> 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.