Jury Rejects State Charges against 7/7 Ripple Effect’s Muad’Dib
Outside Southwark Crown Court, Muad’Dib with supporters: Me NK on left, Belinda centre, Mark (www.landofthefree.co.uk) on right. Found at TerrorOnTheTube.co.uk
7_7_2005 Reed Elsevier Arms Trafficker and Peter PowerI 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.The site owner Kevin Boyle asked him whether he had personally heard that Radio 5 news announcement, and ‘Huggles’ replied:
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.
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?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.
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.
Peter Power Visor Consultants London1 comments 
Labels: 7/7 exercise
B.A.FRÉMAUX-SOORMALLY
Labels: FETZER MUAD'DIB RIPPLE EFFECT
1 comments:
7/7 Ripple Effect "a masterpiece"? You should consider:
It’s narrated by someone with a very menacing voice calling himself Muad’Dib who seeks to ‘tell the truth’ about 7/7. However, Muad’Dib is in fact a fictional character in a science fiction novel ‘Dune’ written by Frank Herbert in 1965. The actual narrator and producer of the video is a Mr John Hill, an elderly conspiracy theorist from Sheffield UK who likes to read make believe stories and, who also believes he is the second coming of Christ.
There have been similar claims to ‘expose the facts’ made by a previous M15 employee, David Shayler. Interestingly he competes with Mr Hill to also be the self proclaimed reincarnation of Jesus Christ, although in the case of Shayler he now dresses in women’s clothes and refers to himself as Dolores, perhaps making his own claim to be the Messiah slightly more dubious?
The London Underground system has been bombed by terrorists at least 22 times since 1885 and is therefore an obvious target. Very many organisations have, not surprisingly, carried out similar exercises as we did for our client in 2005. Given the location of our client and the purpose of this particular exercise inject, we only had about 9 stations to choose from. Not the entire underground system.
It’s hardly surprising that we seldom respond to facile questions, although I can add that the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of terrorism is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.
I hope this helps, but sadly I doubt it.
Peter Power
Visor Consultants Ltd London
N.B. Peter Power is quoting himself from an article he posted back in 2008, but nobody can guess this from the above comment he made on my Blog unless they have read the 2008 article that you can find here Peter Power Visor Consultants London: Friday, 10 October 2008
7/7 exercise
MY COMMENT dated Monday 1st of November 2010
If I have to choose between Anthony Hill, the gentleman who produced 7/7 Ripple Effect (inspired by 9/11 Ripple Effect by Dave Von Kleist) under the name of Muad’Dib, and the Jewish hired Peter Power, I will not hesitate a second in choosing Anthony Hill.
Since the very moment the Zionist Controlled British Television Network (ZCBTN) announced the explosions of 7 July 2005, I knew it was an inside government false flag operation that was immediately blamed on Muslims who they said all died in the explosions, but which by some miracle were gunned down in Canary Wharf the following day. This was the “news” (DISINFO) as I heard it both on television and radio.
I had confirmation of many lies told during the television broadcasts on the very same day including the Himalayan lie told by one Peter Power, a firm hired by a 1000-strong Jewish firm to carry out drills at the same locations and time where the explosions occurred. Peter Power spilled the beans when he hid the identity of the firm, but in the same breath was betrayed by his twisted brain by mentioning the presence of exclusively “JEWISH BUSINESSES” and American Banks in the Area that required such “anti-terror” drills! Power left it to us to guess whether he meant Jewish or American, but any logical person would know that if it was American he would never hesitate to say so and even identify the firm and that if it was Jewish, he had all the reasons in the world not to say so and cover up its identity.
Power said that he obtained permission from his (Jewish) client to reveal its name in the Propaganda film on 7/7 made for the sole purpose to discredit all who held different views and in particular to ridicule Anthony Hill’s 7/7 Ripple Effect (Power calls this “balanced”). The name of that Jewish firm was revealed in a flash of lightening that lasted barely a few milliseconds and with nearly no useful and recognisable details at all! I had to do more research to find out from Power’s own article of October 2008 the name of his mysterious client that even the Police and Secret Services did not even bother either to find out or to let us know!
Hold your breath, please. The company’s name is: “Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London…”
But, what Peter Power is hiding from us and which according to him would be a mere coincidence is that Reed Elsevier is a JEWISH (?) COMPANY connected with the ARMS’ TRAFFICKING as well! As a former teacher of science, I knew of the Jewish Heinemann Publishing House based in London, a “subsidiary” of Reed Elsevier.
“Two UK academics, Dr. Tom Stafford of Sheffield University and Dr Nick Gill, launched petitions calling on Reed Elsevier to stop organising arms fairs. [16][17] A subsidiary, Spearhead, organised defence shows, including an event where it was reported that cluster bombs and extremely powerful riot control equipment were offered for sale.[18][19]” (Wikipedia)
So, my dear people of Britain, if you want to know where the explosives for the 7/7 London bombings come from, do not look any further! One thing for sure, it was not manufactured by young “suspicious” fanatical Muslims from “Boss perfumes” in their filthy flat’s kitchens as alleged and even shown on film!
Here again, Power takes the British people for morons thinking nobody amongst us would know that the Police had the duty to tell us about that mysterious Peter Power client, and that we did not need the permission of the “Jewish” firm for the British nation to be informed of its REAL identity three years later, and as a Jewish favour done to us, if we are to believe Peter Power’s crappy arguments.
Without having to go into the details of the “Muslim Day of Terror”, of its lies and cover ups, Peter Power’s false (very suspect at the least) testimony was enough for me to be convinced that Police, Government and media were all lying, which means the ones accused were not the guilty parties!
What I understood Peter Power to have meant was that HE WENT OPERATIONAL ON THE EXACT LOCATIONS AND AT THE SAME TIME OF THE EXPLOSIONS NOT TO PREVENT TERROR ATTACKS FROM HAPPENING, BUT ONLY TO JUMP FROM SOME KIND OF SLOW CRAP HE SAID TO SOME KIND OF SWIFT CRAP! (I really did not grasp his Jewish-English!)
A few years ago, I was threatened by a “Muslim” vigilante in the midst of dozens of presstitutes (mainstream journalists) gathered in front of Omar Mosque ( a former Synagogue) to interview “MUSLIM TERRORISTS COMING OUT OF PRAYER”, including the Jewish-owned/controlled French newspaper Libération. The French journalist (Jewish, most probably!) promised he would come back to me, but he never did! Instead, I also received death threats at my home. WHY, if all that people like me say is just “nonsense” as Peter Power puts it?
Since the death threats and other quite worrying events that happened to me, I have been living in fear not for me personally, but for my loved ones! PETER POWER IS CONNECTED WITH TERRORISTS (JEWISH AND STATE) AND ARMS TRAFFICKERS! So, I do not take these threats lightly! His vain attempt to influence me by his ridiculous comment on my Blog made me bolder. The life and well being of my children and grand children are at stake, and I do not take these false flag operations that always benefit Jews and their Friends of Israel but always blamed on MY RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY lightly!
BAFS
1st of November 2010
P.S. Whether David Shayler or Anthony Hill claim they are GODS, CHRISTS or MESSIAHS, I do not give a damn, and it is not an argument to prove that Peter Power is not telling lies and not involved in the London explosions of 7/7/2005. He looks worse than Larry Silverstein to me! HE PULLED IT! What if we checked his (or his family’s) Bank accounts and assets!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
New J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog
Read news from the 7/7 Inquests that the press will ignore:
J7: 7/7 Inquest Blog
Examining and documenting the proceedings of the Coroner's Inquest into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005, including analysis of the hearing transcripts and the evidence presented.
J7: 7/7 Inquest Blog
Examining and documenting the proceedings of the Coroner's Inquest into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005, including analysis of the hearing transcripts and the evidence presented.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
7/7 INQUESTS BEGIN
J7 PRESS RELEASE
Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
7/7 INQUESTS BEGIN
===========================================================
Over five years on from the events of 7th July 2005 and, finally, the inquests into 52
of the deaths that occurred that day are about to commence in
earnest. In a preliminary Inquest hearing on 23 June 2010 the coroner,
Lady Justice Hallett, stated that she would accept submissions
suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquest to consider.
J7
decided to seize the opportunity presented by Lady Justice Hallett's
generous offer to accept submissions suggesting lines of inquiry to the 7
July Inquest process. The J7 submissions were sent to Martin Smith,
the Solicitor to the Inquests on 23 July 2010, and subsequently to the
Counsels for the bereaved and survivors.
Our
submissions detail suggested lines of inquiry and questions which we
believe should be proposed and considered by the Coroner in the process
of the Inquests relating to 7 July 2005.
Today
J7 have published our submissions so that the general public can be
aware of at least some of the many unanswered questions that still exist
about the events of 7/7. Our submissions were prepared in response to
the publication by the 7 July Inquests of a Provisional Index of Factual Issues.
Copies
of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, along with J7's
Submissions to the 7 July Inquests can be downloaded using the links
below:
J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests
or alternatively:
NOTES FOR EDITORS
===========================================================
- J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was established shortly after the events of 7th July 2005, when it transpired that the unfolding story was giving rise to more questions than answers.
- J7's ongoing research efforts have twice forced the government to amend the official Home Office narrative which, on one occasion, required the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, to stand before parliament and announce a major factual inaccuracy to the house.
- J7 do not accept that the Inquests into 52 of the 56 deaths should stand in place of Inquests into the four men accused of perpetrating the events of 7/7.
- J7 are dismayed that the families of the accused have been refused the legal aid that would have allowed them to be represented at the current round of Inquests.
- J7 fully expect that the Inquests into the four accused should be opened and conducted publicly once the Inquests into the 52 have been completed.
- J7 are concerned that some witnesses called at the Inquests may have already been presented with the Metropolitan Police site reports from each of the four locations. We have requested that any witnesses called to give testimony at the Inquests are asked to state for the public record whether they have viewed and/or read the Metropolitan Police reports as it is highly unusual that witnesses called to give evidence in any case would be privy to such reports. J7 are deeply concerned about the impact and effects that having access to these reports prior to giving their testimonies will have on their recollections of events and the witness testimonies that will be given to the Inquests.
- In November 2005, after repeated refusals by the government to hold an independent public inquiry into 7/7, and given the paucity of evidence presented to support the official narrative of events, J7 established its People's Investigation Forum to coordinate our ongoing research efforts and track the progress of the many Freedom of Information requests we have issued in order to try and uncover the truth.
- Over 3,200 people have signed our petition calling on the government and police to release the evidence they claim to have. J7 supports all calls for an independent public inquiry, and are the only organisation calling for a public inquiry who specifically stipulate that any inquiry should be held outside of the remit of the Inquiries Act 2005 that subjects all public inquiries to full government control.
- The fruits of J7's research, along with articles by respected writers, academics and researchers are published on our main web site at www.julyseventh.co.uk.
In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
7/7 Inquests: Opened, adjourned and still not completed
Concerned that over 4 years after the events in London on the morning of
July 7th 2005, a date has still not been set for the Inquests into how
56 people died, I sent this to Glenda Jackson, my MP:
Dear Ms Jackson
Could you please inquire into whether the Inquest date into the 56 deaths that occurred on July 7th 2005 has been decided upon. It has now passed 4 years since these events, and after a trial found 3 men accused of conspiring to help the 4 accused not guilty, there is no reason why the coroner should not now announce the date & place for the Inquests.
As the majority of these deaths occurred within the Camden area and as I am one of your constituents who happens to co-edit the July 7th Truth Campaign website:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/
I believe it is time that the public had the opportunity to hear the evidence that the authorities claim they have concerning many aspects of these events such as the strange ingredients of these explosives (everything from military grade to masala powder and hydrogen peroxide), and what types of detonators were used.
The official report into the London Bombings failed to identify either and Clifford Todd of the forensics laboratory gave a rather strange account to the trial:
"The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard. The details emerged for the first time as a forensics expert's evidence was read at the trial of three men accused of helping to plan the atrocity. Jurors were told the "unique" bomb mixture was made up of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide, which was put into ordinary plastic bags alongside ice-packs to cool the volatile material. The bombers were not wearing the rucksacks at the time of the explosions, but had instead put them down on the floor of the bus and Tube trains, it was claimed. Neil Flewitt, QC, prosecuting, said that expert Clifford Todd had examined the wreckage of the bomb sites. He said: "It is, in the opinion of Mr Todd, noteworthy that at each scene, some personal materials and documents, such as ID cards, were found relating to the bombers.
Although they were damaged to some extent, they did not show the damage that would be expected if they were on the body of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting that in each case they had been deliberately separated by some distance from the actual explosion."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895690/July-7-bombers-left-clues-to-martyrdom.html
It remains a mystery how Germaine Lindsay, who is accused of the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train, within seconds of leaving King's Cross station, would have been able to remove his large rucksack, before placing it on the floor and detonating in, after scattering id around the carriage at some distance from the explosion especially as the train is described as being 'the most packed train ever'.
There are many many other anomalies in the official account of what happened that morning in London and a full public Inquest, which releases evidence in the same way that the Inquest into the extra-judicial murder of Jean Charles de Menezes did, could help to get a clearer picture of what actually did happen and who was responsible,
Regards
Ms Bridget Dunne
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Home Office 'corrections' to the July 7th Official Report
The Home Office finally responded this week with some answers to FOI requests made by J7 researchers for an explanation as to why the erroneous train time in the Official Report, acknowledged by the then Home Secretary John Reid on the 11th of May 2006, had not been amended in the Report.
J7 also sought an explanation as to how this error occurred in the first place, and at which time the four suspects actually entered Luton station, since the Official Report appears to imply that the men entered the station twice.
On January 10th 2007, an FOI request to the Home Office asked:
A response was received the following day, stating:
J7 responded, asking for further clarification to this somewhat confusing reply:
It was also necessary to remind the Home Office that:
After seven months of interim responses, persistence and complaints from J7, the answers eventually arrived on August 23rd:
Please see the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum for the full details and discussion of these requests and responses from the Home Office.
This response has not addressed the specific questions submitted by J7 in the original FOI request.
The Home Office have explained, that the incorrect train time was given due to "human error" based on "what were later found to be conflicting witness statements" - it appeared not to have occurred to investigators to check which trains were actually running that morning, electing instead to base their findings on witness statements and absolutely no other evidence. J7 pointed out in the FOI requests that there is an internal police document, which the Home Secretary was given, explaining how this error occurred, yet this is ignored in the reply. Were witness statements actually taken from passengers on the 7.25 from Luton, was CCTV from the platform viewed and the time noted?
The response also has still not stated at what time the four suspects entered the station, despite J7's very clear question, as to whether it was at 07:15 or 07:21:54.
Correction 1 in the response above, in fact makes the Official Report even more nonsensical when inserted into the correct section.
With this correction in place, the amended section of the official Home Office narrative now reads:
So, having put on their rucksacks after Lindsay was joined in the car park at 6:49, the men apparently do so again at just after 7:14, with Lindsay checking the departure board again at this time, having done so previously in the 90 minutes after 5.07 and before the other 3 arrive.
So, will the Home Office be able to answer the following questions in less than the seven months it has taken them to answer our original FOI:
1. Did Lindsay enter the station and look at the departure board during the 90 minutes whilst waiting for the others to arrive and then again at 7.14?
2. Did the 4 put their rucksacks on at 6.49 or after 7.14?
J7 will be asking these questions in our response to this rather absurd 'clarification' from the Home Office.
J7 also sought an explanation as to how this error occurred in the first place, and at which time the four suspects actually entered Luton station, since the Official Report appears to imply that the men entered the station twice.
On January 10th 2007, an FOI request to the Home Office asked:
1. We would like to know why the train time of 7.40 has not been amended in the Official Report.
2. We would like to know if a full report has been received from the police explaining how this discrepancy came about.
3. We would like to know when this information will be made public.
A response was received the following day, stating:
Dear The July 7th Truth Campaign,
Thank you for your e-mail of 10/01/2007 1:07:06 PM asking questions about the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
With regard to the 3 questions you asked:
1: A correction slip is awaiting final approval to be sent to the printers.
2 A report has been received from the police.
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
J7 responded, asking for further clarification to this somewhat confusing reply:
Thank you for the prompt response to our FOI request ref: T1131/7.
We asked when the Home Secretary will be explaining how the error in the train time occurred, you responded:
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
We appreciate that the document may not be published. We are asking for an explanation of how the error occurred, now that you have the police document to explain this.
We are also concerned that the Official Report claims:
07.15: Lindsay, Hussain, Tanweer and Khan enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together.
Yet the only CCTV image published of the 4 together, to date, shows them entering Luton station at 7.21.54.
We therefore make the following FOI requests:
1. Could you please clarify whether the 4 entered Luton station at 7.15 or 07.21.54.
2. Now that the internal police document explaining the discrepancy in the time the train left Luton has been made available to the Home Secretary, could we now have an explanation of how this error occurred.
Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign
It was also necessary to remind the Home Office that:
Ref: T1586/7
Thank you for your interim response informing us that a reply will be forthcoming by 12/03/07.
You also state that you must consider the public interest when considering FOI requests:
"The public interest test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information under qualified exemptions."
We would like to remind you of the following statements made by both the Home Office and the Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"Ministers have said they will instead publish a definitive account of what happened, in a written narrative.
Tony Blair said: "I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do."
He added that the written narrative - to be compiled by a senior civil servant - would include all of the evidence the government had."
PM defends bomb inquiry decision - BBC News
"Mr Blair told the Commons he understood concerns over the issue and hoped people would be satisfied with publication of a "full account" of all the information available, along with around five different select committee inquiries.
"I do accept that people, of course, want to know exactly what happened and we will make sure that they do," Mr Blair said.
"We will bring together all the evidence that we have and we will publish it so that people, the victims and others, can see exactly what happened."
Blair: no need for July 7 inquiry - The Guardian
We were promised that we would be told exactly what happened and this is the test that the narrative needs to fulfil,
Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign
After seven months of interim responses, persistence and complaints from J7, the answers eventually arrived on August 23rd:
Dear the July 7th Truth Campaign,
Thank you for your e-mail of 13/03/2007 4:28:26 PM seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act about the Official Account of the 7 July 2005 Bombings in London in which you requested an explanation of how the error in the Official Account of the July 7 Bombings occurred and also asking for clarification as to what time the 4 bombers entered Luton Station. Your request was handled in accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I apologise for the delay in replying to your information request. After having carefully considered your request and having examined the information that you requested in your letter I am pleased to be able to disclose the following information that you requested.
About your first query, how the error in the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July occurred, I am able to inform you this discrepancy was due to human error. The relevant part of the police report to the Home Secretary explaining how the error occurred says:
It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train’s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.
With regard to your second query asking for clarification as to the time the bombers entered Luton station, I can inform you that a correction to the Official Account has been made. As the Official Account is a Parliamentary publication a correction slip has been entered in the Parliamentary library. This correction has also been published on the Home Office official website. A copy of the correction slip is attached.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review any aspect of our handling of your application. During the internal review the department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. An internal review can be requested by submitting you complaint, within 2 months of the date of this letter quoting reference 5642 to:
Information Policy Team
Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act
Yours faithfully
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
HC 1087 Session 2005-2006
ISBN 0 10 293774 5
CORRECTIONS
1. Page 4. The time of 07.15 should be changed to 07:14 and the text should read
"Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform."
2. Page 4. The time of 07.40 on the left side of the page immediately preceding the paragraph that commences, The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station. The time of 07.40 is incorrect and should be replaced by 07.25 which is the correct time.
August 2007
LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Please see the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum for the full details and discussion of these requests and responses from the Home Office.
This response has not addressed the specific questions submitted by J7 in the original FOI request.
The Home Office have explained, that the incorrect train time was given due to "human error" based on "what were later found to be conflicting witness statements" - it appeared not to have occurred to investigators to check which trains were actually running that morning, electing instead to base their findings on witness statements and absolutely no other evidence. J7 pointed out in the FOI requests that there is an internal police document, which the Home Secretary was given, explaining how this error occurred, yet this is ignored in the reply. Were witness statements actually taken from passengers on the 7.25 from Luton, was CCTV from the platform viewed and the time noted?
The response also has still not stated at what time the four suspects entered the station, despite J7's very clear question, as to whether it was at 07:15 or 07:21:54.
Correction 1 in the response above, in fact makes the Official Report even more nonsensical when inserted into the correct section.
With this correction in place, the amended section of the official Home Office narrative now reads:
05.07: A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton station car park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone in this car. During the 90 minutes or so before the others arrive, Lindsay gets out and walks around, enters the station, looks up at the departure board, comes out, moves the car a couple of times. There are a handful of other cars in the car park. A few more arrive during this period.
06.49: The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.
One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks. It is not clear what they were for, but they may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey given their size; that they were in the car rather than the boot; and that they were left behind. Also left in the Micra were other items consistent with the use of explosives. A 9mm handgun was also found in the Brava. The Micra had a day parking ticket in the window, perhaps to avoid attention, the Brava did not.
07:14: Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.
So, having put on their rucksacks after Lindsay was joined in the car park at 6:49, the men apparently do so again at just after 7:14, with Lindsay checking the departure board again at this time, having done so previously in the 90 minutes after 5.07 and before the other 3 arrive.
So, will the Home Office be able to answer the following questions in less than the seven months it has taken them to answer our original FOI:
1. Did Lindsay enter the station and look at the departure board during the 90 minutes whilst waiting for the others to arrive and then again at 7.14?
2. Did the 4 put their rucksacks on at 6.49 or after 7.14?
J7 will be asking these questions in our response to this rather absurd 'clarification' from the Home Office.
Monday, January 29, 2007
John Reid replies:
The currently beleagured John Reid has been passed the J7 Truth Campaign letter to Tony Blair and this is his reply:
(click to read)
(click to read)
Are
we to assume from this that on 11/7/05, the 'information that was
available at the time' was that at least two of the trains were
travelling towards Kings Cross? Did this information only change to fit the story of 4 men travelling from Kings Cross?
John Reid and Tony Blair need to explain why this information was wrong in the first place, after all, 4 days should be enough time to know in which direction the trains were travelling and from which stations. It is insulting to the victims' families, the survivors and the British public that Mr Blair's first statement to the House - one which appears on the website of 10 Downing Street - should contain such ludicrous errors, just as the Official Report published by the Home Office claimed that the 4 men travelled on the 7.40 Luton train that was cancelled and never ran on 7th July 2005, an error for which we have yet to receive any explanation.
(As for the motto the Home Office have the nerve to print on the bottom of their correspondence 'building a safe, just and tolerant society' I think not).
John Reid and Tony Blair need to explain why this information was wrong in the first place, after all, 4 days should be enough time to know in which direction the trains were travelling and from which stations. It is insulting to the victims' families, the survivors and the British public that Mr Blair's first statement to the House - one which appears on the website of 10 Downing Street - should contain such ludicrous errors, just as the Official Report published by the Home Office claimed that the 4 men travelled on the 7.40 Luton train that was cancelled and never ran on 7th July 2005, an error for which we have yet to receive any explanation.
(As for the motto the Home Office have the nerve to print on the bottom of their correspondence 'building a safe, just and tolerant society' I think not).
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
A Letter To Tony Bair
It never ceases to amaze me how very few facts regarding the events in
London on 7th July 2005 have ever made it into the public domain. The
few facts that have, though, are inconsistent, muddled and
contradictory. Trying to assemble these facts into any kind of cohesive
account is like trying to put together a jigsaw-puzzle and wondering
why the pieces don't fit.
On behalf of the July 7th Truth Campaign I have sent the following letter to Tony Blair and a FOI request to the Home Office:
On 1th July 2006, Dr John Reid announced to Paliament that the Offical Report's claim that the 4 accused travelled on the 7.40 from Luton was wrong. To date, there has been no explanation for this error:
On behalf of the July 7th Truth Campaign I have sent the following letter to Tony Blair and a FOI request to the Home Office:
10/01/07
Dear Mr BlairIn your statement to the House on July 11th 2005 in respect of the London Bombings and as reproduced on the No. 10 website you stated the following:“I will now try to give the House as much information as I can. Some of it is already well-known. There were four explosions. Three took place on underground trains - one between Aldgate East and Liverpool Street; one between Russell Square and Kings Cross; one in a train at Edgware Road station. All of these took place within 50 seconds of each other at 8.50 a.m.”Mr Blair, this statement was made some 4 days after the events and yet the information that you gave is contradicted by other official versions.According to the Official Report published by the Home Office on May 11th 2006, the explosions took place:“... at about 8.50am there were 3 almost simultaneous explosions – the first in a Circle Line tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations, the second on the Circle Line just outside Edgware Road and the third in a Piccadilly Line tunnel between King’s Cross and Russell Square.”As you can see this information differs from the information that you gave the House and we would like to know why there is such a major discrepancy between these two statements.If you then contrast both your statement and the official report's version with that given out by the Metropolitan Police in their One Week Anniversary appeal news conference:
On 1th July 2006, Dr John Reid announced to Paliament that the Offical Report's claim that the 4 accused travelled on the 7.40 from Luton was wrong. To date, there has been no explanation for this error:
Dear Sir/Madam
On July 11th 2006 Dr John Reid made the following announcement to the House:
...I have assured the House in the past, and assured the families of the victims of the 7/7 tragedy, that we would inform if, at any point, new information on anything came to light. In that context, I tell the House tonight that, at the end of last week, I was told that a discrepancy had indeed come to light. The official account that we provided to the House states that the train on which the bombers travelled left Luton station at 7.40 am. The police have now told us that that is incorrect—the train in fact left Luton station at 7.25 am. It did, however, arrive at Kings Cross at 8.23 am, as recorded in the official account. Although that does not appear to affect anything else in the official account, it is nevertheless an error, which is why I report it to the House. I can understand why this may be of concern to some. I have asked the police, as Members would expect, for a full report on how that discrepancy came about. I will ensure that the official account is amended and will write to the survivors and to the families of the victims on this matter.
Despite the assurance from Dr Reid that the report would be amended, the pdf download on the Home Office website still has the accused travelling on the 7.40 from Luton.
1. We would like to know why the train time of 7.40 has not been amended in the Official Report.
2. We would like to know if a full report has been received from the police explaining how this discrepancy came about.
3. We would like to know when this information will be made public.
Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign
Friday, September 15, 2006
New 7/7 Documentary - Ludicrous Diversion
The July 7th Truth Campaign received an email earlier today informing us
about the release of a new 7/7 documentary called 'Ludicrous
Diversion'.
Please distribute the link to this documentary far and wide and join us on the July 7th Truth Campaign's Independent People's Inquiry Forum.
Ludicrous Diversion
On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.
The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.
The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.
The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?
Please distribute the link to this documentary far and wide and join us on the July 7th Truth Campaign's Independent People's Inquiry Forum.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition
 |
Release the Evidence |
To: The British Government
On 11 May 2006 the Home Office published the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.
The official report has since been discredited owing to a factual inaccuracy, namely the departure time of the train the accused are alleged to have taken from Luton to Kings Cross. This error was announced to Parliament by the Home Secretary on 11 July 2006.
To date, only one piece of evidence has been placed in the public domain showing all four suspects - a single CCTV image, outside Luton station, in which three of the faces are unidentifiable.
No credible explanation has ever been given for the lack of CCTV footage from Luton and Kings Cross stations, despite there being numerous references to CCTV in the official report.
In the absence of a truly independent public inquiry, outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, we call on the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that conclusively proves the official report beyond reasonable doubt.Sincerely,
Send this Petition to a friend
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Guardian
Mark Honigsbaum in today's Guardian has shown that journalistic integrity is alive and well.
In his article he mentions many of the anomalies in the official story:
I was also pleased to see that the Guardian has placed this article in its Attack on London section of the site. If only other journalists would have the courage to question and investigate these facts and anomalies.
The July 7th Truth Campaign.
In his article he mentions many of the anomalies in the official story:
- the actual train times from Luton that morning (as opposed to the scheduled timetable)
- the lack of cctv evidence in the public domain
- the strange bars that go across the image we are told is Khan on the one CCTV image from Luton
- the amazing indestructible id that led to these 4 being identified so quickly
I was also pleased to see that the Guardian has placed this article in its Attack on London section of the site. If only other journalists would have the courage to question and investigate these facts and anomalies.
The July 7th Truth Campaign.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
3 Trains at Edgware Road? * UPDATED *
The events at Edgware Rd station on 7/7/05 appear mired in as much
confusion and misinformation as the train times from Luton that morning.
Below are some accounts of the incident as they were originally reported:
In an attempt to clarify which trains were affected I had contacted the Metropolitan Police but was stonewalled by DI Neil Smith of the anti-terrorist branch at New Scotland Yard.
The MPS website states the following:
I had requested the following information:
So I contacted TFL to find out about this train on an adjoining platform and received the following reply:
No mention of tunnel walls or adjoining platforms! Another FOI request was then sent to TFL:
More questions that need answering are:
1. How did Jenny Nicholson die on an eastbound train between Paddington and Edgware Rd?
2. Why do the MPS claim that the explosion tore through a tunnel wall onto a train on an adjoining platform when there was no tunnel between the trains?
3. Why did early reports claim 3 trains were affected?
4. Why did the original time change from 9.17 to 8.50?
* UPDATE *
There is no tunnel wall at Edgware Rd as the MPS stated in their summary of the explosions. This is the reply I received from TFL:
Below are some accounts of the incident as they were originally reported:
And at 0917 BST an explosion on another Circle Line train coming into Edgware Road underground station blew a hole through a wall onto another train at an adjoining platform.
Three trains were thought to be involved and there were seven confirmed deaths so far, Mr Paddick said.
Source: BBC
Seven people were later killed in an explosion at Edgware Road Tube station at 9.17am. Three trains are believed to have been hit.
Source: Sky News
At 09:17 BST a bomb exploded on another Circle Line train between Edgware Road Station and Paddington. The blast blew a hole in a wall, and another train was hit by debris from it. A third train is also involved. Five are known to be dead.
Source: Wikinews
At 9.17am, seven people died after an explosion ripped through a tunnel wall at Edgware Road station, damaging three trains.
Source: Irish News
9.17am - Edgware Road stationPolice confirmed five people died after an explosion ripped through an underground train as it was around 100 metres from arriving at Edgware Road station. The blast blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform and in total three trains were affected.
Source: Guardian
In an attempt to clarify which trains were affected I had contacted the Metropolitan Police but was stonewalled by DI Neil Smith of the anti-terrorist branch at New Scotland Yard.
The MPS website states the following:
Westbound Circle Line train coming into Edgware Road station, approx. 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors.
I had requested the following information:
The police website states that two trains were involved in the incident on 7th July 2005 at Edgware Road, when the blast tore through a tunnel wall into a train on an adjoining platform. Was anyone injured or killed in this other train?
So I contacted TFL to find out about this train on an adjoining platform and received the following reply:
Thank you for your request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, dated 5 April 2006 asking for -
* The numbers and lines of the other trains involved at Edgware Rd and whether there were any injuries or deaths on these other trains
I can confirm that, on 7 July 2005, 3 bombs exploded on the following 3 Tube trains:
* Circle line train number 204 heading eastbound from Liverpool Street station to Aldgate station;
* Circle line train number 216 travelling westbound heading from Edgware Road station to Paddington station; and
* Piccadilly line train number 331 travelling from King's Cross St. Pancras to Russell Square westbound.
The number of fatalities from these three incidents was as follows:
* 7 from the Aldgate incident;
* 6 from the Edgware Road incident; and
* 26 from the Kings Cross / Russell Square incident;
In total, four trains were damaged. Three of the trains were those where the explosions took place. A fourth train, a Hammersmith & City line train, at Edgware sustained damage, while passing Circle line train 216 when the device exploded. No fatalities or injuries were recorded on the Hammersmith & City line train.
No mention of tunnel walls or adjoining platforms! Another FOI request was then sent to TFL:
Dear Fola OlafareThe trouble with the 'only passengers on train 216 were injured or fatalities' answer is that it doesn't explain how Jenny Nicholson was killed travelling from Paddington to Edgware Road.
Thank you for your reply to my FOI request ref: 1340405.
I had asked for the number of the other train involved at Edgware Road, which you have kindly informed me was a Hammersmith & City line train.
1. Could you please supply the number of this train.
The Metropolitan Police web site claim the following trains were involved at Edgware Road:
Westbound Circle Line train coming into Edgware Road station, approx. 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors.
2. Do I understand that this is not correct and that there was no hole blown through a tunnel wall onto a train on an adjoining platform?
Jenny Nicholson, who was 24, was killed by the suicide bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan on the westbound Circle line service she had boarded at Paddington station. She had phoned her boyfriend, James White, minutes earlier.From contact that I have made with a source very close to the incident I have the following:
Source: Guardian
The media reporting of the Edgware Road incident is very strange. All the TV cameras appeared at the wrong station which was the Bakerloo LIne station. There was reported a wall between the trains. Circle line trains operate in a double track tunnel where there are no walls between tracks or trains. You will not see any photos or videos of the Edgware Road incident either. They were all quickly classed as national security items. This is because of the damage done. The second car from the front having been totally destroyed including taking out the floor.
More questions that need answering are:
1. How did Jenny Nicholson die on an eastbound train between Paddington and Edgware Rd?
2. Why do the MPS claim that the explosion tore through a tunnel wall onto a train on an adjoining platform when there was no tunnel between the trains?
3. Why did early reports claim 3 trains were affected?
4. Why did the original time change from 9.17 to 8.50?
* UPDATE *
There is no tunnel wall at Edgware Rd as the MPS stated in their summary of the explosions. This is the reply I received from TFL:
17/Jul/2006
Dear Miss Dunne
Thank you for your request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, asking for -
* The number of the Hammersmith & City line train at Edgware Road that sustained damage
* Whether there was a hole blown through a tunnel wall onto a train on an adjoining platform
I can confirm that the train number was 207 and that, at Edgware Road, there are not separate tunnels for trains heading in opposite directions.
Therefore, no hole was blown through a tunnel wall.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Correspondence with the MPS Anti-Terrorist Branch
The MPS replied to the request forwarded from the BTP:
The MPS had replied similarly to my previous request for information.
I then wrote to Detective Inspector Smith and asked him the following:
Dear Ms Bridget Dunne
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2006040004250
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). I note you seek access to the following information:
* At what times were the areas surrounding the various sites of the bombings put up?.
DECISION
Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Section 17 of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the
exemption applies.
You have submitted a series of requests concerning the events of the 7th July. It has now been explained on several occasions that the investigation into those events continues and therefore the details of the investigation cannot normally be released under the FOIA as the exemption under Section 30 of the Act applies. This exemption, as previously stated, means that information concerning ongoing enquiries should not be made public under FOIA as the proper means of detailed disclosure is through a Court or Inquest once the investigation is concluded.
The only way in which this exemption might not be claimed would be if the information being considered was of such a significant public interest or importance so as to justify an exceptional decision regarding that specific data. We judge to there to be minimal public interest in the question 'What times were the cordons set up?'. Given that the data emanating from your question appears to carry only curiosity interest, we see no credible basis upon which to deflect from the established guidance in maintaining confidential detailed information concerning ongoing investigations.
Whilst we welcome your continued interest in the activities of the MPS, please except that we cannot provide details of specific times for the events of that morning. Much of this information for all meaningful purposes is already in the public arena. If you do continue to repeatedly ask the same (or extremely similar) questions, you may reach a point where your requests are no longer be valid under the Act.
In each reply I have invited you to contact me or the investigation team if you have meaningful evidence to contribute to the investigation into the 7th July attacks. That offer still remains. I must point out, it not helpful for you to submit numerous requests which inevitably will require the same response. Each of these requests distracts us from other work, whereas a meeting might just have a productive outcome.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 0207 230 2717 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
Anti-Terrorist Branch
New Scotland Yard
The MPS had replied similarly to my previous request for information.
I then wrote to Detective Inspector Smith and asked him the following:
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your prompt reply to my FOI request 2006030009138.
I asked for the following information:
1. Why does the police website still show that the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train on 7th July 2005 happened by the first set of double doors on carriage one?
2. What was the number of the train and carriage of the Piccadilly Line train that the explosion happened on on 7th July 2005?
3. The police website states that two trains were involved in the incident on 7th July 2005 at Edgware Road, when the blast tore through a tunnel wall into a train on an adjoining platform. Was anyone injured or killed in this other train?
4. Have details of the type of explosives and detonators used in the 4 incidents on 7th July been officially released?
5. Was a second controlled explosion carried out on a device found on the Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square on 7th July 2005?
You replied that you cannot locate these comments (1 & 3) on the MPS website. Could I direct you to the following:
'One week anniversary' bombings appeal'
Piccadilly Line train travelling from Kings Cross to Russell Square, approx 600 metres into the tunnel. The device was in the first carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors.
Westbound Circle Line train coming into Edgware Road station, approx. 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors.
If the above information is incorrect one week after these events, I have not found any updates on the MPS website to correct it.
There is also mention of a CCTV image showing these 4 men at Kings Cross station at 8.30am that morning, this image has never been released into the public domain. Yet we have seen at least 6 images of the suspects from the events on 21/7/05, for whom there will be a court case, and images of 3 of the 4 young men from 28/6/05 when they are said to have rehearsed these events.
I understand that this is an ongoing investigation, yet there is a scarcity of facts from the 7/7/05, (only one CCTV image of the 4 accused together taken 30 miles away at Luton), or contradicting facts, such as where the device was placed on the Piccadilly Line train. Given the quantity of images and facts in the public domain for the events of the 21/7/05 I cannot understand how or why any trial or inquest into 7/7/05 would be prejudiced by this information being released.
http://www.met.police.uk/news/july_21_07_05/response4.htm
You state in your reply:
'The fact that the enquiry continues means that the Section 30 FOIA exemption must be applied to avoid early or inappropriate disclosure of material subject to court proceedings'.
How can the answers to the questions I have asked possibly prejudice any court proceedings, especially as the 4 accused will not stand trial? If the release of at least 6 CCTV images from the 21/7/05 and details of these men movements will not affect their forthcoming trial?
Yours Sincerely
Ms Bridget Dunne
Casualties Brought to BTP HQ on 7th July
Mr Coleman replied to my FOI request with the following information:
I then sent the following to Mr Coleman:
In answer to your question:
Were the casualties that were brought to the BTP HQ at approx 9.09 am from the train between Russell Square and Kings Cross?
BTP can supply the following information.
The first casualty brought to BTP’s HQ was from the Piccadilly Line train.
In respect of your request asking when the area was cordoned off, this request was transferred to the Metropolitan Police Service on 11th April 2006.
Brian Coleman
Freedom of Information manager.
I then sent the following to Mr Coleman:
Your Ref: FOI/0041/06/BC
Dear Mr Coleman
Thank you for your continued time and effort in promptly replying to my inquiries re: BTP HQ's on 7th July 2005.
I have three further FOI requests::
1. Could you please provide the number of the Piccadilly Line train from which casualties were brought to the BTP HQ?
2. At what time were the BTP alerted to the incident at Russell Square?
3. How many casualties were brought to the BTP HQ's from the bus explosion?
Regards
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Reply to FOI Request from the BTP
Here's the reply to my FOI request:
On 9th April I asked Mr Coleman the following:
Our Ref: FOI/0041/06/BC
Dear Ms Dunne
With reference to your request dated 27th March 2006 asking:
1. What was the information received at 9 am?
2. What time did the injured arrive at BTP HQ?
3. At what time was the whole area cordoned off?
4. Were any of the injured brought to the BTP HQ from the bus?
I can supply the following information in respect of your questions:
1. At exactly 0900hrs BTP have a logged call about the explosion that occurred on the underground train near Aldgate.
2. The casualties started to arrive at BTP HQ about 20 minutes after the first reports, at approximately 0909hrs.
3. I am afraid that BTP are unable to supply this information as it is not held as prescribed by Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst three of the explosions happened on the underground network, the explosions occurred within the policed Metropolitan Police district and accordingly MPS put the cordons in place. For an exact time would you have to make a request to them. You can make your request to them by using their Freedom of Information application form at http://www.met.police.uk/information/metric/index.htm or if you wish BTP can forward your request onto them
4. Yes.
If you have any queries regarding the above information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Brian Coleman BA, MSc
Freedom of Information Manager
On 9th April I asked Mr Coleman the following:
Dear Mr Coleman
Thank you for the reply to my FOI request ref: FOI/0041/06/BC.
Could you tell me :
Were the casualties that were brought to the BTP HQ at approx 9.09 am from the train between Russell Square and Kings Cross?
Yes, I would like you to request from the MPS at what time the area was cordoned off.
Regards
Bridget Dunne
Thursday, March 30, 2006
FOI Request to the British Transport Police
On March 26th I sent the following FOIA request to the BTP:
BTP reply on 27/3/06 to my FOI request
To which I replied with the following:
Were these questions a bit nearer to the bone? Here is the reply from the BTP:
From The Guardian 10/7/05:http://www.btp.police.uk/foi.htm
Andy Trotter
Deputy chief constable, British Transport Police.
'I was in the British Transport Police HQ in Tavistock Square when the first information came through at 9am. I immediately dispatched senior officers to the scene, then watched, horrified, as the tale unfolded in front of us.
'Within minutes, the casualties from Russell Square tube began arriving at our HQ. When the bus exploded, the whole building started rocking and debris began falling all around us. My first thought was to put extra security on our front door because the terrorists could try to gain access to the building by coming in with the injured. My children began texting me but I couldn't make a personal call to my wife until late afternoon: I didn't have a second to spare.'
Source: The Guardian
Why were casualties brought to the BTP HQ and not taken to hospital?
In fact, I have read no survivor or witness reports that have stated that they were taken to BTP HQ and I wonder why that is?
Could you say why they were brought and how many,
Thank You
Ms Bridget Dunne
BTP reply on 27/3/06 to my FOI request
Dear Ms Dunne
In respect of your request I can supply the following information.
Nine person were brought to the British Transport Police HQ and were either suffering from shock and/or very minor injuries which did not require hospital attention. If they had required hospital treatment that would have been arranged.
They were brought to BTP’s HQ as it was a secure location, bearing in mind that very quickly the whole area was cordoned off, making it very difficult for anybody to leave the area, particularly as all bus and underground services had been suspended.
BTP cannot state why you have read no survivor or witness reports stating they were taken to BTP’s HQ. What is reported is obviously outside of BTP’s control.
If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Brian Coleman
Freedom of Information manager
To which I replied with the following:
Dear Mr Coleman
Thank you for the prompt reply to my FOI request.
The original report from Andy Trotter was:
'I was in the British Transport Police HQ in Tavistock Square when the first information came through at 9am. I immediately dispatched senior officers to the scene, then watched, horrified, as the tale unfolded in front of us.
'Within minutes, the casualties from Russell Square tube began arriving at our HQ. When the bus exploded, the whole building started rocking and debris began falling all around us. My first thought was to put extra security on our front door because the terrorists could try to gain access to the building by coming in with the injured.
Could you please tell me:
1. What was the infromation received at 9 am?
2. What time did the injured arrive at BTP HQ?
3. At what time was the whole area cordoned off?
4. Were any of the injured brought to the BTP HQ from the bus?
Regards
Ms Bridget Dunne
Were these questions a bit nearer to the bone? Here is the reply from the BTP:
Dear Ms Dunne
In respect of your request for:
1. What was the information received at 9 am?
2. What time did the injured arrive at BTP HQ?
3. At what time was the whole area cordoned off?
4. Were any of the injured brought to the BTP HQ from the bus?
BTP will deal with your request within 20 working days. If it is likely that BTP will not be able to answer you request within that time you will be advised of the new date.
However, in respect of question 3 the cordons were put in place by the Metropolitan Police Service, consequently BTP do not hold this information as prescribed by the Freedom of Information Act and are unable to answer this question. To request this information from the MPS you can find their request form at http://www.met.police.uk/information/metric/index.htm .
Brian Coleman
Monday, March 27, 2006
New July Seventh Truth Campaign Web Site
The research on this site has been incorporated into a new July Seventh website:
Welcome to the July 7th Truth Campaign
A Call for July 7th Truth & Justice
This site was set-up in the wake of the London bombings on July 7th 2005 with the aim of getting to the truth about what really happened in London on the day that 56 people were killed and over 700 injured.
Initial reports from train operating companies announced that the devastation on the Underground was the result of train collisions, electrical failures and power surges. Shortly after the explosion of a number 30 bus at 9.47am, outside the British Medical Association headquarters in Tavistock Square, a very different version of events began to unfold.
What do we want and who are we to demand it?
In his book, '7-7 The London Bombs - What went wrong?', former government intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Crispin Black, wrote:
"We need an official inquiry - now. Not a whitewash inquiry like Lord Hutton's. Or a punch-pulling inquiry like Lord Butler's. But an inquiry run by plain Mr or Mrs somebody."This site and the associated investigation forum was set-up by a collective of plain Mr, Mrs and Ms somebodies comprising concerned residents and independent public researchers, all with the single aim of getting to the truth behind what happened on July 7th through an Independent People's Inquiry.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
FOIA Request to The Met
On March 26th I sent the following FOIA request to the Metropolitan Police:
I will post their response as soon as I receive it.
1. Why does the police website still show that the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train on 7th July 2005 happened by the first set of double doors on carriage one?
2. What was the number of the train and carriage of the Piccadilly Line train that the explosion happened on on 7th July 2005?
3. The police website states that two trains were involved in the incident on 7th July 2005 at Edgware Road, when the blast tore through a tunnel wall into a train on an adjoining platform. Was anyone injured or killed in this other train?
4. Have details of the type of explosives and detonators used in the 4 incidents on 7th July been officially released?
5. Was a second controlled explosion carried out on a device found on the Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square on 7th July 2005?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Reply from BBC Horizon
Dear Bridget,
As spoken, attached is a copy of the e-mail that Alicky Sussman, producer of The 7/7 Bombers, thought had been sent to you on 3 November. We are sincerely sorry that you've had to wait so long to receive it.
Kind regards,
Alison
Alison Wilson
Divisional Adviser
Factual Programmes
Dear Ms Dunne,The information in the Horizon programme that I had complained about can be viewed here:
Thank you for your email regarding the recent Horizon documentary - The 7/7 Bombers - A Psychological Investigation.
The information in the programme regarding the train times from Luton and at Kings Cross was based on information released by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office and information provided to us by Thameslink and Luton station.
Although the psychologist, Dr Andrew Silke, was re-tracing the journey of the 4 bombers, he was not re-enacting it so there are some bits of his journey that do differ from the journey of the bombers.
The position that Hasib Hussain sat on the bus is an interesting point, but not one that we included in the programme as we did not have time to cover everything.
According to Dr Silke, Hussain would have been under a great deal of stress at that point and it likely that the position that he chose on the bus was not pre-planned, but the most convenient space at the time for him to carry out his mission.
With best wishes,
Alicky Sussman
Producer, Horizon
http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/train/horizon77.wmv
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Press Complaints Commision Decision
On 2/12/05 I sent the following complaint to the Press Complaints Commission
Today, 7/2/06, 7 months after the events in London on 7/7/05, I received the following reply:
Their decision was as follows:
So when the PCC say:
It was so insignificant, according to the PCC, as to not warrant correction under the terms of the code.
Simple things like facts now appear to be irrelevant in this 'stage-managed' world we inhabit.
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to complain about the following publication: Timesonline
On the date of:July 14 2005
The Headline was: CCTV pictures show London bus bomber
My complaint details are as follows:
I believe the following section of the code has been breached by the Times.
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
When they state the following:
Hasib Hussain, an 18-year-old from Leeds, is shown in a CCTV image mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40am train to King's Cross.
This information is incorrect and misleading as no 7.40 train left Luton Station that morning and this information is readily available from Thameslink. In fact, no train left Luton thameslink after 7.40 that could have reached Kings X in time for these young men to board the underground trains.
The link to the article is: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693797,00.html
Yours Sincerely
Bridget Dunne
Source: Complaint to the PCC
Today, 7/2/06, 7 months after the events in London on 7/7/05, I received the following reply:
Their decision was as follows:
Press Complaints CommissionJust to remind myself of the PCC's code of conduct
Commission's decision in the case of Dunne v The Times
The Commission noted the complainant's contention that the article was wrong in stating that the 7 July bombers took a train from Luton station at 0740. However, there appeared to be no suggestion that the substance of the article was incorrect and no complaint from anyone connected to Hasib Hussain had been received to the effect that any photographs published by the Times were not, in fact, of him. The Commission did not consider that any very minor inaccuracy with regard to when the train left Luton was so significant as to mislead readers or to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. Ultimately, it did consider the Code to have been breached by the article at all.
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
So when the PCC say:
The Commission did not consider that any very minor inaccuracy with regard to when the train left Luton was so significant as to mislead readers or to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. Ultimately, it did consider the Code to have been breached by the article at all.I can only assume that the fact that Hasib Hussain could not have got onto a train at 7.40, to then be seen in London at 8.26, is just a 'minor inaccuracy'.
It was so insignificant, according to the PCC, as to not warrant correction under the terms of the code.
Simple things like facts now appear to be irrelevant in this 'stage-managed' world we inhabit.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Mystery Of The Non-Existent Train Drivers
Six months after the tragic and
traumatic events in London on 7th July there remain many unanswered
questions and a version of events that fails to add up.
I have tried to establish here the times of trains from Luton and Kings X in an effort to gather some of the 'facts' which are woefully absent from the public domain. My premise was that an investigation into what Ian Blair calls 'the largest criminal inquiry in English history", would make these facts known in an effort to obtain witnesses to these events. These facts would also make sense of what happened that day. Either something happened or didn't happen. Facts are the nearest we can get to establishing the truth and only the truth and therefore the facts will stand up to rigorous investigation.
I have tried to establish here the times of trains from Luton and Kings X in an effort to gather some of the 'facts' which are woefully absent from the public domain. My premise was that an investigation into what Ian Blair calls 'the largest criminal inquiry in English history", would make these facts known in an effort to obtain witnesses to these events. These facts would also make sense of what happened that day. Either something happened or didn't happen. Facts are the nearest we can get to establishing the truth and only the truth and therefore the facts will stand up to rigorous investigation.
That
the times of trains were totally absent from the public domain was one
of the factors which lead to my suspicions that what we were being told
happened was not what actually happened. It is now established that the
7.40 from Luton was cancelled and the next train did not arrive in
London in time to catch each of the tube trains. The Train Times From Kings X - at last!
Trains not only have timetables, they have train numbers and each carriage also has a number.
The orginal train numbers, according to the Transport for London website on 9/7:
Trains not only have timetables, they have train numbers and each carriage also has a number.
The orginal train numbers, according to the Transport for London website on 9/7:
Explosions were as follows (in succession):
* Circle line train number 204 heading eastbound from Liverpool Street station to Aldgate station.
* Circle line train number 216 travelling westbound heading from Edgware Road station to Paddington station.
* Piccadilly line train number 311 travelling from King's Cross St Pancras to Russell Square southbound.
The Piccadilly Line train number then changed to 331.
Update on 7/7 Attack for 10/7/05:
An update of the train identification is that the westbound Piccadilly Line train was actually 331 (not 311) running about 20 minutes late due to an earlier problem at Caledonian Road.
Tubeprune
BBC London Bombs
A fact verified in an email from TFL Customer Services
19/Nov/2005
Thank you for your email dated 5 November.
I can confirm that the Piccadilly train involved on 7 July was the westbound train no 331. The initial reports that we received immediately at the time were incorrect and we updated our records accordingly as soon as we were advised.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Please let me know if you have any further queries or if you need any help in the future.
Yours sincerely
Fola Olafare
Customer Service Centre
I asked Clive D W Feather about this:
The change from 311 to 331 is probably just a mistake in early reports.
Was the Piccadilly Line train number 311 or 331 and does it matter?
Each train is also made up of several carriages, the Piccadilly line train according to Clive D W Feather consisted of:
The Piccadilly Line train consisted of the following vehicles:
166-566-366-417-617-217
Car 166 was the one holding the bomb.
Yet in an article entitled: Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A
He found her bolt upright, sitting still in some sort of private hell. For an hour she had remained, unblinking in the gloom, hemmed in by corpses on either side. The two people stared at one another, each wondering how they had stumbled across such carnage that mild summer's morning. She was an ordinary commuter who found herself at the epicentre of Britain's deadliest terrorist attack. He was firefighter Aaron Roche, the first person to enter carriage 346A of the 8.51am Piccadilly Line service from King's Cross after the 7 July bombs went off.
It was the 48th such service to leave London's busiest tube station that morning, each carriage crammed with commuters, many reading the newspaper coverage of London's Olympic triumph the previous day.
But what should have been a routine trip would, within moments, become part of London's history. Inside the 51ft by 9ft aluminium shell of 346A, 26 people died. It was the carriage where Britain's bloodiest attack since the Second World War took place; where the deadliest of the 7 July bombs was detonated.
Until now Roche has been reluctant to articulate the horrors he found. But almost 100 days after coming across the macabre contents of 346A, the Blue Watch crew manager from London Fire Brigade's Soho station has offered an extraordinary account of what he saw that July morning.
It had just turned 10am when Roche began striding along the dark tunnel towards the stranded train. No one had a clue what had caused its sudden breakdown. Roche had begun to fear the worst, though, as he came across a bedraggled string of passengers, their blackened, bleeding faces almost invisible in the choking clouds of smoke.
The train itself, though, seemed in better shape. Structurally, it seemed fine, its windows smashed by fire extinguishers hurled by commuters desperate to escape. Inside it was a different story. Passengers lay sprawled in each carriage, some nursing wounds, others simply too shocked to move.
I
have researched widely to find details of any of the drivers of these
trains, drivers who acted courageously and bravely that morning, who saw
things they would not be trained to deal with. The recent New Years
Honours list does recognise a tube driver, but an off-duty driver who
aided the injured after walking down the track from Aldgate East. What
about the drivers of the three trains that day? I have found simply NOTHING.
Except this:
Blogger: Post a CommentExcept this:
Anonymous said... Not wishing to denigrate any of the actions of police on the day, not ONE WORD has been said about the driver of Train 311, Tom ****. I joined Tom's train at Kings Cross, travelling in the cab with him on my way to work as a fellow driver, based at Acton Town. I took the first couple of batches of walking wounded to Russell Square and was probably the first member of staff to meet any colleague at the station.
Tom stayed behind in the first car, doing what we as drivers are paid to do, looking after his train and his passengers on it. He helped some by applying tourniques and reassurring others. He saw things that even trained police officers found themselves unable to cope with, but most importantly had to face it on his own before help arrived probably 40 minutes later, a scene of utter devastation in almost total darkness.
He has never been mentioned or praised, he has remained dignified and quiet, and has never returned to drive a train.
Recently he applied for some compensation through his union. The response from the Met Police was "We have no knowledge of this person having been involved in this incident and therefore will not be processing his claim further."
Rather odd because Tom and I were interviewed by police for around three hours after the incident. The press coverage of the other 'heroes' has left him feeling completely empty and devalued. Pity when the the reaction of Police and certain members of station staff are lauded he has been completely forgotten.
Ray Wright
Train Operator
Acton Town Depot
Rachel From North London
This comment has since been deleted from the blog and I reprint it with the surname of the driver omitted.
I reprint it here because it is an astonishing and unbelievable account of how the driver of Piccadilly Line train 311 has been erased along with his train by the Metropolitan Police. Why did they say:
I reprint it here because it is an astonishing and unbelievable account of how the driver of Piccadilly Line train 311 has been erased along with his train by the Metropolitan Police. Why did they say:
We have no knowledge of this person having been involved in this incident and therefore will not be processing his claim further.
We need to add WHY? to the seemingly unending list of unanswered questions.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
How Independent is Indymedia?
Under the topic of Repression, a member of Indymedia whose nym is
Bullshit-Detector posted on 13.12.2005 the following article with the
heading NO PUBLIC ENQUIRY FOR 7/7 BOMBINGS:
This article was subsequently 'hidden' on the grounds that it breached Indymedia UK's editorial guidelines.
The editorial guidelines are:
Does it strike anyone else that censorship of an article posted under Repression that has a link to this blog is in itself repressive?
Clarke rules out July 7 inquiry
There will be no public inquiry into the July 7 terrorist atrocities in London, the Home Office has confirmed.
A spokesperson said: "The Government is not proposing to hold a public inquiry into the events of July 7."
The BBC have reported that the government will instead publish a report based upon information from police and the security services, and civil servants. All very suspicious. It has been denounced by the Muslim association of Britain.
For a more valid intepretation of what happened on 7/7/05, here are some good sources of information:
http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/
www.officialconfusion.com
This article was subsequently 'hidden' on the grounds that it breached Indymedia UK's editorial guidelines.
The editorial guidelines are:
The Independent Media Centre (IMC/Indymedia) UK is an open-publishing platform for news, issues, actions and analysis reporting on grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial social justice, environmental and political issues. IMC UK is maintained by a network of media activists and groups. IMC stands for Independent media center, UK stands for United Kollektives.
Does it strike anyone else that censorship of an article posted under Repression that has a link to this blog is in itself repressive?
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Complaint to the PCC re: Times article 14/7/05
As part of my efforts to uncover the facts behind the so-called London
bombers movements on 7/7 I have come across many articles in our
`esteemed` and allegedly `free` press that contain inaccurate and false
information.
In the spirit of uncovering these facts and exposing the mis-information I have started to contact the Press Complaints Commission to have this information publicly corrected.
One such article appears on the Timesonline website dated 14/07/05 under the title CCTV pictures show London bus bomber and reports that Hasib Hussain is shown on CCTV mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40 train to King's Cross.
This was not possible.
A comprehensive analysis of the events based on the few known facts of 7/7 can be found on the blog of The Antagonist.
I addressed the following complaint to the Press Complaints Commission
If other concerned citizens complain about these inaccuracies and start asking for the true facts to be released the more likely we are to uncover the true story of the events of 7/7, because I for one remain unconvinced that what we are being told happened, actually was what did happen.
In the spirit of uncovering these facts and exposing the mis-information I have started to contact the Press Complaints Commission to have this information publicly corrected.
One such article appears on the Timesonline website dated 14/07/05 under the title CCTV pictures show London bus bomber and reports that Hasib Hussain is shown on CCTV mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40 train to King's Cross.
This was not possible.
A comprehensive analysis of the events based on the few known facts of 7/7 can be found on the blog of The Antagonist.
I addressed the following complaint to the Press Complaints Commission
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to complain about the following publication: Timesonline
On the date of:July 14 2005
The Headline was: CCTV pictures show London bus bomber
My complaint details are as follows:
I believe the following section of the code has been breached by the Times.
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
When they state the following:
Hasib Hussain, an 18-year-old from Leeds, is shown in a CCTV image mounting the stairs at Luton station before taking the 7.40am train to King's Cross.
This information is incorrect and misleading as no 7.40 train left Luton Station that morning and this information is readily available from Thameslink. In fact, no train left Luton thameslink after 7.40 that could have reached Kings X in time for these young men to board the underground trains.
The link to the article is: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693797,00.html
Yours Sincerely
Bridget Dunne
If other concerned citizens complain about these inaccuracies and start asking for the true facts to be released the more likely we are to uncover the true story of the events of 7/7, because I for one remain unconvinced that what we are being told happened, actually was what did happen.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Complaint to the BBC re:: Horizon 27/10/05
Based on the information I have discovered about the train times on 7/7 and this article by The Antagonist,
I have decided to challenge the media on their deceitful reporting of
events. Along with the Freedom of Information Act, the Press Complaints
Commission allow citizens like myself who are concerned with the truth,
to challenge those in authority. This is somethng we ALL can do.
Horizon, trumpeted by the Beeb as their flagship science programme, graphically reported and reconstructed the so-called bombers movements from Luton Thameslink station. The information they gave was false.
I am awaiting a reply from the BBC to the following complaint:
The more complaints that the BBC receive from those concerned with the truth, the nearer we may be to exposing this mass deceit and subsequent cover-up.
Horizon, trumpeted by the Beeb as their flagship science programme, graphically reported and reconstructed the so-called bombers movements from Luton Thameslink station. The information they gave was false.
I am awaiting a reply from the BBC to the following complaint:
On a recent Horizon programme entitled "The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?", the presenter clearly states with graphic images of digital clocks the following incorrect information:
The so-called bombers caught the 7.48 from Luton, they arrived at Kings X at 8.26 and separated at 8.30 at Kings X underground.
According to the released time tables from Luton the 7.48 was running 20 minutes late and arrived at Kings X at 8.42, making it impossible for these young men to have carried out the attacks as shown in your documentary. In fact no train left Luton that morning at 7.48.
You state on the BBC website that Horizon is BBC Two's flagship 50-minute science documentary series, surely you would check these facts before showing a forensic psychologist making the supposedly same journey as we are told these 4 young men did?
I emailed Horizon but have as yet received no reply, I would like this factually incorrect information to be aknowledged and publicly corrected.
The more complaints that the BBC receive from those concerned with the truth, the nearer we may be to exposing this mass deceit and subsequent cover-up.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Luton Commuters Interviewed By Telegraph 14/7/05
Some comments have been left on this blog which assume that I have
proved, via the timetables published here of the Thameslink services to
Kings Cross on the morning of the 7/7/05, that 4 young men must have
travelled on the 7.24 train which left Luton @ 7.25 arriving in Kings
Cross @ 8.23.
As this is the only train that they could have taken to arrive at Kings Cross in time to board each of the underground trains, it seems the only conclusion which backs up the official version of events on and since that day.
I have continually asked every official source for the times of trains in the belief that any investigation would publish these facts in an appeal for witnesses.
For those that still believe that they travelled on the 7.25 train, perhaps they could explain the following article and why witnesses are being asked to remember whether they saw these men who would have travelled 23 minutes earlier.
As this is the only train that they could have taken to arrive at Kings Cross in time to board each of the underground trains, it seems the only conclusion which backs up the official version of events on and since that day.
I have continually asked every official source for the times of trains in the belief that any investigation would publish these facts in an appeal for witnesses.
For those that still believe that they travelled on the 7.25 train, perhaps they could explain the following article and why witnesses are being asked to remember whether they saw these men who would have travelled 23 minutes earlier.
If only we had been alert, say regulars on 7:48 to King's Cross Luton
By Amy Iggulden
(Filed: 14/07/2005)
Commuters from Luton to King's Cross yesterday struggled to remember the four British men who carried bombs on their train less than a week before.
As their morning newspapers confirmed that the suicide bombers had travelled on the packed Thameslink train service, bankers, secretaries and doctors on the 07:48 service to London contemplated the possibility that the worst terrorist attack in British history might have been averted if only they had seen something.
Ian Richardson, a 34-year-old business analyst from Woburn in Bedfordshire, takes the commuter service into London every day.
"I felt very shocked, very emotional, when I saw that the bombers had used my train," he said.
"Last Thursday was just another journey like any other. I didn't see anything suspicious, or unusual. I just wish I had."
Another passenger, a 28-year-old banker from Luton, said the bombers' link to the train meant commuters would be more vigilant.
"A lot of people will be asking themselves this morning if they could have seen someone or done something," he said.
But among the yawning crush of 800 or so commuters and tourists on the Gatwick-bound train - with barely room to draw breath, or turn around - four men with rucksacks and flat northern vowels would melt too easily into the crowd.
Audrey Platmore, 46, a secretary at Pricewaterhouse-Coopers in the City, said it was unlikely that anyone would recall seeing the terrorists. "It's frightening. But when you travel regularly you don't even look at people."
Others admitted that the number of tourists destined for Gatwick, or boarding the train at Luton Airport Parkway, meant that they took no notice of luggage, which they assumed would be packed with holiday gear.
But many commuters are now wary. Louise Burns, 22, from Harpenden, Herts, travelling to a PR firm in the City, said: "You trust that everyone is a commuter like you, or a tourist."
Lisa Rabbitt, a 23-year-old public relations officer from Johannesburg, South Africa, moved to England only five months ago to take a job in Oxford Circus.
"I was horrified, really scared that [the bombers] had taken this service. I had already stopped taking the Tube since last Thursday but I wasn't worried about the commuter train. Now I feel very nervous," she said.
Dr Paola Nicolaides, 43, a consultant at Great Ormond Street Hospital, said: "I saw a man with a suitcase this morning and it really made me worried. Everyone now is scared and keeping watch."
After two trains were cancelled yesterday, the eight-carriage 07:48 service was fuller than usual. Two people fainted in the heat.
One Muslim man felt the pressure of the public gaze. Riaz Ahmed, 36, from Luton, said he was feeling increasingly uncomfortable.
"I have already experienced unwelcome attention on the train since the bombings. I know this will be worse now," he said.
Source: The Telegraph
Friday, October 28, 2005
An Interview With Fintan Dunne @ Breakfornews.com
The following link will take you to an interview with Fintan Dunne (no relation by the way) at breakfornews.com where we discuss the information that I have gathered during my investigation.
Listen to mp3 here on Stereo DSL
Full Interview in Audio below...
Listen to mp3 here on Stereo DSL
or Listen here on 56k Dialup
"The Next Level" Internet Radio Show
Dateline: Thursday 27th October 2005
Dateline: Thursday 27th October 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
A Reply from the Anti-Terrorist Branch
Dear Ms Bridget Dunne,
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2005080000735
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 30/08/2005. I note you seek access to the following information:
· Re: Events in London 7/7/2005. Why Police Web site does not give times that trains involved with Bombings left Kings Cross Station
I have seen and reviewed your original request which was responded to by Marion SIMEONE. I have also seen the e-mails which have passed between yourself and Ms Simeone.
I can see from your communications that you seek access to the precise details concerning the times which the various trains / tube-trains left the stations on the morning of the 7th July, and the times that the explosions occurred. You emphasis that you feel that you should be entitled to these details under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The information you are looking for is essentially already in the public domain. It was widely published in the media in July, and released in police appeals, including those which Ms Simeone brought to your attention. I would strongly recommend the BBC website, which not only gives the broad information you seek, but also gives written and pictorial accounts of the events of that morning and the days that followed. That may provide the material you seek. An enormous amount of information, accurate and otherwise, is already published on the internet.
I must however explain that the Freedom of Information Act does not generally open access to information held by the police related to ongoing investigations. An exemption exists under the Act (s30) which essentially states that information related to investigations shouldn't be released unless there is a compelling public interest. In fact there was a compelling public interest in making public information related to the London Bombings, including the details of the journey's concerned, and it was made public. You however are asking for a level of preciseness which we judge to take the 'public interest' no further. Whilst the precise times are known, and will be relevant to future Court hearings, whether a train departed at 0840 or 0845 would not in our judgement advance current public knowledge.
I need also to explain that the events you refer to are subject to both Criminal and Coroner's investigations. The Coroner in due dourse will hear the sort of details which you refer to as it is inportant evidence to the Coroner's inquest process. Coroner's Court hearings are normally held in Open when journalists and the public can be present. Subject to any directions made by the Coroner, he/she may authorise more detailed publication. The Freedom of Information Act does not generally provide open access to evidence in advance of Court proceedings.
You refer to the witness appeal process being aided by precise times. In fact were we to follow that process, we would potentially lose witnesses who might for example think they had nothing to contribute as they caught the 0841, not the 0843. Similarly we could be said to be 'influencing' witnesses by providing details which could then be incorporated into their accounts. The witness evidence gathering process is intended to be as neutral and uninfluenced as possible. For example, if a police appeal said 'we are looking for a blue car' when later events showed it to be green, 'preciseness' would have been extremely unhelpful and 'not in the public interest'. If you have information to provide in respect of the bombings, then we would welcome your information.
All the times I have shown in this response are purely illustruative.
You are of course perfectly entitled to follow the complaints procedure, but I have sought here to explain accurately and fairly the position in respect of events which we recognise have enormous public significance. I have also sought to explain the process by which we have balanced the public right to information against the need to ensure a fair judicial process. I believe the information available to you adequated meets your and the wider communities needs, and that the more scientific precise details will in course become public via the correct system, i.e. through the Courts.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Neil Smith on telephone number 0207 239 2717 quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
Anti-Terrorist Branch
New Scotland Yard
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2005080000735
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 30/08/2005. I note you seek access to the following information:
· Re: Events in London 7/7/2005. Why Police Web site does not give times that trains involved with Bombings left Kings Cross Station
I have seen and reviewed your original request which was responded to by Marion SIMEONE. I have also seen the e-mails which have passed between yourself and Ms Simeone.
I can see from your communications that you seek access to the precise details concerning the times which the various trains / tube-trains left the stations on the morning of the 7th July, and the times that the explosions occurred. You emphasis that you feel that you should be entitled to these details under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The information you are looking for is essentially already in the public domain. It was widely published in the media in July, and released in police appeals, including those which Ms Simeone brought to your attention. I would strongly recommend the BBC website, which not only gives the broad information you seek, but also gives written and pictorial accounts of the events of that morning and the days that followed. That may provide the material you seek. An enormous amount of information, accurate and otherwise, is already published on the internet.
I must however explain that the Freedom of Information Act does not generally open access to information held by the police related to ongoing investigations. An exemption exists under the Act (s30) which essentially states that information related to investigations shouldn't be released unless there is a compelling public interest. In fact there was a compelling public interest in making public information related to the London Bombings, including the details of the journey's concerned, and it was made public. You however are asking for a level of preciseness which we judge to take the 'public interest' no further. Whilst the precise times are known, and will be relevant to future Court hearings, whether a train departed at 0840 or 0845 would not in our judgement advance current public knowledge.
I need also to explain that the events you refer to are subject to both Criminal and Coroner's investigations. The Coroner in due dourse will hear the sort of details which you refer to as it is inportant evidence to the Coroner's inquest process. Coroner's Court hearings are normally held in Open when journalists and the public can be present. Subject to any directions made by the Coroner, he/she may authorise more detailed publication. The Freedom of Information Act does not generally provide open access to evidence in advance of Court proceedings.
You refer to the witness appeal process being aided by precise times. In fact were we to follow that process, we would potentially lose witnesses who might for example think they had nothing to contribute as they caught the 0841, not the 0843. Similarly we could be said to be 'influencing' witnesses by providing details which could then be incorporated into their accounts. The witness evidence gathering process is intended to be as neutral and uninfluenced as possible. For example, if a police appeal said 'we are looking for a blue car' when later events showed it to be green, 'preciseness' would have been extremely unhelpful and 'not in the public interest'. If you have information to provide in respect of the bombings, then we would welcome your information.
All the times I have shown in this response are purely illustruative.
You are of course perfectly entitled to follow the complaints procedure, but I have sought here to explain accurately and fairly the position in respect of events which we recognise have enormous public significance. I have also sought to explain the process by which we have balanced the public right to information against the need to ensure a fair judicial process. I believe the information available to you adequated meets your and the wider communities needs, and that the more scientific precise details will in course become public via the correct system, i.e. through the Courts.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Neil Smith on telephone number 0207 239 2717 quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
Anti-Terrorist Branch
New Scotland Yard
Exposing London 7/7: UK Jury Sides With False Flag Whistleblower. The Ripple Effect
‘To know who rules over you, find out who you aren’t allowed to criticize.’ Voltaire
London Bombings done by UK Government
Galaxian » May 19 2011Britain’s Largest Terror Attack Likely “Mossad/MI-5″ Operation
Anthony John Hill, “Maud dib” Found Not Guilty for Exposing 7/7 “Inside Job”
“The story has been censored from the American media. Few Americans know of or remember the “British 9/11.” Fewer still are aware that a powerful legal case has been made showing full government complicity in the planning and execution of the attack and the extent the British government has gone to in order to suppress information about one of the worst kept secrets in history.
“Ripple Effect” (below) considered a threat to British “security” led to one of the most incomprehensible criminal cases in recent years.
On July 7, 2005, Britain suffered its largest terror attack, what they call “7/7,” their “9/11.” However, a wealth of evidence, much incontrovertible, has shown these terror attacks to have been something else, “false flag” terror meant to support the Blair government’s policy of continuing and even expand its participation in the “Global War on Terror.”
The 4 Muslim “suicide bombers” once believed responsible for the incident are now believed to have been recruited as part of a well documented mock terror drill scheduled for that day that included 1000 participants, some of them paid actors hired to carry dummy explosives.
After 151 days in dismal Wandsworth Prison, much of it in solitary confinement, John Anthony Hill is finally free. The crime he was accused of was the mailing of a “7/7 truther” DVD from Ireland to the United Kingdom. Yes, you are hearing me right, he was extradited from Ireland for sending a copy of the film, “Ripple Effect,” which outlines complicity by the Blair government in terror attacks that killed 56 back in 2005, including 4 “suicide bombers” now believed by many to have been murdered in a bizarre plot.
More frightening still is the idea that mailing a DVD, available worldwide on Youtube to anyone, could be considered “perverting the course of justice.”
Hill was found not guilty, not because his actions were considered legal but rather because his testimony made a powerful case against the British government. The jury was pressed to convict Hill but refused. The 10 members who sided with Hill and refused the instructions of the Crown did so, out of utter shock at the powerful case Hill made demonstrating that, not only 7/7 was an “inside job” but 9/11 as well. Hill took on both attacks and 10 of 12 jury members sided with what has been often called “conspiracy theory.” found here
Original Word Document available here
Chronology
found at Friends of Muad’Dib
7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT
( Download>> 77 Ripple Effect.avi (694.9 MB) )
7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT 2
Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7, an Investigation – 3rd Edition available on Available for purchase on AmazonNow in an updated edition with a critique of the official 7/7 Inquest of Winter 2010-2011, Terror on the Tube remains the only book with the glaring evidence that all four Muslim scapegoats were innocent. 7/7 is Bliar’s Big Lie and Reichstag Fire, False Flag Terror as pretext for war and an Orwellian, neo-fascist British police state. If 9/11 was the great pretext for war and fascism in the USA, London’s 7/7 bombings brought Britain quickly closer to an Orwellian police state. Is there a basis to the “war on terror” – or is the state itself terrorizing the British populace? The answer is in this compelling investigation. In its indictment of the prime suspects – the UK, US and Israeli secret services. In its demolition of the fabricated evidence they brought into play. In its posthumous exoneration of four innocent young men, sacrificed and framed to shore up the rule of a crime cabal over our planet. In this appeal against the fascist propaganda trick of false-flag terror. Author Nick Kollerstrom has assembled the evidence and solved the mystery of the 7/7 bombings: something Britain’s billion-budget security apparatus will never do
No comments:
Post a Comment