> See website for articles with hotlinks/references and graphics at:
> http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html
> July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 1
>
> Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far
>
>
> 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, arrving as it
> did four minutes after the first of the bombed tubes 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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 DIVERSION OF THE BUS AND CONFUSION OVER THE ROUTE AND DRIVER
> The Stagecoach employee also pointed out that the No.30 was the only bus
> to
> be diverted from its usual route that morning. Traffic warden Adesoji
> Adesi
> reported that the driver of the bus had been asking a traffic warden for
> directions when the explosion occurred.
>
> According to reports, the usual route of the No.30 was from Marble Arch to
> Hackney along the Euston Road.
>
> The destination blind of the bus stated 'Hackney Wick', yet for the first
> week after the bombings it was reported that the bus had been travelling
> from Hackney, terminating at Marble Arch. It is difficult to see how this
> error was made, given that the destination blind was clear to see.
>
> 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 closer like other
> survivors.
>
> The driver 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.
> Strangely, the report tells of how poignant the driver found it to "pass
> the
> site" of the explosion, yet the normal route of the No.30 does not pass
> Tavistock Square, as stated earlier.
>
>
>
> 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."
>
> which 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: Cambride 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
>
> This is, of course, in conflict with the bombs having occurred at 8.50.
>
> 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
> | Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |
>
>
>
> 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: Science Daily
>
> 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
>
> and 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
>
> 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 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 consultantcy 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: Al Jazeera
>
> 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:
>
> 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: TMC
>
>
>
> 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 VIDEO OF KHAN
> 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: The Mirror
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>