Birmingham Central Mosque discusses 7/7 London Bombings & BBC2 Conspiracy Files

A pointless exercise in putting the cart before the horse and taking some spook's "ludicrous" conspiracy gibberish seriously. Still, a damn sight easier than doing any real research, no?

According to most accepted religious theory there can only be one Messiah on earth at any one time. Yet the truth contingent seem to have three??? Shayler (videos now pulled from youtube, but we are still laughing). Ike (the turquoise son of god). John Hill (well at least he has a beard). So what exactly do these messiah claims say about the rest of their theories?

Find the last two plugs unintentionally amusing.

If you click on the first ("Report on the BBC Conspiracy Files programme by 'Mind The Gap' filmmaker Adrian Connock")... you find an article slagging off the BBC for devoting time in their documentary to debunking the "Ripple Effect" as serious Truthers apparently know that film is full of rubbish.

But click on the second link ("Buy a double DVD which contains seven films about the 7/7 London Bombings") and it's an offer to buy a DVD containing... ooops... the "Ripple Effect".

C'mon - make up your mind.

www.globalresearch.ca
mike ruppert  http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml ex senior cop
 http://nafeez.mediamonitors.net/background.html nafeez ahmed, ex home office & amnesty worker
 http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2009/04/mi5_and_the_coverup_over_77_1.html rebel labour MP

Why must you record my phone calls?
Are you planning a bootleg L.P?
Said you've been threatened by gangsters
Now it's you that’s threatening me.

Can't fight corruption with con tricks
They use the law to commit crime?
I dread, dread to think what the future will bring
When we’re living in gangster times.

"Don't call me Scarface!"

Don't interrupt while I'm talking
Or they'll confiscate all your guitars.
A catch - 22 says if I sing the truth
They won't make me an overnight star.

Don't offer us legal protection
They use the law to commit crime.
I dread to think what the future will bring
When we're living in real gangster times.
"Bernie Rhodes knows, don't argue."

Orville (also known as Norville B, Norvello, or are you the ventriloquist comedian Keith Harris!) yes, I have posted these questions up elsewhere, because they are good searching questions to ask about 7/7, many of which you are not able to answer sufficiently, as I will now demonstrate:


My response to some of the answers Orville gave (my original questions in quotes first):


“1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured.”
Your ANSWER: "As Kings Cross survivors have reported, Tom N never wanted to be named."
> MY RESPONSE: Can you quote where they said this?
Your ANSWER: "Given the trauma they’ve been through, I can understand the drivers not wanting to talk to the press (or, these days, the tinfoil hat brigade). Those TFL staff who came to the rescue of their own accord, and have wanted to talk to the press, have been honoured."
> MY RESPONSE: I wasn't talking about the press, I was talking about the police, as well you know.

“2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)”
Your ANSWER: "Um - that would be the Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who was exposed as a fantasist who had fabricated her medical qualifications. So about as reliable a witness as Daniel O."
> MY RESPONSE: Just where was see exposed as a fantasist? Not by one of the compromised tabloid newspapers by any chance? Surely not a reliable source of one's character assessment, judging by countless examples over the years. It is also too easy for you to say this to obfuscate with assertions you are not backing up with any evidence.


“3). Why did the 100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation."
> MY RESPONSE: Not a justification for not establishing the one of the most fundamental elements of the 7/7 bombings which required an answer to. Suspicious that after initial press briefing of homemade explosives having been used (and even press reports of homemade explosives found in the home of Khan), a French explosive expert claimed that there was military explosive found at the 4 sites on 7/7 (why would he say such a thing if there was not evidential proof that the explosions hadn't been caused by military explosive?) Suspicious that absolutely no mention iwas subsequently made in the narrative, by the government or intelligence services about this after this guy spoke out.

It is clear you are wilfully part of some kind of attempt to distract attention from the facts of the case if you can't observe there is something dodgy here.

“4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?”
Your ANSWER: "This has been debunked by… Mark Honigsbaum, who you cite!"
> MY RESPONSE: "yes, but not by Bruce Lait who said the same thing about the train that exploded at Aldgate East and who was interviewed in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary.
I'm sure if there was a public enquiry, such evidence could be clearly analysed in the open, without any 2nd hand intepretations.

Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard. Mr Lait explained that as he was being led to safety, "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".

“5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage from the no.30 bus which was bombed?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe because it was bombed? Interesting that you’ve stopped claiming there was no CCTV footage of it or the tube stations, given that’s been shown to be untrue by the footage shown at the recent trials (including that of the bus shot from the BMA)."
> MY RESPONSE: Perhaps, but you give no answer to why Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete. Perhaps because there is no answer to this. Another unanswered susicpicion about 7/7 which begs a full, independent Public Enquiry intio what happened.

“6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber”
Your ANSWER: "Because people’s memories of traumatic events are often rubbish. Remember that members of the public on the tube claimed they saw wires protruding from Jean Charles de Menezes jacket. That wasn’t accurate, either."
> MY RESPONSE: Possibly true

“7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?”
Your ANSWER: "If you believe their boast – and it may just be a boast - maybe it’s because they spend a vast amount of time and effort… keeping track of Islamic terrorist groups? Their chief, whose quotes have since been denied by the Israeli government, also only said they’d known six minutes ahead, too late to do anything. They had warned before that had been that an attack might happen – but there had been lots of warning about potential tube attacks. The Evening Standard had run stories about the possibility before (citing, if my memory serves me correctly, Kings Cross, Oxford Circus and Bank/Monument as likely targets). Crucially, if Mossad were in on it, and are part of a conspiracy, why would their chief admit prior knowledge of the attacks to a German newspaper? That wouldn’t make any sense – but then none of your suppositions do."
> MY RESPONSE: I'm not here to rationalise WHY the head of Mossad gave an interview to a german newspaper and made these remarks (Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005). The question as to why Mossad had advance knowledge is a justified question to ask.

Orville N (also known as Norville B, Norvello ..could he also be the ventriloquist comedian Keith harris?) replied to my 7 questions about 7/7.

Here is my response to his answers, some of which do not answer my questions sufficiently at-all, as i will now demonstrate (my original questions in quotes first):


“1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured.”
Your ANSWER: "As Kings Cross survivors have reported, Tom N never wanted to be named."
> MY RESPONSE: Can you quote where they said this?
Your ANSWER: "Given the trauma they’ve been through, I can understand the drivers not wanting to talk to the press (or, these days, the tinfoil hat brigade). Those TFL staff who came to the rescue of their own accord, and have wanted to talk to the press, have been honoured."
> MY RESPONSE: I wasn't talking about the press, I was talking about the police, as well you know.

“2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)”
Your ANSWER: "Um - that would be the Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who was exposed as a fantasist who had fabricated her medical qualifications. So about as reliable a witness as Daniel O."
> MY RESPONSE: Just where was see exposed as a fantasist? Not by one of the compromised tabloid newspapers by any chance? Surely not a reliable source of one's character assessment, judging by countless examples over the years. It is also too easy for you to say this to obfuscate with assertions you are not backing up with any evidence.


“3). Why did the 100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation."
> MY RESPONSE: Not a justification for not establishing the one of the most fundamental elements of the 7/7 bombings which required an answer to. Suspicious that after initial press briefing of homemade explosives having been used (and even press reports of homemade explosives found in the home of Khan), a French explosive expert claimed that there was military explosive found at the 4 sites on 7/7 (why would he say such a thing if there was not evidential proof that the explosions hadn't been caused by military explosive?) Suspicious that absolutely no mention iwas subsequently made in the narrative, by the government or intelligence services about this after this guy spoke out.

It is clear you are wilfully part of some kind of attempt to distract attention from the facts of the case if you can't observe there is something dodgy here.

“4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?”
Your ANSWER: "This has been debunked by… Mark Honigsbaum, who you cite!"
> MY RESPONSE: "yes, but not by Bruce Lait who said the same thing about the train that exploded at Aldgate East and who was interviewed in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary.
I'm sure if there was a public enquiry, such evidence could be clearly analysed in the open, without any 2nd hand intepretations.

Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard. Mr Lait explained that as he was being led to safety, "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".

“5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage from the no.30 bus which was bombed?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe because it was bombed? Interesting that you’ve stopped claiming there was no CCTV footage of it or the tube stations, given that’s been shown to be untrue by the footage shown at the recent trials (including that of the bus shot from the BMA)."
> MY RESPONSE: Perhaps, but you give no answer to why Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete. Perhaps because there is no answer to this. Another unanswered susicpicion about 7/7 which begs a full, independent Public Enquiry intio what happened.

“6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber”
Your ANSWER: "Because people’s memories of traumatic events are often rubbish. Remember that members of the public on the tube claimed they saw wires protruding from Jean Charles de Menezes jacket. That wasn’t accurate, either."
> MY RESPONSE: Possibly true

“7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?”
Your ANSWER: "If you believe their boast – and it may just be a boast - maybe it’s because they spend a vast amount of time and effort… keeping track of Islamic terrorist groups? Their chief, whose quotes have since been denied by the Israeli government, also only said they’d known six minutes ahead, too late to do anything. They had warned before that had been that an attack might happen – but there had been lots of warning about potential tube attacks. The Evening Standard had run stories about the possibility before (citing, if my memory serves me correctly, Kings Cross, Oxford Circus and Bank/Monument as likely targets). Crucially, if Mossad were in on it, and are part of a conspiracy, why would their chief admit prior knowledge of the attacks to a German newspaper? That wouldn’t make any sense – but then none of your suppositions do."
> MY RESPONSE: I'm not here to rationalise WHY the head of Mossad gave an interview to a german newspaper and made these remarks (Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005). The question as to why Mossad had advance knowledge is a justified question to ask.

Orville N (also known as Norville B, Norvello ..could he also be the ventriloquist comedian Keith Harris?) replied to my 7 questions about 7/7.

Here is my response to his answers, some of which rather inadequately answer my questions, as I will now demonstrate (my original questions in quotes first):


“1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured.”
Your ANSWER: "As Kings Cross survivors have reported, Tom N never wanted to be named."
> MY RESPONSE: Can you quote where they said this?
Your ANSWER: "Given the trauma they’ve been through, I can understand the drivers not wanting to talk to the press (or, these days, the tinfoil hat brigade). Those TFL staff who came to the rescue of their own accord, and have wanted to talk to the press, have been honoured."
> MY RESPONSE: I wasn't talking about the press, I was talking about the police, as well you know.

“2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)”
Your ANSWER: "Um - that would be the Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who was exposed as a fantasist who had fabricated her medical qualifications. So about as reliable a witness as Daniel O."
> MY RESPONSE: Just where was see exposed as a fantasist? Not by one of the compromised tabloid newspapers by any chance? Surely not a reliable source of one's character assessment, judging by countless examples over the years. It is also too easy for you to say this to obfuscate with assertions you are not backing up with any evidence.


“3). Why did the 100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation."
> MY RESPONSE: Not a justification for not establishing the one of the most fundamental elements of the 7/7 bombings which required an answer to. Suspicious that after initial press briefing of homemade explosives having been used (and even press reports of homemade explosives found in the home of Khan), a French explosive expert claimed that there was military explosive found at the 4 sites on 7/7 (why would he say such a thing if there was not evidential proof that the explosions hadn't been caused by military explosive?) Suspicious that absolutely no mention iwas subsequently made in the narrative, by the government or intelligence services about this after this guy spoke out.

It is clear you are wilfully part of some kind of attempt to distract attention from the facts of the case if you can't observe there is something dodgy here.

“4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?”
Your ANSWER: "This has been debunked by… Mark Honigsbaum, who you cite!"
> MY RESPONSE: "yes, but not by Bruce Lait who said the same thing about the train that exploded at Aldgate East and who was interviewed in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary.
I'm sure if there was a public enquiry, such evidence could be clearly analysed in the open, without any 2nd hand intepretations.

Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard. Mr Lait explained that as he was being led to safety, "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".

“5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage from the no.30 bus which was bombed?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe because it was bombed? Interesting that you’ve stopped claiming there was no CCTV footage of it or the tube stations, given that’s been shown to be untrue by the footage shown at the recent trials (including that of the bus shot from the BMA)."
> MY RESPONSE: Perhaps, but you give no answer to why Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete. Perhaps because there is no answer to this. Another unanswered susicpicion about 7/7 which begs a full, independent Public Enquiry intio what happened.

“6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber”
Your ANSWER: "Because people’s memories of traumatic events are often rubbish. Remember that members of the public on the tube claimed they saw wires protruding from Jean Charles de Menezes jacket. That wasn’t accurate, either."
> MY RESPONSE: Possibly true

“7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?”
Your ANSWER: "If you believe their boast – and it may just be a boast - maybe it’s because they spend a vast amount of time and effort… keeping track of Islamic terrorist groups? Their chief, whose quotes have since been denied by the Israeli government, also only said they’d known six minutes ahead, too late to do anything. They had warned before that had been that an attack might happen – but there had been lots of warning about potential tube attacks. The Evening Standard had run stories about the possibility before (citing, if my memory serves me correctly, Kings Cross, Oxford Circus and Bank/Monument as likely targets). Crucially, if Mossad were in on it, and are part of a conspiracy, why would their chief admit prior knowledge of the attacks to a German newspaper? That wouldn’t make any sense – but then none of your suppositions do."
> MY RESPONSE: I'm not here to rationalise WHY the head of Mossad gave an interview to a german newspaper and made these remarks (Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005). The question as to why Mossad had advance knowledge is a justified question to ask.

(reposted after having been removed from this comment thread by IMC moderators):


7 questions about 7/7:

1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured. On the contrary, the driver of the Piccadilly Line train, Tom Nairn, was refused compensation on the grounds that the 'police had no record of him'.
Ref:  http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2006/01/london-77-information-event-horizon.html

2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne who assisted the injured after the explosion, and who died unexpectedly at her home 11 days later).

3). Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005? Ref:  http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2009/05/nature-of-explosives-from-c4-to.html
Why were mobile detonators reported to have been found on the trains? Traces of military grade explosives (c4) were found at all 4 locations (source: UPI, 13/07/05), yet the bombs were reported to be homemade explosives, which would not cause the same amount of damage (testimony of French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, brought in the advice Scotland Yard).

4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?
(several eye witnesses gave that account, including original report by the Guardian's Mark Honigsbaum who spoke to several eye witnesses to the Edgware Road tube bomb, and Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb, who was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard; Bruce Lait further stood by this account of what happened at Aldgate East in the recent BBC Conspiracy files documentary about 7/7).

5). What explanation is there for the fact that Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete? Ref:
Why is there no cctv footage from the No.30 bus?

6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber in his witness statement to the police and the media about the clothing and facial characteristics of the person he claimed had the backpack bomb on the bus - which didn't corroborate with clothing or facial likeness (colour of skin) of the alleged bomber Hasib Hussain.

7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs? 'Stratfor Intelligence Agency' reported that the Met Police gave Benjamin Netanyahu warning the bombs were going to happen 10 minutes before they happened. The Met police then denied they had informed Mr Netanyahu and that they had prior knowledge of the attack, and 2 weeks after, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005. (source: Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005).

will give us more clues. There needs to be experts looking into & debunking false info.Rubbishing all people questioning it because of afew nutty religious beliefs would mean we would have to rubbish a large proportion of society who are religious or agnostic
There are extremes Hill,shayler & Icke are exrtreme distractions, the facts are there have been many false flag operations &
until we live in a more democractic society wars for power led by gangsters on false flag operations will continue to happen.
From the bay of tomkin & the nazi claims of poland inavding them first in ww2 to more recent incidents, one thing is for sure,more democracy not invasions is the answer

I posted this earlier - it was removed without any reason (now I'm getting paranoid).

The posting it responds to has been reposted several times on this site and others, including the BBC and on one of the King's Cross survivors - who rebutts it very powerfully here.
 http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2009/05/77-cctv-has-been-released.html

These are a few responses of my own.

“1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured.”
As Kings Cross survivors have reported, Tom N never wanted to be named. Given the trauma they’ve been through, I can understand the drivers not wanting to talk to the press (or conspiracy theoritsts). Those TFL staff who came to the rescue of their own accord, and have wanted to talk to the press, have been honoured.

“2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)”
Um - that would be the Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who was exposed as a fantasist who had fabricated her medical qualifications (see link below). So about as reliable a witness as Daniel O.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1497099/Pathos-of-the-bogus-doctor-who-became-53rd-victim-of-77.html

“3). Why did the 100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?”
Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation.

“4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?”
This has been debunked by… Mark Honigsbaum, who you cite.
As he wrote: “It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.”
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity

“5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage from the no.30 bus which was bombed?”
Maybe because it was bombed? Interesting that you’ve stopped claiming there was no CCTV footage of it or the tube stations, given that’s been shown to be untrue by the footage shown at the recent trials (including that of the bus shot from the BMA).

“6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber”
Because people’s memories of traumatic events are often rubbish. Remember that members of the public on the tube claimed they saw wires protruding from Jean Charles de Menezes jacket. That wasn’t accurate, either.

“7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?”
If you believe their boast – and it may just be a boast - maybe it’s because they spend a vast amount of time and effort… keeping track of Islamic terrorist groups? Their chief, whose quotes have since been denied by the Israeli government, also only said they’d known six minutes ahead, too late to do anything. They had warned before that had been that an attack might happen – but there had been lots of warning about potential tube attacks. The Evening Standard had run stories about the possibility before (citing, if my memory serves me correctly, Kings Cross, Oxford Circus and Bank/Monument as likely targets). Crucially, if Mossad were in on it, and are part of a conspiracy, why would their chief admit prior knowledge of the attacks to a German newspaper? That wouldn’t make any sense – but then none of your suppositions do.

Norvilee, my response to your answers were hidden and have now been unhidden (above).

But, just so that you are in no doubt, here it is again:


Orville (also known as Norville B, Norvello, or are you the ventriloquist comedian Keith Harris!) yes, I have posted these questions up elsewhere, because they are good searching questions to ask about 7/7, many of which you are not able to answer sufficiently, as I will now demonstrate:


My response to some of the answers Orville gave (my original questions in quotes first):


“1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured.”
Your ANSWER: "As Kings Cross survivors have reported, Tom N never wanted to be named."
> MY RESPONSE: Can you quote where they said this?
Your ANSWER: "Given the trauma they’ve been through, I can understand the drivers not wanting to talk to the press (or, these days, the tinfoil hat brigade). Those TFL staff who came to the rescue of their own accord, and have wanted to talk to the press, have been honoured."
> MY RESPONSE: I wasn't talking about the press, I was talking about the police, as well you know.

“2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne)”
Your ANSWER: "Um - that would be the Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who was exposed as a fantasist who had fabricated her medical qualifications. So about as reliable a witness as Daniel O."
> MY RESPONSE: Just where was see exposed as a fantasist? Not by one of the compromised tabloid newspapers by any chance? Surely not a reliable source of one's character assessment, judging by countless examples over the years. It is also too easy for you to say this to obfuscate with assertions you are not backing up with any evidence.


“3). Why did the 100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation."
> MY RESPONSE: Not a justification for not establishing the one of the most fundamental elements of the 7/7 bombings which required an answer to. Suspicious that after initial press briefing of homemade explosives having been used (and even press reports of homemade explosives found in the home of Khan), a French explosive expert claimed that there was military explosive found at the 4 sites on 7/7 (why would he say such a thing if there was not evidential proof that the explosions hadn't been caused by military explosive?) Suspicious that absolutely no mention iwas subsequently made in the narrative, by the government or intelligence services about this after this guy spoke out.

It is clear you are wilfully part of some kind of attempt to distract attention from the facts of the case if you can't observe there is something dodgy here.

“4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?”
Your ANSWER: "This has been debunked by… Mark Honigsbaum, who you cite!"
> MY RESPONSE: "yes, but not by Bruce Lait who said the same thing about the train that exploded at Aldgate East and who was interviewed in the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary.
I'm sure if there was a public enquiry, such evidence could be clearly analysed in the open, without any 2nd hand intepretations.

Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard. Mr Lait explained that as he was being led to safety, "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".

“5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage from the no.30 bus which was bombed?”
Your ANSWER: "Maybe because it was bombed? Interesting that you’ve stopped claiming there was no CCTV footage of it or the tube stations, given that’s been shown to be untrue by the footage shown at the recent trials (including that of the bus shot from the BMA)."
> MY RESPONSE: Perhaps, but you give no answer to why Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete. Perhaps because there is no answer to this. Another unanswered susicpicion about 7/7 which begs a full, independent Public Enquiry intio what happened.

“6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber”
Your ANSWER: "Because people’s memories of traumatic events are often rubbish. Remember that members of the public on the tube claimed they saw wires protruding from Jean Charles de Menezes jacket. That wasn’t accurate, either."
> MY RESPONSE: Possibly true

“7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?”
Your ANSWER: "If you believe their boast – and it may just be a boast - maybe it’s because they spend a vast amount of time and effort… keeping track of Islamic terrorist groups? Their chief, whose quotes have since been denied by the Israeli government, also only said they’d known six minutes ahead, too late to do anything. They had warned before that had been that an attack might happen – but there had been lots of warning about potential tube attacks. The Evening Standard had run stories about the possibility before (citing, if my memory serves me correctly, Kings Cross, Oxford Circus and Bank/Monument as likely targets). Crucially, if Mossad were in on it, and are part of a conspiracy, why would their chief admit prior knowledge of the attacks to a German newspaper? That wouldn’t make any sense – but then none of your suppositions do."
> MY RESPONSE: I'm not here to rationalise WHY the head of Mossad gave an interview to a german newspaper and made these remarks (Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005). The question as to why Mossad had advance knowledge is a justified question to ask.

TOO MUCH TOO YOUNG:
You done too much much too young
You're married with a kid when you could be having fun with me
You done too much much too young
Now you're married with a son when you should be having fun with me
Don't wanna be rich, don't wanna be famous

Ain't he cute, no he ain't
He's just another burden on the welfare state

Call me immature, call me a poseur
I'll to spread manure in your bed of roses
Don't we wanna be rich Don't we wanna be famous
But I'd really hate to have the same name as you

You done too much much too young
Now you're chained to the kitchen making currant buns for tea

Ain't you heard of the starving millions
Ain't you heard of conraception
Do you really wanna go with the sterilization
Take control of the population boom
It's in your living room
Keep a generation gap
Try wearing a cap

I don't have time for this, so here's three:

1) You ask for proof that Tom N didn't want his name out.
This has been frequently confirmed by Kings Cross survivor "Rachel from London".
As she writes:
“One police officer made a mistake and couldn't find Tom as the driver of the train 311 despite them haviong 2 statements. Anyone who survioved 7/7 knows that there have been endless examples of bureacratic cock ups. I and other survivors for example have been left off the list of survivors despite repeatedly registering. CICA are quite crap. The police have got a bit muddled at times. The 7th July assistance centre deleted the survivor details by mistake , through incompetence, though they have improved a but since this nadir. I had to chase and chase to get KCU tickets for the Nov 1st memorial serivce. It has all been a bit of an incompetent mess frankly, which is not that surprising with an enquiry this size but still deeply frustrating. But you can relax. Tom is entitled to compensation, he's also getting a London Underground Gold Award as are the other drivers, for their heroism. He has the full support of his union and Tfl. He is about to return to work though not driving a train. He does NOT want his surname out which is why I had to delete Ray's post about him, made at 3.40am on my blog.”
You can find this at several places including
 http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2006/01/london-77-information-event-horizon.html

2) "Where's the evidence she was a bogus doctor?"
You clearly didn't read my previous posting, which had a link to the Telegraph story about it, backed up by newspapers in New Zealand who tried to get to the bottom of her story. Remember - the NZ papers would have preferred it if they could have made her a hero. But her claims that she had been running around giving medical help as a doctor fell apart when it emerged that she had lied about her medical training. It's hard to believe much of her account of that day if she was lying about the main thing she was doing.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1497099/Pathos-of-the-bogus-doctor-who-became-53rd-victim-of-77.html

8) You asked "why" spies would know that information. Because that's their job. Why would it be a surprise Mossad would be tracking Islamic extremists? What do you think they do all day, play cards? Sometimes intelligence warnings of attacks are accurate - sometimes they're not. Maybe this time they had good intelligence. Doesn't make it crucial proof of a conspiracy, as you keep implying.

I was gonna reply but I think you answered em all mate well said, good inteligent post

But I fear, if anyone is daft enough to think that looking for inconsistencies in a narrative and then plugging them up with old Scooby Doo episodes constitutes research, I think the chances of them seeing sense are less than nil.

The only one point I am still confused on is the explosives.

Quite why you keep getting your replies hidden is inobvious, since you seem to be bang on topic.

This absurd tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that have sprung up around the 7/7 attacks, 9/11 etc are classic denialism.

They are in my opinion in essence no different from holocaust denial, Soviet gulag denial or any other denial of generally-accepted atrocities. By denying such atrocities, or the generally accepted responsibility for them (eg by saying the holocaust never happened or that Hitler never knew of it, or that there were no Gulags in the USSR or that jihadists were not responsible for the London bombings) the denier seeks to whitewash those responsible out of sympathy for them.

This is because it easier to defend the indefensible by denying it than openly justifying it, when in reality the denier secretly approves of the crimes which he denies.

For example the holocaust denier seeks to present the Nazis as misunderstood, the gulag-denier seeks to portray Stalin as a nice chap and the jihad-deniers seek to prettify jihad terrorists.

Orville, the astute amongst us who regularly read these pages won't be convinced by the pausity of your attempt to poo-poo the weight of evidence which points to an alternative explanation for what happened on 7/7. (neither the spamming efforts of spooks). You do so by not being able to back up the assertions you make , and then, amonst the few points you seem willing to pursue, misquote me and then point-score with incredulous argument.

In particular, in regard to Point-8: you said I asked " "why" spies would know that information". I simply didn't ask this, and so, your attempt to point-score here is rather pathetic. So, once again, despite your very worst attempts, you simply have no answer to the fact that Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005).

Re: Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, you quote a rather discreditable article from the Telegraph. Does whatever stain on her professional career take away from the veracity of the allgeation she made, that there were 2 explosions of the No.30 bus? The answer, I'm afraid to say to you Orville, is no.

Here's a quote from that Telegraph article anyway. Really not convincing, and reeks of a clumsy attempt at character assassination The quote: "Scotland Yard and the local coroner were alerted but it now appears that she suffered a blood clot, possibly induced by her stressful double life." ...how woeful an explanation. One increasingly smells a rat.

Re: the train driver, OK, I gratefully accept that the problem with Tom Nairn has now been resolved. Despite this being the 1st question out of 7 I listed, I realised, this was the one question perhaps most easily explainable with a rational argument. So far, the same cannot be said for questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7.

In short:
(question-2) - Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus?

(question-3) - Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005 and how traces of military grade explosives (c4) were found at all 4 locations (source: UPI, 13/07/05), yet the bombs were reported to be homemade explosives, which would not cause the same amount of damage (testimony of French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, brought in the advice Scotland Yard).

(question-4) - Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?
(several eye witnesses gave that account, including original report by the Guardian's Mark Honigsbaum who spoke to several eye witnesses to the Edgware Road tube bomb, and Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb, who was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard; Bruce Lait further stood by this account of what happened at Aldgate East in the recent BBC Conspiracy files documentary about 7/7).

(question-5) - What explanation is there for the fact that Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete? Ref:
Why is there no cctv footage from the No.30 bus?

(question-6 )- Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber in his witness statement to the police and the media about the clothing and facial characteristics of the person he claimed had the backpack bomb on the bus - which didn't corroborate with clothing or facial likeness (colour of skin) of the alleged bomber Hasib Hussain. (In the News Observer: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top." The Sunday Mail: "The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top." Associated Press: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top." But then, on July 15, newspapers and TV stations around the world carried pictures of 18 year old Hasib Hussain....the bus suicide bomber, taken by closed circuit television cameras just two and half hours before he allegedly blew up London Bus No. 30. The Age online newspaper ran a picture of Hussain, and said that "The image is grainy but stubble is visible on his face. He is wearing a dark jacket and dark trousers and his carrying a backpack.")


& (question-7) - how did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?

Bild am Sonntag is the German equivalent of News of the World. Would you confidently quote the NOTW on anything expect Jordan's bra size?

WHAT did Mossad know? If they were listening to chatter, it may have been all they knew that bombs were going to go off in London within minutes. It could be they knew nothing but were disinforming people who are paranoid about Mossad watching them forcing them into changing patterns of behaviour. Why the hell would Mossad be telling the world if they were part of it??

Have you seen Oates-Whitehead medical bona fides? If not why are you sure she is on the level?

What proof do you have that there was a second explosion on the 30 bus. Why doesn't majority of witness testimony support this. Same question about the utterly ridiculous bomb under the train stuff. Some variation in testimony doesn't equal evidence.

The only valid question I can see is about the forensics into the explosives. And that in itself suggests many different explanations.

6. Witness testimonies are normally varying. It is more suspicious if you have unison. People make mistakes, people remember things incorrectly. People misinterpret. The best you are ever going to get is a general picture from witness testimony with some key points borne out by corroboration with other evidence.

Again, we see what Truthers call "evidence" falls far short and lands in a box called "discrepancies in accounts" or "ambiguous".

This junk is merely concentrating on the minority of oddities that fire your imagination; locking for things that will fit a foregone conclusion that it was a 'false flag' operation.

It's the kind of utter tosh that Alex Jones makes a living out of peddling.

I’ve debunked your claims about Visor, your claims about the exercises, your claims about the driver, your claims about the CCTV at the train stations, and come up with explanations you accept for the bus witness. You’ve acknowledged that. That’s not a “paucity” of evidence - that’s you backing down on half the key arguments you were citing last week.

You write: “you said I asked ‘why’ spies would know that information". I simply didn't ask this, and so, your attempt to point-score here is rather pathetic.”
Ahem – check above – you wrote: “The question as to why Mossad had advance knowledge is a justified question to ask.“ Note the “why”. That’s what I was responding to.

“You quote a rather discreditable article from the Telegraph. Does whatever stain on her professional career take away from the veracity of the allgeation she made”
Check the Guardian, The Times, the New Zealand Herald for their reports if you think The Telegraph’s is discreditable. Ring up the medical school in Auckland if it’ll make you happy.
It’s not a random stain on her professional career; it’s part of the proof she was a serial fantasist (do you think she went to Iraq and had twins too?). She claimed she witnessed the second bomb going off while treating patients using her skill as a doctor. As she wasn’t a doctor – and that was central to her account - it is entirely justified to question the veracity of her statements.

Repeating the questions over and over again, after I’ve pointed out rational responses to them, is just strange (again you cite Honigsbaum in question 4, ignoring the fact he’s debunked what you wrote, and repeat question 6, even though you accept I may be right about Richard Jones).

On question 5, incidentally: I keep asking - why would you expect CCTV footage from the no 30 bus… as it was bombed? You’ve not answered that. Maybe you know something about how the CCTV system works, in which case share with the other children, but that suggestion baffles me (guess what, the roof wasn’t working too well afterwards, either). Also why are you that surprised that a new, inexperienced contractor would take longer to do something than a previous contractor - or that it’s a shock for TfL contractors to be rubbish and slow?

Like a lot of posters on here, the conspiracies on this subject annoy me because they detract from genuine issues and make other activists look like gullible idiots.

El Boro said:
"Witness testimonies are normally varying. It is more suspicious if you have unison. "

> I don't think I heard as much garbage in 2 sentences in my life.

"Bild am Sonntag is the German equivalent of News of the World."
> So, they made up the report out-of-thin-air then did they, and didn't really interview Mossad Chief Meir Dagan at-all? I think not.

"WHAT did Mossad know? If they were listening to chatter, it may have been all they knew that bombs were going to go off in London within minutes. It could be they knew nothing but were disinforming people who are paranoid about Mossad watching them forcing them into changing patterns of behaviour. Why the hell would Mossad be telling the world if they were part of it??"
> Ok, no that's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard! They were disinforming people who are paranoid about Mossad! Are you serious? Don't give up the day job, will you!

Back to Orville (also known as Norvello & Norville B) now.

On the issue of Mossad, Orville, please note the actual wording of my original question, which if you can't answer, then you are not usefully contributinhg towards. I actually asked (not 'why' but 'how'): "How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?" This is a legitimate question.

Re: Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, the issue of her pretending to be a doctor is entierely separate from the issue she raised of a second explosion on the 30 bus. Strange that people would go so out of their way to besmirch another's character in light of her testimony, which others are so unwilling to further analyse. The quote from the Met police spokesperson (no name given) in the Telegraph article is, in particular, dubious

Note on Point-4, Honigsbaum based his original report on the witness statements of several victims of the blasts. There are reports that several witnesses stand by those original testimonies despite what Honigsbaum has since attempted to retract. In any case, Orville, you have no answer to the fact that Bruce Lait stands by his orginal testimony (his interview on the 11th July with a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard, where he said, "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train"). We know he stands by this testimony in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary.

Re: your contention that in earlier correspondence you managed to debunk what you call my "claims about Visor", I'm afraid you didn't. You downplay the significance of the massive coincidence of Visor Consultant's mock drill. There are upteem other Underground Stations in Central London which could have been chosen for the drill - too much of a coincidence that they were the same 3 out of 6 stations!!! As a result, you cannot discount that there was foreknowledge here by some party to enable some kind of private security arrangement. Peter Power's only revealed that the exercise was merely a 'power-point presentation' extraordinarily much later on.

Ouch, I'm guessing it was nimble and deft moves like that, that won you the sixth form debating society cup? No?

You cunningly left me nothing to come abck at you with by offering me no defence of your position at all. A move expertly hidden behind the rhetorical equivalent of going "ner ner ner you smell ner ner ner!"

I think that proves my point.

P.S.: Oh no, I wouldn't dream that 'das Bild am Sonntag' would ever publish anything inaccurate. I'm sure they have the finest of ex-BVS & BND 'security analysts' working at that tit & bum & paedo-lite shitrag.

Just like I'm sure that ex-spooks in the UK are knocking each other off with poison-tipped brollies to get a staffers job at 'News of the Screws'.

And personally, I trust every single word Mossad & the Israeli state tells me- that Regev bloke especially...

Grief!!!

If it wasn't a group of jihadists including Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, why did they make video statements claiming responsibility?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Videotape_Statements

* One shouldn't give much weight to non-expert analysis of blast damage. What does the average tube passenger know about interpreting blast damage patterns in a confined space? I'm no expert in this and I doubt many people are, but I would not assume that upward facing blast damage necessarily meant the device was under the floor. Blast patterns can be apparently paradoxical. For example the area directly under the explosion site of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima suffered less damage than the surrounding area; explosions on the ground can throw up a rim around the crater etc.

* I fail to see what is suspiscious about a bus taking longer to repair than normal. It isn't unusual for repairs to take longer than planned. On the other hand intelligence/spy services have been bugging for decades and are past masters of intalling devices quickly (think of the Stasi famously bugging innumerable East German homes while occupants were out). Would some grand conspiracy of Mi6, Mossad and the CIA really be so incompetent as to require two days to work on a bus?

* Similarly, if the whole thing was a conspiracy one would expect the conspirators to have got their story straight beforehand. Inconsistencies in reporting, if anything, would suggest the results of the confusion caused by a string of unexpected attacks taking place, some underground between stations. Such confusion is not unusual in a surprise attack (consider the famous examples of Pearl Harbor and the unexpected Nazi attack on the USSR). I am unable to find the German article purporting to state that Mossad reported a bombing before it happened. Would Mossad be so incompetent as to report an event before it had taken place if it was expecting it to take place and wishing to conceal its knowledge? A more logical explanation would be the result of confusion and uncertainty. How certain could anyone outside those trains deep underground be of the precise moment of the explosion in the minutes immediately after it happened? How long would it take for the precise information to filter out to the authorities?

* Witness observations are known for not being totally reliable, especially when it comes to recalling details that are not important at the time. It is not unusual for witnessness to innocently give conflicting information about appearance etc or to remember things incorrectly. The confusion surrounding a chaotic event like a bombing does not help here. It is not unlikely that this witness confused someone else with the bus bomber or simply did not remember correctly. Do you remember the details of people you see without taking a particular interest in sufficiently well to accurately describe them later?

* If those generally accepted as the bombers were not responsible, how does one explain the suicide video or explain what happened to these men after the explosions?

* Suicide bombing by jihadists is not a new or uncommon tactic. It has been used hundreds, perhaps thousands of times around the world. Occams Razor states that the simplest explanation fitting the facts is probably the correct one. A conspiracy theory is not necessary to explain the 7/7 events.

* To the conspiracy theorist the opposition of 'ordinary' people to the theory is taken as further evidence of a conspiracy as the oppositionists are assumed to be somehow involved in the conspiracy and 'agents' of some sort. Thus the conspiracy theorist insulates himself from the fact that he holds a tiny minority view by imagining that the opposition he encounters is also part of the conspiracy. Such a view extends to certain small political groups that hold unpopular or small minority opinions who discount all opposition to themselves as simply state agents, spies or some other sinister plot, rather the more logical explanation of a simple disagreement.

'Operator' said: "If it wasn't a group of jihadists including Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, why did they make video statements claiming responsibility?"

oh, do you mean the videos in which their speech was not completely in synch with their lip movement?..

See:  http://cbcl.mit.edu/cbcl/news/files/assoc-press-article.pdf

See Also: Friends claim Khan's statement was faked, by Sandra Laville
The Guardian, Saturday 3 September 2005
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/03/july7.uksecurity


More Info on 7/7:  http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewforum.php?f=9&topicdays=0&start=0

&
 http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-london-77-how-to-be-good-faq.html

So are you saying that MI5 and Mossad are terribly good at blowing up trains without being discovered but completely and utterly inept when it comes to dubbing videos?

It happens I used to be a German-English translator. I found what states itself t be a copy of the original Bild Zeitung article:

"Explosives from China?

London- Is the high deathtoll in the horrific terrorist attacks in London on account of a Chinese make of explosives?

According to Israel's secret service Mossad, it is "almost certain" that the explosive material was the same as used by two radical English Moslem suicide bombers to blow up a night club in Tel Aviv last year. Information Mossad has shared with MI5.

According to a secret agent, the explosives were probably smuggled into Britain "and the end of the previous year"

Up until that fateful Thursday morning, the explosives may well have been stored in an al Qaeda safehouse in London, which had escaped the notice of the Secret Service and Special Branch.

Chemists from the ultra-secretive Nes Ziona research centre in suburban Tel Aviv, traced the explosives used in the bombing of the night club back to the Chinese defence company ZDF.

The explosive was developed in ZDF's top secret laboratory 65km west of Peking, and was given the code CX123.

"It's more deadly than Semtex", according to a report from Mossad chief Meir Dagan which was also passed on to MI5 & MI6. "CX123 is comprised of a new type of plastique explosive, which can be smuggled from country to country and cell to cell and remain practically undetectable.

The Israeli secret service clarified to the Bild am Sonntag [the Picture News on Sunday] that immediately before the bombing a London Mossad-Post had received a warning. According to a Mossad member: "It however reached us too late for effective measures." Namely, 6 minutes before the first detonation in one of the Underground tunnels"

 http://www.steinbergrecherche.com/london.htm#Bild%20am%20Sonntag

(see below for original German)

_________

Sorry if it's a bit ropey. I'm rusty and not getting paid.

So, there we have it.The mystical news report that has been anything ayone wanted it to be since it disappeared is unearthed again. Mossad claim that someone tipped them off very shortly before the bombs went off, and their London Post only got teh info 6 mins before. A far cry from the inferences the conspiraloons have been making.

That is if the whole story isn't utter shite to begin with. I mean look at the front of today Bild. Main headline is about Michael Jackson, 2nd Headline about a copshow where a fucking dog is the star:

 http://www.bild.de/


Also on that page are Mossad claims that "Ahmed Sidikhan" had travelled to Tel Aviv and was allegedly involved in the preparations for the suicide bombing of Mike's Place night club (inderectly referred to above).
__________

"Supersprengstoff aus China?

Von GORDON THOMAS



London – Geht der hohe Blutzoll bei den schrecklichen Londoner Terroranschlägen auf das Konto eines chinesischen Supersprengstoffs?

Laut Israels Geheimdienst Mossad handelt es sich „mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit“ um den gleichen Sprengstoff, mit dem zwei radikal-moslemische Selbstmordattentäter aus England letztes Jahr einen Nachtclub in Tel Aviv hochgehen ließen. Das hat der Mossad dem britischen Nachrichtendienst MI5 mitgeteilt.

Nach Informationen eines Geheimdienstlers in Tel Aviv wurde der in China hergestellte Sprengstoff „wahrscheinlich Ende vergangenen Jahres“ in Großbritannien eingeschmuggelt.

Bis zu den verhängnisvollen Morgenstunden des Donnerstags sei das Material in einem „sicheren Haus“ der Terrororganisation al-Qaida in London gelagert worden, das allen Razzien des Geheimdienstes und des politischen Dezernats von Scotland Yard entgangen war.

Forensische Chemiker des ultrageheimen Forschungszentrums im Tel-Aviv-Vorort Nes Ziona gelang es, das bei dem Nachtclub-Anschlag verwendete Explosivmaterial zu dem führenden chinesischen Rüstungsunternehmen ZDF zurückzuverfolgen.

Der Sprengstoff war im ZDF-Hochsicherheitslabor 65 Kilometer westlich von Peking entwickelt worden und erhielt die Codebezeichnung CX123.

„Er ist weit tödlicher als Semtex“, heißt es in einem Bericht des Mossad-Chefs Meir Dagan, der auch an Chefs der britischen Geheimdienste MI5 und MI6 ging. „CX123 besteht aus einem neuartigen Plastiksprengstoff und läßt sich praktisch unentdeckt von Land zu Land, von einer Terroristenzelle zur nächsten schmuggeln.“

BamS gegenüber erklärte der israelische Geheimdienst, unmittelbar vor den Anschlägen habe der Londoner Mossad-Posten eine Warnung erhalten. Ein Mossad-Angehöriger: „Sie erreichte uns jedoch zu spät für wirksame Maßnahmen.“ Nämlich nur sechs Minuten vor der ersten Detonation in einem der U-Bahn-Schächte.

Quelle: www.bild.t-online.de/BTO/news/2005/07/10/london__terrorpate/sprengstoff__china.html "

No, the video is only "dodgy" because conspiraloons don't like it. No professional has ever called the authenticity of the video into question. Not even the bombers families have stated the videos are fake.

You could go to a torrent site right now and grab various bits of software that could correct the syncing problem, that a trained monkey could operate.

Also, while you are at it grab a dozen AVI rips of DVDs and report back how many of them suffer from audio drift?

Anyone seen the original? Or the copies of the original the media broadcast?


The video testimony HAS to be discredited because it shuts down the nutty theory that they weren't bombers, that it was a 'false flag' with MI5 & Mossad and VISOR running around like headless chickens leaving "clues" everywhere. Because the first rule of black ops is "run around like a custard pie fight in a Keystone Kops film'. Second rule is 'Make sure is really complicated' Third rule is 'Make sure you involve hundreds of people in your secret conspiracy'.

Utter drivel.

It was a probably Jihadi operation carried out by a cell who were recruited by MI6 assets operating out of London recruiting mujahadin.

Blowback.

You still peddling that MIT Labs crap? You ever seen the technology in action? It's dreadful. It wouldn't fool my gran.

I mean it is bad enough you never bothered to hunt down the video in question (which I can't find anymore) to see that it's only claim to fame is shadow vocal formants with lip movements.

But not even reading what you are pushing as "evidence" is plainly embarrassing:

"Also, he said, the computer can’t fabricate words; it only superimposes real sound onto video, so as of now it would be difficult to make people say things on the MIT videotapes that they never actually said."

"The technology is not good enough to trick a human ear," he said. "We do have the ability to take recordings of someone, and build a synthesized voice and get a machine to say something that sounds like them, but you can tell the difference."

 http://cbcl.mit.edu/news/files/assoc-press-article.pdf

There isn't the software available yet to be able to make convincing synthesised speech, let alone be able to do it and fake an individual's voice pattern too. It's science fiction for the time being.

Bell Labs has the best I have heard so far. Google it and tell me that'd convince your family it was you.

Late September 2005: Mossad Allegedly Secretly Reports that Key Southeast Asian Operative Played Important Role in 7/7 London Bombings
Ref:  http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=israel_institute_for_intelligence_and_special_tasks

According to the 2007 edition of a book about the Mossad entitled “Gideon’s Spies,” shortly after the 7/7 London subway bombings (see July 7, 2005), the British domestic intelligence agency MI5 gathers evidence that a senior al-Qaeda operative known only by the alias Mustafa traveled in and out of England shortly before the 7/7 bombings. For months, the real identity of Mustafa remains unknown. But in early October 2005, the Mossad tells MI5 that this person actually was Azhari Husin, a bomb making expert with Jemaah Islamiyah, the main al-Qaeda affiliate in Southeast Asia. Husin used to study in Britain and reports claim that he met the main 7/7 bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan, in late 2001 in a militant training camp in the Philippines (see Late 2001). Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad, apparently also tells MI5 that Husin helped plan and recruit volunteers for the bombings. The Mossad claims that Husin may have been in London at the time of the bombings, and then fled to al-Qaeda’s main safe haven in the tribal area of Pakistan, where he sometimes hides after bombings. Husin will be killed in a shootout in Indonesia in November 2005. [Thomas, 2007, pp. 520, 522] Later official British government reports about the 7/7 bombings will not mention Husin.
Source: “Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad”, by Gordon Thomas

That's cracking work. Thank you for the translation.

So all the conspiracists suggesting that Mossad chief Meir Dagan did an interview with a German newspaper are wrong. He didn't. The tabloid's source was someone who may or may not have been an agent, citing a report that may or may not have come from Meir Dagan.

Now we know that...
1) Dagan never spoke to the rag or said he knew in advance;
2) The article had a question in its headline - and any tabloid headline containing a question suggests the answer is "no" or that the story is patchy (see the Daily Mail);
and
3) The mag it featured in is famous for fabricating stories and has been publicly reprimanded for it. (see  http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,412021,00.html)

So another element in the conspiracy theory proves astoundingly shaky.

Stratfor Consulting Intelligence Agency

Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks

Ref:  http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stratfor-london.html

There has been massive confusion over a denial made by the Israelis that the Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks “minutes before” the first bomb went off July 7. Israel warned London of the attacks a “couple of days ago,” but British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. While Israel is keeping quiet for the time-being, British Prime Minister Tony Blair soon will be facing the heat for his failure to take action.

Analysis

The Associated Press reported July 7 that an anonymous source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks in the U.K. capital. The information reportedly was passed to the embassy minutes before the first bomb struck at 0851 London time. The Israeli Embassy promptly ordered Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel on the morning of July 7. Netanyahu was scheduled to participate in an Israeli Investment Forum Conference at the Grand Eastern Hotel, located next to the Liverpool Street Tube station -- the first target in the series of bombings that hit London on July 7.

Several hours later, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom officially denied reports that Scotland Yard passed any information to Israel regarding the bombings, and British police denied they had any advanced warning of the attacks. The British authorities similarly denied that any information exchange had occurred.

Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned “minutes before” the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks “a couple of days” previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack.

For more breaking intelligence on this and other stories, please visit premium.stratfor.com.

Send questions or comments on this article to  analysis@stratfor.com.

A google search on ZDF CX123 returns no primary sources... just a few references sourced from this 1 article. An done of those saying that the Google returns nothing:

 http://www.weblog.ro/blogger/post_print.php?pid=39525

My skills don't extend so far as Hebrew:

 http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3111078,00.html


Now we get to see journalistic cannibalism in full swing now. Compare my translation with what these people have done with their translation= Chinese whispers.

Note also they ahve filled in the blanks regarding Mike's Place as being the nightclub in question.

Strangely an Israeli government site states the explosives were "standard" (whatever the fuck that is meant to mean? Standard demolition grade???) :

 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2003/Details+of+April+30-+2003+Tel+Aviv+suicide+bombing.htm

Now we have the plastic explosives being rolled out to resemble pages of the q'ran:

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mystery-of-the-failed-suicide-attacker-found-dead-in-the-sea-538761.html

Which kind of indirectly supports the idea that it wasn't standard explosives... or the sniffer dog was on holiday.

I can't find any reports BEFORE 7/7 that names ZDF CX123 as being the explosive used. Anyone else?

The name Gordon Thomas appears again in seaching ZDF Peking (odd to call it that when it's no Beijing):

 http://www.reversespins.com/zdf.html

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Thomas_(author)

So, I'm assuming that Gordon Thomas wrote the article in English for the German paper. It seems that all other stories about the connection between 7/7 & Mike's Place and this elusive CX123 are sourcing him?

This is what I meant by the journalistic cannibalism:

 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3111121,00.html

On the issue of Mossad, Orville, my original question still stands. "How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs?"

El Boro claims to have found what states itself to be a copy of the original Bild Zeitung article
Unsurprisingly, the original article can no longer be accessed:
 http://www.bild.de/BTO/news/2005/07/10/london__terrorpate/sprengstoff__china.html

Orville claims this was no an interview with the newspaper. Not according to 'Israeli Insider':

'Israel Insider' cites Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag:
"The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast, the paper reports, confirming an earlier AP report. As a result, it was
impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts."

Other points, Orville claims to have debunked:
Orville has no answer to my continued emphasis on Point-4, "reports that several witnesses stand by those original testimonies despite what Honigsbaum has since attempted to retract" (and in this regard, one cannot therefore accept Rachel North's insistence that she speaks on behalf of all the other 7/7 bomb survivors, as she was quoted as having claimed in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary), and how Orville has "no answer to the fact that Bruce Lait stands by his orginal testimony (his interview on the 11th July with a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard, where he said, "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train"). We know he stands by this testimony in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary."

Re: Orville's contention that in earlier correspondence he managed to debunk what he called my "claims about Visor", I'm afraid he didn't. He downplayed the significance of the massive coincidence of Visor Consultant's mock drill. There are upteem other Underground Stations in Central London which could have been chosen for the drill - too much of a coincidence that they were the same 3 out of 6 stations!!! As a result, you cannot discount that there was foreknowledge here by some party to enable some kind of private security arrangement. Peter Power only revealed that the exercise was merely a 'power-point presentation' extraordinarily much later on.

"Unsurprisingly, the original article can no longer be accessed: "

'Unsurprising' implies the reason is obvious. I can't be that 'unsurprising' as I can identify a few scenarios that may apply. Here they are in order of my prejudice:

1. Since there is nothing to corroborate the mainstay of the story "ZDF CX123", the article was rumbled for being a piece of opportunistic fantasy and out of sheer embarrassment that article was pulled.

2. The author was duped by Mossad and asked for it to be pulled himself.

3. The page was pulled by accident- I already checked to see if they culled old stories, and found plenty of G8 & 7/7 coverage intact.

I'm not even going to bother listing a number 4. that it was pulled because Mossad threatened Bild to pull it or it'd send some pretend Jihadis round- since the story about the advance warning is everywhere on the Internet and so are single sourced references to ZDF CX123 and the Chinese Defence company that has just disappeared.

But maybe you'll surprise me?

Has it really escaped you notice that the Bild article makes no claims to having interviewed Dagan?

Or are you just choosing to ignore it in favour of some other source that has cannibalised this article to start with???

Is this the article?

 http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5997.htm

Because nothing in that states Dagan ever talked to Bild. In it implies it never, by saying that build "reported"on what he had said somewhere sometime.

I can't find any Bild stories with Dagan. You?

You got a convincing explanation why no one else seems to be talking about ZDF CX123?

Right, so WM, there's one witness saying the blast "looked like" it was from low down. It doesn't matter that that contradicts other witness statements; the crucial point, made here earlier is that bomb blasts have different kinds of effects. The fact the roof on the Tavistock bus looks crumpled downwards, for example, doesn't mean that MI5 had cunningly planted it on a roof-rack, maybe by painting it red to avoid suspicion.

Incidentally, how did the Mossad / MI5 conspiracy persuade the three "patsies" to get on to precisely the right parts, of the right carriages, of the right tube trains, in rush hour, to stand over the places where the secret agents had planted the bombs below? You can't deny they were there on the trains - the CCTV and witness testimony scuppers that. So what happened? "Hi Mohammed - yeah, we'd like you to wait for train 3XX, due on platform 4 about 8.0X, maybe later, then get onto carriage 8 stand in the far right corner of the opposite side near the third seat below the Lucozade advert." "OK.... why?" "Oh.. no reason." "What if someone's sat there already?" "Improvise - pretend you're pregnant or something."

That's too much of a coincidence.

What isn't - on the other hand - such a mind-boggling coincidence is the Visor exercise. You clearly have no concept of probability or disaster planning if you can't understand that.

1) There are hundreds of major businesses in London, including more than 500 banks. All of these major businesses - plus local authorities and different sets of emergency services - have plans in places for disasters. It's sometimes known as business continuity. Since 2001, the most topical subject for these disaster exercises has been the threat of a terrorist attack. Some of this work will be in house - some will involve consultants; it's how people like Mr Power and his team make their money, by doing this stuff every day. Other companies make their money by leasing out office space outside of London in case of an attack - a very lucrative business. So - do you accept that every working day in London, there will be several groups of people - in several businesses - looking at what they can do to get round a disaster such as a terrorist attack, including holding workshops and discussing potential scenarios?

2) Do you accept that the potential for a terrorist attack on the tube was widely known and discussed before the July 7? There had been a very public drill at Bank and dozens of articles in the Evening Standard and elsewhere about it for years. After July 7, you'll recall all the pieces saying "We knew something like this would happen eventually". It's why Thornton's had been banned from wafting an almond smell through the tube as a Christmas promotion - TfL realised people might think it was some kind of cyanide poision attack after the Tokyo subway attacks.

3) OK. You're preparing an exercise for a bunch of Reed execs who'll be sat in an office near Chancery Lane. You're going to pick a handful of sites for potential terrorist attacks. So you'll pick a couple major ones that are vaguely near their offices. The most obvious to go for are big train stations. So you'd pick King's Cross and, because it's nearby and surrounded by city workers, Liverpool Street. You throw in another one between the two, say Russell Square because it's packed with tourists going to the British Museum. There's a logic to that: it's not like they went "Oh, we'll have Grange Hill, Mornington Crescent and Turnham Green". Do you accept that it was significantly more likely they'd pick a pair of major train stations and another one nearby than a totally random set of stations?

4) Bloke who runs a company that helps business prepare for disasters goes on radio and - in the excitement of being interviewed live on air - boasts a bit about how accurate and brilliant his company is at preparing clients for a disaster. Do you accept that is also a distinct possibility?

VISOR

I used to work half way up a tower block (on the same train line the suicide bombers used to get to London... which narrows it down!) which was apparently on the Special Branch list of potential IRA targets. About once every month, we'd get the alarms switched on without warning, and had to evacuate the building, trudging down all those bloody stairs.

In London, drilling for terrorist attacks is so frequent and commonplace as to be mundane.

Anyone who lived in London through the various phases of IRA bombing will know this, and will know also at how unimpressed the average Londoner is by terrorism. If their bus or train got blown up, they'd just moan and change their plans slightly. Terrorism has become mundane in London, not just the drills.

Now, what would people have said if the R-IRA had blown us all to fuck slap bang in the middle of our "terrorist drill" (trudging down stairs like sheep)? The conspiraloons would call it "too improbable to be coincidental"... but given that we drilled almost as much as a Sergeant Major and we were in a potential target, isn't more likely than a building in the of the Yorkshire Dales that repairs bicycles being hit?

And it defies all logic that Peter Power would go on live radio and tell the world he has just been involved at mission control in a state-sponsored act of mass murder. That is so ridiculous, where do you start.

ZDF & Bild Zeitung

Okay, a bit more on "ZDF CX123". The 'everyone's worst nightmare explosive' story seems to have come from a Colonel Xu Junping.

 http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22Colonel+Xu+Junping%22+ZDF&btnG=Search&meta=

Junping is apparently a defector from the Chinese miltary.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1237374.stm

Now anyone with a keen eye for detail will notice that the Iraqi defectors feted by the NeoCons were complicit in manufacturing a case against Saddam regarding his bogus WMD.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/30/iraq.usa

Could Junping be another case of 'we'll give you a passport and financial support if you tell some lies for us'?

Is this the reason that no other security expert has run with the 'ZDF CX123' ball and the reason that Bild had to pull the story? If Junping is the primary source on that story (and it looks like it, or a CIA/Mossad agent singing from the same hymnsheet) then there is serious grounds to dismiss the whole thing.

And these Truthers call themselves "researchers"???

It's amazing how some of the "wooh - spooky" claims fall apart when you do the tiniest bit of research. Only just had a proper look at this one:

"Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?"

That is utter rubbish. The investigation DID establish the nature of the explosives - it's in the official report as "home-made explosives", with no sense of mystery. Funnily enough, the police tend not to publish how-to-bomb-stuff manuals in public reports.

This was also confirmed, with more detail on the home-made explosives (including the use of hair dye) by the NYPD investigators:
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article551443.ece

So where does the conspiracy theory come from? Well, directly after the attacks, a bunch of experts from across Europe were briefed on what the initial reports suggested had happened. There had been a big blast, the assumption was military explosives must have been involved - this was at the chaotic stage when Blair was wandering around saying they didn't know if it was suicide bombers. One of those briefed, Christophe Chaboud, blabs straight after that to Le Monde, throwing in a whole bizarre theory of his own about how the Balkans must be involved. (He's also suggested that Hamas and Abu Hamza had links so I'm not sure why conspiracists want to use him as a totem.) There is no evidence that I've seen Christope ever saw the trains himself.

Further investigation reveals the original theory was rubbish. The explosives were home-made, not military, after all.

Ray Kelly, the New York Police Commissioner said: "Initially it was thought that perhaps the materials were high-end military explosives that were smuggled, but it turns out not to be the case. It’s more like these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store."

The only people who aren't satisfied appear to be the conspiracists. Again initial reports from police investigators aren't always right (some would say "aren't often right"). Unless you also think, that, say, Jean Charles De Menezes really was a terrorist and that wasn't a cock-up either.

Hamas being invovled is certainly crazy. The want fuck all to do with al Qaeda types, and have enough on their hands getting their own business done, let alone helping English Jihadis bomb London. But that doesn't stop Israel trying to link AQ to Hamas... as we see with this truly bizarre bullshit about ZDF CX123 and Hamas being chucked in fir good measure.

But the Balkans. Now there's a thing. Hamza is indeed linked to the Balkans. The suicide bombers have been linked to Hamza/Finsbury Park/ al Majaroun- which at the most favourable must have been ignored by MI5/SB & MI6 as a mujadin recruiting station. The local community was practically up in arms about the place when I lived there in the run up to 9/11.

The officially sanctioned status of the place is compounded by the fact that people have testified (under torture?) from the US that they were trained by US & UK personnel in the US & UK & Balkans in guerilla warfare (a.k.a. 'terrorism' if you are the Coalition) for 'jihad' in the Balkans.. a.k.a the KLA. As well as rumours going round other avenues too about people does training work out there.

So, I can see how there could be room to moot the explosives were of Balkan origin. And if they were, I wouldn't expect the government to be honest about it. Though, it's impossible to say, and I'm not sure how easily they could hush it all up and say TATP when it was C4/Semtex.

I suspect it would be hard to hermetically seal 4 crime scences and control the flow of information taht succesfully... and on top of that we have the four who failed on 21/7, who despite Downing St's proclamations also seem to be linked to the others... did they run out of ZDF CX123 (snigger) when it came to 21/7.

I'll put my cards on the table here. I suspect that there is a cover up going on with 7/7 & 21/7. And the cover up is the fact that MI6 got a load of people killed in London by hosting the Finsbury Park jihadis to do their bidding in the Balkans.

I think the people named did it and pretty much how we are told they did it. I think however teh deception kicks in when Downing Street made such a big deal out of denying an "international dimension".

I think that Downing Street and JIC aren't the slightest bit scared by Truthers, because they've probably done a good job of making sure nothing traces back and there is only a small group of people in the know.

But hey, maybe I'm just as daft and paranoid as wm there and his bombs under the trains...

P.S. You ever notice how there are never any grand theories surrounding attacks that attracted fewer column inches. Such as the R-IRA man who blew himself up by accident in Aldgate, or no big 'false flag' theories about the Glasgow attack (where no one but the atatckers died)... kind of seem that Truth needs the limelight to bouy it along.

In reply to me question "Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005?", Orville said: “That is utter rubbish. The investigation DID establish the nature of the explosives - it's in the official report as "home-made explosives", with no sense of mystery.”

> This is garbage, and you know it! The report did not specify what kind of home made explosive was used, because it has been an exercise in deception, because witness reports of the blasts were consistent with the blasts having involved high grade military style explosives such as C4, in the words of French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, “homemade explosives would not cause the same amount of damage as military explosive”. Yet, incredibly, the report actually said that “Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade". There were no traces of any explosive chemicals found in the men's homes. A vague assessment is left from the report that the devices were handmade organic peroxide based devices. However, the blasts were not in line with what experiments have shown peroxide explosives to achieve.

Orville & El Boro may obfuscate all they can, apparantly seeking to conceal the fact that they have absolutely NO EXPLANATION for this. The Christophe Chaboud quote again in full:
“traces of military grade explosives (c4) were found at all 4 locations (source: UPI, 13/07/05), yet the bombs were reported to be homemade explosives, which would not cause the same amount of damage.”

And Chaboud was not alone in this opinion, as Orville purports to allege:
1). “British investigators believe that the bombs used in the coordinated terrorist attacks here contained "military quality" high-grade explosives, British and European counterterrorism officials said. They said the material used in the bombs was similar to the kind manufactured for military use or made for highly technical commercial purposes, such as dynamite used for precision explosions to demolish buildings or in mining.”
Ref: IHT | 13th July 05 |
Original URL:  http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php

2). 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
Ref:  http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453563.0402777777.html

3). On Saturday 9th July 2005, Andy Hayman, in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs set off in London each contained less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material.
IHT | 13th July 05 |
Source:  http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/explosives/type/130705IHTmilitarygrade.html
Original URL:  http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/12/news/london.php


After the police searched 18 Alexander Grove it was widely reported they had found TATP.
Police discovered explosives in a hire car and also in a house in Leeds where they reportedly found quantities of TATP. Shortly after this we were told that police had found traces of TATP at the bomb sites from the 7/7 attacks and also at the house raided in Leeds. (janes)

YET:
Eyewitness descriptions and injuries appear to contradict the TATP explosives theory. Triacetone triperoxide blows up without flames. (see new scientist article:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6925 ).

There are a ludicrous number of conflicting reports pertaining to the type of explosives used on 7/7. Let's also not forget the report about the link between the terrorist attack in Israel, April 2003 and 7/7, namely the article in Bild am Sonntag which reported that Mossad officials informed British security officials that the explosive material used in the Tel Aviv attack on Mike's Place pub was apparently also utilized to stage the bombings in London on 7/7, with the use of an explosive said to be manufactured in China ( http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5997.htm ). Mossad Chief Meir Dagan is reported to have said that the explosive in question is very powerful, and "much more lethal than plastic explosives and can be smuggled undetected due to its composition." Special attention should be given in this regard to Azhari Husin, an Al-Qaeda bomb making expert who travelled in and out of England shortly before the 7/7 bombings. Ref:  http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate0905husinlondon#alate0905husinlondon

El Boro, the name of the explosive quoted in the German report "ZDF CX123" is clearly a red herring, and so, hardly a point to draw great significance from. You do a really bad job of deflecting attention from this, and claim to have a translation of the original v article, without quoting the web address of where you found it. The original article can no longer be accessed at it's original address:
 http://www.bild.de/BTO/news/2005/07/10/london__terrorpate/sprengstoff__china.html



Further points you both flatter to deceive in attempting your debunking:



- A number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off have actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been

- There is still no footage that has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

And no answer to this:
Orville has no answer to my continued emphasis on Point-4, "reports that several witnesses stand by those original testimonies despite what Honigsbaum has since attempted to retract" (and in this regard, one cannot therefore accept Rachel North's insistence that she speaks on behalf of all the other 7/7 bomb survivors, as she was quoted as having claimed in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary), and how Orville has "no answer to the fact that Bruce Lait stands by his orginal testimony (his interview on the 11th July with a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard, where he said, "The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train"). We know he stands by this testimony in the recent BBC Conspiracy Files documentary."

And finally,
Do recall, Orvello, that you originally said: "Maybe it’s really difficult to do. It’s not as if all the resources were expended on that aspect of the investigation." What utter garbage, and your own reevaluation of this betrays your original statement here, suggesting that your raison-detre throughout is merely to lay down firebreaks around an inferno of inconsistencies & fabrications which you seemingly cannot dispel!

I wouldn't flatter you as you are an idiot (perhaps I'd flatter you to get you back through the school gates). And I can confidently identify you as an idiot because you are STILL insisting that Meir Dagan said things he most likely hasn't as we have illustrated how the Bild article is a fake story, and laughably probably the author as duped by a rather lame US Gvt. psyop using a defector (it has a history of this: see Iraq).

J7Truth are idiots too because this is third time I have told BD why their using of the MIT Labs things is utterly absurd (especially since the press release itself contradicts the claims)... and still they persist.

You guys aren't researchers of sleuths pitted against dark forces, you are a bunch of halfwits looking in the light for your keys, because you can see better there.

There is absolutely nothing out there (yet) that suggests 7/7 was a false flag, that anyone was so bloody stupid to plant bombs under trains and magically get the identified bombers to stand over them, that they used some kind of made up explosive from a made up factory in China, that there was drill going on (in an office full of fat blokes) providing cover, that Mossad were behind it and the proof is in the fact they have Tourettes and just could stop themselves from blabbing to the world's media "we did it!!!", that the CCTV pictures released were faked, but the alleged "errors" in the fakery would never arise from faking process; that the suicide testimonies were faked using technology that nowhere near exists yet; that several hundred people aren't all saying exactly the same thing proves they are lying...

It's all utter junk. And cynical people like Shayler, Machon, Obachike are all taking the piss out of people like you.

And to cap it all off you persist in ignoring the only palpable whopping great lie that came out of Downing Street regarding the bombers.

There is no flattery here, is 100% mockery from this corner.

1). Why have a number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been? There is only one witness to having seen any of the 3 alleged 3 train bombers is Danny Biddle (who tragically had his legs blown off in the blast). However, Mr Biddle has given a number of conflicting accounts of how he witnessed the bomber, with are of wide variance from eachother (from how he was 10 feet away to another statement that he was stood next to the bomber - Khan - who was sat down and had his rucksack in front of him, and another where Khan had his rucksack on his back).
Ref:  http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/witnesses/biddle.html

2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne who assisted the injured after the explosion, and who died unexpectedly at her home 11 days later).

3). Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005? Ref:  http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2009/05/nature-of-explosives-from-c4-to.html
Why were traces of military grade explosives (c4) reported to have been found at all 4 locations (source: UPI, 13/07/05), yet the bombs were subsequently reported to be homemade explosives, though it has been established that homemade explosive such as the utilisation of hydrogen peroxide in a explosive device would not cause the same amount of damage (testimony of French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, brought in the advice Scotland Yard).

4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?

(several eye witnesses gave that account, including original report by the Guardian's Mark Honigsbaum who spoke to several eye witnesses to the Edgware Road tube bomb, and Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb, who was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard; Bruce Lait further stood by this account of what happened at Aldgate East in the recent BBC Conspiracy files documentary about 7/7).

5). Why is there is still no footage which has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus. What explanation is there for the fact that Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete?

6). Why did Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber in his witness statement to the police and the media about the clothing and facial characteristics of the person he claimed had the backpack bomb on the bus - which didn't corroborate with clothing or facial likeness (colour of skin) of the alleged bomber Hasib Hussain. (In the News Observer: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top." The Sunday Mail: "The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top. Richard said: 'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top." Associated Press: "He described the man as being about 6 feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing light brown trousers and a light brown top." But then, on July 15, newspapers and TV stations around the world carried pictures of 18 year old Hasib Hussain....the bus suicide bomber, taken by closed circuit television cameras just two and half hours before he allegedly blew up London Bus No. 30. The Age online newspaper ran a picture of Hussain, and said that "The image is grainy but stubble is visible on his face. He is wearing a dark jacket and dark trousers and his carrying a backpack.")


7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs? 'Stratfor Intelligence Agency' reported that the Met Police gave Benjamin Netanyahu warning the bombs were going to happen 10 minutes before they happened. The Met police then denied they had informed Mr Netanyahu and that they had prior knowledge of the attack, and 2 weeks after, it was reported that Mossad Chief Meir Dagan had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005. (source: Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005).

Re: last comment by El Boro

El Boro shows him/herself up as someone who resorts to insult when they have lost an argument. El Boro is also revealed as someone who has consistently visited this comment blog to defend the official narrative of what happened, displaying no objective evaluation of the rational questions and alternative perspectives as presented here by me.

El Boro resorts to insults having failed to find any argument to the following points:

- The explosions on the 3 trains and the No.30 bus were highly explosive, and so, not consistent with the explanation that the explsoives were made with homemade explosive, as corroborated by witnesses. The rather stupid, vague assessment of the report speculates that the devices were handmade organic peroxide based devices. However, the blasts were not in line with what experiments have shown peroxide explosives to achieve. The report cannot even definitively state what the explosives were, despite an investigation which cost £100 million, lamely stating that “Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade".

- A number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off have actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been

- There is still no footage that has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

- several eye witnesses give the account that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?

- AND, despite what El Boro says, there is still no footage which has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

El Boro, who said I considered myself flattered? As I said, you flatter to deceive....

Someone once as a joke wrote a little programme in C to emulate a colleague of ours' jokes. There were a few basic elements and a delimited list of topics... it was very amusing, for about 5 mins, and then it got very old very quickly.

Truthers work much in the same way. They have a small pattern of predictable behaviour and an even smaller stock of insults/accusations.

1. You are a state agent
2. You are a sheep(le)
3. You are gullible believe what the governement tells you

Did I miss any?

Now in accusing me of "deception" you imply (1) and you just explicitly called upon (2)

Which is strange because I have consistently said on this thread that substantial elements of the government's story are bollocks (though J7 Truthers have never been interested in anything that doesn't sound like is was culled from PrisonPlanet or What (never) Really Happened).

Anyone with a command of English can scroll up and observe that whilst demolishing your blinkered fantasies I have also indicted the government and its agents of serious crimes... one that happened in the real world.

Meanwhile, you are still in the paddling pool of conjecture where scores of people are murdered in broad daylight by a massive conspiracy involving Mossad and people running around pretending to be on a drill... and no one has noticed this... because everyone in Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5 & 6, Mossad, FBI, CIA, London Ambulance & Fire Services... all of them are in this cover up, for no other motive to keep quiet than 'just because'.

What a joke.

You need to go and get educated on what qualifies as research and science, because if I have to wipe your backside on why you can't go citing an initial public statement against the findings of a forensic report, then you are seriously a lost cause, and so obviously cherrypicking 'evidence'.

But here's a clue: if you want to discredit something, you need to have something it a little more substantial than 'well, it didn't fit my hypothesis (my guess), so I decided it was rubbish', it's precisely when your hypothesis is challenged you need consider changing your hypothesis in light of the data- not just hammer a square peg into a round hole.

El Boro, you have not debunked the main points I have raised here. Instead, you distract with sloppy innuendo and insult. Did i call you a "Spook". No, I didn't. Just maybe, for the others reading these pages, they realise as do i I really don't have to. Rational argument kind of speaks for itself.

You said: "you need consider changing your hypothesis in light of the data".

What data is that, El Boro? The point is, there was NO INFORMATION about the so-called "homemade explosives"; a £100 million investigation concluded with a mere speculation of this whilst admitting that the search for a categorical answer was unresolved - an incredible shortcoming within a major investigation. “Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade".

One wonders what Andy Hayman had to say about this before his book was taken off the shelves.


Plainly, you have only obfuscation to offer to divert attention from the fact that you clearly have no answer to the following:

- The explosions on the 3 trains and the No.30 bus were highly explosive, and so, not consistent with the explanation that the explosives were made with homemade substances, as corroborated by witnesses.

- That there are a ludicrous number of conflicting reports pertaining to the type of explosives used on 7/7. After the police searched 18 Alexander Grove it was widely reported they had found TATP. Police discovered explosives in a hire car and also in a house in Leeds where they reportedly found quantities of TATP. Shortly after this we were told that police had found traces of TATP at the bomb sites from the 7/7 attacks and also at the house raided in Leeds. (janes)
YET:
Eyewitness descriptions and injuries appear to contradict the TATP explosives theory. Triacetone triperoxide blows up without flames. (see new scientist article:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6925 ).


- That a number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off have actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been

- That there is still no footage that has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

- That several eye witnesses give the account that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?

Finally, you have not convincily discredited the report about the link between the terrorist attack in Israel, April 2003 and 7/7, made in the article in Bild am Sonntag which reported that Mossad officials informed British security officials that the explosive material used in the Tel Aviv attack on Mike's Place pub was apparently also utilized to stage the bombings in London on 7/7, with the use of an explosive said to be manufactured in China ( http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5997.htm ). Mossad Chief Meir Dagan is reported to have said that the explosive in question is very powerful, and "much more lethal than plastic explosives and can be smuggled undetected due to its composition." Special attention should be given in this regard to Azhari Husin, an Al-Qaeda bomb making expert who travelled in and out of England shortly before the 7/7 bombings. Ref:  http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate0905husinlondon#alate0905husinlondon

Rather similar to how Orvelle discredited the testimony of Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead who claimed there was a 2nd explosion of the No.30 bus, because of the question of the reliability of whatever she has said because of her own deception about her professional career. However, whatever stain on her professional career does not take away from the veracity of the allegation she made, that there were 2 explosions of the No.30 bus? The answer, I'm afraid to say to you Orville, is no.

The quote from that Telegraph article is really not convincing, and reeks of a clumsy attempt at character assassination The quote: "Scotland Yard and the local coroner were alerted but it now appears that she suffered a blood clot, possibly induced by her stressful double life." ...how woeful an explanation. One increasingly smells a rat...in this and your continual attempts on this comment thread to place down firebreaks amongst a constellation of fabrication and inconsistency for whioch you consistently have no convincing explanations.

1988 Mossad plot to bomb Britain
Ref:  http://london-bombs.blogspot.com/2006/01/1988-mossad-plot-to-bomb-britain.html
see also:  http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/09/12272.html

In 1988, 28 year old Ismael Sowan, a research assistant at Humberside College of Higher Education, was discovered by British police to be in possession of a large quantity of arms and explosives.

Sowan was working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.

Mossad's plan was that Sowan would let off bombs in Britain that would leave sufficient forensic clues to suggest that they were the work of Moslem countries and thus damage Anglo-Arab relations.

Sowan had been run by a five man Mossad team operating in Britain under the cover of a private company with the tacit approval of the Foreign Office and MI5.

After the discoveries by the police the Foreign Office felt it had to ask the Mossad team to leave the country.

Sources: The Intelligence Game: The Illusions and Delusions ...
by James Rusbridger
Amazon.co.uk
Source:

I’m getting fed up with this, wm.

“The Christophe Chaboud quote again in full:”
You’ve made that quote up (just as you’ve made up the stuff about the head of Mossad talking to a German tabloid).
Find a link to a direct quote from Christophe Chaboud citing C4. You can’t. All the quotes are translated from the piece in Le Monde where he made no reference to C4.
And all the examples you cite seem to be based on a briefing made soon after the bombings, when police were working on an assumption it was military explosives. They later realised they were wrong. Of course in conspiracy land, noone ever makes mistakes.

Again, you say there was no detail of the explosives. You clearly ignored the link I provided to The Times article: “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 refridgerator, because the explosive degrades if it is left at room temperature.”
The official report confirms the homemade aspect, adding: “Materials
consistent with these processes were discovered at Alexandra Grove.”
Incidentally – yes, my original response last week was that I didn’t know why there was confusion over the explosives because I’d not looked into it yet; it hadn’t occurred to be that you would be so disingenuous as to claim the investigation had not reached a conclusion, when it clearly did.

“There is still no footage that has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms,”
What, apart from the footage from Liverpool Street station, for example, showing the bomber waiting on the platform, boarding the train and then the explosion in the tunnel? You can see it on the Channel 4 website. Other scenes were shown at the recent trial.

As for why no passengers on the tubes recalled them; well, I’m not sure if that’s true; but if it is the explanation is pretty obvious – the rush hour trains were packed and all those sitting around the bombers, who would have seen them, were killed in the explosions.

And fine, if you want to cling to the testimony of a known fantasist who lied about what she was doing at the bus scene (using her skills as a “doctor”) and who she was (a “doctor”), that’s your own problem. If you think her testimony is more credible more than the dozens of other witnesses who had no recollection of a second explosion - just as you think the testimony of the dozens of passengers who said the bombs weren't under the trains outdoes those of one bloke who does - you can go and keep Daniel O company.

Anyone here use the tube to get around in rush hour? Please close your eyes and remember everyone who stood crushed around you on your tube journey yesterday morning. Can you do that? No? Are you surprised that you can't?

And please remember these 3 men had only been travelling on the tubes for a minute or less. Why do you think typically crushed, stressed, bored commuters on the trains that day would remember anything about them, or notice them before the bombs exploded, if they weren't in the habit of studying those who travelled on their trains to work each day?


- A number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off have actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been

I can't let this pass. This is massive over statement - there is only *one* survivor who has said this, Mr Lait, who survived but came to in appalling conditions with a dead woman on top of him and his dance partner injured, in a scene of appalling carnage. And in fact, Mr Lait said only that 'he did not remember' seeing a bag, or a bomb in the Cambridge local paper interview. Who would expect him to remember? Who could easily process the appalling fact of a bomb going off and killing people standing round oneself moments earlier? In the BBC Conspiracy programme, all he said was that the consopiracy theory videos had 'opened up a can of worms, in my mind' - but he did not endorse the CTs, he stopped well short of that.


There are *no* other named survivors who have said anything similar - not about bombs under trains, or even 'not recalling seeing a bomber'. The only other quotes from people who have said something about tiles flying up indicating possibly explosive action under trains are the unknown interviewees in the Honigsbaum piece, caught on tape as they evacuated Edgeware Rd station shortly after the blast. But as it turns out they were *not* in the bombed carriage, but the one next to it, when they saw the floor tiles 'raising up'. The bomb was in the carriage in front of theirs, and placed on the floor, it is not especially surprising that it should, amongst other effects, cause the tiles in the next carriages to move up as the blast detonated

Their impressions are observances of the explosion effects at second hand, and Honigsbaum himself says later evidence from people closer was that the bomb was in the carriage. So, they should be discounted - they are not eyewitnesses. The only eyewitness for the non-bomber theory says he 'cannot remember' - not conclusive, and not surprising, given the traumatic circumstances.


As to eyewitnesses who DID see the bombers, there are 2 seriously injured men who say yes, they saw Mohammed Siddique Khan at Edgeware - on a train which was by all accounts less crowded than the other 2 that were bombed. They are John Tulloch and Danny Biddle. Both were injured, both with life-changing injuries - Mr Biddle lost both legs, an eye and his spleen, Tulloch had serious head injuries.

One main reason why there are so few eyewitness accounts of seeing the tube bombers self-detonate is because the tubes were crowded and as a tube traveller you don't tend to look at people unless you are close to them - even then , most people don't stare hard at other passengers, as it is considered rude. The other reason is that if you stood close to the bombs going off, you were probably killed or seriously injured - though not everyone was and some people had very lucky escapes. I wonder how amny people who come out with this speculation are regular uses of London's public transport system?

On the bus, there was no CCTV( see next point) and Hussein sat at the back, on the top deck. To get a look at him you'd have had to turn round and stare. Most people just don't do this on public transport - why would you? Unless you wanted trouble..

- There is still no footage that has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

Hayman's book says that the CCTV system on the bus had failed on June 15th and when the police found this out, they were disappointed. So the bus was running without CCTV that day, and indeed for 3 weeks before hand. Strightforward technical problems, then, and the problem was not resolved by getting experts in a few days before the bombings to try to meand it on the bus - the CCTV just didn't work. However, there is footage of the men at Kings Cross Thameslink London, and ascending the steps to main platform. It has been shown and is there for you to look at online. Channel 4 news has some of it, or most of it I think, so google that ( can't go link-hunting as am at work)

Footage of the men on the platforms approaching the underground and boarding the trains at King's Cross, if it exists or is any use at all has not been shown. There are 3 explanations for this which should be considered before leaping to conspiracy theories

a) the station and platforms were very crowded and the station very busy ( dozens of accounts support this and anyway, it was rush hour) - so it's fairly hard to pick anyone out on a heaving crowd - you might catch a bit of the back of someone's head if you are lucky

b) the people getting on the train next to the bombers and standing/sitting beside them - if caught on CCTV - that was probably their last moments alive. I'm not sure how families would feel about thieir loved ones last moments being pored over on the internet.

c) shockingly enough, 80% of CCTV is not of evidential quality, despite us being one of the most surveilled nations on earth.



several eye witnesses give the account that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?

I've covered this already. Please - stop using 'witnesses who were not actually in the bombed carriage who were interviewed once, in the confusion after the bomb had gone off by one journalist' and turning them into 'several eyewitnesses'. It's sloppy and misleading, especially when the Honigsbaum article makes it clear that other people who actually WERE in the carriage were clear that the bomb was inside the carriage with them.

Finally - re. the explosives - they were described as the main charge being a hydrogen peroxide substance mixed with organic compound, in this case, black pepper and with HMTD detonators, manually ignited by touching bare wires to a battery-powered light bulb - by forensics expert witness Clifford Todd at the 2008 Theseus trial at Kingston. They were unique IEDS at the time in europe - until 21/7 when the same types were abandoned in situ , having failed to go off - because the peroxide to organic compound ration was wrong - the peroxide was not concentrated enough. This indicates that both sets of bombers - 7/7 and 21/7 - trained at the same camp, and indeed, MSK and Mutkat Said Ibrahim were at the same place in Pakistan, in autumn/winter 2004.

I can see why exact publishing bomb making details is not something the media would do - people don't actually need to know exactly how the bombs were made, despite their curiosity - and it is perfectly reasonable not to put the information out in the public domain. Those who are especially anxious to find out more can pay up for the trial transcripts.

I can also see why terror pundits thought it was military grade - most big bangs are. Also, peroxide-based explosions tend to consume all their traces as far as I understand it. You wouldn't expect to find much in the way of explosives residue after such a bomb had gone off. You can go and look at some HMTD bangs on youtube if you want, with explosions fans talking you through its effects. It's not that hard to make.

How does one explain, then, that the blasts were not in line with what experiments have shown peroxide explosives to achieve?

Also, why was it was widely reported the police found TATP at 18 Alexander Grove in Leeds, in a hire car, and then at the bomb sites from the 7/7 attacks and also at the house raided in Leeds. (Janes Defence Weekly). Why would the police have released this info? This revelation disappeared into thin air come the publication of the report (as mentioned, Triacetone triperoxide blows up without flames).


On another aspect to the whole story:
One also wonders why was the following blanked out from media coverage here in the UK and, as a result, pretty much internationally, apart from random media reports as highlighted here?


'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
5:00AM Saturday Jul 09, 2005
New Zealnad Herald
Ref:  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10334992

A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

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.

He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.

Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.

Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.

reply to Rachel: The question about lack of cctv footage of the Hussain boarding the number 91 or 30 buses obviously would relate to external cctv out on the street, not the bus.

- How does one explain, then, that the blasts were not in line with what experiments have shown peroxide explosives to achieve?

What experiments? Have you made an HMTD/peroxide/organic IED weighing 4.5kilos and detonated it in a confined space? I sincerely hope not, but if you want to know the effects of such a device, you can cough up for the 2008/2009 Theseus trial transcript which contains the testimony of Clifford Todd

- Also, why was it was widely reported the police found TATP at 18 Alexander Grove in Leeds, in a hire car, and then at the bomb sites from the 7/7 attacks and also at the house raided in Leeds. (Janes Defence Weekly). Why would the police have released this info? This revelation disappeared into thin air come the publication of the report (as mentioned, Triacetone triperoxide blows up without flames).

TATP I think was the media undrstanding of peroxide based explosives in the early days: in fact it was HMTD and hydrogen peroxide and organic substance. I can see why they didn't want to put it out on general release about how to make homemade explosives. I can also see that it would take time to swab and discover the types of explosives used, especially as this kind of explosion leaves few traces, and it was a crime scene, and they had to go through all debris and evidence very carefully and slowly - so early reports should always be taken with a pinch of salt.


The shooting at canary wharf never happened. Look at the material - it is 'someone who did not want to be named' saying that 'two colleagues' ( unknown) witnessed the 'unconfirmed' shooting by police of two 'apparent' suicide bombers...

...it's incredibly flakey, and with good reason: it never happened. You are aware that Canary Wharf is full of offices containing media organisations and news desks. It's a rumour, reported and then dropped when there was no evidence to back it up. Rumours were rife that day; unsurpris9ingly, because everyone was pretty shaken.

On another aspect to the whole story:
One also wonders why was the following blanked out from media coverage here in the UK and, as a result, pretty much internationally, apart from random media reports as highlighted here?




13.07.2009 16:36
reply to Rachel: The question about lack of cctv footage of the Hussain boarding the number 91 or 30 buses obviously would relate to external cctv out on the street, not the bus.

wm

There is CCTV of him wandering the streets, heading for the bus, but if you think CCTV gives perfect coverage, especially in crowds,of each person's every move: you are mistaken.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/1996523/Tories-pledge-to-curb-use-of-CCTV-cameras.html

It suits the police to let everyone think CCTV is everywhere, watching everything - it has a deterrent effect - but in fact, it just doesn't work like that.

I don't suppose it suits the police to advertise exactly where CCTV ISN"T giving good coverage either. Huge investment on London Underground of CCTV since 7/7 is another clue.

The truth is bad enough, without going off on conspiracy tangents, I'm afraid

Rachel, you do well to justify the numerous discrepancies in the narrative of what happened on 7/7 and subsequent information which supports the established account of what happened on the day, such as the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory evidence to the Theseus trial. However, I’m afarid I do have to say that some of the points you make, rather like others on this comment blog, rely on conjecture and speculation as much as established fact, particularly what you say in regard to justifying why there are no cctv images of the bombers boarding the trains or buses despite there being numerous references to CCTV in the official report.

Too much about 7/7 doesn't add up, and while there may seem credible explanations to clarify each of the many inconsistencies in the narrative such as the lack of cctv, conflicting witness accounts (which you have accounted for/explained), and the twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, and other controversies such as the questionable investigative tactics by the police and rational of the prosecution in the second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" which was quashed.

Re: the explosions
There is conflicting verification for the views of Clifford Todd in his testimony in theTheseus trial, for according to the French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, “the utilisation of hydrogen peroxide in a explosive device would not cause the same amount of damage.”

So, in reply to your rather flippant remark “have I made an HMTD/peroxide/organic IED weighing 4.5kilos and detonated it in a confined space in an experiment?”, no I certainly have not, but I express my doubt over the theory (it is a theory after-all), on the basis of the opinion of other experts such as Chaboud.

Re: the issue of the lack of cctv footage of the Hussain boarding the number 91 or 30 buses

You said that “There is CCTV of him wandering the streets, heading for the bus, but if you think CCTV gives perfect coverage, especially in crowds,of each person's every move: you are mistaken.”

> REPLY: Can you direct us to where this cctv image of Hussain wandering the streets exists. As far as I’ve seen, there is only the image of him walking a stairs at Kings X thameslink station, and walking out of the boots Chemists in Kings X.

The fact remains, there is NO cctv footage of him in the streets boarding these buses. If there was, why wouldn’t it be shown? That

Re: The story about 'Police having shot suspected suicide-bombers at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7

You say the shooting at canary wharf never happened and that the story is incredibly flaky.

> REPLY: Not as flaky as your answer! You give no convincing argument to disprove this report. The fact that this report is sidelined is not evidence of the veracity of this incident having occurred.

People like wm know better than anyone. They know better than eye witnesses, better than professionals, than the people who admitted carrying out the bombing.

They expect 100% consistency in a culture of primates with very limited mental powers. Where if they used their Truth

criteria on their own family, they would have to conclude that their parents first date was a false flag operation, or that

their partner forgetting an anniversary or not noticing a new hairdo was the work of Mossad.

It's like OCD gone apeshit.

For Truthers a story can't be on the level unless every single thing that every person has said in public all tallies like an accounting ledger.

It's plainly obvious that these people have never been in a courtroom let alone bothered to ask a detective what the

likelihood of getting a situation where everyone agrees they saw, heard, smelt the same thing. Human memory just doesn't

work that way- hence the classic scenario of people having wildly different accounts of how, when, where they met, to the point of cliché.

But Truthers don't really suffer from some nigh on autistic understanding of the universe. They don't really expect

everything to conform to such high standards of corroboration.

The fact is that Truthers have their shoes on the wrong feet because they have a theory that Mossad changed their feet round while they were sleeping and thus are doomed by their own theory to walk in petulant pain.

Truthers demand total harmony of one tiny corner of their universe, because they have committed the first sin of pseudo-science: they have stared of with a hypothesis and like Procrustes the Innkeeper they are hacking lumps off the data and "evidence" to make it fit the foregone conclusion that 7/7 belongs to the cult of the False Flag.

They aren't asking the data whether it is true. They telling US it is true and cherrypicking inconsistency as "proof" and stubbornly ignoring the fact that in all the relevant areas people are agreed that 7/7 was a Jihadi attack.

... ignoring the fact that what they cite to be proof of a deception, would indicate the deception was conceived and executed by people as moronic as themselves.

Truth is what it calls itself. Truth doesn't equal evidence, nor does it equal proof. Truth is a subject concept, the mainstay of any brainwashing cult. Truth is about 'belief' which is the opposite of fact.

Facts are deduced, not reverse engineered. And that's why people (not "sheeple") mock you.

El Boro, I have not seen one comment by you which comes even close to conceding/admitting that there is a large amount of inconsistency across the whole range of aspects around 7/7. From the lack of cctv mages of the men boarding the trains or bus, to the coincidence of the Visor Consultants' drill, to the coincidence of Azhari Husin - an Al-Qaeda bomb making expert who travelled in and out of England shortly before the 7/7 bombings - whose role was never explored in the police investigation over 7/7 as is also the case with Haroon Rashid Aswat - an MI6 asset who was never questioned in regard to his role in 7/7 despite the fact that around 20 phone calls were found to have been made from his mobile to some of the other alleged bombers in the days after 7/7, to doubts over the explosive cocktail speculated to have been used in the bombings on 7/7, to the fact that the statement admitting responsibility for the bombings signed in the name of Al-Qaeda was posted on a website whose ip address was based in Texas, to the numerous reports that 'men with backpacks thought to be suicide bombers' were shot by snipers in Canary Wharf later the same morning on 7/7

Any rational person would do so (atleast admit that there is a pattern of inconsistency).

For merely asking questions, I have elucidated from you, as well as some rational explanations, a whole tide of one-sided polemic which tends to suggest you are not neutral in your perspective of what happened on the day (suggesting you are either doing your best to be defensive in some way).

Any rational reader reading this thread (not so many now) would conclude the same.

I'm just getting frustrated with WM's fabrications. Having failed to acknowledge being caught out making up quotes, he goes and does it again:

He cites this as a Christophe C quote: “the utilisation of hydrogen peroxide in a explosive device would not cause the same amount of damage.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any reference to Christophe C saying that anywhere. Like the apparent quote about C4 it appears to be utterly made up.

As for the whole business about the bus, again it shows OCD tendancies to assume that footage is available of every corner of Britain. As the commuter points out, CCTV coverage is not comprehensive and large chunks don't work.

(Someone was killed in an road accident near where I work the other day. It was on a street that had some CCTV on it, but it wasn't in quite the right place, or wasn't working, because police have been going around desperately trying to get eye witnesses to help them know what happened. Of course, in WM's world this would automatically mean she was assassinated as part of a conspiracy. Good grief.)

So Aswat is/was/might have been an MI6 asset; al Mahajaroun is/was/might well have been an MI6 project for recruiting Jihadis to for the Balkans.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun

Why does someone being an MI6 asset mean that 7/7 was a false flag and not blowback. It's a massive assumption to make the leap from MI6 playing with fire and getting people literally burned in an act of betrayal, and MI6 actively planning this.

Think about it. If it were a false flag and MI6 were behind it they would likely manipulated a couple of cells and have everyone right down to the bombers thinking it was an act of betrayal and not a false flag by proxy.

so all you bullshit about missing CCTV and types of explosive would be utterly irrelevant, as it would have been really easy for MI6 to leave no footprint at all on the whole thing. Why the hell would tehy start using dodgy faked evidence and start sticking bombs under trains and stand a risk of getting caught by people less astute than the Famous Five on cheap cider??? When all they had to do was let it happen???

So, the conspiracy theories themselves fall short of parsimony/Occam's very dull and scratchy razor.

That leaves the question, is it possible for MI6 to have run a Jihadi recruiting office in North London and then stood back and let 2 cells bombs (one failed) the Tube?

As for, two bombers being shot in Canary Wharf. It's utter rubbish. Thousands of people would have probably witnessed it, and you think the police could get away with disappearing two bodies in such a high profile locus?

The fact you even entertain the idea that this was anything more than a bogus story speaks volumes about how fit you are to evaluate what is or isn't "rational".

Could the simple explanation why there has been no adequate public investigation into 7/7 be not that some Scooby Doo bomb plot is being covered up, but rather the fact that the government and its security services were up to their necks in teh sponsorship of terrorism, and they were recruiting and training jihadis in the UK to commit acts of terrorism abroad?

I'll admit my theory is pure guesswork, based on little more than a few facts in the public domain; the fact the Finsbury Park Mosque may as well have had a sign in the window (and News of the World) saying 'Jihadis wanted- apply within'; None of the Finsbury Park/al Mahajaroun players have been prosecuted for their terrorist activities; Downing Street's strenuous denial that the cells were acting in an International framework...

It's guesswork, I'll admit, but I think doable within the realms of reality and far more plausible than Mossad agents running around being coordinated by Peter Power, and 99% of witnesses being fake and only the aberrant ones being genuine.

No?

- inconsistencies remain, despite your best efforts

*> Hardly my 'best efforts', that took me 10 mins at work to cover.

I’m afarid I do have to say that some of the points you make, rather like others on this comment blog, rely on conjecture and speculation

*>the testimony of a forensics expert who spent several months working on a report which was given in open court and not challenged byt entirely accepted by the defence and prosecution is not 'conjecture': it is hard evidence. the remarks by Msr. Chabourd, on the other hand ARE speculation - a) he never examined the evidence b) it's not clear that he actually said any such thing anyway.

- as much as established fact, particularly what you say in regard to justifying why there are no cctv images of the bombers boarding the trains -or buses despite there being numerous references to CCTV in the official report.

* >Have you read the report? There are references to CCTV where it exists and this CCTV was later shown. There are also refs to witness statements. CCTV and witnesses are different things.Report is here

 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0506/hc10/1087/1087.pdf

and here is some CCTV of Hussein in Kings Cross

 http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/news/shock-video-footage-of-london-terror-bombers-shehzad-tanweer-jermaine-lindsay-an

more CCTV here

 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/London-7-7-Bombers-New-Footage-Released-Four-Years-After-They-Killed-52-People-On-July-7th-2003/Video/200905115273626?lpos=UK+News_12&lid=VIDEO_1888326_New+Footage+Of+7%2F7+Bombers&videoCategory=UK+News


- Too much about 7/7 doesn't add up, and while there may seem credible explanations to clarify each of the many inconsistencies in the narrative such as the lack of cctv, conflicting witness accounts (which you have accounted for/explained), and the twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, and other controversies such as the questionable investigative tactics by the police and rational of the prosecution in the second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" which was quashed.

>Well, you can decide it 'doesn't add up' if you wish, just as you can decide it 'doesn't add up' that the world is not flat, if you want but I'm going to think you have some reason why you want to believe it doesn't add up, and your belief/hunch/intuition isn't enough; you're going to have to come up with some credible explanation other than just you having 'a feeling'. Your feelings and beliefs are not evidence.


- There is conflicting verification for the views of Clifford Todd in his testimony in theTheseus trial, for according to the French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, “the utilisation of hydrogen peroxide in a explosive device would not cause the same amount of damage.”

* >I've explained the difference- one is a highly respected expert who studied the evidence for months and gave unchallenged evidence on oath, and the other is someone who never handled the evidence or even visited the sites, as far as I can ascertain.

- So, in reply to your rather flippant remark “have I made an HMTD/peroxide/organic IED weighing 4.5kilos and detonated it in a confined space in an experiment?”, no I certainly have not, but I express my doubt over the theory (it is a theory after-all), on the basis of the opinion of other experts such as Chaboud.

>An expert who didn't see it vs. one who studied it for months and gave evidence on oath? There's no comparison really, is there?



Re: the issue of the lack of cctv footage of the Hussain boarding the number 91 or 30 buses

You said that “There is CCTV of him wandering the streets, heading for the bus, but if you think CCTV gives perfect coverage, especially in crowds,of each person's every move: you are mistaken.”

Can you direct us to where this cctv image of Hussain wandering the streets exists. As far as I’ve seen, there is only the image of him walking a stairs at Kings X thameslink station, and walking out of the boots Chemists in Kings X.

*>see links provided and get googling.

- The fact remains, there is NO cctv footage of him in the streets boarding these buses. If there was, why wouldn’t it be shown?

*>Like I said, CCTV does not give perfect coverage. His remains were found in the bus, next to the remains of the rucksack and bomb residue and scenes of carnage after his mum reported him missing, having gone to London with MSK, Tanweer. Got an explanation for that?

Re: The story about 'Police having shot suspected suicide-bombers at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7

You say the shooting at canary wharf never happened and that the story is incredibly flaky.
Not as flaky as your answer! You give no convincing argument to disprove this report. The fact that this report is sidelined is not evidence of the veracity of this incident having occurred.

* >why do I have to disprove a negative?

A report based on flaky, unsubstantiated report from an unknown source who reports one anonymous person's hearsay appears briefly in a newspaper on the other side of the world. No UK press report it and there are no witnesses and no evidence to support it!

Do you actually think that police could shoot people in Canary wharf and nobody woudl notice or say anything?

Have you ever been to canary wharf? Do you know how many thousands of people work there, and what most of them do for a living?

wm, I think you Want To Believe in a conspiracy and nothing will stop you believing it, well, that's your perogative, but if you won't accept reasonable evidence I have to say I'm not impressed. And why on earth do you think everyone would react in unison, with the same statements, no anomalies and that normal human reactions to chaos would cease to exist on the day of a tragedy such as 7/7?

If everyone came out with the exact same story and there were no anomalies, THEN I'd be suspicious. Because that's not how humans work, ever.