual daily routes. While it has been reported that the number 30 bus was diverted, it now seems that at least two other buses were also diverted and, to date, there has been no formal explanation for how and why the number 30 bus was diverted into Tavistock Square, or who ordered its diversion.

One possibility is that these buses were transporting the injured from the tube blasts, since it is widely reported that three buses were used for this purpose.

According to a witness who was on the lower deck of the No.30 bus, the bus exited Euston bus station via Euston Road, instead of its usual route out across Eversholt Street. According to Daniel Obachike:

I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment. My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th Bomb (as yet unpublished)

The bus then turned right into Upper Woburn Place, but could not go past the junction with Tavistock Square because of a police cordon across the road. The account of the cordon appears to be backed up in a Daily Mail interview published on 7th July 2006, in the Daily Mail, with Tania Calabrese, who survived the bus bomb. She had been travelling on the top deck of the bus, with her boyfriend, Tony Cancellara, and said:

"Tony was getting impatient and we were thinking about getting off and walking. We were talking to two ladies in front of us and the whole bus was buzzing - one of the ladies said she had heard something about a bomb and then I noticed there were police putting up tape to block off the street. There were a lot of people getting off just before it happened. I can't remember hearing it go off, I just remember a vacuum and being thrown forward."
Source: Daily Mail

Even though by the time the bus exploded emergency services would have been responding to the incidents underground and evacuation procedures were being carried out at King's Cross station, there is no explanation for why Tavistock Square was being cordoned off before an incident had occurred there.

According to traffic warden Adesoji Adesi, the driver of the No.30 bus, George Psaradakis, had been asking two Camden council parking attendants for directions when the explosion occurred.

It is also worth noting that while the destination blind of the bus indeed stated ‘Hackney Wick’, there were numerours reports in the first week of reporting that the bus had been travelling from Hackney and terminating at Marble Arch. It is difficult to see how this error was made, given that the destination blind was clear to see. However, could it be that the 'erroneous' reports were correct, and that despite other reports, the No.30 may perhaps have been travelling south, perhaps because it was carrying injured passengers picked up at King's Cross or Russell Square. This idea is backed up by a Guardian article from Friday 8th July 2005, Where the Bombers Struck:

According to eyewitnesses, some people who had been evacuated from Russell Square tube station had boarded the bus just before it too was attacked.

If this is indeed the case, then it is possible that the initial reports claiming the bus was travelling from Hackney Wick to Marble Arch were incorrect.

Also rather oddly, the driver of the bus, after helping to pull several passengers from the wreckage, walked for seven miles to the Central Middlesex Hospital at Acton, instead of seeking help or being attended to at the scene like other survivors and despite British Transport Police officers being on the scene before the explosion happened (see below).

In a Note to Editors in a press release from 8th July 2005, issued by the bus operating company, Stagecoach, states:

“The driver of the bus is an important police witness and is not being identified. For similar reasons, he will be giving no further media interviews in relation to this incident.”

Mr. Psaradakis was also reported by a Greek newspaper to be under police protection in a ‘secret location’ on July 12th - although he was back at work by September 8th, driving the bus for the first time since July 7th.

Mr Psaradakis has featured in numerous media interviews since that statement was made. Why the change of media strategy with the bus driver? And why haven't the drivers of the affected trains featured in a similar number of interviews?

Mr. Psaradakis does not remember seeing Hasib Hussain board his bus.

A tourist staying in a hotel in Tavistock Square, reported that, incredibly, she was told on the day by police that the bomb had been in a rucksack, when this was not publicly announced until many days later. How could this have been known on the same day? Especially since there is so much confusion over what the devices were made from and how they could have been transported.

It's also surprising that police were on the scene so quickly, considering the other incidents underground. One man, who had been driving through Tavistock Square in his daughter's car, and was right next to the bus when it exploded, stated that he'd been told by a police officer after he got out of the car, that he wouldn't be getting the car back.

The immediate presence of the police may partly be explained by the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, who, in a message to the BMA, wrote:

“Three of my officers were travelling behind the bus when the bomb exploded, and were the first officers on the scene. Whilst they began to rescue passengers from the bus, your staff immediately sprang into action assessing and treating the casualties.”
Source: Bridget Dunne

However, some photographs and witness accounts suggest that police and plain clothes 'operatives', were on the scene and inside the cordon within seconds of the blast, with the implication that the scene was already set for something dramatic to happen.

THE SECOND BUS EXPLOSION AND STRANGE REPORTING OF THE DEATH OF A WITNESS

A New Zealand doctor, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, who had been in the BMA building when the bus exploded outside, mentioned that there had been a second, controlled explosion on the bus.

"There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do," she said, before going on to describe how police then carried out a controlled explosion on a second suspect bomb. Scotland Yard, however, said there was no record of a second, controlled explosion at Tavistock Square."

There are other reports which correlate with her account of a second explosion on the bus.

“All the time they were conscious of a microwave box which had been left beside a window and was causing people to fear a secondary explosion.Eventually a bomb disposal unit were called and they destroyed the package.”

Ms. Oates-Whitehead was found dead at her flat in Shepherd’s Bush, London at the age of 35, two weeks later. There was an active media campaign to discredit her, this was highly apparent. The article from which her above quote was taken referred to her in the headline as a "bogus" doctor, yet Richmal Oates-Whitehead, was indeed a doctor.

It seems strange, when reporting the death of a young woman under strange circumstances to concentrate solely on the veracity of certain things she had said or done throughout her life. This is not generally the way unexpected deaths are reported.

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE BUS

The Metropolitan Police, in a statement on July 14th, said that they estimated there were around 80 people on the bus when it exploded.

Many reports indicate that the bus was filled to capacity, mainly due to the Underground being evacuated. The narrative stated that the bus bomb injured over 110 people. Obviously, not everybody injured by the bomb was a passenger on the bus, but the amount of people on the bus appears to be in dispute.

I saw a No 30 bus at Woburn Place with people getting off. My friend and I ran to catch it, we knocked on the door for the driver to open the door, he didn't as he needed I suppose to pull away in order to let an unmarked blue coloured car with the sirens going that was stuck in traffic trying to go through into Euston road. The bus was full but not cramped with people."
Source: BBC News

This seems to be backed up by this account from a survivor of the bus bomb:

"I strolled back to Euston to hop on a bus. It was now about 9.30am, and when the No 30 came with some space on it, I thought: "I'll just get out of Euston." Then the bus driver said we'd be diverted and those who wanted could walk to King's Cross. Oh, the lucky people who got off! The bus was emptier now and I got a seat at the back."
Source: The Times

Yet the bus driver had apparently had to stop passengers boarding, presumably because the bus was so full:

"I turned into Woburn Place at the same time as a number 30 bus, which would normally have headed straight towards Baker Street. The driver turned away one lucky lady at a bus-stop and he had got 50 yards ahead of me when I heard a bang."

THE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD JONES

Richard Jones stated that he had been on the No.30 bus, and had got off just before it exploded. According to Reuters, he stated that he got off the bus when he realised it wasn’t following its usual route. He also stated this in an interview with ‘Good Morning America’. He then went on to say that not only did about half a dozen people get off the bus with him, for the same reason, but the same number left via the back door of the bus. This conflicts with the statements in the section above.

Later on, Richard Jones changed his story and claimed he had left the bus because of the bizarre behaviour of a man he believed was the bomber. He described a man who was fiddling with a small bag at his feet, and who was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear and a matching jersey-style top. Mr. Jones even described the underwear, saying "The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top."

As can be clearly seen when compared to the CCTV images released of Hussain that day, this description does not even slightly equate to what he was actually wearing or the size of bag he was carrying. Moreover, Mr. Jones states that he was on the lower deck of the bus on the drivers’ side, yet the bomb exploded at the rear of the top deck, and seems confused as to whether he was sitting or standing and whether the ‘agitated young man’ was facing him or facing away from him, since these details changed with every account Richard Jones gave.

Regardless of the unusually vast capacity for detail of Richard Jones’ memory, all the details were completely wrong. He is not a credible witness and did not see Hasib Hussain on the bus. Yet his testimony is cited in the narrative.

THE ILLOGICAL MOVEMENTS OF HASIB HUSSAIN

The Government narrative states that after the men were seen at “around 8.30am” together at Kings Cross, and then split off into different directions, Hussain appeared to walk towards the entrance to the Piccadilly Line, in the same apparent direction as Lindsay. However, what he did after this appears to make no sense. The narrative does not mention Hussain again until 8.55am, when he apparently left the station to walk onto Euston Road where he apparently tried to contact the other three men on his phone. According to the reports at the time these phone calls came to light, Hussain was "frantic" and the calls described as "desperate".

Conversely, although the phone calls are mentioned, the narrative relays that Hussain’s demeanour was "relaxed and unhurried" over this period. There is also no explanation for how Hussain apparently had his phone with him in order to make these calls, yet his mobile was also apparently left in his room for his brother to find.

"When he failed to get in touch and the family heard news of the bombings, brother Imran went through Hussain's computer and the numbers in his mobile phone memory. Imran chanced upon one for Jermaine "Jamal" Lindsay, 19, the King's Cross attacker. He also called a stored number that led him to 18 Alexandra Grove in Burley, Leeds, which is now known to be the bomb factory."
Source: The Mirror

Five minutes later, at 9am, he re-enters Kings Cross through Boots – and is caught on CCTV coming out of the front of the store – then goes into WHSmith where "it appears" he bought a 9v battery. It is bewildering that the narrative uses this terminology – what made it "appear" that Hussain bought the battery? They are unable to ascertain whether or not he bought a battery but are able to ascertain the type of battery he bought? This makes no sense at all. Or is it that they can ascertain that he bought a battery but cannot say for sure what type it was? If this is the case, then why speculate at all as to the type of battery, when surely the phrase "He bought a battery" would suffice.

Hussain then left the station again and made his way across and along the Euston Road to McDonalds. All of this apparently took place within six minutes, as the narrative claims he entered McDonalds at 9.06am.

He apparently caught a No.91 bus, but at an unknown point, disembarked and boarded the No.30, which exploded at 9.47am. There is no reason why Hussain should have chosen to board a bus rather than a tube train; contrary to early reports, despite disruptions to the tube lines, he could have caught a train. Some reports even speculated that he had in fact attempted to board a train and failed to detonate his bomb. This was an explanation given for the apparent purchase of the battery, and the reason the bus was chosen as a target was because Kings Cross, by 9am was already being evacuated.

This speculation is not borne out by the narrative. It is also odd that despite the evacuation of Kings Cross, there are no signs of this in the CCTV image of Hussain leaving Boots.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE PICCADILLY LINE BLAST

A comment which appeared on the blog of a survivor of the Piccadilly Line explosion highlighted a peculiar situation regarding the number of the train. The driver of train 311 had been told that there was no record of his having been involved in the attacks, despite the fact that he had been interviewed at length after the explosion.

TFL stated that they had given the train number 311 in error and the actual number was 331.

This is in direct conflict with survivor statements and those of the driver, his companion and the Duty Manager of Russell Square Station.

There have also been conflicting reports of where the explosion actually occurred in the train; a BBC report stated:

"The device was in the first carriage by the first set of double doors where passengers stand."

This was what the Metropolitan Police had stated a week after the bombings. However, the same BBC report changed later on:

"The device was next to the rear set of double doors in the front carriage of the train."

This was apparently amended after survivors corrected the initial reports. However, some sources, including the Metropolitan Police website, still state that the explosion occurred at the front of the first carriage rather than the rear. The narrative, confusing as ever, simply states "Forensic evidence suggests the explosion occurred on or close to the floor of the standing area between the second and third set of seats."

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE ALDGATE BLAST

There are absolutely no witness sightings of Shehzad Tanweer, the man accused of causing this explosion. The narrative states:

"Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second carriage from the front."

Which gives the distinct impression that this is merely an assumption. In fact, one survivor, who was very close to where the blast had occurred, said:

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,"
Source: Cambridge Evening News

The hole in the floor with the metal pushed upwards was also described by Lizzie Kenworthy, an off-duty police officer who was on the train two carriages behind the bomb.

These accounts are consistent with a report published on July 8th, which stated:

"A counter-terrorism source told us the device was probably left on the floor of a train leaving Aldgate East Underground station. It was operated by remote control to explode at precisely the moment another train was passing in the opposite direction."

The report also describes how it was not just one train affected by the explosion:

"It is thought the blast - shortly before 9am - ripped through the shell of the carriage and tore a hole in the oncoming train….Our source said: "It was utter carnage inside both trains. There were limbs scattered everywhere."

In early reports the bombed train was reported to have been traveling towards Liverpool Street from the direction of Aldgate. In fact, TFL stated that not only was the train traveling in this direction but that it was on the Hammersmith and City Line, rather than the Circle Line. When an independent researcher queried whether this train was one which had been travelling in the opposite direction but affected by the bomb on the Circle Line train, the response from TFL was that this report had been given in error and that only one train had been affected.

The Metropolitan Police stated that the bomb had been on a train travelling “from Liverpool Street to Aldgate station” presumably this refers to the train being between these stations when the blast occurred. The police also said that the device was in the third carriage of the train.

However, the narrative places Tanweer in the second carriage of the train as stated above. It would surely be obvious, even a week later, exactly in which carriage the blast occurred.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS OF THE EDGWARE ROAD BLAST

Similar to the other incidents, there are no reliable witness sightings of Khan on the train. Survivor Danny Biddle remembers seeing Khan. However, there is no definitive account from Mr. Biddle; it changes every time it has been reported, varying from whether Khan was sitting or standing, the distance Mr.Biddle says he was from Khan, and whether Khan was holding his rucksack in front of him or whether it was on his back.

The press sensationally implied that another passenger, John Tulloch "may have seen" Khan, presumably due to Mr.Tulloch’s proximity to the explosion. However, there is also this:

"But surprisingly Prof Tulloch said the image of the bomber did not trigger his memory, and he remains unconvinced whether he saw the man who may have been sitting opposite him.
"I don't know if I did see him," he said. "I'm still not sure. In my police report I emphasised that I had a strong impression of someone who looked like him and was sitting opposite me in the Tube, but I can't guarantee that it was that day."

As with Aldgate, there were suggestions that more than one train was involved in the incident. At the press conference a week after the bombings, the police stated:

"The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors."
Source: Metropolitan Police Service

An independent researcher asked TFL to clarify how many trains were involved in the Edgware Road incident and received the reply:

"In total, four trains were damaged. Three of the trains were those where the explosions took place. A fourth train, a Hammersmith & City line train, at Edgware sustained damage, while passing Circle line train 216 when the device exploded. No fatalities or injuries were recorded on the Hammersmith & City line train."

TFL only cites a Hammersmith and City line train being affected by the Edgware Road blast, but this is in direct conflict with the accounts of Jenny Nicholson, a victim of the Edgware Road blast:

"Jenny Nicholson, who was 24, was killed by the suicide bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan on the eastbound Circle line service she had boarded at Paddington station."
Source: The Guardian

Jenny was on an eastbound Circle Line train which she had boarded at Paddington station, yet Mohammad Sidique Khan was reported to be on the westbound train that he had allegedly boarded at Kings Cross.

Eyewitness accounts also support the view that the other train involved was an eastbound Circle Line train. It’s hard to see how TFL can be unclear which lines were affected by the explosion at Edgware Road.

THE CHANGING OF THE BLAST TIMES

On July 7th, the Metropolitan Police outlined the times that the explosions occurred at a press conference:

"At 08.51 on 7 July at Liverpool Street Station there was a confirmed explosion in a carriage 100 yards into the (Liverpool Street-bound station) tunnel.
At 08.56 there was another incident at King’s Cross / Russell Square. Both stations were used to bring out casualties.
At 09.17 there was an explosion on a train coming into Edgware Road underground station approximately 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion took place on a train and blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform."
Source: Metropolitan Police Service

These times were confirmed the next day by the Government Office for London – albeit with a rather inexcusable error in the first blast time given; 8.15am rather than 8.51am.

However, the day after that, July 9th, the police revised the original timings and said that the explosions had happened "simultaneously" within seconds of each other at around 8.50am. TFL released a statement the same day confirming these new times.

TFL said that their evidence was based upon the precise time the Tunnel Telephone system on the Piccadilly line went out of service. If this happened at 8.50 then it is difficult to see how 8.56 could have been originally given as the time for this blast.

Strangely, some sources have even given the time of the first explosion, which occurred on the Eastbound Circle Line train as 8.49am, which is backed up by this statement:

"The first report of a major incident at Liverpool Street station was received by the London ambulance service at 0849, within a minute of the blast."
Source: BMJ

This is, of course, in conflict with the official timing which claims 8.50am.

It is hard to see how the timings could have changed from having quite large gaps in between to being simultaneous. A log of events released by London Underground shows the initial confusion over what had happened.

THE NUMBER OF EXPLOSIONS INITIALLY REPORTED

On the morning of July 7th, Ian Blair issued a statement:

"London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tells the BBC he knows of "about six explosions", one on a bus and the others related to Underground stations. He says he believes the six affected areas are Edgware Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate"
Source: BBC News

British Transport Police had said over an hour earlier that "power surge incidents" had occurred on the Underground at Aldgate, Edgware Road, King's Cross, Old Street and Russell Square stations.

Since the blasts occurred on trains that were between stations, wounded people were apparently emerging from both stations, which would explain some of the confusion, although a survivor of the Aldgate explosion says they were not allowed to exit through Liverpool Street but instead had to walk through the tunnel towards Aldgate, past the bombed carriage and the carnage it contained.

Old Street and Moorgate are one stop away from each other on the Northern Line. What occurred there that it was judged to have been an explosion site as well? Just after the police confirmed reports of the bus explosion, Transport Union officials reported that there had been three bus explosions. There were also reports that two buses had been damaged in explosions; one in Tavistock Square and one in Russell Square.

"Witness, Belinda Seabrook said of the Russell Square blast: "I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air."
Source: BBC News

Surely this witness would have been aware of her location?

The next day, July 8th, however, Ian Blair was confident about the number of bombs…and also, oddly, about the number of bombers:

"If London could survive the Blitz, it can survive four miserable bombers like this. I'm not saying there are four bombers, four miserable events like this."

One might assume, as he quickly corrected himself, that this was a mere slip, since it was reported on the same day that it was believed 15 terrorists would have been needed to carry out the attacks. Either way, odd that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would retract use of the word 'bombers' when it is apparently widely accepted that 'four miserable bombers' were responsible for what happened.

July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 2

Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far - Part 2

| Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |

Mind the Gaps Part 2 - Gap Summary

THE TIMING DEVICES

On July 8th, The Guardian carried a report which said:

"Police denied that they had recovered any unexploded devices. But a source told The Guardian that three controlled explosions had been carried out on "suspect devices".

Furthermore Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism centre, told The Guardian that "two unexploded bombs" were recovered as well as "mechanical timing devices".

There were similar reports in other media, including The World Tribune, which stated:

"Al Qaida employed light but advanced bombs detonated by timers in last week's bloody strike on London's mass transit system. British officials said authorities have determined that the four bombs that blew up in subways and a bus in London on July 7 were composed of less than 4.5 kilograms of explosives each. They said the bombs were small enough to fit in a knapsack and were detonated by timers rather than suicide attackers."

The NYPD stated that they believed the timing devices had involved the use of mobile phones. Interestingly, the NYPD was criticized for making an "erroneous statement" regarding the information they released regarding the explosives used and the method of their detonation - which implies that the information they released was wrong. However, the only error they made was suggesting that Scotland Yard had given them clearance to state their findings, which it had not.

Scotland Yard refused to comment on the NYPDs findings.

On July 16th, The Mirror ran a cover story questioning the ‘suicide bomber’ theory. Other media also questioned it, since this theory is constantly implied and has been generally assumed to be the correct one, but has never actually been stated categorically by the authorities.

By August 24th, it was apparently confirmed that remote detonators had not been used. Instead, senior police sources told reporters that the bombs had been triggered by the pressing of a device similar to a button.

"The news that the bomb attacks were carried out with button-like devices triggering the bombs was confirmed to the Guardian by several separate senior police and counter-terrorism sources.
"There were no mobile phone timers on the seventh," one source said. "They were manually activated".
Source: The Guardian

However, witness testimony seems to conflict with there being ‘button like devices’. Danny Biddle, who claims he saw Mohammad Sidique Khan detonate his bomb on the train at Edgware Road, said:

"I noticed him reaching into his bag and he didn't say or do anything. He wasn't agitated or fidgety, he was very calm. He looked at me and looked around the carriage. Then he pulled some sort of cord."
Source: The Mirror

However, Mr. Biddle’s account has not been consistently reported, as mentioned previously.

That the detonation was caused by something being ‘pulled’ rather than ‘pressed’ was also suggested by the testimony of bus bomb survivor, Louise Barry, who was found to have the detonation device embedded in her leg. The device was described as a ‘toggle’.

“TARA BROWN: Do you know what role the toggle played in the bomb itself?
LOUISE BARRY: No, they're just saying it's the bit that's pulled ... from the bomb before it ... I imagine like a grenade or something, like a pin.”

The narrative merely says that there is evidence which indicates that they were "coordinated suicide attacks". The evidence which it has outlined, despite its suggestions that the men were involved in the making of the bombs, does not conclusively prove that they intended to die. It even states:

"Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks shortly before the explosions."

Despite the fact that one of these was Richard Jones, who obviously did not see Hasib Hussain at all, and the only other witness on public record who made a similar statement, also gave conflicting accounts. The narrative also cites Hussain’s ‘appearance’ of buying a battery that morning as further evidence that remote detonators were not used, when the narrative cannot say for sure whether he did actually buy a battery or not. The narrative states that there was no evidence at the bomb sites of remote detonation, which obviously conflicts with the reports above from the authorities who supposedly saw them. Surely, by the time the narrative was complete it should have been confirmed exactly how the bombs were detonated and not leave the narrative itself to employ speculation based on quite flimsy evidence.

THE CHANGING TYPE OF EXPLOSIVES USED

A CNN report on July 10th said:

"Technical data and witness accounts suggest the bombs contained synchronized timing devices and were probably not triggered by suicide bombers, police said, adding that the bombs were composed of "high explosives" and probably not homemade material."

Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, was also reported to have said a day later that the explosives used were "military in origin". He also mentioned that they were possibly trafficked from the Balkans, since it would generally be quite difficult to obtain military explosives, unless the men had "someone on the inside" to get them out of the military establishment.

"Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, head of the French security service’s Anti-terrorist Co-ordination Unit, said: “The use of military explosives is very worrying. We are more used to seeing home-made explosives made from chemicals. How did they procure them?"
Source: Irish Examiner

The possibility of the explosives being sourced in the Balkans was also put forward by the French Interior Minister:

"French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told the emergency meeting of EU justice ministers in Brussels that there was strong suspicion the explosives used in the bombings came from the Balkans or Eastern Europe, where it is possible to buy the material on the black market after the Balkan wars."
Source: Irish Examiner

Charles Clarke, the then home secretary was reported to have been "bewildered" by these comments, even though reports stated:

"Traces of military plastic explosive, more deadly and efficient than commercial varieties, are understood to have been found in the debris of the wrecked Underground carriages and the bus. Scotland Yard has asked its counterparts around Europe to check stockpiles at military bases and building sites for missing explosives."
Source: Irish Examiner

And Scotland Yard Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick told a news conference on Saturday July 9th:

"All we are saying is that it is high explosives. That would tend to suggest that it is 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."
Source: World Tribune

Other sources went as far as identifying the explosive found at the blast sites as C4:

"Traces of the explosive known as C4 were found at all four blast sites, and The Times of London said Scotland Yard considers it vital to determine if they were part of a terrorist stockpile."
Source: Canadian Television

Another report stated:

"Immediately after the blasts detectives found traces of RDX explosive, a key component used in the Madrid train bombings."
Source: The Mirror

By mid-July, however, when police reported that they had found traces of explosives in a flat in Leeds, there was no more mention of "high grade" or "military explosives".

The Independent reported that police had found a "bath filled with explosives" in the flat in Alexandra Grove in Burley, although other reports much less sensationally told of the police finding "traces of explosives" in the flat.

The explosive reportedly found was triacetone triperoxide (TATP), an extremely unstable substance, nicknamed ‘Mother of Satan’. According to an information page about Acetone Peroxides:

"TATP is widely considered to be too unstable to synthesize safely in standard laboratory facilities, though small quantities (under 1 gram) are occasionally synthesized for research purposes, and for testing and calibration of detection equipment."
Source: WikiBook

Which makes it seem rather unlikely that TATP could be produced in quantities that would fill a bath, and then driven a substantial distance in a car before being carried around in a rucksack – especially as one a representative of the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch claimed one of the men was on CCTV "going into shops and bumping into people".

Confusingly, though, it was also reported that the ‘primed’ bombs left in the Nissan Micra at Luton station were composed of a different type of explosive, hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. Even though the narrative states that different, smaller explosives were found in the car, reports in September 2005 imply that what was found in the car matches up to the explosives found at the blast sites:

"British investigators said they found two unexploded bombs made from peroxide-based HMTP, and encased in nails in a car the attackers left at the Luton train station north of the capital. They did not immediately specify how they knew the bombs that exploded aboard three London subways and a bus were made from peroxide-based explosives, which must be kept cool until used."
Source: SP Times

Indeed, the NYPD had claimed it was HMDT that was used in the attacks:

"In an unusually detailed briefing, officials from the NYPD's large anti-terrorism department, said that the bombs used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be mixed from mundane ingredients such as hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach). The only unusual piece of equipment the bomb-maker needed to produce large quantities of HMDT was a commercial refrigerator, because the explosive degrades if it is left at room temperature. Yesterday, NYPD officials said that an expensive fridge was found in the otherwise rundown flat in Dewsbury, on the outskirts of Leeds, where investigators believe the bombs used on July 7 were built, and that the devices were brought to Luton in cooler boxes in the boots of two cars."
Source: The Times

Another report made the point that one of the ingredients of this type of explosive was used in cooking by the military:

"The NYPD officials said investigators believe the bombers used a peroxide-based explosive called HMDT, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. HMDT can be made using ordinary ingredients like hydrogen peroxide (hair bleach), citric acid (a common food preservative) and heat tablets (sometimes used by the military for cooking)."
Source: CNN | WNBC / Associated Press

The numerous reports that carried this story were seemingly unable to even abbreviate the name of the explosive correctly. The actual abbreviation for hexamethylene triperoxide diamine is HMTD.

It is interesting how detailed the NYPD had been in their investigations. All the narrative will say about the explosives used in the attacks is that "Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade".

It is somewhat strange that "expert examination" continues almost a year later. What kinds of tests are being done that would take so long to yield results? Again, the narrative uses the terminology "it appears"; yet this informatin would have been established in a matter of days, if not weeks.

Despite the narrative being unable to state what kind of explosives were used and how, it is able to state that the "mixtures would have had a strong bleaching effect" and that "both Tanweer and Hussain’s families had noticed that their hair had become lighter over the weeks before the bombing." The families are not on public record as saying this. Tanweer's friends had apparently noticed that he had dyed his hair.

However, according to the CCTV footage of just three of the men that was released from their trip to London a week before the bombings, Tanweer’s hair looked extremely dark, and so does Hussain’s in the three images of him released from the July 7th. How, though, can the narrative know the effects of the explosives' manufacturing process without specifcally stating what the explosives used were?

Finally, despite the more recent reports stating that the explosives were homemade, cheap to obtain and that the attacks were “a modest, simple affair by four seemingly normal men using the internet", it is difficult to reconcile that with this excerpt of a report from The Times:

"Forensic scientists have told The Times that the construction of the four devices detonated in London was very technically advanced. “You keep hearing that terrorists can easily make a bomb from using instructions on the internet. You can, but not of the design and sophistication of these devices. These were well put together, and it would appear the bomb-maker has highly developed skill,” one expert said."
Source: The Times

THE 'BOMB FACTORY'

On July 12th, police searched six properties in Leeds. It was reported that they had found "substantial explosives" in a flat in Alexandra Grove, Burley. It had been widely reported that this flat had been let to Lindsay by Dr. Magdi Mahmoud el-Nashar in the weeks before the bombings.

"Dr Nashar said he had met Lindsay in Leeds during the Muslim festival of Ramadan in October-November last year. He said Lindsay had asked him in June for help in finding somewhere to live in Leeds so he could move there from London with his wife and child."
Source: The Guardian

However, there are no reports that Lindsay lived in London. In fact, it was reported that Lindsay had moved to Aylesbury in the weeks prior to the bombings.

Furthermore, a friend of Dr. Nashar said:

"He was a big, powerfully built man, not fat but muscular. He wore the traditional Muslim robes and cap and spoke with a southern or London accent. Magdy told me that he lived in Bradford for a while. I believe they met for the first time in the prayer room at Leeds University. He was studying Arabic, either on an academic or self-help basis, and was very devout."
Source: Daily Mirror

It makes no sense that Lindsay would have had a "southern or London accent" having lived in Yorkshire for almost his entire life. Other descriptions given by people living in neighbouring flats also do not match that of Lindsay.

One neighbour spoke of a Mediterranean looking man "about 6ft 3in tall" who would "come and go at strange hours". A virtually identical description was given in a Daily Mirror report:

"A newly developed flat in bedsit land, this is where the deadly bombs were made in the bath by a mystery man who arrived from London and "needed somewhere to stay. He is described as being of Mediterranean appearance, about 30 to 35, 6ft 3in tall, with short curly dark hair. He is believed to have left the country on July 6."
Source: Daily Mirror

What is peculiar here is that one of these Mirror reports is referring to Lindsay and the other Mirror report is not. Yet they appear to be describing the same man; both "Mediterranean" and both 6ft 3in tall.

Neither of these statements matches the description of Lindsay, who was Jamaican and 19 years old, over a decade away from being in his early to mid thirties.

So, who was this 'Mediterranean-looking' stranger who allegedly made the bombs, who would come and go at strange hours? The media seem to have generally assumed that it is Lindsay, ignoring the discrepancy in the physical descriptions of this man. Even if we disregard the odd situation of Lindsay apparently trying to rent a flat in Leeds and a house in Aylesbury for himself and his family at the same time, it is reasonably clear from these descriptions that the man who rented the flat from Dr. Nashar was not Lindsay.

In fact, in all the reports, including those of many men coming and going at strange hours, which led police to state that this indicated the existence of a large terrorist network, there are no witnesses who have actually described seeing the suspected men.

On June 15th, 2006, the top story on the ITN evening news was a brief tour of the 'bomb factory', which involved the hallway and bathroom, and an interview with a neighbour who claimed that she saw the men on the morning of July 7th. The neighbour, Sylvia Waugh, said:

"The morning of the July the 7th, where I saw 'em all, them getting into the vehicles to go, at that time, to bomb London, and I looked out and there were all these people getting into cars."

Later in the interview she says:

"And this is on the July the 7th, where I saw 'em all, what I thought were dealing in drugs and it was them, getting into the vehicles to go at that time to bomb London. I saw 'em putting stuff into the boot of cars and I thought they were dealing in drugs - and I know they saw me from the window."

It is also mentioned that Ms. Waugh believes other people knew of the existence of the 'bomb factory':

"The weekend of the July the 7th that I saw an old Asian lady clearing out some rubbish of number 18 from the other side and putting it into bin bags what were garden sacks what were full of I don't know what from the garden what they've been putting from the garden. I don't know who that lady was and I don't know who took the sacks but the sacks have gone."

If we are to look objectively at these statements, we can see that not only does Sylvia Waugh not describe the suspects, but she says she "saw them all", which suggests a large group. This seems odd in the light of there being only three men who allegedly left Leeds that morning, and only in one car, a Nissan Micra, not "cars".

The reporter, Emma Murphy, stated that the Metropolitan police had released a statement "in the last hour" of that day, confirming that they had spoken to Sylvia Waugh, that they were treating her as a very credible witness and saying that the information she has provided to them and to ITN news offered them an active line of enquiry. This gives the impression that Sylvia Waugh had only just offered her statement, whereas such testimony should surely have offered an "active line of inquiry" almost a year ago.

If the men, as is reported in the Official Report, travelled down from Leeds and reached Luton early on the morning of July 7th, this suggests they would have had to have left Leeds at around 4 to 4.30am. According to a typical journey planner, the journey takes around 2½ hours and at least one stop for petrol, as documented in the narrative, needs to be accounted for.

It is not completely unrealistic that a person would have been awake at that time of night and looking out of their bedroom window, but unless it was a very brightly lit area, it does seem unlikely that the people Ms. Waugh says that she saw would have been clearly distinguishable. This would account for the fact that she, and the report, avoids saying that she actually saw Khan, Tanweer and Hussain. When we also take into account that she speaks of "cars" and "all these people" it is not clear that she actually did see these men at all.

In addition to this, there was a report in The Mirror the following day, June 16th, carrying an interview with another neighbour:

"Mr Langham said: "I would see three of them coming and going quite a lot." He added: "They didn't seem suspicious but they never really introduced themselves as our new neighbours."

Mr. Langham does not say "I would see the three of them coming and going quite a lot", which would indicate he was speaking of the suspects. Again, it is not clear that the men he saw were any of the men accused of bombing London.

Police reportedly found forensic evidence that the suspected men had used the flat. In addition:

"Police say they also found several sets of fingerprints at the Leeds location besides those of the four bombers in the first attack."
Source: ABC News

At the very least, there have been several indications that many more people visited the flat than the four suspected men, so it is hard to understand why there have been no further reports or media investigations into this.

What is also extremely curious, and has yet to be explained, is how the police were led to the ‘bomb factory’ in the first place. The Home Office report states on page 10, “Further information provides a possible link between Hussain and 18 Alexandra Grove.”, but does not explain what this information was. By early afternoon the following day, police had, with assistance from the army, carried out a controlled explosion to gain entry to the flat, after evacuating over 500 people from their nearby properties and erecting a 100 yard cordon around the property.

On July 14th, the police stated:

“MPS officers, supported by officers from West Yorkshire Police, executed search warrants issued under the Terrorism Act 2000 at six addresses in West Yorkshire. A controlled explosion was carried out at one address to ensure safe entry.”
Source: Metropolitan Police Press Conference

How did the police know that only Alexandra Grove was the ‘bomb factory’ and required a controlled explosion to gain entry as opposed to any other property they planned to search? The only media report that suggested a link between Hasib Hussain and Alexandra Grove, was in The Mirror who reported the previous key holder to the flat stating that he had received a phone call from Hussain’s brother, Imran, trying to locate his brother through calling numbers on his mobile that Hussain had curiously left behind. This connection is tenuous at best, and certainly doesn’t explain how Hussain was linked to the flat, especially when considering this other report, which stated: “Police know the keys were with bomber Lindsay three weeks before the attacks.” This is an odd thing to state in light of the fact that Lindsay was not identified as the fourth suspect until July 15th.

Further, the flat was a Housing Association property, which should have had the keys returned to the organisation before being passed on to someone else. If there is no evidence that Lindsay ever lived in the flat, which is certainly borne out by the fact that police only identified Lindsay after searching his home in Aylesbury and not after the flat in Alexandra Grove, then what was it precisely that led the police to search it at all? Why does the Official Report link Hussain to the flat, disregarding all reports that Lindsay lived there and held the keys?

THE SIMULTANEOUS ANTI-TERROR DRILL

A company named Visor Consultants was running an exercise for an unnamed company which involved the scenario of simultaneous bombs going off at the time when London actually did come under attack. The Managing Director of Visor, Peter Power, gave an interview on the afternoon of July 7th where he said:

"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." (Download MP3 audio file of this interview)

Despite this coincidence, sensationalized by Peter Power himself, he admitted later on that the drill had not completely mirrored the actual events, and had also involved mainline stations as targets. He also expressed surprise that people would be interested in the remarkable comments he made in his interview and also attempted to minimise the similarities between the exercise and the actual attacks. Despite the fact that he had said the exercise involved the bombs going off at ‘precisely’ the railway stations where the attacks had occurred, he later pronounced that in fact only two of the locations had been similar. However, even after downplaying the parallels, he went on to state "the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting".

Terror drills are not unknown in London, but other coincidences may be the involvement of Peter Power in several high profile tragic events before 7/7, such as the Kings Cross fire of 1987 and the Libyan Embassy siege of 1984, and the strong links that he has with the police and the Government.

Additionally, Peter Power had previous experience of rehearsing bombs on the Underground. He helped create the BBC's Panorama programme London Under Attack months before July 2005 and in which London fell victim to a terrorist attack underground, followed by the explosion of a land-based vehicle, a situation not entirely dissimilar to his July 7th rehearsal operation and the events of that day.

He is a former Detective Inspector in counter-terrorism and is a close associate of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Chief. He was also selected by the Government to write the Best Management Practice Guide on Crisis & Business Continuity Planning & Risk Management.

Peter Power also has connections to former New York Mayor, Rudi Giuliani; he served on the Advisory Board to the Canadian Centre for Emergency preparedness(CCEP), alongside the senior Vice President of Giuliani and Partners, Richard Sheirer, who was also Director of the New York Mayor’s office of Emergency Management, overseeing the rescue and recovery operations following the September 11th attacks. Giuliani and partners is a security consultancy and Investment Bank and Mr. Giuliani himself, by another coincidence, happened to be in London for a conference and just yards away from Liverpool Street station when the blast occurred there on the morning of July 7th.

Peter Power acts as an independent security consultant to the media examining the impact of terrorism on London. It would not be unrealistic that he would be conducting an anti-terror exercise, but it is strange that it happened to be on the same day, at the same time, and involving the same stations. Peter Power himself admits this, even when attempting to downplay the coincidence. It arouses suspicion when considering the ‘Wargames’ exercises of the morning of September 11th, involving the same scenarios that later occurred. The chances of these situations being simple coincidence appear quite slim.

THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS

Terrorism experts in the USA reported that they had been told by “intelligence sources” that at least one person had been warned that a terrorist attack was about to take place. The person they referred to was the Israeli Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who was due to attend an economic conference in a hotel near Liverpool Street station.

"Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion."
Source: WTVQ

The Associated Press broke the story, and in a follow-up report, stated that the story had been denied by the Israeli Government who said that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts occurred. However, the head of Mossad had said in an interview with a German newspaper

The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast. As a result, it was impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts."
Source: Israel Insider

Other reports even claim that the warning was not received minutes before the attacks, but days before.

Netanyahu himself also denied, though, that he had received any such warning, calling the reports "entirely false". Although this report claims that the AP "quickly replaced the story", they never retracted it.

Reports of the warning can still be found on the Israel National News web site (the original article has since been removed from the Israel National News web site and is only available as a copy on archive.org, although the Bellaciao collective carry a screenshot):

Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast
10:43 Jul 08, '05 / 1 Tammuz 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.
The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.
At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility at this time.
Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks.
Source: Israel National News

If there was advance knowledge of the attacks, even if they could not have been prevented, surely it would have been more constructive to have warned TFL Managers and people who could have worked to minimize the resulting confusion – if not the destruction - rather than a politician who was still in his hotel room and would not have been on a tube train that morning?

It is perhaps also interesting to note that the conference which Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was due to attend was organised by an alliance of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and Deutsche Bank, the German Financial Services organisation who had become only the second international member of the TASE just one year previously.

Perhaps the conference was related to the anniversary of the union between the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and the German financial services giant on July 6th, the day it was announced London had won the Olympic bid for 2012?

Deutsche Bank Becomes a Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange Member
July 6, 2004
TEL-AVIV, Israel --(Business Wire)-- July 6, 2004 -- The Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange announced that Deutsche Securities Israel, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG, has become an exchange member. Membership enables direct access to trading on the exchange. The TASE Board of Directors approved the German bank's membership on July 1.
Deutsche Securities Israel becomes the TASE's second international member after UBS, which joined the exchange in 1997.
Source: Business Wire

THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS

It was first claimed that the four suspects were so-called ‘clean skins’ and thus able to plan and execute the attacks unknown to the police and security services.

However, on July 13th, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy revealed that Charles Clarke had informed him that this was not the case, and that two of the suspects had been arrested in 2004 but released in order to break the wider network. Mr. Clarke vehemently denied that he had told Mr. Sarkozy any such thing.

On October 26th, it was revealed that Mohammad Sidique Khan had been under MI5 surveillance in 2004 and shockingly, a few days later it came to light that all four men had been tracked.

In February 2006, it was claimed that the NYPD and the FBI had warned British Officials that a Pakistani-American in custody in New York had alleged that he knew Khan and that he was "trouble", even though the informant, Junaid Babar, had already made his claims back in July. There is a very interesting background to Junaid Babar, who had been told he would serve less time under a plea deal, which presumably involved identifying terror suspects.

The ISC report into the London Bombings describes Khan as having been "peripheral" to previous surveillance and investigative operations, despite the fact that a lot of time and money was spent on photographing him, tapping his telephone and tracking his car. Transcripts of the taped telephone conversations were never made available to the ISC.

The Times reported:

"For the ISC report to be more incisive would not have been difficult. It does reveal that there were occasions before the attacks when MI5’s attention was drawn directly or indirectly to Khan but goes to great lengths to play them down. For example, the report notes that in 2003 a known terrorist suspect under investigation by MI5 made calls to a telephone number registered to a “Siddeque Khan".
Source: Times Online

Which is interesting, because that was not Mohammad Sidique Khan’s name. Even more curiously, the ISC report spelled all of the men’s names incorrectly:

"The 7 July bombers have been identified as Mohammed Siddeque Khan (30), Hasib Hussein (18), Shazad Tanweer (22), and Jermaine Lindsay (19)."

The actual spellings are Mohammad Sidique Khan, Hasib Hussain, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay. This makes one wonder how they could have been effectively monitored if such rudimentary details about them are wrong.

THE DISCOVERY OF KHAN’S PROPERTY IN THREE LOCATIONS

The Metropolitan Police stated in a press conference that they had found personal documents bearing the names of three of the four suspects close to the seats of three of the four explosions. They also stated that property in the name of Mohammad Sidique Khan was found at both the Edgware Road blast site and the site of the Aldgate blast.

Even stranger, according to the narrative, not only had Khan’s property been found at the two blast sites on July 9th, even more of his property was found at the scene of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square on July 14th.

Why would Khan’s property have been at sites he was not otherwise forensically linked to? A simple answer would be that the other suspects were carrying his identification along with their own, but a further argument would be why were any of them bothering to carry identification at all?

Despite the surprising survival of this documentation, it would generally be unlikely to remain intact during the explosions, since the documents would be at the very epicentre of the blasts. It also seems odd that the men would be carrying incriminating receipts with them on a suicide mission, as The Mail reported.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUSPECTS

It is completely unclear how the suspects were definitely identified. DNA has been mentioned but it is not stated where the samples were taken from and what they were matched with. What about evidence other than DNA which, once upon a time, would be required in order to secure a conviction for even the most minor offence?

Two of the men, Tanweer and Hussain, have reportedly had family funerals and their remains have been interred in Pakistan and Yorkshire respectively. There has been no account stating the whereabouts of Lindsay’s body, and the family of Khan have asked for a second post-mortem to be carried out on his remains, which are apparently in fifty separate packets.

None of the families of the men have identified their remains. Lindsay’s mother stated:

"I don’t know whether that was my son. Neither I nor his wife have been able to identify him."

The family of Hussain say they have been shown no other evidence than the credit card belonging to him which was found in the bus wreckage.

A strange report in The Scotsman stated that Hussain had been easily identified as the perpetrator of the bus bomb because his were the only injuries consistent with wearing explosives strapped to his chest – yet he was apparently carrying the bomb in a rucksack.

THE PARKING TICKET & LINDSAY’S DNA

The narrative states that Lindsay’s car was not ticketed and that this was the reason why it was towed away - reportedly on the day of the attacks. It is, in fact, not the policy of Luton station car park to tow away unticketed cars. Specifically, it would be fair to assume, on the very same day they are discovered without a ticket. On the car park regulations notice, under section 12, headed "INVALID TICKET OR FAILURE TO DISPLAY A VALID TICKET", the notice states:

12.1. If you fail to display ticket correctly (which means visible at all times and available for inspection) at any time the following provisions of this condition 12 shall apply. The right of the Company given in this condition 12 are in addition to any other legal remedies available to the company.
12.2. A Penalty Charge Notice ("PCN") will be affixed to your vehicle or handed to you. The PCN will specify:

12.2. 1. the sum you are required to pay
12.2 2. the time within which payments must be made; and
12.2 3. the address to which payment must be sent.
The PCN will also explain that unless payment is made in accordance with its terms court action may be commenced to recover the sum due under the PCN together with costs, interest and any other sums legally recoverable, along with the costs of recovery associated thereto.
Click for photo of Luton parking regulations.

In addition to this, there is a sign which warns that vehicles parked illegally may be wheel clamped.

In other words, there is absolutely no mention of the towing away of vehicles as being the penalty for not having a parking ticket visible on a vehicle. This would, in any case, not be a reasonable course of action for any car park to take on the same day a vehicle is discovered unticketed..

In contradiction to the narrative, news reports stated that Lindsay had ticketed his car and it was the DNA he had left on the ticket which had been used to identify his remains.
Lindsay’s wife, Samantha Lewthwaite was adamant on July 17th that her husband was innocent and said she would not believe he had been involved in the attacks "until they have his DNA".

But this is contradicted by an interview she gave to the same newspaper on September 23rd, where she stated:

"The next day [July 14th] they showed me Jamal on CCTV and said his DNA proved he was one of the bombers. My world collapsed"
Source: Times Online

This, in turn, contradicts a report where the police had stated that DNA identification would "take some time".

How could Samantha have been so insistent that she would not believe it without DNA proof, but can later say she was aware that DNA proof already existed three days beforehand?

Samantha had asked Lindsay to leave their home on July 6th after finding texts on his phone to another woman. Therefore, she was not immediately concerned that he would have been affected by the bombs on the 7th and did not report him missing until July 13th. Strangely, that very same day the police came and raided their home, even though there is nothing in the narrative to suggest at this point that he was a suspect and apparently no other concerned families reporting loved-ones missing had their homes searched. The police did not find property belonging to Lindsay at the scene of the Piccadilly Line explosion until July 15th.

THE WRONG MEN’S NAMES INITIALLY GIVEN

Early reports gave the name of the Piccadilly Line bomber as Ejaz or Eliaz Fiaz, who, like three of the suspects came from Beeston. His brother, Naveed, was detained at Paddington Green after the bombings but was released without charge on July 23rd. He was reported to have handed himself in for questioning voluntarily. Naveed Fiaz had worked alongside Khan in the Iqra bookshop in Beeston and also for the Youth Support Service at Leeds Community School.

So there were apparent connections between him and at least one of the suspects, but there is no explanation for why Naveed’s brother, who was known as ‘Jacksy’, was believed to be the ‘fourth bomber’ and his name given by the media with the same amount of confidence of the other suspects’ names. His house was raided along with those of the other suspects and neighbours spoke of how he had taken the apparently unusual step of changing his appearance by bleaching his hair and mentioned other personal details about him.

Once Lindsay was identified as the suspect for the Piccadilly Line blast, Fiaz was never mentioned again and, perhaps more importantly, has not been heard of since.

The name originally given for the Edgware Road suspect was Rashid Facha. Bizarrely, ‘Rashid Facha’ lived at the same address as Khan, and his wife’s name was given as Hasina Patel – the same name as Khan’s wife. Neighbours even spoke about him and the work he did, which appeared, yet again to be similar to Khan’s job.

A report in The Independent said:

"At 7.05am yesterday, police stopped at a neat, modern bungalow in Thornton Park Avenue, in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire, where retired and recently widowed former local high school teacher Farida Patel lives. Within an hour or so, police raided an address at Lees Holm, a cul- de-sac of council houses a five-minute drive away, where Mrs Patel's daughter Hasina, 23, has been living since January with her husband Rashid Facha " in his late 20s and of Pakistani extraction " and their eight-month- old daughter. Police arrived at the couple's house at 8.15am and Mrs Facha was led away in her veil. A neighbour said Mr Facha had been missing since last Thursday."
Source: The Independent

The missing man described in this report was clearly Mohammad Sidique Khan. He lived at the same address and had a wife and mother-in-law of the same name. The neighbours surely knew what his name was, if they knew these other names, so why was he ever referred to as Rashid Facha?

And, one might have thought, Rashid Facha most definitely would not have been on the name found on the personal documents belonging to Mohammad Sidique Khan that the government narrative states were found at no less than three of the blast sites.

THE ‘MASTERMIND’

Within hours of the bombings, the media were speculating about possible ‘masterminds’. The first name to be mentioned was that of Mustafa Setmarium Nasar, suspected of orchestrating the Madrid bomb attacks.

Even as later as November 2005, he was still being considered a suspect, as reported in the Guardian:

"Nasar's name has been widely mentioned in reports citing security officials speaking about the investigation into the July 7 bombings, in which 52 people were murdered on the capital's transport system."
Source: The Guardian

Another name given a lot of press exposure was Haroon Rashid Aswat, from Batley in West Yorkshire. He had reportedly left Britain “just hours” before the attacks on London and according to the police, had made several mobile calls to the men in the days leading up to the attacks. It is also claimed that Khan phoned Aswat on the morning of July 7th.

It was reported at Aswat was arrested on July 20th 2005:

"Haroon Rashid Aswat was carrying a belt packed with explosives, a British passport and a substantial amount of cash when he was seized, according to intelligence sources in the country."
Source: The Guardian

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid rejected these reports, however, stating:

"We have arrested no one with the name of Haroon Rashid," the minister told AFP. "The reports in this regard are untrue. I deny it."
Source: Africa.com

It was also strongly denied that anybody at all had been arrested in Pakistan in connection with July 7th.

On July 29th, John Loftus, a terrorism expert and former federal prosecutor, appeared on Fox News and revealed that Aswat was an asset of MI6, the British Secret Service. According to Loftus, Aswat had been under the protection of MI6 for many years.

What John Loftus was said was later confirmed and thereafter, Aswat’s name was only mentioned in connection with terrorist training camps he was accused of setting up in the USA, for which he was ostensibly arrested in Zambia in late July and deported to Britain on August 7th.

On October 8th 2005, The Times ran a suppositional article claiming that yet another ‘mastermind’ had accompanied Khan and Tanweer on a whitewater rafting trip they had taken with a Youth Group around a month before July 7th. He was described as a ‘mystery figure’ who had also apparently been spotted on the streets of Beeston. The article stated:

"Police have never believed that the four British-born bombers were acting alone and wonder if the mystery Pakistani man was sent to help the group to finalise their plans."
Source: The Times

This is in contrast to a report almost two months earlier in the Independent on August 13th 2005, which stated that the person that the Times article seems to be referring to was an innocent Pakistani who happened to have a similar name to a known terrorist. The article also stated:

"An investigation into the four suicide bombers from the first attacks and the people alleged to be behind the July 21 plot has found no evidence of any al-Qa'ida 'mastermind' or senior organiser. The inquiry involved MI5, MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ and the police. The disclosure that the July 7 team was working in isolation - and were radicalised by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the oldest man - has caused concern among anti-terrorist officers"
Source: The Independent

The official government narrative states, "The press reported later that a known extremist figure and possible mastermind left the UK shortly before the bombings. There is no evidence that this individual was involved" and rather ambiguously concludes, "The extent of Al Qaida involvement is unclear. Khan and Tanweer may have met Al Qaida figures during visits to Pakistan or Afghanistan. There was contact with someone in Pakistan in the run up to the bombings. Al Qaida’s deputy leader has also claimed responsibility."

THE ‘FIFTH MAN’

From the concluding statements of the narrative:

"It remains unclear whether others in the UK were involved in radicalizing or inciting the group, or in helping them to plan and execute it. But there is no evidence of a fifth bomber"

having previously said:

"There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a "5th bomber". It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a "5th man" with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the "5th bomber" was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers."

Discounting the idea of a fifth bomber leaves no explanation for the fifth rucksack that was left in the car, apparently primed and ready for use.

The regular commuter that the narrative makes reference to is probably who this Times report mentions, as a man who was picked up by CCTV cameras at Luton standing next to the men.

Although according to a Newsday report, the men was not seen with them at Luton, but at Kings Cross, and reports that at the time, police and intelligence sources did consider him a suspect.

If there genuinely is "no evidence" to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers, then all the above reports were completely untrue; and then one has to wonder why such stories, in all their apparent detail, are allowed to mislead the British public.

THE 'KHAN' VIDEO

On September 1st, 2005, al-Jazeera, a television station formed from the remains of the BBC Arabic Service broadcast a video of Mohammad Sidique Khan. It is not known why it took so long for this video to be shown. In fact it is not known how or where the video was made – or even if it actually is Khan. Many of his friends don't believe it is him and others admit he looked ‘significantly different’ in the video.

The video showed Khan making no direct reference to London or any intentions he had of organising an attack on it. In fact, if viewed objectively, his speech was incredibly ambiguous.

The video was edited to include footage of Ayman al-Zawahri, presumably to give credence to the theory that al-Qa’ida organised the London bombings and the Khan was a ‘foot soldier’. However, the media later began dropping the idea that the attacks had been organised by anyone other than the four accused men themselves, despite Jack Straw’s pronouncement that what happened in London "Bore all the hallmarks" of the al-Qa’ida network.

There has been no explanation as to who edited the tape, how it was obtained by al-Jazeera or why it incorporated the al-Sahab logo, a signature of al-Qa'ida videos.

Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert pointed out the use of the logo, saying there was "zero percent doubt" it was al-Qa’ida. He said:

"I find it a little bit depressing that people don't realise this is al-Qaida's calling card. It shows how little some understand about al-Qaida."
Source: The Guardian

Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Centre had said:

"The style is that of al Qaeda -- multiple attacks in different geographical locations to inflict maximum casualties. Only al Qaeda has the ability to carry out successive attacks with such coordination, we have no doubt it was al Qaeda, not only because of the planning of the attacks but because of their political timing. Al Qaeda always times its attacks with major political events. This is its strategy."
Source: SABC News / Turkish Daily News

Yet is has now become widely accepted, and confirmed by the narrative, that the video can have had nothing to do at all with al-Qa’ida, and that the men acted alone.

The narrative referred to the video and also mentioned a separate last Will and Testament where Khan had indicated his intention to martyr himself through a terrorist attack. However, this Will has never been previously mentioned and certainly never shown.

THE UNCONFIRMED REPORTS

There were a few strange reports in the days after July 7th describing a shooting at Canary Wharf the same day of the attacks.

"POLICE were yesterday probing reports a man had been "neutralised" outside Canary Wharf. It is believed the man was shot dead by police marksmen outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank."
Source: ICSouth London

The first report was from a Reuters employee who stated that it was two men who had been shot, and that it had happened outside the HSBC building.

"The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time). Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said."
Source: New Zealand Herald

It is strange that these reports were never followed up. The above report came from a New Zealand newspaper and the story was also picked up by Canadian media, but there was barely a mention of it in British media, even to rubbish the story.

It was obviously a day of confusion, but if an incident like this was witnessed by the amount of people suggested in the report, this does not suggest that what happened could have been mistaken. One witness reported seeing a "saw a flurry of police cars and yellow-vested men" outside the HSBC building.

At a press conference on July 7th, the police were asked to elaborate on the reports, but they simply said there had been no such incident, with no apparent explanation for why there should have been a "flurry" of police activity at Canary Wharf.

QUESTION: Can you tell me -- the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf (ph). Do you know anything about that?
PADDICK: We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.

Source: CNN Transcript

Another odd report from that day which, perhaps understandably, has had no press coverage is that Managers at Kings Cross station were all asked to come to work early, at 7am, which they had rarely, if ever been asked to do before. Before the explosions occurred, the Managers were told on no account to speak to the press that day.

Such reports should not be dismissed on the basis that they come from unnamed sources and did not reach mainstream coverage. An inordinate amount of press coverage regarding the attacks of July 7th involved information from ‘sources’ which were not named, yet are judged to be authentic in that capacity. Such reports should surely be investigated, even if only to discover that they had no basis in truth, rather than simply ignored by the media.

.

Labels

Thursday, August 19, 2010