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.
