.
On the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 Bombing here is a reminder that the inconvenient facts relating to this day have not been mentioned, never mind discussed, in the mainstream media.
We must guard against becoming weary of repeating doubts (and certainties) relating to the ongoing false-flag outrages that continue to define our political present and fashion our futures. We are not as helpless as we might sometimes be tempted to think.
I visited my MP, Gavin Barwell (Con., Croydon Central) to raise the following questions. Having discussed various highly dubious and damaging-if-false assertions that are allowed to persist unchallenged in the public domain, I left him the document below with a request that he get back to me with whatever answers to the seven questions he could unearth.
He said he would look into the issues but has (unsurprisingly) failed to respond.
Nonetheless, it is surely continues to be a worthwhile exercise to make our representatives aware of the astonishing anomalies associate with the official 7/7 narrative.
Please read the following and continue to circulate these details, which conflict severely with the official narrative of the day. Please copy, print and post (or email) to your local M.P. and demand answers.
The 'London Bombings' and the lies we have been told about 7/7 must never be allowed to disappear from public consciousness. If the state believes it can safely lie to us about such matters, it will believe it can get away with absolutely anything.
SEVEN FAIR QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE 7/7 LONDON BOMBINGS
Three Holes in the Floor of the Edgware Road Carriage
Evidence was given by different witnesses, including the train driver (Ray Whitehead), that clearly describe three large separate holes in front of two different sets of doors in the Edgware Road carriage. People fell into all three holes. Two emerged from the holes . One died in the third hole. The original report on the Edgware Road explosion (from mark Honigsbaum of the Guardian who was on the train) had the train lifting off the tracks and being derailed (i.e. bomb(s) underneath the train). The driver described all the access panels in the floor of the first coach (the bomb(s) killed people in the second carriage) being 'flipped open' from underneath.
QUESTION ONE
In what way is any of this compatible with a single suicide 'suicide bomber' carrying a rucksack full of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide?
Body Count reveals no Bombers
The First Official
Body Count on Two of the Trains was One Body Short
At the 7/7/ Inquest in November 2010 Dr. Morgan Costello gave evidence that he was asked to attend two scenes, Edgware Road and Aldgate, for the 'purposes of certifying the extinction of life'. He counted six bodies at Edgware Road and seven bodies at Aldgate and declared these as 'life extinct'. The enormous anomaly, that passed completely unreported in the press, was that the numbers should have been seven and eight if we count the bodies of the bombers. No similar count seems to have been carried out on the other (Russell Square ) train but we do know a little about the behaviour of the Russell Square bomber, Germaine Lindsay, before his demise.
QUESTION TWO
Are not these two body counts extraordinarily powerful evidence that there were no suicide bombers on the Aldgate and Edgware Road two trains?
Evidence presented to the Inquest did claim that Tanweer and Khan were blown into a large number different pieces by their bombs……but how would this be consistent with the fact that almost all the other serious injuries in those coaches were lower limb injuries to feet and legs?
The Explosives
Here is a timeline for the 7/7 explosives narrative as it developed:
The
first analysis came from a genuine expert. This is surely the most reliable commentary on the nature of the bombs that went off that morning. The problem is that it would have been all-but-impossible for four young men from Leeds to get their hands on such materials.
On 12 July 2005, Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that,‘The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying….the material used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives …’ (Nafeez Ahmed The London Bombs, p.24)
On 13th July it was stated that these were of ‘C4’ explosive....London explosives have military origin – [Science Daily. LONDON, July 13 (UPI)]: Forensic scientists told the newspaper the construction of the four devices detonated in London was very technically advanced, and unlike any instructions that can be found on the Internet.’
From The Independent on July 14th: ‘A bath filled with explosives has been found at a house in Leeds that was the “operational base” for the London suicide bombers
17th July 2005 The Observer: ‘22 lbs TATP in the bath.’
The TATP story survived but faded away in 2007 then, when the 7/7 Kingston trial came along in the summer of 2008 all trace of the TATP story had gone.
Now the explosives were made of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide. The idea of the four heating up Hydrogen Peroxide in their kitchen to the point where it would make an explosive mix with black pepper is simply laughable. How could they test that their ‘bombs’ were going to go off. Were they going to go lurching across the country with this kind of bomb sloshing about in their rucksacks. Has anybody ever made a bomb out of this mixture? If such a bomb did explode could it possibly have caused the devastation created on 7/7?
There is much written online that mocks these materials as potential tools of mass destruction. Do we not require a Public Inquiry on this issue alone. The changing storyline above surely makes no sense at all.
QUESTION THREE (Bombs)
How would four inexperienced Muslims have known how to reduce the hydrogen peroxide to the right concentrations safely?
Why was no chemical analysis of the blast burns inside the carriages carried out?
….more seriously
Why No Post-Mortems?
Another astonishing fact that emerged during the 2010-11 7/7 Inquest was that
no post mortems were carried out on the bodies of the victims. A very great deal about the nature of and distance from the explosions could have been discovered from such examinations. The effects of different explosives on flesh are well-known. Such post-mortems would have provided some definitive information that would have at least ruled out some possible explosives from consideration as the source material of the blasts. What could possibly explain such an oversight other than the desire to avoid creating conflicts with a fabricated narrative.
QUESTION FOUR (Bombs)
Why were there no post-mortems on any of the victims? (definitive information about the explosives could have been gained from such investigations)
Why Suicide?
Moving on to another very obvious (but irresolvable) question: why would terrorists who wished to wreak havoc and punish British people for the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to blow themselves up along with their victims? These were very crowded trains. They could have set a timed detonator and quietly slipped off the trains a stop or two early, leaving their bags on the floor amongst the feet of dozens of incurious passengers. Where would have been the risk in that? Surely such activists would better serve their cause by continuing and not terminating their mission?
Another obvious question:
QUESTION FIVE(CCTV)
Why, in the most CCTV-rich environment on earth, is there so little footage of the four available? Why is it that the few pictures that are available mostly contain no other identifiable persons that could confirm the accuracy and veracity of these pictures? Surely it should have been possible to construct a water-tight case against the four from the CCTV alone?
Drills
There were
four uncannily accurate drills (or rehearsals) carried out before the 7/7 bombings:
1)
The BBC Panorama ‘management exercise’ programme of May 2004 during which a panel of ‘managers’, including Peter Power (see below) and Michael Portillo, discussed how they would deal with a terror attack on London that revealed itself to them through mock news reports as the show progressed. The scenario they had to deal with turned out to be one overground and 3 underground explosions taking place over a short space of time during the morning rush hour.
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: held over 5-8 April, 2005. All echelons of government participated in this large terror-drill. The Independent reported after July 7th that “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.”
4)
Operation Hanover: London’s police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill. 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. They only revealed it in 2009.
QUESTION SIX
What is the probability that practice drills should be going on in exactly the same stations at exactly the same time as surprise terrorist attacks occur?
Germaine Lindsay, cool and then confused
Germaine Lindsay drove from Aylesbury to meet the other (let’s call them) bombers in Luton railway station. He arrived an hour before them and decided to take a little nap. He received a parking ticket while asleep in his car. Were he a terrorist he obviously would have known that he would have had only four hours left to live.
Germaine Lindsay was one extraordinarily relaxed suicide-bomber.
A station attendant called Mr. Patel gave
testimony to the Inquest that a man he identified as Germaine Lindsay arrived on the concourse of King’s Cross station and asked to talk to “The Duty Manager”. He said it was, “Very important.” Mr Patel remarked that it was very unusual for a member of the public to know the exact name for the person in charge of the station. Normally people asked for ‘the supervisor’ or ‘the manager’. At this time there was chaos on the concourse. The metal grills had been pulled down and shut at the front of the station. Passengers were not being allowed through the barriers. A crowd had built up and people were starting to abuse staff. Numbers of ‘Community Support Officers’ who looked like police were milling around the area trying to manage the situation. No wonder Lindsay was confused. He must have decided to try to speak to someone who ‘was in on the game’ to explain to him what was going on. The most obvious explanation of his behaviour is that it would have puzzled and alarmed him that the drill had started before he, ‘the bomber’, had caught their trains. Perhaps a chilling possibility occurred to him. When Mr. Patel returned with the duty manager Lindsay had gone.
And More
There are many, many other serious anomalies and matters requiring investigation in the official narrative.
1. Train Times
The
train times presented huge problems for the official narrative causing the Home Secretary to change the story after it was realised that the 7.40 they were said to have caught had been cancelled. Then the next train arrived 23 minutes late at King’s Cross giving the bombers only three minutes to buy four RETURN tickets (think about that one), cross the track by bridge and board the last possible train that makes it just feasible they could have reached the bombed trains in time.
2. Khan
On the 5th July 2005, Mohammed Siddique Khan took
his pregnant wife to Dewsbury Hospital in West Yorkshire. She was bleeding and there was obviously something wrong. Doctors examined Hasina Patel and said that there was a ‘threatened miscarriage’. They sent her home and booked her in for a scan on the 7th. Mrs Patel has never told the time they got home but afterwards Mohammed Khan said that he was ‘going to see his friends’. Hasina Patel never saw or heard from her husband ever again. She miscarried on July 6th . At the 7/7 Inquest there was ‘evidence’ (peculiar and surely untrustworthy) presented of a mobile phone text-message exchange between Khan and Germaine Lindsay at 4.35am on the morning of the 6th July. Would Khan really have abandoned his desperate wife for a whole day while she was in that condition? Khan was a highly respected in his community and by the headmistress of the special school in which he worked as a classroom assistant. The police had used him to mediate between rival gangs in local disputes. He was trusted by all sides. Hilary Benn had taken Khan on a tour of the House of Commons. He was not known to be politically radical. Quite the opposite. He was protective of the good name of his community and was eager to maintain good relations with the local white community. Bearing this in mind it is likely that the reason the police have film of Khan is that he was helping them ‘keep an eye on’ any worrisome Muslim elements in his locality. He was not a troublemaker, he was a healer and a fixer.
The most likely explanation for Khan’s disappearance on the 6th is that he told his minder for the 7/7 exercise that he was not going to be able to make it. . He would have been told to see that the others could make it without him. The bombings were not going to be called off but……now he had presented his minders with a problem that had only one possible solution. His goose was cooked.
This would also explain why the attendant at the filling station where Tanweer filled his car (and argued about the change he was given) said he only saw one other person in Tanweer’s car. Hasib Hussain alone (the bus-bomber) was in the car and, unknown to the pair of them, Khan was by now already dead. This would also explain why the now-suppressed BBC radio 5 news reports from the late morning of the seventh said that two men had been shot in Canary Wharf (rather than three, the supposed train bombers. Hussain had been separated from the others).
Those who have travelled to Beeston and spoken to locals report that, like Khan, Hussain and Tanweer had shown no inclination in their communities towards political or religious radicalism.
The Evidence against ‘The Four’
Looking at the detail of latest narrative laid out before the 7/7 Inquest, it must be admitted that it is now just physically possible that the four caught the last possible train at Luton and rushed from King’s Cross Thameslink to the various subway platforms before detonating their deadly cargos. However, their relaxed demeanour in the very few still photos presented as evidence militates against the probability that they were rushing about madly that morning (especially with all that liquid explosive slopping about on their backs).
Why too in the most CCTV-rich environment on earth are there only a couple of very poor pictures of the four, one at Luton, one at Thameslink, the date and time stamps on which could have easily been photoshopped. Could the photos of Khan have been used from the ‘practice run’ the four carried out on 29th June 2005, just eight days earlier?
The mobile phone evidence places them all on the correct train at the right time. Three things about this though. Firstly, this is new evidence that was not released in the previous 2006 hearing. Why? Second, is it likely that these men would have been texting each other on train they had all boarded together. Finally, this is the kind of evidence easily faked. It is letters and numbers on a piece of paper.
Khan and Tanweer could easily have been talked into making the Jihadi videos that have played such a large part in aiding the public to accept their guilt. They were employees, well-paid for two days work, the practice on June 29th and for the day itself. They were told that the exercise has to be made as realistic as possible. The film would be in the hands of the station staff and other authorities giving them a possible means of intercepting the four. The on-camera ‘threats’ from Khan and Tanweer are vague and unspecific. When Hasina Patel first saw these videos it was reported that she said, “That’s not my husband.” Her brother thought it was Khan. It is most likely that she meant, “ I know him. He would never say such things.”
The ‘bombers’ all had four or more mobile phones each; one of their own private phones and at least three other (so-called) ‘operational’ phones that they are supposed to have used to confound anyone who might attempt to track their communications and obstruct their diabolical plan. It is most likely that these phones were supplied by their minder and that their holding them allowed their ‘handlers’ to track Tanweer and Lindsay down in Canary Wharf after they had panicked and gone on the run, presumably (and naively) hoping to tell their story to the British press who are mostly based there.
Government sources might deny it but there are 2 competing narratives that describe what happened on 7/7/05
1) The official story of four suicide bombers murdering 52 people and injuring hundreds by exploding four bombs on three tube trains and one bus on the morning of 7/7.
2) Forces embedded within the establishment carried out a false-flag attack against the British people. As with nearly all false-flag events, patsies were set up to take the blame for the crime. The four Muslims were completely innocent actors paid to participate in a concurrent anti-terror 'drill'.
In a court of law physical evidence always trumps excuses, allegations, observations or any other kind of verbal contribution to a case…..
……so….
QUESTION SEVEN
Which of the above narratives more closely matches the facts of the case?
.
