7/7 Inquest shows official narrative falling apart at seams

[Paul Rigby]

Important questions raised by testimony so far:

Bullshit-Detector | 26.10.2010 23:46 | Analysis

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466884.html

Very startling revelations of major discrepancies in the official 'narrative' of what happened in London on the morning of July 7th 2005 taken from evidence submitted to the Inquest into 7/7 as revealed and elucidated upon by the July 7th Truth Campaign on their blog on the 7/7 Inquest, at:
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

Five main areas identified of special interest by the July 7th Truth Campaign:
1). Curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on the morning of 7/7/2005
2). The curious case of the Jaguar at Luton station car park on both the 28th June and 7th July 2005
3). The 5th (and 6th) man/men
4). 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
5). Re: the Liverpool St to Aldgate East train, the discrepancy between the reported time of explosion and evidence of the time of the explosion

In detail (below), as taken from http://77inquests.blogspot.com:

1). Curious lack of cctv images of alleged bombers on London Underground network on 7/7:

On the fourth day of the inquests, it became apparent that a set of images of the four accused bombers disembarking from a Thameslink train (with date and time blanked out), and a further one of them entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink are the only CCTV images captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. No other footage exists, we are told, that shows the movements of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay after the King's Cross Thameslink was captured.


J7:
“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.”

“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, but most significantly, at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005 (see below).

Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/f...-fail.html

2). Jaguar at Luton station car park

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

3). 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/f...h-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/f...h-man.html

4). 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/c...thing.html

5). 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/b...9111845030 ).

“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.

[Peter Lemkin]

It simply follows the pattern of Dallas and 9-11 and so many other covert ops...they can't get all the details 'right'; as they were lies and deceptions to begin with....

[David Guyatt]

“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.”

Odd that CCTV malfunctioned - leaving no evidence. Curiously, the exact same thing happened in the Paris road CCTV system on the night (and at the exact time and location) that Princess Di was killed.

[Peter Lemkin]

“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.”

Odd that CCTV malfunctioned - leaving no evidence. Curiously, the exact same thing happened in the Paris road CCTV system on the night (and at the exact time and location) that Princess Di was killed.

As did the DPD communications network and the USG secure phone lines on 11-22-63.....quite a pattern!
:joyman:

[Christer Forslund]

From the TERROR ON THE TUBE site.
http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2010/10/22/...arf-story/
New support for Canary Wharf story

October 22, 2010

On 11th October (the day the 7/7 Inquest began), ‘Huggles’ recalled how he had been at King’s Cross station when it all happened:

I was in Kings Cross right after the Piccadilly line blast and there was no problem calling into work to tell my boss that I would be late [a propos of whether mobile phones were working]. I then went into cafe to wait for the hubbub to die down. Over the radio we discovered that it was more than one bomb.
Just over an hour and a half later, there was a report on Radio 5 that some of the bombers were shot by armed response units in the Docklands. When I got home that evening, the news reports said that all the bombers died in the explosions.

The site owner Kevin Boyle asked him whether he had personally heard that Radio 5 news announcement, and ‘Huggles’ replied:

Kevin,
I heard it on the radio but when I got home and I sat in front of the tv for the rest of that evening, it was not repeated. It was in the cafe I heard the news report.

Is this the first mention of a Radio 5 news-announcement, on the 11 o’clock news that morning, of this shooting, at Canary Wharf in the Docklands, of maybe three young men? For comparison, British philosopher Rory Ridley-Duff at Sheffield compiled 17 accounts from the media of this event at Canary Wharf having happened. In addition there are a few more in Appendix 3 of my book. Does anyone else recall such a news-announcement that morning?
If you’re new to the Canary Wharf story, maybe watch the fifth chapter of Muad’Dib’s Ripple Effect. The story often comes with dramatic accounts of how the entire Wharf was ‘locked down’ and 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for ‘at least six hours.’ By the evening the police were trying to dismiss the whole thing.
For comparison, here is a fairly well-known version of the story, reported Down Under:

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).

If it happened, it was an operation ‘Kratos’ job, whereby certain senior police officers are (shockingly) permitted to shoot a member of the public in the head, if they are deemed to be a ‘suicide bomber’ and about to blow themselves up. Thus the above report has the two people shot because they were ‘wearing bombs’ – that judgement is necessary for a Kratos shooting to take place – compare the De Menezes shooting where early accounts had him with a ‘bulging’ raincoat as if they were trying to make out they thought he might be ‘wearing bombs’ as their excuse for shooting him in the head on 22 July 2005 at Stockwell tube station.


Comments to the above

Written by graeme about 2 days ago. I can confirm that I heard “suicide bombers” had been shot by anti-terrorist police at Canary Wharf on 7 July 2005. It was announced on BBC 24 Hour News. I cannot remember the exact time, but it was one hour either side of noon. ( note;- “suicide bombers” – definitely plural).
I have studied the recent CCTV footage released from Luton Station and King’s Cross. A blurred man enters Luton Station just ahead of the four so-called bombers. He is seen again inside the station, holding a large mobile-phone with an aerial. At Kings Cross a different man with a blurred head, and hands in pockets, walks alongside the four young men – interesting/suspicious ?


Written by andy about 1 day ago. I also heard on bbc news that marksmen had shot 3 or 4 terrorists by canary wharf if ican remember it was about an hr after the bombings 11ish and then the story vanished down the memory hole


Written by John D about 22 hours ago. I was working in New York that day. I was walking through the office reception when I noticed a crowd of people watching the big TV. I noticed that it was about a terrorist attack in London, but it went to a live report talking of terrorists running around Canary Wharf being chased by armed police. One of the terrorists was shot according to the reporter…it scared me a lot. I definately believe these guys were employed by our government, understood their situation when they missed the trains and then fled for safety…our armed cops were there to stop them from speaking. Sad story…


Written by Sharon B about 10 hours ago. I remember the day with extreme clarity (one of my daughters was working in Central London and I lost contact with her around 9am that morning) and I sat by the TV and flicked channels all morning. My daughter eventually phoned from a landline.
Whilst watching the BBC news I saw the report coming in of 3 suspects having been ‘neutralized’ by police at Canary Wharf, they then confirmed 3 men had been shot. We were promised more updates on that ‘breaking news’ story but none were forthcoming.
It appears Winston Smith is still working for BBC!


Written by Eamonn Monaghan about 5 hours ago. Hello Sharon and the previous posters,
I work at London University and I can confirm that I saw the same broadcast about suspected terrorists being ‘taken out’ or ‘neutralised’ near Credit Suisse and HSBC in that area.
One of my friends worked at Credit Suisse, an IT DBA, at the time and was not allowed near windows or leave the building for several hours after.


Written by Sylvie about 3 hours ago. I was driving and heard over the radio that suspected bombers had been neutralised at Canary Wharf. Later that evening there was nothing else said about it on the evening news, which made you start to wonder if you’d imagined it, so never thought about after.

[Christer Forslund]

[size=12]http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/77-practice-makes-perfect/

7/7: Practise Makes Perfect

[/SIZE] Most of us who have been paying attention have known for some time that there were two ‘drill’- type events associated with the 7/7 London bombings.
The first was the Panorama programme of May 2004 during which one overground and 3 underground explosions take place over a short space of time during the morning rush hour.
The second was the famous ‘drill’ revealed by Peter Power on the day of 7/7 itself when he said that drills were taking place in the same 3 stations and at the same time as the bombs actually went off.
For many, including this author, these were coincidences beyond all reason.
However, astonishingly, it has been revealed to the 7/7 Inquest, in minor documents presented to the court last week, that there were at least two other separate drills in London prior to 7/7 that used as their template the same 3 underground bombs scenario.
We now have a group of public services practicing FOUR TIMES for the exact circumstances that prevailed on the terrible morning itself.
Does it not eventually become reasonable to suppose that those that organised ALL THESE VERY SIMILAR DRILLS also organised THE IDENTICAL EVENT ITSELF?
The media, as usual, has failed to report these staggering facts but let us appeal to them right now.
All the anomalous evidence in this Inquest points in the direction of 7/7 being a classic ‘false-flag’ state-sponsored attack. The evidence that supports the official narrative is dubious and much of the evidence nailing the new (twice-altered) timeline has not been seen before this Inquest.

Here is a detailed run-down of the drills:

1. The Panorama Program
BBC’s Panorama ran what looked like a management training exercise on screenfourteen months before 7/7. Present round the studio table were various leaders of government, public and police services, including the Conservative ex-minister Michael Portillo and Peter Power, head of Visor Consultants.
The crisis scenario hadthree blasts on the central London underground, around 8.20 am, and one above ground an hour later.
Thisprogram made the then-fictional events seem like real news: ‘The headlines at 9 o’clock. In the past hour there have been three major explosions on the London underground’. It added, ‘The Home Secretary has said the attacks bear the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda,’ (A year later on the day of 7/7 we heard Jack Straw intoning the same phrase, ‘The attacks bear the hallmarks of al-Qaeda.’)
Panorama also used the memorable phrase, ‘The fictional day of terror unfolds through the immediacy of rolling news bringing the catastrophic attack into our living rooms;’ adding – a bit too knowledgeably – that the event was ‘Set in the future - but only just.’
Let’s here quote Webster Tarpley:

No terrorist attack would be complete without the advance airing of a scenario docudrama to provide the population with a conceptual scheme to help them understand the coming events in the sense intended by the oligarchy.’ (9/11 Synthetic Terror, 2008, p.408).

Tarpley here alludes to the seemingly unthinkable……large-scale state-sponsored terror. Such events are, he demonstrates, not at all uncommon over recent nor distant history.

2. The contemporaneous 7/7 drill
On 7/7 itself Peter Power conducted a terror drill that shadowed the cataclysm as it happened – over the same three tube stations at more or less the same time.
On the afternoon of 7/7 he was interviewed on Radio 5’s Drivetime programme:

POWER: …at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!

3. Atlantic Blue
The massive-but-totally-secret Atlantic Blue exercise was held over 5-8 April, 2005. All echelons of government participated in this big, international terror-drill. Walking wounded were taken into hospitals etc, and its difficult to ascertain how far this was really happening on the pavement etc versus being on a video screen. Two thousand Met police were involved, plus 14 different government departments, the NHS etc. It involved terrorist attacks upon UK transport networks that coincided with a major international summit. Visor Consultants were involved, in co-ordination with the US department of Homeland Security. It was co-ordinated from Hendon, the same place that ‘Gold Command’ police acted from once 7/7 started to happen (It thus had a connection with the Northern line of the London Underground). Total secrecy was imposed upon the British media. The Observer was able to publish a brief outline of what had happened in the UK’s Atlantic Blue exercise, but only from Washington sources: it revealed that this had been the biggest transatlantic counter-terrorism exercise since 9/11 and that it included bombs being placed on buses and also explosives left on the London underground.
After July 7th, the Independent, carried out an hour-by-hour analysis of the catastrophe, and made the following comment upon what had happened at 9.10 am:

By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service – and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London.

What a surprise, the top London Ambulance Service experts were all gathered together on the morning of 7/7, and they just happened to be reminiscing about a game-simulation they had been involved in three months earlier – i.e., Atlantic Blue. We would like to be told exactly when the four mock-bombs went off, during the Atlantic Blue terror-game.
London’s mayor Ken Livingstone was over in Singapore on the day of 7/7 – to celebrate Britain’s being awarded the Olympic Games for 2012, the day before – and in giving his evidence to the July 7th Review Committee he recalled the Atlantic Blue exercise a few months earlier:

I said from Singapore that we had actually done an exercise of multiple bomb attacks on the Underground as one of the exercises…

That is almost the only British statement about Atlantic Blue! America and Canada also participated in the event, which overall was called ‘Global Shield.’ The US exercise was called TOPOFF3. (alluding to Top Officers, and 3 as the 3rd such event) The latter had an intriguing ‘Red Team’ which generated the ‘enemy’ simulation…

4. Operation Hanover
London’s police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill practice, called Operation Hanover. On 2005 it just happened to be held on 1-2 July. Its game-plan was threefold: three ‘simultaneous’ bomb attacks on three underground stations. The police have been reticent about discussing this astounding precursor event, mere days before 7/7, only revealing it in 2009:

226. The Metropolitan Police Service told the Committee that they had, in the past, run exercises with scenarios similar to what actually happened on 7 July 2005. Since 2003, they have run an annual exercise known as Operation HANOVER which develops different scenarios for attacks on London and rehearses how the Metropolitan Police Service would respond. By coincidence, their 2005 exercise, run by the Security Co-ordinator’s office in the Anti-Terrorist Branch, took place just a few days before the attacks – on 1–2 July. The office-based scenario for this exercise was simultaneous bomb attacks on three London Underground trains at Embankment, Waterloo and St James’s Park stations. Once again, the scenario is quite similar to what actually took place, and the fact that it took place so close to the actual attacks is an interesting coincidence.

We do need to know the time for that Operation Hanover simultaneous-bomb mock-event.

Questions for the Inquest
If the Inquest wants to find out the cause of death of 52 Londoners, then the most important and crucial questions which Lady Justice Hallett could possibly ask the Met, concern these four terror-drills:

1. Concerning the Panorama program, to the producers of the program: From where did they get the idea?
   
2. Concerning the Atlantic Blue terror-drill: What were the times and locations of the four bombs in the ‘game’? Were they three on tubes and one on a bus? We would also like full disclosure concerning the whole event.
   
3. Likewise for Operation Hanover, let the Met state times and locations of the tube bombs in the exercise.
   
4. Likewise Peter Power should be asked for the exact times and locations of the four bombs imagined in the Visor terror-drill that morning.
   

The ‘coincidences’ we have here looked at go astronomically beyond what is feasible. These impossible coincidences point to the startling fact, that these terror-drill rehearsals are clearly the design of the 7/7 event itself. Most of the participants may have been quite unaware of this. The gestation of the 7/7 event has to be via this sequence of drills we have just reviewed.
It is not in any way reasonable to suppose that this sequence of central-London imaginary-drill events be a mere coincidence!

Peter Power and the “Gennifer Flowers” defense
There was much head-scratching as to why a participant at the very centre of the 7/7 drills would decide to ‘go public’ about these exercises, immediately, on that same day.
Gennifer Flowers came forward during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential Campaign alleging that she had had a twelve-year relationship with him. There were rumours (at the very least) that some of Clinton’s ex-lovers were proving to be very ‘unlucky’ young women. It was widely speculated that Flowers decided to ‘get it out there’ so that any future accident that might befall her would act against, rather than in favour of, the Clinton interests. She was, it seems, very interested in staying alive.
Likewise, this is the most obvious explanation for Power’s seeming “faux-pas”. He knew he held very dangerous information and feared this made him a possible target of the dark forces of the state…….and this is a man who really understands just how dark those forces can be……so he got the facts out there, pronto!

[David Guyatt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683413

November 2010 Last updated at 14:14
Coroner rejects 7/7 inquest closed session request
The coroner hearing the inquests for the 7/7 bombings has ruled against holding closed sessions to hear secret intelligence material.
Lady Justice Hallett rejected arguments by MI5 lawyers that she was able to exclude bereaved families from hearings to examine highly sensitive documents.
The information would damage national security if made public, MI5 had said.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David, 22, was killed at Edgware Road, said he was "delighted" by the decision.
Lady Hallett said the secret evidence could be edited to remove names of sources and other confidential information.
'National security'
The coroner said: "I am still hopeful that with full co-operation on all sides, most if not all of the relevant material can and will be put before me in such a way that national security is not threatened."
Lawyers for the home secretary have been given seven days to appeal.
The attacks on a bus and three Tube trains on 7 July 2005 left 52 people dead.
Suicide bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay had been planning the attacks for months.
Lawyers for the 7 July families want to question MI5 officers about why Khan and Tanweer, who had been under surveillance 17 months earlier, were not on the security service's "radar" at the time of the bombings.
MI5 has argued that it cannot give answers without disclosing information from top-secret intelligence files.
Lady Justice Hallett, who is sitting without a jury, ruled on Wednesday that she had powers under Rule 17 of the Coroners' Rules 1984 to exclude the public from the inquest if it was in the interests of national security.
But she ruled that this did not allow her to hold a secret inquest without key interested parties - such as lawyers for the bereaved families - being present.
The row echoes the case of Azelle Rodney, who was shot dead by police who said they were acting on intelligence.
The police refused to allow that intelligence to be heard in an open inquest and, after a protracted legal saga, the circumstances of his death are now being heard by a special public inquiry.
Lady Justice Hallett suggested that if ministers were unhappy with her ruling, they could transform part of the inquest into a public inquiry, to examine secret documents in closed hearings.
But the coroner warned this would lead to a lengthy delay which would further add to the suffering of the 7 July families.
She said: "The bereaved families and survivors have waited over five years since the bombings and I have promised them an end to these proceedings by next spring.
"Many witnesses have been through the ordeal of giving evidence, and I am sure would not wish to repeat that experience.
"The families have had to suffer the distressing experience of hearing witnesses speak of the deaths of their loved ones in all-too-graphic terms. They would not wish to relive that experience."
Mr Foulkes, who lives in Oldham, Greater Manchester, said the ruling would "make it more difficult" for MI5 to avoid public scrutiny.
He said: "The security service have this 'get out of jail' card to trump all others when they say it's a matter of national security.
"They have tried this so many times it's like crying wolf. The basic argument I have is that they said in 2005 that Sidique Khan was only known to them on the periphery of their investigation and he was not a major player.
"But they say they can't open their files about him because they are so sensitive they threaten national security.
"The ruling she's given makes it very hard for them to maintain that position," he added.
A Home Office spokesman said: "The government has made clear that it welcomes the coroner's inquests. We hope that they will allow the families of the victims to get to the bottom of the tragic events of July 7 2005.
"We will consider the coroner's ruling carefully."
'I'm sorry'
Later the inquests heard from a paramedic who tried to treat Carrie Taylor, a 24-year-old from Essex, who died of her injuries.
Alan Treacy said: "She was gravely ill and she was in an unusual position where she was more or less wrapped around a handrail that was, if I recall, bent over as well.
"She was lying across the laps of a couple of people and I think there might have been another female helping her or holding her."
Miss Taylor's father John asked him what he did to try to save her.
Mr Treacy said she had no pulse but he decided to use a defibrillator to test for heart activity.
"Because Carrie was so young I decided to go further and see if there was any possibility of a pulse, but unfortunately there was nothing," he said.
Mr Taylor thanked him for his efforts and he replied: "I'm sorry I couldn't be more useful."

[Paul Rigby]

Important questions raised by testimony so far:

Bullshit-Detector | 26.10.2010 23:46 | Analysis

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466884.html

* 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, but most significantly, at significant moments in Luton station car park on the morning of 7 July 2005 (see below).

Source: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/10/f...-fail.html

There appears to be more & better footage of Roshonara Choudhry stabbing Labour MP Stephen Timms than there is of the alleged 7/7 bombers. Odd, that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/03...sentencing

[Peter Presland]

There's been a lot of stuff flying under the radar from the 7/7 inquest hearings this past month or so.

There's a couple of items from Nick Kollerstrom's blog posted above by Christer F but all of the J7 Inquest briefings section is worthy of study. As Paul says above the official narrative really is coming apart at the seams - mthough you would never guess so from the MSM.

This article by a retired Aussie cop is a good example of the other stuff. Headed "The last Minutes of Hassib Hussain":

By Andrew S. MacGregor

It is a privilege to post this article offered by Andrew MacGregor, a retired Australian policeman, on this site.

I am taking it for granted that the two journalists, Caroline Grammell and Duncan Gardham are competent journalists and that their article 7/7 Inquest shown last minutes of London bus bomber Hasib Hussain (The Telegraph, 14th Oct) is quite accurate. It concentrates on the areas of Kings Cross Station and the route taken by the bus to Tavistock Square. We quote here from that article. It begins:

For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside King’s Cross, clearly unsure about what to do.

Now this is odd. The inquest has already been informed that these men actually made a ‘dummy run’ prior to the 7th of July 2005, and if this was the case, then Hasib Hussain would have been well aware of what he had to do and when to do it. Please understand this point. If what the inquest has already been informed of, that is that the four men accused of being terrorist bombers, had made ‘dummy runs prior to the actual attack, then Hasib Hussain would have been very well aware of what he was required to do, and his actions would not have been; ‘clearly unsure about what to do’.

He frantically rang his co-conspirators, only to find he couldn’t get through.

We are supposedly talking about a teenager who, along with three other ‘co-conspirators’ had planned a ‘suicide attack’ on the London Subway. Why would this teenager try to contact his fellow co-conspirators, who he supposedly knew would have been by that time be dead?
If Hasib Hussain had been a ‘suicide-bomber’ as charged by the police, then he would have been aware that his three fellow ‘co-conspirators’ were also ‘suicide-bombers’ and that they were to die in three simultaneous detonations within the subway. If the four ‘conspirators’ were to die in four simultaneous detonations, then Hasib would have died as required, or as soon as possible afterwards.
If however, there were supposedly, no ‘suicide’ attacks, then Hasib would have been able to contact his fellow conspirators, by mobile telephone, and endeavouring to contact his ‘co-conspirators’ via mobile telephones would be perfectly natural.
Now again, at King’s Cross Station, there would have been evidence that the train services were in disarray. To a ‘suicide-bomber’ this would have been sufficient evidence that his ‘co-conspirators’ had successfully detonated their bombs, so again, why did Hasib Hussain endeavour to contact his dead ‘co-conspirators’?
The only reason would have been is that Hasib Hussain did not realise that his ‘co-conspirators’ were dead.
Rightio, Hasib Hussain has just tried to ring his three ‘co-conspirators’ who he does not believe to be dead, but couldn’t get through to them. So who then did he ring? This is extremely important.
Things have gone wrong, and that is why Hasib Hussain has tried to call his ‘co-conspirators’ but has been unable to contact them. Hasib Hussain is at King’s Cross Station, but is supposed to have been somewhere else. The trains didn’t run on time, he hasn’t arrived at his proper destination, and so he tries to get some advice from his ‘co-conspirators’. That hasn’t worked as their phones are not functioning, and so what does he now do? He rings somebody else, the person who organised this event. The question is; did Hasib Hussain ring Peter Power, or somebody else from ‘Visor Consultants’?

before digging around in his own rucksack containing his homemade bomb.

Is this for real?????? Please, homemade bombs are notoriously unstable, and the last thing a ‘suicide-bomber’ would ever want to do would be to interfere with the bomb in his rucksack. That could so easily cause to bomb to detonate. Unless of course, there was no bomb in the rucksack, then it would be perfectly natural to rummage about in your rucksack.
What Hasib Hussain’s rummaging about or ‘digging around’ in his rucksack tells us quite clearly was that Hasib Hussain was not concerned about the presence of a bomb in his rucksack, for the simple reason there was no bomb there.

CCTV footage piecing together his every movement after separating from Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay was shown on the fourth day of the inquest.

The CCTV videos capture the four ‘co-conspirators’ together in the tunnel as they walked towards King’s Cross Station. Det. Insp. Ewan Kindness states that of the 76 CCTV cameras positioned throughout King’s Cross Station only this camera was actually filming for a period between 8.30am and 8.50am, but the single shot of the four men carrying rucksacks was taken at 08.26.32 hours, which is 3 ½ minutes prior to that stated time.
And now we are told that this same CCTV video camera system ‘pieced together his every movement after separating from his companions. But that is not true. There is actually no CCTV videos of any of the supposed four ‘co-conspirators’ after 08.26.32 on the 7th July 2005 at King’s Cross Station.
There is no CCTV video footage of Hasib Hussain or any of the other three supposed ‘co-conspirators’ at King’s Cross Station [prior to 8.54am], and that cannot be coincidental.
Then we are told that:

For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside King’s Cross.

Again, this is not true; it is a total fiction. There is absolutely no CCTV evidence from inside King’s Cross Station for the entire period of time that Hasib Hussain entered the railway station, until 28 minutes later when he was evacuated from the station along with the rest of the general public. If this is the only CCTV footage, presented to this Inquest, which Hasib Hussain appears on then there are major problems with the government line.
What has happened to the CCTV footage taken from inside King’s Cross Station, from shortly after 8.30am until 8.54am? Deputy Chief Constable Andy Tanner stated on the 11th July 2005, the very same day that Det Insp. Ewan Kindness found the video clip from which the photo of the four suspects that, “The underground network is a CCTV rich environment.” This suggests that the CCTV evidence existed, so why has it not been presented to the Inquest? The only reason is that this evidence conflicts with the government line.
Det Insp Ewan Kindness should at some stage remember that the oath of office that he took was to protect the ‘Crown’, not the government. He should also consider just exactly what constitutes the felonies of perjury (15 years), perverting the course of justice (15 years) and being an accessory to murder after the event (20 years) times the number of murdered. One may feel safe in London, but there would be a different situation if a trial was held in The Hague. Never forget what happened to General Pinochet.

At 8.45am on July 7, Janice Stephens nearly fell over Hussain, who was sitting on a bench on the northbound Northern line, as she hurried to catch a train to work. “He was very far forward on the chair, sitting on the front edge of the chair with his elbows on his knees,” she said.

So did the CCTV videos capture Janice Stephens almost falling over Hasib Hussain as he was seated on a bench on the northbound Northern Line, at 8.45am? If so was Hussain seated on a bench, or as Miss Stephens claimed, a chair? If not, does this really matter or is it to put a ‘human face’ on security? Or has this evidence been presented to cover for the missing CCTV evidence and thus pervert the course of Justice?

CCTV footage taken nine minutes after he was seen by Miss Stephens showed Hussain – dressed in pale t-shirt, jeans and jacket – emerging from a bustling King’s Cross Station.” “He [Hasib Hussain] alongside hundreds of others, was evacuated following the detonation of Jermaine Lindsay’s bomb just outside the station on the Piccadilly Line.

Do you understand what you are being told here? Firstly, Hasib Hussain did not move to the outside of King’s Cross station under his own volition; he was moved out when the station was evacuated. We are told that he was moved to the outside of King’s Cross Station by 8.54am, which is 9 minutes after he supposedly was seen on the bench by Janice Stephens.
Now, if Hasib Hussain had been a ‘suicide-bomber’ in a pact with his three ‘co-conspirators’, then at this stage, Hasib Hussain, would have been very well aware that his ‘co-conspirators’ were dead. End of story!!! Have you ever thought of telephoning a dead friend???
So why this?

Hussain then dawdled around King’s Cross, tried to ring each of his fellow bombers in turn, twice, between 8.58am and 9.19am.” “At 9am, he made a decision. Shrugging his large rucksack off his shoulders, he dropped it to the ground in the doorway of WH Smith’s within the station.” “For two and a half minutes, Hussain was seen bent at the hip, rifling around in the dark blue Sherpa rucksack, only yards from a security guard.

Rightio, now Hasib Hussain, an 18 year old youth from Leeds, would know London just as well as I do since the last time I was in London was 1975. Can you comprehend this? Hasib Hussain is in unknown waters, and is unable to follow the instructions he has been given for his task on this day.
So what is the first thing he does? He calls his mates to get some advice, but his mates are not answering their mobile telephones. Does this mean anything to Hasib Hussain? No, because he tried to ring them over a period of 21 minutes! Does Hasib Hussain believe that his friends are dead? No!!! Absolutely not, because he spent 21 minutes trying to contact them, and he wouldn’t have done that if he believed they were dead as a result of bomb detonations.
Now let us compare two different descriptions of the same event.

He frantically rang his co-conspirators, only to find he couldn’t get through … Hussain then dawdled around King’s Cross, tried to ring each of his fellow bombers in turn, twice, between 8.58am and 9.19am.

Can you see the deception? The adjectives ‘frantically’ and ‘dawdled’ have virtually opposite meanings.
Then there was the other little piece of deception:

For nearly an hour after his three fellow bombers detonated their explosives on the tube, the teenager was seen pacing around outside King’s Cross, clearly unsure about what to do.

What this piece did not inform you of was that Hasib Hussain had been evacuated from King’s Cross Station with every other member of the public who was present at that time.
So after being evacuated from King’s Cross Railway Station and being a stranger in this part of England, Hasib Hussain has tried to contact his fellow travellers but to no avail as they are dead. Hasib Hussain also opens up his rucksack and searches within it, and it is almost a certainty that there was no bomb inside the rucksack as homemade bombs are extremely unstable and any such treatment would certainly have caused a detonation. Mind you, for a ‘terrorist attack’, the detonation of such a bomb at the entrance of King’s Cross Station would have been more successful than the explosion of the bomb on a bus at Tavistock Square. Now this belief that homemade bombs are extremely unstable is not just my belief:

Hugo Keith QC, counsel for the inquest, said: “He spent a very significant amount of time rooting around in a rucksack containing a highly unstable cooled explosive”.

Again, this tells us that Hasib Hussain was not knowingly carrying a homemade bomb. Had Hasib Hussain been aware of the device he was supposedly carrying, he would never have opened his rucksack, let alone drop it on the ground, as either action could have triggered a detonation of the device. In simple words, Hasib Hussain was not carrying a bomb.
So let’s go back to the times that Hasib Hussain has endeavoured to contact his dead ‘co-conspirators’ via his mobile telephone, that is between, 8.58am and 9.19am. We are already aware that Hasib Hussain has been evacuated from the King’s Cross Railway Station.

Timeline

• 8.54am: Hasib Hussain first appears on CCTV video outside King’s Cross Station
  
• 8.58am: he must make his first mobile telephone call to the dead.
  
• 9.am: he drops his rucksack onto the ground in the doorway of WH Smith’s, and starts searching through the contents of the rucksack.
  
• 9.02.30am: Hasib Hussain finalises his search through his rucksack.
  

After adjusting the straps as he placed it back on his shoulders, Hussain walked into WH smith’s and purchased a single Duracel plus 9 volt battery, at a cost of £4.49 … In the shop’s footage he was seen handing over a £5 note to the cashier, who was oblivious to its later deadly use.

Are we supposed to be stupid? Hasib Hussain paid £4.95 for a Durocel plus 9 volt battery? Not really. How about the fact that since Hasib Hussain has been unable to contact his mates, that he suspects that his mobile phone is out of credit and so he purchases some credits for his phone?

At 9.07am, Hussain dived into a nearby McDonald’s emerging eight minutes later. (9.15am)

And Hasib Hussain still has four minutes to go until he stops trying to contact his three other ‘co-conspirators’ who, as per the government theory, Hasib knows are already dead because of the King’s Cross railway Station evacuation.
So, what happened between 9.15am and 9.22am? We know that Hasib Hussain is a stranger to London. We know that he has certain instructions to follow, in either theory, be he a ‘suicide-bomber’ as per the government or a ‘patsy’ as per the opposing belief. We are also aware that the initial train that the four supposed bombers were to catch did not run on the day and that other trains were delayed making the government theory in regard to the other three ‘suicide-bombers’ an actual impossibility.
It was these train schedules that were interrupted that would have also confused Hasib Hussain in that he couldn’t catch his train from King’s Cross Station to Euston Square Station, and then board the Route 30 bus at Euston Square. This results in Hasib Hussain loitering at King’s Cross Station, trying to contact his ‘co-conspirators’ in an effort to find out what he now has to do. We know his last effort to contact his ‘co-conspirators’ was at 9.19am, which was still unsuccessful, so what happened next to explain this?

The last pictures of Hussain were at 9.22am as he walked past Burger King and Barclays Bank, still on only a few metres from Kings Cross … He stepped onto the Route 91 bus which soon parked in Euston Square, before boarding the Route 30, alongside scores of innocent passengers.

So something occurred that put Hasib Hussain back on track to allow the final bomb attack to take place. This event occurred between 9.19am and 9.22am, when Hasib Hussain started to make definite acts towards the final bombing event. Did Hasib Hussain receive a telephone call on his mobile telephone, perhaps from somebody from ‘Visor Consultants’, or was it somebody like a ‘Richard Jones’, actually speaking personally to Hasib Hussain to direct him in the right direction?
There are now three items I would like to touch upon. The first is:

Hugo Keith QC counsel to the inquest, said: “He was plainly trying to contact them to see whether or not they had carried out their act.” “Det Serg Mark Stuart, in charge of telecommunications, said: “It would appear so, sir.”

Now this question and answer is in regard to Hasib Hussain’s actions after he was evacuated from King’s Cross Railway Station, and it is obvious the Hugo Keith QC has made a presumption of which there two possible answers. If Hasib Hussain was on an actual ‘terrorist action’, then the fact that the public were being evacuated from King’s Cross Station would have been a sufficient indicator that the ‘terrorist actions’ had been completed, and thus there would have been no reason to endeavour to contact the ‘suicide-bombers’ as they would all be dead.
However, if it was supposedly a ‘drill’ as per the Visor Consultants plan, then it would be perfectly normal for Hasib Hussain to believe that his three ‘co-conspirators’ were still alive and able to answer their mobile telephones.
As for Det Sgt Mark Stuart’s reply, it is only a belief and there has been no evidence that can support such a belief. Furthermore there is no evidence that this witness is an expert in ‘terrorist mindset’, as he is only O.C. telecommunications. Only an expert can give an opinion, and only within his area of expertise.
The second Item I wish to touch upon is:

“May we presume during that time that he put the battery he purchased into the bomb?” asked Mr Keith.” “Absolutely,” replied Det Insp Ewan Kindness, who was responsible for accumulating the CCTV footage.”

Hasib Hussain at King's Cross

Have you ever heard of ‘putting the horse before the cart’? All the CCTV footage shows Hasib Hussain searching through his rucksack, which is claimed to be holding a homemade bomb, closing the rucksack, and then putting the rucksack back upon his shoulders and then purchasing the battery. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the rucksack was then removed from Hasib Hussain’s shoulders, opened and the purchased battery being fitted to a bomb.
Again, there is no evidence that Det Insp Ewan Kindness is a bomb expert, and so he is not competent to answer this question.
And Finally, is it suggested that the bombs carried by these so-called ‘suicide-bombers’ were deficient in that they needed to fit batteries to the bombs they carried before they were able to detonate them? Is there any evidence that the other ‘suicide-bombers’ also were required to purchase batteries so as to activate their bombs. Is there any evidence to demonstrate that this teenager was a ‘competent’ bomb maker in that he was able to deduce that his bomb wasn’t working due to a faulty battery, and so bought a replacement battery, but was never seen to attach that battery to a bomb?
Please, this line is absolutely ludicrous. However, there is also this line:

Police believe he (Hussain) was supposed to detonate his bomb on the Northern line, but was thwarted by delays on the line and a problem with his explosives.

Exactly what or who is meant by the name, “Police”? That the bomb Hasib Hussain was purported to have been carrying was supposed to have exploded on the Northern line is irrelevant simply because the explosion took place on a Route 30 bus. Again, the supposed ‘problem’ with his explosives is seen to be supported by the purchase of the Duracel 9 volt battery.
Alright; just for one moment, let us consider that Hasib Hussain has determined that he has a problem with the bomb that he was supposedly carrying in his rucksack. Just how would have Hussain determined that he had such a problem? There is only one method that Hussain would have used to determine that his ‘bomb’ was faulty. The only way that Hasib Hussain would have found out that his bomb was faulty was if he had tried to detonate that bomb, and the only place he could have tried to detonate that bomb was in King’s Cross Station. If the problem with this supposed bomb had been a battery, and Hasib Hussain determined that, then he would have purchased the required battery as alleged, and then immediately detonated the bomb as required.
The actual fact that after purchasing the Duracel battery, there is no hint at all that Hasib Hussain even tried to place the battery in the bomb he was supposedly carrying in his rucksack can only mean that there was no bomb, there was no problem with the bomb, and the ‘Police’ beliefs are not factual.
The third item I would like to address is this:

The bus (Route 30) bore an advertising poster for The Descent, a horror film about a caving expedition which went disastrously wrong … It was this advert that made it easier for the Met Police team reconstructing the journey to track the bus’s final movements before Hussain detonated his bomb.” “As it crossed Euston Road into Upper Woburn Place, heading towards Tavistock Square, CCTV from other buses showed its last moments … A camera on the upper deck of a busy Route 59 – travelling in front of the No 30 – showed people clambering on board, again oblivious to the horror which was about to unfold …. One couple, who were standing, laughed and chatted as they sipped their take-away coffees …. The horror on their faces was instant as the bus behind them exploded, ultimately killing 13 people.

Was this adverting poster for The Descent on the Route 30 bus meant to be a sign for Hasib Hussain to identify the actual bus that he was to board? Forget about the talk the Met Police used this advert to make it easier to track the bus’s final movements as the police already had the CCTV from the Route 59 bus in front of the Route 30 bus.
Again we are aware that the Route 30 bus had been redirected away from its original route, which again simply means that whatever authority caused this and any other buses to be redirected would also have been in place to assist the Met Police with their investigation, though I doubt if the police will be advertising that assistance.
And of course there will be no mention whatsoever of the former Head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, and his article in the Jerusalem Post on the 7th of July 2005, that had been mostly written prior to the event, and his specific mention of Russell Square which is adjacent to Tavistock Square, and the First Prime Minister of Israel, Dr Chaim Weizmann, nor would there be any mention of the non-warning that the Israeli Financial Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu received prior to the actual bombing on the day.
And of course there will be no mention of the ‘witness’ Richard Jones who stated that he had been on the bus, and seated next to the bomber, and was the first and only witness to state that the ‘bomber’ was wearing a rucksack. It was only because of what Richard Jones stated in regard to the ‘rucksack’ that the police were able to confine their search for men carrying rucksacks, and that the bombers were actually ‘suicide-bombers’.
But Richard Jones was a far more important player than what our media have told us. Richard Jones had stood in a queue with Hasib Hussain, boarded the Route 30 bus at the same time, and whilst claiming that he was seated next to the ‘suicide-bomber’ was actually seated in the bottom section of the bus whilst Hasib Hussain was seated upstairs. But of most importance was the claim by Richard Jones that what annoyed him so much that he had to get off the bus was the fact that Hasib Hussain was continually fidgeting with his rucksack.
Two girls were reported as witnessing Hasib Hussain blowing up, saying that this ‘guy came in and sat down and that he exploded.’ (The girls were being treated for shock at University College Hospital: we’re not told whereabouts they had been, only that they were ‘involved in the bus bomb.’) The girls totally missed the rucksack. The perpetrators couldn’t rely on normal witnesses to convey their required message. That is why Richard Jones had to ‘drip-feed’ the media with the story of the ‘suicide-bomber’ carrying a rucksack.
The first thing we realise from Richard Jones statements to the media is that he was an Intelligence Officer, with the task of being the ‘Professional witness’. The second thing we realise from Richard Jones statements is that he was also Hasib Hussain’s ‘Minder’, that is an Intelligence Officer whose job it is to see the ‘patsy’ gets to the right place at the right time. The third and final task that Richard Jones would have been required to do was, once everything was in the right place, to detonate the bomb in the bus, because believe me, MI5 would never have trusted the likes of Hasib Hussain to carry their bomb for them.
Now do you understand why there is so much CCTV footage no longer available to the general public? The footage would also feature Richard Jones just where he was not supposed to be.
Why am I reminded of the Lusitania, and the Sea Lord, Winston Churchill?
8/11/2010
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
There is one other article of his relevant, which evaluates the role of Richard Jones on the 30 bus in Tavistock Square, as possibly being HH’s minder.
He has also commented upon Halevi’s foreknowledge of the 7/7 event, as shown by the use of the word ‘yesterday’ in his Jerusalem Post article, published on the afternoon of 7/7: ‘yesterday’s attacks upon..’

[Peter Presland]

The Irish High Court has finally rejected Muad'Dib's appeal against extradition to the UK on allegations of attempting to pervert the course of Justice. (note the customary Orwellian Inversion of meaning).

This guy had sent 20 copies of his "Ripple Effect" DVD in a single package and addressed to the Clerk of the Court, requesting that both the judge and jurors watch it as evidence in support of the alleged accomplices to the 7-7 bombing perpetrators during their trial. All the UK MSM alledge - shock-horror - he had sent the DVD's to individual jurors in an attempt to subvert their consideration of properly presented evidence. He is already guilty in their eyes.

He has already spent 3 months in prison in Ireland - plus a couple of years on remand with onerous conditions. There is little doubt he can now look forward to further time in prison.

BTW thanks to Jim Fetzer on this who published details on his US blog before anyone in the UK!