7/7: Crime and Prejudice

The 7/7 conspiracy theory has been debunked for quite some time now. See this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNil0xEcrcY

In response to the previous comment, the BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files documentary he/she refers to has been utterly discredited by the findings unearthed July 7th Truth campaign.

The BBC documentary (& the 7/7 Inquest led by Lady Justice Hallett) failed to address any of the numerous glaring discrepancies that remain in the official version of events/narrative that has been accepted, which I outline point-by-point now:

1). How and why did police commence investigation of Luton CCTV footage before the accused had been identified at King's Cross Thameslink station and the reasons why Luton was first identified as significant in investigation:

During the morning session of Wednesday 13 October 2010, the Inquest heard from Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command. After being sworn, DI Kindness was questioned by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith, and stated for the record that the identification of the four accused at King's Cross Thameslink, and thus the link made to the Luton and Bedford areas, occurred on 11 July 2005:

Q. Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 6, lines 12-25

Under further questioning by Mr Keith, DI Kindness explains the manner in which Luton was discovered as the point at which the four accused met and travelled to London:

Q. Did you then concentrate your examination upon CCTV relating to the railway network to the north of London?
A. Indeed, sir, yes, and we were looking at the route of the -- the Thameslink route up through Bedford and Luton and looking for fast-time CCTV recovery of those stations to see where the bombers had access to rail network.
Q. Were you able to access CCTV relating to, not just the stations, but the car parks at those stations, the entry points and the foyers?
A. Yes, we were, sir.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We were able to identify that the individuals had arrived at Luton underground station earlier that morning and boarded a train to London.
Q. Can you recall when it was that you discovered that they had boarded the railway network at Luton?
A. I think it was on the 12th, sir.
Q. So the Tuesday?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of that process, how many of the men were you able to identify initially as having used the Luton railway station?
A. We were able to identify all of the men had accessed -- the four men had accessed via Luton railway station.
Q. Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 10, line 19 on


The Home Office narrative suggests that Luton was chosen due to the witness sighting of four men putting on rucksacks at Luton station, as received on the 12 July 2005. This witness, Susan Clarke, gave her evidence to the Inquest during the afternoon session of 13 October 2010. She describes handing a note of the cars she had seen at Luton station on the morning of the 7 July to a British Transport Police officer at St. Pancras station. This note was handed over on Tuesday 12 July 2005. [Transcript, 13 October 2010, afternoon session - page 14, line 14 on]. Officers attended her place of work at 11.45am on 12 July 2005 and Ms Clarke was interviewed for two and a half hours at Holborn police station.

So this would appear to be how the Luton station CCTV came to be favoured and examined over and above seven other possible stations of focus. Or, at least it would be if either the narrative or DI Kindness were actually relating the facts of the matter. Fortunately for the bereaved and the wider public, the carefully plotted course of Mr Keith's questioning was exposed by further questions interjected by Mr Patterson and Ms Gallagher, the counsels for the bereaved.

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 65, line 15

This leaves the one crucial and compelling question: Why were the police reviewing CCTV footage from Luton station and car park on 10 July 2005, when the accused apparently weren't identified on King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until a day later, 11 July 2005?

More importantly, why has it been deemed necessary to concoct the story about the discovery of CCTV at Luton on 12 July 2005?

The Inquests now need to scrutinise the actual manner in which the four accused were identified, and re-examine how, when and why the link to Luton station was made and how, when and why the CCTV was recovered, as the evidential log shows, by 10 July 2005.

Bridget Dunne, 10/16/2010
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/cctv-fuss-about-nothing.html



2). No questioning of a lack of evidential verifiable proof of positive identification of the 3 alleged bombers on the London Underground network the morning of the tube bombings on 7/7/2005 with specific reference to the lack of any cctv evidence of the alleged bombers on the underground network (we are told that the entire cctv system run by Israeli company Verint Systems inexplicably went down across the whole London Underground network for the crucial 30 minute window when the 3 of the alleged bombers dispused onto 3 different London Underground Trains).

“An exchange between Mr Patterson QC, counsel for the bereaved, and Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness, [on the afternoon of 14th October] has revealed that a “temporary system" of 76 cameras installed at King's Cross malfunctioned for 20 minutes between the crucial period of approximately 8.30am - 8.50am on the 7 July 2005. This "malfunction" left just one of 76 cameras actually recording CCTV footage. The one camera which remained in operation happened to be the one which was trained on the tunnel between the King's Cross Thameslink station and King's Cross mainline station.”

The 7/7 Inquest blog written by the July 7th Truth campaign says:

“This means that:

* There is no CCTV footage from the underground showing Hasib Hussain allegedly on the Northern Line,
* There is no CCTV footage showing the "iconic" but never seen image of the four men hugging euphorically (as given in evidence under oath by a member of the travelling public that morning - Joseph Martoccia)
* There is no CCTV from the ticket gates, subways or platforms showing any of the four accused at King's Cross.
* As well as that, no cctv images recorded where Hasib Hussain entered into McDonalds in Kings Cross or where is alleged to have boarded the 91 and 30 buses"
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/final-curtain-cctv-rich-to-cctv-fail.html

3). MI5's failure to investigate numerous leads relating to the proper surveillance of 7 July ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan, such as close personal associate at the Iqra bookshop in Leeds - Martin “Abdullah” McDaid (ex-SBS soldier, anti-terrorist operative & white convert to Islam). MI5's failure to investigate the 7 July ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan in detail after undercover teams observed him repeatedly meeting the fertiliser bomb plot mastermind Omar Khyam more than a year before the 7/7 atrocities highlights either ineptitude or even some kind of covert complicity of elements within the security services in allowing Khan to escape detection for so long before July 7th 2005. How where neither Khan and Tanweer not picked up when telephone conversations between Khan and fellow alleged bomber Shehzad Tanweer, who were bugged by MI5 for two months as part of Operation Crevice which began in late March 2003, were recorede in which they revealed both men speaking about ways to fund extremism, fighting for Al Qaeda and going back to Pakistan to train (Lady Justice Hallett in her recommendations at the end of the 7/7 Inquest merely expressed ‘concern’ about MI5's failure to investigate the 7 July ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan in detail after undercover teams observed him repeatedly meeting the fertiliser bomb plot mastermind Omar Khyam more than a year before the atrocities).

4). The apparant inconsistency between the fact that no traces of HMTD, nor the hydrogen peroxide/piperine homemade explosive or indeed any other explosive nor any trace of an initiator. [1.] on the Piccadily Line train bombed between Kings X and Russell Square (with the explanation being that the strength of the explosion obliterated all trace of them [2.] whilst pieces of the identification documents, passport, addressed envelope etc. belonging to the alleged bomber Germaine Lindsay survived.

5). Related to (3) above, until July 2005 the scientists at Fort Halstead in Kent had never seen a hydrogen peroxide bomb. Despite 130 years' experience gathering information on home-made and military bombs from across the world they had yet to come across the type used in the attacks in London on July 7 Mr Clifford Todd, in evidence to the 7/7 Inquest confirmed the official accepted view in the 7/7 narrative that the explosives used on 7/7 were homemade, specifically a home-made mixture of pepper and hydrogen peroxide. This evidence was provided by Mr Clifford Todd on 1st February 2011 and can be found on the transcript record of that day on p38 line 7 (afternoon session) [3]. Here, Todd questioned by Hugo Keith, asks Todd “You concluded, in essence, in relation to all four scenes, that despite the absence of traces of piperine at the scenes, the absence of any other recognised high explosive, together with the material found at 9 Alexandra Grove, led you to conclude that the main charge was an improvised mixture, a home-made mixture of pepper and hydrogen peroxide?” In response, by Mr Clifford Todd answers: “That's correct, yes.” The 'absence of traces of piperidine at the scences,' could be because there wasn't any there in the first place and considering the sophistication of the analytical equipment available to the forensics department is the more likely explanation. A major extrapolation is taken for granted in that, in the absence of evidence of the precise nature of the explosive at either of the 4 bomb sites on 7/7, the apparent finding of hydrogen peroxide and spice at Khan’s flat in Beeston is considered to be evidence enough to prove that this was the explosive used in the 7/7 attacks. This is particularly a sloppy extrapolation that fills in vital missing gaps of evidence of huge significance, glossing over serious scientific rational which is the centrepiece of the explanation of events outlined in the ‘official version of what happened on 7/7. AND YET, during the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest evidence submitted at that enquiry was that the IED devices found in the Nissan Micra contained triacetone triperoxide (commonly known as TATP) and that TATP was found 'all over Alexandra Grove [Info source: evidence given by ‘Neil’ to Sir Michael Wright at the the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest on 7th November 2008 - Ref:  http://www.stockwellinquest.org.uk/hearing_transcripts/nov_07.pdf/ ]. The above is corroborated by images released by ABC News of footage from Luton, revealing only white explosives. [4] 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." [53]. As reported in German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, 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 Thursday, saying there was a "high likelihood" the explosives used in Tel Aviv were the same ones used in London. After analyzing the explosive material used in the Mike's Place attack, Mossad concluded it was produced in China and later smuggled into Britain, the paper reported. [6]. The explosives were apparently stashed by terrorists connected to al-Qaeda who were able to evade raids by British security forces. The Home Office narrative spoke only of home-made explosives while the ISC went only so far as to specify organic peroxides. Taken from  http://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.com: It was thought that the bombers bought bottles of hydrogen peroxide, concentrated the hydrogen peroxide by boiling away water, and after cooling back, mixing the hydrogen peroxide with pepper to form a slurry. The slurry was transported to London in rucksacks cooled by freezer bags packed amongst the contents. Subsequently the rucksacks were detonated by the bombers. However, from the perspective of a chemist, the preceding paragraph has a number of flaws. When hydrogen peroxide is heated it begins to decompose. Hydgrogen peroxide is prone to catalytic decomposition from materials such as rust, metals, metal salts, the list goes on - see Brethericks Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, which suggests that heating up hydrogen peroxide in a saucepan wouldn't be wise. Mixing the concentrated hydrogen peroxide with an organic substance (pepper) is fraught with hazards; not least that it would be anticipated to react with the organic material in an uncontrolled chemical reaction. [7].

6). Discrepancies between the official account and where explosions took place on the 3 trains (ie: discrepancies between the location of where the alleged bombers were located on each of the trains, the location of the blasts and the presence of holes in the floor indicating the blasts happened on the floors of the train, such as with the evidence of witness Danny Biddle who claims Mohammed Sidique Khanhad was sat opposite him on the Circle Line train near Edgware Rd station and that he had his rucksack resting on his legs, whilst furthermore, the two people sitting opposite him apparantly surviving the blast).

7). The case of Haroon Rashid Aswat, an MI6 intelligence asset under the direction and protection of MI6, who is reported to have made phonecalls to Mohammed Sidique Khan. The investigation into the London bombings allegedly turned up Aswat's phone number during examination of the mobile telephone records of the four alleged bombers of July 7.
Sources said that days after the first explosions, around 20 phone calls were found to have been made from his mobile to some of the men who caused carnage on the London Underground and a bus in the capital. The police declared by the Autumn of 2005 that, as part of their investigation into the 7/7 bombings, they were NOT investigating Aswat in connection with the London bombings.Yet Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset. John Loftus of the US Justice Department said on Fox News that Haroon Rashid Aswat worked for MI6. Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News: "Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

8). The utterly poor quality of the photo of Mohammad Sidique Khan & Shehzad Tanweer originally taken as part of Operation Crevice sent out by MI5 to security services in the US holding Mohammed Junaid Babar to identify potential terrorist associates back in the UK almost a year before the 7/7, which was in the words of Lady Justice Hallett in her recommendations at the end of the 7/7 Inquest “dreadful”. This surveillance photograph of Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, taken at a service station was edited so as to remove Khan and render Tanweer unrecognisable. It immediately raises the suscipoin that MI5 or elements within MI5 didn't want the CIA to Babar to recognise Khan and Tanweer. (this couldn't be because Khan & Tanweer were MI5 assets - even if they were maybe subverting their intelligence role as double agents - because Babar himself had become an FBI/CIA asset at some point between mid 2003 and March 2004, hence why he was quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence in the US in Nov 2010, and Babar knew Khan really well).

This is related to the revelation of the senior security services officer - Witness G - who told the 7/7 inquest that he had "a high degree of confidence" that had agents chosen to investigate information in March 2005, that two men called Saddique and Imran, from Batley in Leeds, had trained in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, they would have identified Mohammad Sidique Khan as one of the men, and that a decision was taken not to pursue the lead, however, for "proportionate and reasonable" reasons. Witness G revealed that the explanation "cannot be disclosed" for national security reasons.

9). The revelation that the website which displayed the sole statement of intent/claim of responsibility for the bombings was registered to an ip address in Texas


10). Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion

Mr Hugo Keith QC, Counsel to the Inquests, has maintained that Circle Line train 204 from Liverpool St to Aldgate East underwent a power-surge related to an explosion at 08.49 mins on 7/7/2005.
Mr Hugo Keith QC: "... and would explain that the times referred to are approximate times recorded by the power control operation in the handwritten logs. The times I have referred to are the actual times extracted from the power system computerised event logs. "In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King's Cross/Russell Square."
Source: Transcripts, 18 October 2010
Morning Session, page 9, Lines 6-19

J7 from their inquest blog:
“Curiously, the Trackernet images from Aldgate on 7 July 2005 doesn't appear to have made it into the Inquest bundle of evidence, or at least not yet, although the Trackernet images of Edgware Road have. A trackernet image of the time of the explosion has been annotated by J7 using the Working Time Table for the London Underground, which the J7 Truth Campaign have obtained through a Freedom of Information Request.” Published on their website (  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/behind-scenes-of-aldgate-explosion-it.html?showComment=1288100317841#c5558018409111845030 ).

“All other trains in this image are also in their correct places, according to the Working Timetable, if the time of this explosion is 08.46.30, the time that train 204 was in transit to Aldgate, not 08.49”.

Furthermore, you can observe in the cctv footage of train 204 at Liverpool St departing the eastbound platform at Liverpool Street at 08.45:41 (ref:  http://vimeo.com/13185022 - the cctv shows the time of 07.45 – which is taken to be a result of the time settings of that camera having not been adjusted for GMT). Then, from a camera on the westbound platform adjacent to the one just mentioned on the eastbound platform, large billows of smoke can be observed to emerge at 08.46:40, indicating the explosion occurred less than a minute after Train 204 departed the Liverpool Street eastbound platform to Aldgate East station.

Re: the tming of theses explosions, on the day of the attacks, Efraim Halevi, the ex-Mossad Chief, who had an article published in the Jerusalem Post on the same day, shockingly entitled, 'Rules of Conflict for A World War' claimed:

“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.

There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.”

Halevi's article also contains this chilling statement:

It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.

Halevi, the ex-Mossad chief who happens to be a member of the Clove Club Old Boys Association for former pupils of Hackney Downs School, alongside Lord Levy who has twice been arrested in connection with the Labour Party's cash-for-honours scandal, reaches these startlingly conclusions:

Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.

Compare Halevi's analysis and insight into the “near perfect execution” of “multiple, simultaneous, explosions”, an article written and published on 7th July 2005, with the comment by The Guardian correspondent Rosie Cowan in an article for PR Week on 29th September 2005, 7 July: Putting crisis into practice (now hidden behind a paid-for subscription service):

More problems developed when the authorities ran out of answers. Journalists were frustrated by apparent inconsistencies in statements, another fuel for conspiracies. 'I still can't understand why it took them [TfL and the Met] days to tell us that all the Tube bombs went off virtually simultaneously,' says The Guardian crime correspondent Rosie Cowan.

In March 2005, Efraim Halevi had been appointed to the Advisory Board of Quest, a UK based Risk Management & Investigation company. The Chairman of Quest is Sir John Stevens, ex-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the first person to claim that the 7/7 attacks were carried out by British citizens in his column for the News of The World on 10th July, 2 days before the first raids were carried out in West Yorkshire.

11). The case of the mysterious Jaguar at Luton station car park and the inexplicable disappearance of cctv footage at critical times throughout the early morning of 7th July 2005 at Luton Station carpark:

At the 7/7 Inquest, cctv footage from 28th June 2005 and 7th July 2005 was shown (28th June 2005 is when the alleged bombers allegedly conducted a ‘dummy run’ on the LU tube network).

Footage from Luton station car park were observed from both dates.
View here:  http://vimeo.com/16127256

At 08.08:42, police have identified on cctv footage Khan and Tanweer walking towards Luton station on the right-hand side of the station carpark (on the road approach leading to the station). At exactly the same time, a dark-coloured Jaguar can be observed parked at the bottom of the car park. One of the two alleged bombers can be observed to to turning back as they both walk ahead side-by-side, looking in the direction of this Jaguar.

Then on the morning of 7th July 2005, the same cctv camera has recorded footage of the same Jaguar parked in exactly the same location in the car-park at 06.52:03, two and a half minutes after Jermain Lindsey arrives in his Fiat Brava (at 06.49:28). There is an 88-sec gap in the cctv footage in which time the Jaguar must have entered the car park and parked (missing footage between 06.50:11 & 06.51:39). Then , within 2 minutes of the Jaguar arriving, Tanweer’s blue Nissan Micra enters the car park at 06.52:12, and at exactly the same time, the Jaguar starts up, moves off and does a 360 degree turn from where it is parked at the bottom of the car park and travels back up the car park. As it travels up the car park, the Nissan Micra parks ahead of it on the right-hand side of the car-park next to Jermain Lindsey’s Fiat Brava at 06.52:38. At this point, there is a gap of 76 seconds in the cctv footage. When the cctv resumes at 06.53:59, the Jaguar is not mobile. However, a newly parked car can be observed next to the Nissan Micra. Could this be the same mysterious Jaguar?

J7:
“Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything sinister about the coincidental movements of a dark-coloured Jaguar at Luton station on the mornings of both 28 June 2005 - the 'rehearsal' - and 7 July 2005, there is plainly evidence of more than a lack of 'recording continuously'.

What is evident is the editing of the CCTV footage at significant moments, which begs the questions:

What precisely is being cut from this footage, and Why?”

Bridget Dunne, 10/24/2010
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/search/label/Jaguar


12). Questions over eye witness accounts of Hasib Hussain on No.30 bus on 7/7:

In the opening week of the Tavistock Square evidence at the 7/7 Inquests, Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer was questioned by Hugo Keith QC regarding the man she saw on the No.91 bus:

A. Yes, in particular I remember this Asian-looking, tall guy with the big backpack, which was then found as this bomber.
Q. Can I ask you, please, what was it about him, if anything, that made you notice him? Presumably the bus was quite crowded.
A. Yes, exactly. We boarded the bus and he stands at the entrance of the first pole with his big backpack, and he didn't let people in, really, and then he started moving
sides, nervously, with his backpack and this bad manner really made me look at him.
Q. Was it obvious to you that, because he was moving around with his big rucksack, that other people around him were being inconvenienced and were also aware of him?
A. Yes. Well, I don't think he was aware of that. People were already passed on the bus and, you know, someone punching them all the time with the backpack, that was really bad manner. Everyone was in a hurry to work or whatever, and we're already inconvenienced because we couldn't take a Tube and so on. Everyone was nervous.
Q. Can you recall anything about the clothes that he was wearing?
A. Well, he was wearing jeans and I think it was a blue, light T-shirt, definitely light in colour, and then he had a jumper with a zip and a hood, a dark colour, dark blue.
Q. So he had a shirt, a T-shirt and, over the top of that, there was a jacket of some kind with a zip and a hood?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall whether he was wearing glasses of any kind?
A. Yes, he did have the glasses, like small -- like, looking a bit like techno kind of style, reflecting glasses as well, black reflecting glasses.
Q. You've referred to the rucksack as being quite big.
A. It was big and heavy -- sorry?
Q. Please continue, yes.
A. Yes, it looked very heavy and very properly packed, like full. I think around 60 litres, and, like, he -- and it had to be heavy, because he had a strap on, so that -- to carry the whole thing. Also, he, himself, looked very exhausted and he had sweating going on his chin, and that was also horrible to look at.

60 litres. A surprising thing to say….

The evidence of Lisa French is particularly interesting, since - as J7 noted in our Submission to the Inquest - Ms. French appeared to have made a giant leap from a previous sighting simply of a man with a rucksack who passed her as she boarded the No.30 bus to a positive identification of Hasib Hussain when she gave evidence in 2008.

Lisa goes on, after prompting from Hugo Keith QC, to describe in more detail the bag carried by the man. Note how Mr. Keith continues to place the bag on the man's back, despite Lisa French repeatedly saying the man was carrying it on one shoulder:

Q. I ask -- and the fault may not be yours at all; it may just be the way in which your statement was taken -- but your statement said you caught a glimpse of the bag on his back?
A. At the top of the stairs he put it back on his shoulder again.
Q. Did you see him do that?
A. I think sort of as I turned the top corner of the stairs and climbed the last two or three stairs, he was at the top -- then on the middle of the bus, up the stairs, just putting it back on one shoulder of his back.
Q. Can you help us with your impression -- and I appreciate it's a very long time ago -- of the rucksack and whether or not it appeared to you to be very bulky, very heavy, very large, did it stick out a lot? Was it long in terms of the distance from the neck to the bottom of the bag?
A. It was quite large, but at the time I thought it was probably a laptop rucksack, and I do have a little bit of a habit of checking out people's laptop bags carrying one myself. So at the time I thought it was just a big laptop rucksack that you could get plenty of other bits and pieces in, really. But it was quite large, sort of square, so I think that's why I thought it was a laptop bag rather than a camping rucksack because it was still quite square for being a rucksack.


10). The 5th (and 6th) man/men:
In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, witnesses claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man.
Source:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html

The witnesses in question include Sylvia Waugh, who believes she saw the men outside the flat in Alexandra Grove, Leeds where it is claimed the bombs allegedly used on July 7th 2005 were manufactured. There is also Susan Clarke, who believes she saw the men in the car park at Luton Station. Joseph Martoccia was the witness whose statement to the police in July 2005 regarding his believed sighting of the men at King's Cross station was mutated by the media into a CCTV image, so successfully, that even a former newspaper editor appeared to believe he had actually seen such an image. Yet, as detailed in this previous post, no such image ever existed. This however hasn't stopped it being described as "iconic" and even the Press Complaints Commission agreed that an image that doesn't exist and hasn't been seen by anyone is still perfectly entitled to be described as an "iconic image".

Sylvia Waugh, who says she saw the men in the early morning of 7 July 2005 in Leeds, gave four witness statements to the police. Under oath at the Inquest, Mrs Waugh claimed that she regularly saw at least 6 people entering and leaving 18 Alexandra Grove. Significantly, Mrs. Waugh states that she finds it difficult to discern differences between 'coloured people'. Indeed, after stating on four occasions during her testimony that Jermaine Lindsay, who was, according to mobile phone evidence and the official 'narrative', some 160 miles away at the time, this difficulty does seem to be the case. However, despite this, it seems reasonable to assume that Mrs. Waugh is able to count:

Q. You remember a white car. Might that have been car B that you put on the map for the police?
A. It could have been.
Q. What about the other car, what colour was the other car?
A. Like a bluey colour.
Q. There were a group of men. Can you help us as to how
many you think you saw?
A. At least six.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Morning session - page 69, lines 1-8

A few moments later, Mrs. Waugh is reminded that she told police she had seen four men getting into what seems to be the Nissan Micra in which Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain travelled to Luton from Leeds. She recalls seeing six men in total, and two cars. The other car, according to Hugo Keith, counsel to the inquest, has never been traced. Mrs. Waugh's testimony is very confused; on more than one occasion she denies what she had said in her police statements and at one point she denies something she was recorded as saying several minutes previously whilst under oath. However, her claim to have seen four men getting in the Micra, and six men in total, is interesting when compared to the statement Susan Clarke gave to the police in July 2005, which was read out in part whilst she was questioned under oath during the inquests:

Q. [Mr Patterson] "One car had one or two males in it. The other, a lilac-coloured Nissan, had four males leaving it, all carrying rucksacks. When asked, she described all the males as not white."
A. [Susan Clarke] He then goes on to say that you handed him the piece of paper that you've told us about.
Q. So pausing there, is that an accurate note of what you told the officer on that Tuesday?
A. As far as I remember, yes.
Q. So although today you've told us that you thought that it was four, possibly five, men associated with those two cars, within days of the incident, the very first time you spoke to the police you were saying that it was two men from one of the cars, four men from the other car, all carrying rucksacks?
A. Yes.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon session - page 18, lines 24 on

Joseph Martoccia, a commuter who believes he saw the accused at King's Cross mainline station on the morning of 7th July 2005, also said he saw six men:

Q. Have you marked X as the spot where you came across a group of men?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Yes. At the time, I said between four and six.
I wasn't entirely certain of the number.

Source: Transcript, 13 October 2010
Afternoon Session Lines 39-40


Interestingly, although Mr. Martoccia contacted the police the following day, he was not asked to identify the men from photographs until almost a year later, a somewhat odd approach in what was termed by Sir Ian Blair as "the largest criminal inquiry in English history". When shown a picture of Jermaine Linsday during his testimony to the Inquests, Martoccia stated that he did not remember seeing him. Moreover, Martoccia said that the man he saw heading towards the Piccadilly line – who, one would presume on the basis of the official 'narrative', would be most likely to be Lindsay, who stands accused of causing the explosion on the Piccadilly line train – was instead Hasib Hussain; the man accused of being responsible for the number 30 bus incident.

Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command gave an intriguing response when specifically questioned by Mr. Gareth Patterson, representing four bereaved families, over the number of men witnessed:

Q. You're probably aware, Inspector, of why I'm asking you these questions. Presumably you were told that there's a witness, Susan Clarke, who told the police quite early on that there may have been more than four people in and around those two cars. Were you aware of that? Did you look for the number of people around those cars?
A. Yes, at the time, when we were viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there and that we'd managed to track them to the position where we got decent CCTV images that we could say, yes, there are that number of people.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 50 on

Shortly after this, Mr. Patterson is interrupted by Hugo Keith QC, who expresses concern over his questions “because they do appear to me to be designed to leave the impression that either there was another person at large or that in some way the investigation has been inadequate or has not properly pursued leads available at the time.” After further admonishment by both Mr. Keith and Lady Justice Hallet, Mr. Patterson is able to continue:

MR PATTERSON: If we pause it now, perhaps. Can we see four figures walking off, Inspector?
A. Yes, we can, yes.
Q. Is there a figure who hovers and lingers between the two cars for a period of time?
A. Yes, there is a person there, yes. I think that's the person that exited that vehicle that just arrived.
Q. Was that something that was investigated and looked into to see where that additional fifth person --
A. The individuals around the car were -- their movements were assessed, yes.
Q. Is that something that you dealt with or that somebody else dealt with?
A. I didn't personally follow this individual away, no.

Source: Transcript, 14 October 2010
Afternoon Session Line 55 on

More evidence revealed from transcripts relating to questioning conducted by Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families at:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/fifth-or-sixth-man.html



References:
[1]. p55:12 in 7/7 Inquest Report
[2]. p49:13 in 7/7 Inquest Report
[3]. 7/7 Transcript for 1st Feb 2011 of Coroners Inquests into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005 Ref:  http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-01-31-2011-02-04-week-15/7_july_inquests_2011-02-01_pm-session.pdf
[4]. ABC News, (July 27, 2005 ), “Exclusive Photos: London Terror Investigation” (photos 5-11); Ref:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/popup?id=979901
[5]. World Tribune ( July 11th 2005); Ref:  http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453563.0402777777.html
[6]. Israel Insider (11 Jul 2005)  http://israelstreams.com/?israelinsider.html?http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Security/5997.htm
[7]. Node in the Noosphere (blog), “Pepper and Hydrogen Peroxide Bombs?”, (15th Feb 2011)
 http://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.com/2011/02/pepper-and-hydrogen-peroxide-bombs.html#comments
[6]. J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog, David Minahan (April 5, 2011)
Ref:  http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/04/you-couldnt-make-it-up.html
[7]. J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog, (16 Oct, 2011)
 http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/cctv-fuss-about-nothing.html


See also:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/478930.html

In earlier comment, that should have read as "..the lack of any cctv evidence of the alleged bombers on the underground network at Kings X where the alleged bombers allegedly embarked on their alleged respective journeys on the London Underground (we are told that the entire cctv system run by Israeli company Verint Systems inexplicably went down across the whole London Underground network at Kings X for the crucial 20 minute window when the 3 of the alleged bombers dispursed onto 3 different London Underground Trains ..with the exception of 1 camera which viewed them entering Kings X station from a passenger tunnel from Kings X Thameslink).

there is no evidence to say otherwise

Watch the BBC documentary and come to you rown conclusions, and not just accept the nonsense posted here by the people who have been stalking and harraasing victims of 7/7 and are even too dim to use google to verify "facts".

anon said above:
(Title: "it was muslim terrorists")
"there is no evidence to say otherwise"

> ..er, read the substantial swathe of information in the earlier comment, dimwit!

> ..er, read the substantial swathe of information in the earlier comment, dimwit!

A swathe of information but none of it is evidence. Just some stupid inconsistencies and nitpicking for people with OCD. They get so bogged down in details that they fail to see the obvious. What exactly is here that says that the Muslims didn't do it?

On the flip side...... There is a martyr video of the ring leader saying "I did it"
Plus a heap of evidence backtracking the preparation

What their "research" actually constitutes a reverse engineering exercise that ignores the preponderance of evidence and witness statements that broadly support the official version in favour of cherry picking only minority anomalies (which are always present in real world investigations, because the world is chaotic and people are very fallible as witnesses) and rejecting any round peg that won't fit in their square hole as "disinformation".

If you were to be as batty as them you'd have to ask yourself who all their mad theories benefit? If I were Mossad, I would invent lunatic theories that tied any Israeli connection into some typical Jewish Conspiracy.

But there is a kind of cute how they all think we are all idiots and they way cleverer than most people who are too brainwashed to see the Truth. Very entertaining. Keep it up!

"minority anomalies." Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

what like:
- the fact that no trace of the alleged explosive Peroxide and Piperine was found at any of the bomb locations (and minimal trace of the alleged initiating chemical compound HMTD at 3 of the 4 locations) showing that there is actually no connection between the alleged explosives found at the bombs sites and the alleged bomb-making factory in Leeds*,
[*and that traces of military explosive TATP that was found in the same flat in leeds was also found in the Nissan Micra car left at Luton station carpark - (Info source: evidence given by ‘Neil’ to Sir Michael Wright at the the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest on 7th November 2008 - Ref:  http://www.stockwellinquest.org.uk/hearing_transcripts/nov_07.pdf/ ]. This is corroborated by images released by ABC News of footage from Luton, revealing only white explosives (Ref: ABC News, (July 27, 2005 ), “Exclusive Photos: London Terror Investigation” (photos 5-11); Ref:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/popup?id=979901/ )].

- like the disturbing inconsistenecy between the alleged locations of where the alleged bombers were on the trains and how they were allegedly sat down holding their bags on their laps off the floor of the trains they were on and the evidence of where blasts actually occurred at variance with the alleged locations of where the alleged bombers were positioned, including blast damage in the floor of trains indicating explosive force came from either under or close to the floor of the trains,

- the various disputations regarding the alleged bomber's dna samples discovered (& verified) which according to the Inquest testimony investigators were found from minute samples - in Mohammed Siddique Khan's case scraps of muscle tissue and in Tanweer's case, a small piece of his spinal column. And yet, Forensic Anthropologist Julie Ann Roberts who examined the remains to try to determine where the men were in relation to the bomb, commented in the 7/7 Inquest that the bodily remains of Tanweer and Khan were larger and more intact than the samples identified and verified by investigators. She went on to admit in the Inquest that she was not qualified to distinguish between degrees of explosive damage done to a body as a result of an explosion.

- the various and numrous pther discrepancies outlined above and in the film, all mainly sourced from the resreach of the July 7th Truth campaign.

TATP a.k.a. Mother of Satan is a kitchen sink explosive associated with suicide bombers, not a military explosive.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_Satan

I see you are still peddling Mossad disinformation that can be debunked with a judicious use of Google:

If anyone is a Mossad false flag in the 7/7 narrative, you are the most likely candidate:

Tenaciously regurgitating Mossad disinfo, taking every opportunity to make a Jewish conspiracy mountain out of any coincidental molehill.Whippng up anti-Semtic suspicion through well-worn stereotypes.

And finally, if you were really barking up the right Mossad tree, history shows that they would have had no hesitation dealing with you. The blowback from Mossad bombing London would be enormous, and without a doubt easily worth murdering you.

Why not get a nice safe hobby that doesn't entail a histrionic display of telling fibs and hounding already traumatised victims?

You are no better than your average 419 scammer.

I didn't say anything about Jews being involved. Only you has mentioned that. To avoid any of the substantive information and detail exposing the varied numerous anomolies in the official version of events about the 4 alleged bombers I have highlighted of how they are supposed to have bombed the 3 tube trains and the bus (more so, in the video), you are consigned to quite pathetically mudsling to discredit previous comments through associating my previous comments with unsubstantiated allegations of racist slurs in my writing. My name checking of Mossad was to quote their view at the time in which they publicly stated that a military explosive - TATP - was the likely explosive in the 7/7 bombings (Ref: Israel Insider (11 Jul 2005)  http://israelstreams.com/?israelinsider.html?http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Security/5997.htm/ ).

The only viable point of counter-argument you make is that TATP can be homemade. However, that does not disprove the fact that there is a veritable lack of conclusive proof for the official explanation that the bombs were made from a home-made mixture of pepper and hydrogen peroxide.

In any case, the wikipedia website you quote reveals that though acetone peroxide is able to be produced accidentally, when suitable chemicals are mixed together, amounts obtained this way are typically much smaller than from intentional production, are also less pure and prepared without cooling, and hence very unstable. Therefore, the very web source you are quoting indicates that homemade TATP would be too unstable for the purposes of transporting bombs in rucksacks and so, if it was TATP (which is likely because TATP was found in the Nissan car and there was no trace of the alleged explosive of Hydrogen Peroxide mixed with Piperine at any of the bomb locations), then it was likely TATP of a highly manufactured standard or military explosive.

You should just shorten your name to "Bullshit".

>> I didn't say anything about Jews being involved. Only you has mentioned that. To avoid any of the substantive information and detail exposing the varied numerous anomolies in the official version of events about the 4 alleged bombers I have highlighted of how they are supposed to have bombed the 3 tube trains and the bus (more so, in the video)......

I thought it was Islamic extremists myself.

>> The only viable point of counter-argument you make is that TATP can be homemade. However, that does not disprove the fact that there is a veritable lack of conclusive proof for the official explanation that the bombs were made from a home-made mixture of pepper and hydrogen peroxide.
Maybe they know a lot more about it than you do but just aren't giving away all their secrets in case other people like you learn from it?

..... Therefore, the very web source you are quoting indicates that homemade TATP would be too unstable for the purposes of transporting bombs in rucksacks
Err........ thats wrong. They use it abroad for 100s of terrorist attacks (yes, they manage to blow themselves up a lot). It is unstable, but not "too" unstable. Yes an idiot would carry it, but there are plenty of idiots who have in 100s of other attacks and will still do. There is plenty of documented evidence to back this up.

and so, if it was TATP (which is likely because TATP was found in the Nissan car and there was no trace of the alleged explosive of Hydrogen Peroxide mixed with Piperine at any of the bomb locations), then it was likely TATP of a highly manufactured standard or military explosive.

OMG!!! You are just making this up as you go along.......
1) It is often used as an initiator for larger explosives by terrorists because it is easy to set off. Hence traces could be found, yet another explosive would have been the main one used.
This is HIGHLY likely as indicated by people who know explosives and use them for a living (ie. "experts" as opposed to amateur internet sleuths).

2) There is no such thing as military grade and manufactured TATP.... because it is so unstable. What military would use it or any other customer? You are making absolutely no sense.

Yes, anon, I am an "amateur internet sleuth" and am not an explosives expert. Much of this reasearch comes from the July 7th Truth Campaign. I have been merely highlighting what in my opinion are the most salient points of disputation with the official version of events.

I am glad you question the official version being chained to the understanding that hydrogen peroxide and piperine were the explosives used. And yet, after an Inquest and a £10 million investigation, the official line remains wedded to that view. Do you find that at-all curious?

I'm afraid too much of the 'story' within the official version of events doesn't add up. Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that?

The parents of two of the bombers, I am told, saw the body's of their sons as you'dd expect at the morgue, and concluded that their injuries were inconsistent with them having blown themselves up presumably because they observed with their own eyes how their limbs appeared more intact than you'd expect - a fact, as I said earlier, which was incredibly corroborated by Forensic Anthropologist Julie Ann Roberts at the 7/7 Inquest (she examined the remains to try to determine where the men were in relation to the bomb, and commented in the 7/7 Inquest that the bodily remains of Tanweer and Khan were larger and more intact than the samples identified and verified by investigators, and expressed that she was surprised by this though she admitted she knew nothing about examining victims of explosions*).
These guys certainly were mixed up with something, and MI5 ignored numerous opportunities to intervene (another major questionable issue). But the evidence suggests they may not have been the suicide bombers - if there were any at-all?
[* which makes one question why she was put in that position of responsibility to conduct that assessment - sounds like a Freddy Patel to me].

A major sequence of false-flag terror events has set the tone for this new millenium: 9/11 in 2001, the Bali bomb in 2002, Madrid in 2004, 7/7 in 2005 and then the Mumbai bombs in 2006 (There was an Istanbul blast in an empty British embassy in 2003, but this is not generally viewed as so important).

I suggest that none of these were what they appeared to be – and, all in some degree have number-symbolism in their timings. Thus, add one to each term of the 9/11 date, and you’ll get 12.10.2002, the date of the Bali bomb. Like 7/7, 9/11 was also a fourfold event, with three fairly close together and a fourth an hour later. The first plane impact on 9/11 was at a quarter to nine, not so different from the 7/7 timings. As four planes ostensibly crashed on 9/11, so were four trains bombed in Madrid (11/3 – 911 days after 9/11) and then again four trains in London on 7/7.

In Madrid, the prosecutor Olga Sánchez saw that 911-day interval as evidence of ‘un factor cabalistico.’ All of the blast times on the four trains in Madrid were within three minutes of each other.

The close synchrony of the Madrid bombs was evidence for remote detonation, and therefore no ‘suicide bombers’ were alleged.

A year after the London 7/7 event, in India at the Mumbai railway station, the bombs went off on the 11th of July – 11/7. Quoting CNN news, ‘No group has claimed responsibility for the blasts, which came in a span of 11 minutes.’ Seven trains were bombed over a period of eleven minutes. Somebody seems to be playing number-games here, and is this a clue as to who is doing it? That discerning publisher John Leonard here took the view that: ‘Their little numerology game helps these psychopaths enjoy their work and laugh at us mere mortals.