London Bombings Whodunnit

As I’ve said on numerous occassions, the official account of the London bombings of 7th July 2005 (‘7/7’) is a crock of shit. It is a document packed with lies, and the investigation into the murder of 56 people (and maiming of 700 or more) has been a joke.

Blair dramatically refused to establish an inquiry only months after the bombings themselves, as was widely covered:
Blair: no need for July 7 inquiry
No inquiry into 7 July bombings

And this was after labelling such notions of an inquiry a ‘ludicrous diversion’ only days after the attacks.
Blair rejects calls for probe into bombings

As reassuring as ever, Blair said that “I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do.”
PM defends bomb inquiry decision

However, he did find the time to heavily prejudice the investigation by saying on the very day of the bombings themselves that, “We know that these people act in the name of Islam.”
Blair decries attacks as ‘tragic atrocity’
How could Blair possibly know who was responsible before a single body had been recovered from the blast sites? He couldn’t. And Blair is a trained lawyer. He knew full well that to blame Muslims, or people acting in the name of Islam, before an investigation had even properly begun, would prejudice any and every attempt to find out who was responsible. But he didn’t care about that.

So, a public inquiry would be a ‘ludicrous diversion’ but nevertheless the government made a promise that we will ‘know exactly what happened’. In May 2006, almost a year after the bombings, the Home Office published its narrative account of what happened. It can be downloaded in its entirety (40 pages or so) from this page:
official-documents.gov.uk/do … 7/1087.asp

In the Preface, the account states quite clearly that:

Again, our PM tells us that they’ll make sure we know exactly what happened, but the only published version of events admits from the off that it is partial and incomplete. I’d say this constitutes a good reason to hold a public inquiry. Apparently not, as one of Blair’s final actions before stepping down as PM was to once again say that there was no need for a public inquiry.
Blair rejects fresh calls for inquiry into 7/7 attacks
Prime Minister rejects calls for fresh investigation into 7 July bombings in London

Needless to say, I do not trust this man, or the government he presided over. The only other account we have of what happened was produced by the ISC, the Intelligence and Security Committee. That can be read or downloaded here:
cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publica … report.pdf
Now, the ISC is a body hand-picked by the PM, and whose reports he has the power to edit in the name of national security, so funnily enough, I don’t trust them either.

Let’s start with the obvious question - how did the four alleged bombers get to London that day? According to the official narrative, the three from Leeds (Khan, Tanweer and Hussain) got in a blue Nissan Micra and drove down the M1 to Luton. The evidence cited for this is an unpublished CCTV image. Now, if I got into every example of how unpublished evidence is used in the narrative we would be here for about 100 pages, so I can’t be bothered, save to say that citing evidence we, the public, haven’t seen hardly constitutes ‘making sure’ that we ‘know exactly what happened’. Nonetheless, this first part of the story makes little sense, because of the choice of car. This is a Nissan Micra:

It isn’t a very big car. In fact, it is one of the smallest cars available on the British car rental market. Why would the bombers, all three being men of considerable bulk and height, rent one of the smallest cars around to take them, and four bombs in refrigeration units, as well as the other bombs found in the car afterwards, down the motorway to Leeds? Why not rent a larger vehicle? Why not use the van Hussain had access to?

En route, they stop at Woodall Services for petrol and snacks. Tanweer goes in to pay, and argues with the cashier about his change. Why would an Islamic fundamentalist on the way to his death, particularly one motivated by intense hatred of capitalism, give a damn about his change, let alone enough to say anything about it? This is just one example of many I could go into that indicate that these men were not suicide bombers, or even men with Islamic fundamentalist views.

So, they supposedly get to Luton at 6:49 in the morning. I say ‘supposedly’ because once again no evidence is presented for this time. Nor is any presented for the claim that Lindsay had driven over from Aylesbury and arrived at 5:07 before waiting for an hour and a half for the others. They sit in the cars, they apparently move things from one car to the other, they eventually put on rucksacks and enter the train station. The narrative confidently states:

Finally, we actually get some supporting evidence, a CCTV image from the camera outside Luton station.

However, if you look closely, the picture contains numerous errors that suggest that it has been doctored, photoshopped, falsified, whatever.

I haven’t circled ALL of the problems in the picture, just three of the most obvious. Firstly, the railings in the background seem to be cutting through the head of the rear of the two men in the centre of the picture. This is supposedly Siddique Khan, the ringleader. Not only was he an Islamic fundamentalist and suicide bomber, he was also a shapeshifter, it seems. Same thing is happening with his left arm slightly lower down in the picture. The guy in the foreground, which I think is meant to be Jermaine Lindsay, seems to have a chunk cut out of his leg. There are other such ‘anomalies’ in this CCTV image, so feel free to have fun trying to spot them.

So, would the police or the Home Office deliberately manipulate an image to make it say what they wanted it to say? Well, I have seen irrefutable evidence that they have done. If you compare the image published in the narrative:

With this larger version published on the Metropolitan Police’s own website:
met.police.uk/news/terrorist … upcctv.jpg

You’ll notice that the version in the narrative has been cropped so that the timecode in the upper left corner is not in the narrative. Now, this wouldn’t be suspicious, except that the narrative claims the four entered Luton Station at 07:15. According to the larger image, it was nearly 07:22. So they’ve doctored an image to fit with their desired story, and the evidence is in the public domain. What good is their information, their version of events, when we know that it is based on lies and deceit?

So, we move on to the issue of the train. The narrative says:

While it doesn’t explicitly claim that the four were on the 07:40 train, this is the only train mentioned in the narrative account that would explain how they got from Luton to London (assuming they were ever in Luton at all on that day). However, as one blogger found out, the 07:40 did not run that day. Only the Guardian have bothered to cover this story until very recently.
Seeing isn’t believing
Now, maybe you don’t find a blog and a Guardian story all that convincing, but it was admitted by the Home Office (via John Reid) that they’d made a mistake in putting the train time at 07:40. They revised the account to put the bombers on the 07:24 train.
Reid reveals July 7 account error

Now, if the bombers entered the station at just before 07:22, and caught the 07:24 train (which left a minute late at 07:25), that gives them only three minutes to buy tickets, find out which platform they needed to be on and get to the platform in time to catch the train. While not impossible, it seems odds that they would do these things in such a hurry, as trains from Luton to London at that time of day normally run every few minutes. However, if they’d taken any other train that day then they could not have got to London in time to get onto the tube trains that later exploded.

Without even getting to London, we have examples of doctored evidence, lies and either investigative incompetence or a total disregard for what actually happened. When I’ve got the time I’ll continue with this story, but that’s enough for now.

This video focuses on CCTV a bit more clearly.

youtube.com/watch?v=kpAvVv6D … ed&search=

Though I certainly accept that the 7/7 bombings could be a false flag operation or at the very least the British government is manipulating data to fit its own agenda I didn’t think this image was doctored. However after looking carefully into this I can’t help but feel this is either doctored or the camera taking the photo is so corrupt that it is almost worthless. Are there are other CCTV images out there I can look at to compare?

Lets get into the image…

  1. the cut and paste leg anomaly (x: 450, y: 255) can also be seen on a pole to the right (x:584, y:307) and once again on the other pole (x: 597, y: 381). However it is curious to see that this cut and paste anomaly aprears all throughout a square around the reflections of the figures (x: 395, y: 115 to x: 624, y: 405).

  2. The top bar is very clearly merging into the suspects face.

  3. Why is the suspect furthest to the right so distorted? Is he a demon?

  4. There appears to be very unnatural cut and paste line to the left of the guy with the white sneakers.

All these things are fucking suspect.

For comparison, feel free to look at the footage released from CCTV cameras of the alleged ‘dummy run’ by three of the bombers in the weeks prior to the blasts. It’s available for download from this page:
julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-downloads.html
And is on youtube here:
youtube.com/watch?v=S0tGyc-6Buo

You’ll probably notice that Siddique Khan isn’t a shapeshifter in this footage. You’ll probably also notice that the quality is considerably higher.

When watching the youtube video, whoever the author is makes a mistake in their doctoring.

When they remove the people who supposedly don’t belong in the picture, the railing itself becomes all distorted, smeared and doesn’t even mesh together any longer …

While I’m actually coming around to the ‘terrorist bombing’ conspiracy theories (Zeitgeist part 2 is a good video), I’m not convinced by the CCTV images. The railings coming in front of the persons face are not inconsistent with a phenomenon I know I’ve seen before, whereby white objects bleed and make streaks on low quality film. Of the ones pointed out (the railings, the blurb by the leg), they all seem to be bleeding in the same direction.
And the face is blurred because the camera has low shutter speed. Any movement while the picture was being taken would exhibit itself as blurring or distortion. Look at the man with the tie in the foreground of the dry-run video: his face is blurred as can be, shifting through a dozen monstrous distortions.

The most convincing evidence I’ve heard (and I should try to track down a better source for this) is that the government was conducting a drill of the exact same scenario at the exact same time. I don’t buy the coincidence. Maybe if they run such drills every other week, but I don’t think they do. That’s a really easy way to confuse anyone that should be preventing such a thing. The Zeitgeist movie also mentioned that the same thing happened on 9/11, which would be incredibly unlikely and pretty damning.

Sure, but we do know that the image has been cropped to cut out the timecode, so we know that they are lying about some things. Even if we put the visual anomalies down to poor quality of video, we still have the fact that this is scant evidence of anything being claimed in the official account.

Yet the faces in the background, of the alleged bombers, are much clearer (in the dry run video).

Note - the drill was NOT being run by the government. It was being run by a private ‘crisis management consultancy’ firm called Visor Consultants. The man from this firm who told three different versions of this terror training drill story is called Peter Power, who used to work for Scotland Yard and is a member of a Masonic Lodge. I’ll get to all that in a later post, I’m doing this in a roughly chronological order. The whole issue of simultaneous drills and advance warnings to the Israeli Embassy is very much in my thinking.

Incidentally, Peter Power was also a consultant on the BBC Panorama show of nearly a year prior to the attacks which envisioned a very similar attack on London. So, if we’re getting into actual conspiracy theories (rather than earnest research and discussion), I’m firmly laying the blame on producers at the BBC.

Not to mention allows for monitoring of the actual terrorist attack.

Not exactly the same - there were a series of drills that put together encompassed most of the events of 9/11, but also encompassed a lot more. But this isn’t about 9/11, this is about London. So far I think I’ve shown that the account of how the bombers got to London is at best implausible or unsubstantiated and at worst downright impossible. What amused me about the Home Office being forced to admit that they’d got the train time wrong was that Home Sec. John Reid said that changing the time did not affect any other aspect of the account. It sure as hell does, as we’ll see when we get onto the issue of what type of explosives were used. But even more significantly, it casts doubt on the validity of the whole report. As I hope to demonstrate, there is not a single aspect of the story that isn’t suspect at the least, if not downright ridiculous. For a taster of what’s to come, feel free to Google the name Haroon Aswad/Aswat. He’s a significant element to this story but his name does not appear in the official narrative. He is referred to in an oblique fashion, however, which I find grimly amusing.

LOL, I haven’t seen part 2, but the first part was so full of errors, it wasn’t even worth the viewing, utter factless tripe and almost appearing to be willfully so.

I doubt they’ve improved their credibility.

Zeitgeist is said to steer you away from Zionism. Hence, I gave it a pass.

Haven’t looked into 7/7 in as much detail as 9/11. My belief it was another false flag operation stems from the same day/same stations exercizes, the Sharon link, the Menendez shooting, the inconsistencies with the bus bombing. The Peter Power exercizes being imo the main “smoking gun”. Looking forward to reading more about the inconsistencies in this promising thread.

Come on Sven, you should at least watch it for yourself to see if the comments are accurate…

Where were we up to? Ah, right, the shapeshifting half-invisible Islamic fundamentalists who cared a lot about getting the right change were on a non-existent train to London, being observed by several eye-witnesses whose testimony can’t be reliable because they weren’t on the train because it didn’t exist.

The next paragraph is just a piss take:

So the investigators clearly knew of at least the delays in the train times that morning but didn’t ever bother to check whether these delays in any way affected the story they wanted to tell. Indeed, according to this now unavailable ITV news story:
itv.com/news/index_ce769e60b … bc3c4.html
Scotland Yard never gave the Home Office a specific time for the train from Luton to London.

We’ve never seen this CCTV, or any other CCTV image showing the four alleged bombers in London that day. We have two pictures of Hasib Hussain (the alleged bus bomber) alone.

Hearsay. No court in the land would accept an unattributed eye witness statement as proof.

Why ‘must have’? Oh, because otherwise we can’t get him where he needs to be, on the train (216, I think) that was bombed.

So no alleged CCTV images, no unattributed witness statements, but this is apparently known to be what happened. Ridiculous.

We’ve never seen this footage, and once again the author uses ‘must have’ for the sole reason of it being the only way the official version can be true. This is a classic example of leading from the desired conclusion back to the evidence, rather than any proper scientific investigation which goes the other way.

Unspecified ‘forensic evidence’ locates Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay at the three bomb sites, but there are several things wrong with this part of the story.

First up - what type of explosive was used? This is a matter of HUGE contention. In the days following the bombings but before the ‘bomb factory’ was discovered The Times, The Independent, ABC News and the Irish Examiner all reported that traces of military plastic explosive were found in the debris of the trains and the bus. CNN, the BBC, PBS and Fox News all reported that the bombs were made of high explosives that were either unlikely to be homemade, or not homemade, and the Mirror went as far as specifically claiming that the explosive used was the military compound RDX. The Times also reported that

“Scotland Yard has asked its counterparts around Europe to check stockpiles at military bases and building sites for missing explosives.”

timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 91,00.html
news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/ … 298515.ece
abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1412778.htm
archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/20 … 838892.asp
cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07 … n.attacks/
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666591.stm
pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/j … n_7-8.html
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162002,00.html
mirror.co.uk/archive/archive … _page.html
timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 33,00.html

Now, testing for explosives forensically is quite a quick, direct procedure. The Israelis have even invented a very simple device to detect TATP, for example:
web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/4884.htm

Now why would Scotland Yard go to the lengthy step of asking its counterparts around Europe to check stockpiles of explosive if it was homemade? Could the forensic examiners be THAT incompetent as to get confused with whether they were detecting C4 (or RDX or something similar) or an acetone peroxide based homemade explosive? I don’t think so. On the other hand the narrative says:

The narrative was published in May 2006, 10 months after the attacks in July 2005. What kind of forensic explosives tests take 10 months to do in terms of determining what kind of bomb was used? This is absurd.

So, after the 12th of July, when the ‘bomb factory’ was discovered, the story changed. Now we were looking at homemade explosives. MSNBC first ran the story, before the Scotsman, the Independent, CBC, the BBC and CNN all followed suit.

msnbc.msn.com/id/8574827/
news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1610072005
news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/ … 299443.ece
cbc.ca/news/background/londo … bombs.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676861.stm
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … cd.01.html

I’m sure there are other stories covering the same thing, that around the 13th of July 2005 the official version of events changed radically. It is now widely believed that the explosive used was TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, though some reports mention HMTP, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine.

observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ … 40,00.html
sptimes.com/2005/09/21/World … bers.shtml

The problem with this is that TATP is highly unstable.

“Because of its low chemical stability and sensitivity to mechanical shock, TATP is not used in industrial and military applications.”
fh.huji.ac.il/~zeiri/Papers/jp014189s.pdf

israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/75139

So, we have this highly unstable explosive being put it the back of a small car, driven from Leeds to Luton, loaded into backpacks, rushed through Luton station, taken on a busy commuter train to London, around part of the underground during rush hour, all without exploding, not even in a single case? And we’re expected to believe that one bomb was then taken around London for another hour, in and out of a McDonalds, onto two different buses before being intentionally detonated by Hasib Hussain.

Also, TATP doesn’t release heat or burn when it explodes (as mentioned above by Prof. Keinan).
newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6925

Why is it then that people suffered burns injuries, and spoke of seeing explosions that produced flames, heat and smoke?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4659243.stm
news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/ … 297659.ece
guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto … 50,00.html
timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 596934.ece
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4346812.stm

This is far more consistent with military grade explosive like C4, or RDX as was used in the Madrid bombings (of which we have some footage and fireballs and smoke are very much in evidence).
youtube.com/watch?v=_Arqevz05Eo

Why is this so important?

Well, because the version told by the Home Office is 4 men working alone, so it requires nothing further on this aspect of the story. If the explosives were of military grade then we have a very serious question to ask, i.e. where did the bombs come from?

Netanyahu was nearby at the time of the bombing. I know, I know, the Zionists did it.

There are three possibilities I can see whereby British fundamentalists got their hands on military explosive.

The black market - could be, and it’d be practically untraceable

Al Qaeda - probably in the Balkans, since that’s historically been a significant weapons trading point for them.

Covert military group in the UK/MI6 - As we saw from the Gladio story, this sort of thing has happened before. Similar with the IRA, etc. etc.

I honestly don’t know, because this angle hasn’t been thoroughly researched in anything that I’ve found. Of course, I don’t have access to Scotland Yard.

This is from CQ Researcher: "

Terrorism
Apr. 21, 2006 Port Security
Oct. 14, 2005 Global Jihad
Apr. 02, 2004 Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
Feb. 22, 2002 Policing the Borders
Oct. 12, 2001 War on Terrorism
Jul. 21, 1995 Combating Terrorism

Islam
Religion and Politics
Terrorism and Counterterrorism
U.S. at War: Afghanistan

Abstract
By Peter Katel

Does a terrorist movement threaten the West?

President Bush declared in early October that the war in Iraq is a key front in the war with terrorist jihadists. But the president’s critics insist that the war actually serves as a recruiting tool for jihadists. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that made Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization notorious — and celebrated — worldwide, jihadists have struck more than 107 times in more than a dozen countries — a figure that doesn’t include hundreds of attacks on civilians and American soldiers in Iraq. The global terror offensive points to the existence of a unifying jihadist ideology. But much is unknown about the terrorists. Are their goals political or strictly religious? Do they operate under a unified command or through a loose network of organizations and cells? Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that al Qaeda remains strong enough to have played a role in the subway and bus bombings in London on July 7.

Three of the four suicide bombers who killed themselves and 52 subway and bus passengers and injured 700 in London on July 7, 2005, were filmed on a June 28 practice run by a security camera. (Getty Images/London Metropolitan Police)

Go to top

Overview

The images picked up by security cameras at London’s Kings Cross subway station showed four seemingly typical commuters — young men carrying backpacks.

Only in retrospect do the video shots seem ominous. They turned up after the men were identified as the suicide bombers who killed themselves and 52 people on three London subways and a bus last July 7.

One of the four was schoolteacher Mohammed Sidique Khan, who was born in England and raised there by his Pakistani Muslim immigrant parents. In early September, the Qatar-based Arabic-language station Al Jazeera ran a chilling, posthumous tape of Khan. In a distinctive Yorkshire accent, he cited “atrocities against my people” and declared: “We are at war, and I am a soldier . . . . Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood.” [1] “”

I can post the whole article if you wish, but cannot post a link as it is an academic site.

I do believe than many have zero idea who the real enemy is. :wink:

This is a prime example of what I’m talking about - only if we assume the official version of events to be true (and as I’m showing, there’s no great reason to assume it is true) does this evidence in any way indicate guilt. If the four men weren’t suicide bombers then what have we got? A picture of some daytrippers.

He wasn’t a schoolteacher. He worked as a teaching assistant in a school. If they can’t even get simple details like this right, what good is their research?

The origin of this video is unknown, and its authenticity has been questioned by people who knew Kahn personally. And the video itself has clearly been doctored as the sound and mouth movement are far from synchronised.

The whole article is probably full of the same sorts of errors I’ve described.

I do believe you are right.

Interestingly, same modus operandi in Madrid, same type of explosives too. Most certainly same types of lingering questions…

Was he smoking a gun? :wink:

Sure, they used RDX in Madrid. And the two-year investigation into the Madrid bombings found no link to Al Qaeda (in the sense of an organised international network).
usatoday.com/news/world/2006 … drid_x.htm

However, the narrative account (published after the conclusion of the Madrid investigation) includes the Madrid bombings as an Al Qaeda attack…

So, the next question, where were the bombs? The narrative talks about bombs in rucksacks being detonated by suicide bombers, but numerous eyewitness accounts describe explosions under the trains and metal pushed upwards into the carriage.

The first of these emerged on the very day of the bombings when Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum reported that witnesses at the Edgeware Road bombings described the floor of the carriage rising upwards, and talks of an explosion under the carriage of the train.
prisonplanet.com/audio/guard … nalist.mp3

While Honigsbaum himself now believes that these eyewitness reports were mistaken, there are other corroborating accounts that taken together suggest something very different to the backpack bomb story. guardian.co.uk/attackonlondo … 94,00.html

A Guardian report the following day stated:

guardian.co.uk/terrorism/sto … 50,00.html

Another report from the Edgeware Road bombing, also in the Guardian:

guardian.co.uk/attackonlondo … 68,00.html

Similar accounts have been reported regarding the Aldgate bombing, the most publicised of which (in the conspiracy theory media, I mean) being that of Bruce Lait:

cambridge-news.co.uk/news/re … 6926f9.lpf

Likewise, an off duty police officer, Lizzie Kenworthy, crawled through from the next carriage after the blast to try to help, this time from the Independent:

news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/ … 333787.ece

Now, I’ve been unable to find similar accounts from the other tube bombing but this remains almost entirely uninvestigated and not a single hint of these accounts makes it into the narrative. Unless the suicide bombers were dangling from beneath the tube trains, like in Cape Fear, I cannot see how they could be held responsible for these explosions. The combination of apparent explosions under the trains and the use of military grade explosive suggests something very different to four suicide bombers acting alone. Now, eyewitnesses can be unreliable, but when you get several different witnesses all saying the same thing it’s usually accepted as reasonable evidence that something happened. Obviously these accounts are not definitive or conclusive, but they certainly warrant investigation.

And why does everyone believe this is occurring?

9/11, 7/7 and so on, what’s the motive and why is it occurring now?

I’m not a staunch believer in all this conspiratorial talk, but I do know power corrupts and it directs, and I do know that where humans are involved nothing works as it supposedly does, and i know that those in power would do anything to maintain it.

Some of the ‘evidence’ is a bit shaky and I sense a desire, from many, to simply buy into the anti-official story narrative.

But I do perceive a rearrangement of world balances and a New world order emerging after that fall of the Soviet Union.

Poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, democratic rights are in decline, unions are becoming obsolete, the middle-class is being pressured, social fragmentation is increasing, pseudo-individualistic egotism is increasing, stupidity is increasing, money to support social welfare is suddenly not there, the democratic process doesn’t even attempt to pretend its legitimate and so on and so forth.

Where is this trend leading to?

"it’s the end of the world as we know it,
it’s the end of the world as we know it,
it’s the end of the world as we know it,

and I feel fine…"

-Imp