J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Click here to sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE / INQUIRY Petition

Latest J7 news....

J7: 7/7 Inquests - News & Analysis
Recent J7 Blog Entries

Bookmark and Share

03/10/11: New 7/7 Video released by Tom Secker: 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

03/06/11: J7 announce the launch of the Official blog of the Free Mohammed Campaign.

21/03/11: J7 publish our Submission to the Inquests regarding resumption of the inquests into the four.

29/10/10: J7 publish 7/7 Inquests transcripts as searchable, print-friendly PDFs.

16/10/10: J7 launch the dedicated new J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog for latest Inquests news and analysis.

07/10/10: J7 publish our Submissions to the 7 July Inquests, a series of documents compiled following Lady Justice Hallett's decision to accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquests.

10/08/10: A new film 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction has been released that places 7/7 in its wider historical and political context, and examines some of the many unanswered questions that still surround 7 July 2005.

01/08/10: J7 publish a review of another 7/7 related book, Out of the Tunnel, by Rachel 'North'.

07/07/10: J7 publish a detailed analysis of the number 30 bus explosion in Tavistock Square.

01/11/09: J7 respond to two 7/7 articles published in Notes from the Borderland issues 7 and 8. Read our response here.

01/11/09: Debunking 7/7 Debunking: An article in two parts that debunks some of the disingenuous attacks against those not convinced by the official story of 7/7. Read Part 1 here and read Part 2 here. October 2010 update: Debunking 7/7 Debunking Part 3.

04/07/09: J7 publish a revised, updated and expanded list of nine possible Alternative Hypotheses.

03/03/09: J7 publish an exclusive interview with political prisoner Hussain al-Samamra, a Palestinian who sought political asylum in the UK, only to be imprisoned for two years without charge by the British State.

13/01/09: J7 challenge assertions made by Paul Stott in his paper and presentation to the Anarchist Studies Network conference at Loughborough University

14/04/08: Latest J7 article in the Capitalising on Terror series published: Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

07/03/08: J7 publish two new articles summarising the results of the 7/7 investigation, "Three years of investigation, 7 arrests, 3 charges" - Part 1 and Part 2. See also the latest update.

07/02/08: J7 Exclusive Report: Peter Power's CV Fakery - 7/7 terror rehearsal man and regular BBC 'terror' consultant was suspended from Dorset Police pending an internal inquiry that resulted in a file being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Full story here.

04/01/08: In July 2007 the BBC approached J7 asking for participants in a 'documentary' about 7/7. Six months after initial contact, the BBC revealed the 'documentary' was part of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series. On learning this, J7 declined to participate. Find out why in the full J7 response to the BBC.

03/12/07: 7/7 Ripple Effect - J7 issue a rebuttal and rejection of the film and its unsubstantiated speculation.

05/11/07: Latest J7 Flyer published. View here, download PDF here and here

11/09/07: J7 book review - J7 reviews The 4th Bomb, a book by Daniel Obachike.

11/09/07: J7 reconstruct and republish the 7-7 discussion from the forum of cult writer/director Alex Cox.

24/08/07: Over a year since Dr John Reid acknowledged a fundamental error in the official Home Office 7/7 narrative, J7 receive a response to a series of Freedom of Information requests which includes an amendment to the repeatedly discredited narrative. Read the story and the revised section of the Home Office narrative on the J7 blog.

16/08/07: Channel 4 News' Darshna Soni blogs about the need for a 7/7 public inquiry and asks how independent or public such an inquiry would be under the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that puts the government in control of 'independent' inquiries - 7/7 and the public inquiry dilemma, formerly titled, "Why it's time for a public inquiry into 7/7"

13/08/07: "Anyone who thinks the [Home Office] report is a full account is not being serious or realistic." On the launch of his new film The Homefront, the Cousin of 7/7 victim Anthony Fatayi Williams, filmmaker Thomas Ikimi, tells J7 about his film and the experiences of his family at the hands of the government since 7/7.

30/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of King's Cross / Russell Square incidents

04/06/07: July 7th Truth Campaign interviewed on Channel 4 News as a new survey shows 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. Watch Darshna Soni's original report, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7', read viewer comments on the piece that show it's not just Muslims who don't believe we have been told the truth. See also Darshna Soni's follow-up blog and 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the many errors and anomalies in the official story.

03/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Edgware Road / Paddington incidents

28/05/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Liverpool Street / Aldgate / Aldgate East incidents

02/05/07: Full transcript and video of Tayab Ali's post-crevice statement on behalf of Salahuddin Amin

01/05/07: Video, audio and full transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of Nabeel Hussain, who was acquitted of all charges in the Crevice trial

01/05/07: Transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 men convicted in the Operation Crevice trial, given at the end of the trial on 30/04/07, which includes a statement by J7 on the renewed calls for a public inquiry into the events of 7/7

07/03/07: J7 publish a new article by Professor David MacGregor, 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' an article in which the events of 7/7 are given historical context and examined as potential acts of, 'Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself'.

26/02/07: J7 is pleased and honoured to announce the publication of "The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained", an article written for the July 7th Truth Campaign by writer and journalist William Bowles.

24/02/07: Brand new J7 article Capitalising on Terror - Who is really destroying our freedoms? - A look at how 7/7 has been used as the justification for the imposition of Draconian laws that criminalise everyone.

06/02/07: J7 publishes the London Bombings Dossier - an extensive portfolio of research by David Minahan, former National President of the MSF (Amicus) Union.

11/01/07: Above Top Secret publish an interview with J7 Truth Campaign team.

Full J7 news archive

New Statesman Media Awards 2006 Nominated

j7 logo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

J7 7/7 CCTV 'Evidence' Analysis

Note: This article was originally published before the so-called "7/7 helpers" trial in which the jury were dismissed on 1st August 2008 after failing to reach a decision, despite being given a majority direction by the judge. During this trial additional CCTV images were released, some of which purported to be from the day of 7th July 2005. As such, this page will be updated in due course. However, suffice to say, the CCTV images released during the trial failed to provide conclusive proof, beyond reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the four men accused of perpetrating the attacks. This fact may go some way to explaining why the jury failed to reach a decision and these issues will be addressed when the updated CCTV analysis is published.

The CCTV images deconstructed

To date, no CCTV images of the four alleged suicide bombers have ever been released showing all four of the accused in London on July 7th 2005. In fact, only one CCTV image has ever been released which purports to show all four of the accused together outside Luton Station, approximately 30 miles from the scenes of the crimes, in which three faces are completely unidentifiable.

watchful eyes of cctvOf the three images released by the authorities since July 7th 2005, none of them offer any sort of proof that all, or indeed any of the alleged perpetrators, were in London at the time of the attacks.

Furthermore, the images, as released to the general public by the authorities, would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law and could not be used to secure a successful prosecution against anyone.

These facts are of great concern to the July 7th Truth Campaign as, without a truly Independent Public Inquiry, outside of the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005, the requisite judicial process to establish the facts about what happened on July 7th, will never occur.

The July 7th Truth Campaign believes that these images will not suffice as the only evidence to corroborate the Home Office report published by the Home Office on May 11th 2006 (download as PDF).

London - Surveillance Capital of the World

London is equipped with more CCTV cameras than any other city on Earth and has been described as "the surveillance capital of the world".

Recent estimates about the proliferation of CCTV cameras around the world suggest that approximately 20% of all CCTV cameras are located in Britain, with London having the most densely packed, privacy-invading CCTV network in the world, yet it has still failed to provide evidence of all four young, British men accused of the July 7th attacks actually in London.

On July 11th, before the identities of the suspects had been revealed, the police spoke of how they hoped to acquire more information by viewing the CCTV, installed throughout the London underground system.

"If they weren't suicide bombers, then they must have got on and off these trains," Andy Trotter, deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police, said. "That means their pictures can be grabbed from CCTV cameras. The Underground network is a CCTV-rich environment, and so this is going to be an intense investigation to look at the images."

Source: World Tribune

It is worth noting the first sentence of this quote which seems to imply that there would only be footage of the perpetrators 'if they weren't suicide bombers'. This makes no sense because even if the perpetrators did turn out to be suicide bombers, there would still be footage of them at least getting on the trains, if not off them.

Further, despite this intense investigation and the acknowledgement by DAC Andy Trotter of the "CCTV-rich" environment that would reveal the identity of the alleged perpetrators, which should have yielded thousands of images showing the movements of the four men, only three still-images, purporting to be CCTV stills from July 7th, have ever been released into the public domain.

The official Home Office report has outlined numerous places where the men were captured on CCTV camera. It has also described situations where it is implied that they were captured on CCTV camera, as well as occasions where it claims they should have been captured on CCTV, but that, curiously, no CCTV exists to support such a statement.

OFFICIAL AND MEDIA REPORTS OF CCTV IMAGES

The Home Office report claims the first CCTV footage of the day is taken at 3.58am by a camera in Hyde Park Road, Leeds. It states the car - a light blue Nissan Micra - is "believed to have been carrying Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Hasib Hussain". This implies that the occupants of the car were not identified, else a definitive version of this statement should have been made.

The next reported sighting by CCTV occurs at 04.54 at the petrol station at Woodall Services on the M1, where Tanweer pays for petrol. The Home Office report describes what he is wearing, mentions that he buys snacks and drinks and that he "looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves". The description of Shehzad Tanweer's outfit given at this point in the Home Office report does not match what Tanweer is wearing in the CCTV still image released by the Metropolitan Police on July 16th, apparently showing them entering Luton station. The Home Office report acknowledges this discrepancy but simply says, "There is no explanation for this change at present."

The Home Office report gives very precise timings for the arrival of Lindsay's car at 5.07am and of the Nissan Micra at 6.49am. These times must have been taken from the timestamp of a CCTV camera to have been so precise. The newspaper reports also gave a very exact time for the arrival of the men, but stated that instead that the Micra arrived at 6.51am.

The Home Office report was able to state what Lindsay did in the time he was waiting in the car park alone. Again, this information must have come from the CCTV cameras, unless Germaine Lindsay was under surveillance by State operatives, as the Home Office report states:

05.07: 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."

Therefore, there should be '90 minutes or so' of CCTV footage showing Lindsay in and around Luton station and car park to corroborate the Home Office report, between the times of 05.07 and 06.49, the time at which the others are reported to have arrived, yet none of this CCTV has ever been released, even in appeals for eye-witnesses where such images could have been used to jog the memory of eye-witnesses.

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.

Therefore, there exists CCTV footage of all four men in and around Luton car park between 06.49 and 07.22, another 33 minutes of footage that has never been released into the public domain.

The Home Office report states that the men entered Luton station at 7.15am, but doesn't refer to this being captured on CCTV.

The Home Office report states that the men "enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together". This is actually a scenario that doesn't make a great deal of sense, since the Home Office report continues "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."

There is a set of ticket barriers directly inside the entrance to Luton station. The Home Office report suggests this is the set of barriers the men went through. They would have needed tickets to have used this route since it leads directly to the northbound platform from which they could have then accessed the southbound platform without passing the ticket office. Otherwise, after entering Luton station they would have needed to turn right (as shown in the footage released from 28 June, see below), climb a flight of steps which leads to the ticket hall before then going through the ticket barriers that lead to the bridge for the southbound platform.

Therefore, the Home Office report is suggesting that the men went through this first set of barriers and that they must have already had tickets to do so. As is clear from the above quote from the Home Office report, which describes what Lindsay did whilst waiting for the other three men, there is no mention that he entered the station and bought any tickets. If the men had bought tickets previously to July 7th, there should be either CCTV of them in a station buying tickets, or a tangible record of the tickets having been purchased online, or over the phone, along with credit card transaction that such a purchase would necessitate.

There was some confusion with delayed and cancelled trains on the morning of 7 July, which may have led to trains leaving from different platforms than usual, but the men would have been unlikely to have known this until they were in the station. The departure board that it is claimed Lindsay looked at would not necessarily have given details of the cancellation and delays.

Even more curiously, the Home Office report states that the men entered the station at 7.15am, yet the timestamp on the image of them entering Luton station, printed on the same page of the Home Office report, shows the time at 07.21:54. The report then, rather bewilderingly, states that the image shows the men "caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King’s Cross Thameslink train," at 7.21am. In fact, this image shows them clearly outside the entrance to Luton station and nowhere near the platform.

There is no mention of CCTV footage taken from the actual station platform, apart from the statement on page 10 of the Home Office report:

It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group traveling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry.

The CCTV footage alluded to here appears to correlate with that mentioned in an earlier report in the Times:

"The CCTV camera on the platform at Luton filmed the four, unobtrusive young men as they prepared to board the 7.40 to King’s Cross. The camera also picked up a fifth man, standing alongside them, who then peeled off and vanished into the crowd"

Source: The Times

It is a little perplexing that the Home Office report does not mention this CCTV in the timeline of the day of July 7th when documenting the actions of the men at Luton station, yet touches upon it almost casually when referring to the events in its entry for July 12th.

There must also have been CCTV cameras on the train, yet these, or any footage obtained from them, are not mentioned by the Home Office report. It only speaks of witnesses on the train who gave conflicting accounts. Some spoke of "noisy conversations" without indicating that the men were even seen and another "believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors." Witness accounts should back up the footage that should exist of the accused on the train. It is still unclear also how any witnesses could have been on the 7.40 train to see the men - and how the men themselves could have been on it to be witnessed - since there was no 7.40 train from Luton to Kings Cross Thameslink station on July 7th.

Note: On 11 July 2006, the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, stood before Parliament and admitted that the Home Office report is wrong and that the accused did not ride the 7.40am train from Luton to King's Cross:

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.

Source: Hansard

The next mention in the Home Office report of CCTV showing the men is "on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system." This was captured at 8.26am. The Home Office report then goes on to say that the men are seen again at 8.30am, but does not state whether they are seen by a CCTV camera or a witness. If the men used the subway to get from Thameslink to Kings Cross mainline, there are numerous cameras that should have caught them traveling this way. Similarly, if they had gone over-ground, there are many banks of cameras that should have illustrated this journey also.

It had been reported by the media that when searching through CCTV footage at Kings Cross station, the police apparently had their breakthrough on the evening of Monday, 11th July:

"On Monday night came the breakthrough police were waiting for - when the CCTV at King's Cross showed the four young men setting off in different directions"

Source: The Guardian

This was a day before the police say they found forensic evidence and property at three of the blast sites that identified the men. The police have never released these reportedly key CCTV images, despite this report stating that the images were likely to be released on July 13th. This was either complete speculation, or the media had somehow been given to understand that it was going to be released. If the latter is the case and plans existed to release the footage, yet another explanation is required as to why this never occurred.

The next day, at a Metropolitan police press conference, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said:

"We have identified CCTV footage showing the four men at King's Cross station shortly before 8.30am on that morning of July 7th."

Source: Metropolitan Police

However, news reports of the time of the CCTV film contradicted the statement by Peter Clarke - and each other. Some reports state that the footage was captured at 8.20am on the forecourt of Kings Cross mainline station:

"Yet on Monday, astonished officers made an incredible discovery. Studying the footage from a camera located high above the dark, grubby station forecourt at King's Cross they noticed, at 8:20am, 20 minutes before the three tube bombs exploded, a man matching Hussain's description. And he was not alone. With him were three other men: 22-year-old Shehzad Tanweer, 30-year-old Mohammed Sidique Khan, and Germaine Lindsay, believed to be 19. All had large military-style rucksacks on their backs, as if preparing for a few days' backpacking.

They spoke for several minutes, their heads close together. There are reports that the footage even shows them laughing. Then, with no elaborate farewells, they split up and entered the tube station."

Source: The Scotsman

Such reports are inaccurate and misleading. Giving the time the men were seen at Kings Cross mainline - as opposed to the Thameslink station - as 8.20am, and rather ironically clarifying this with "20 minutes before the tubes exploded" - which is also incorrect - implies that it is more likely the men could all have caught the tube trains they were alleged to have boarded, since this discrepancy of 10 minutes gives them more time to have reached the tube platforms. The Home Office report, of course, states that the men were still at King's Cross Thameslink station at 8.26am.

Other reports describe the men caught on CCTV on the main concourse of Kings Cross, which, of course, doesn't correlate with the men "splitting up" since they would all have had to go through the same entrance to the Underground.

Detectives reportedly viewed tapes from more than 5,000 cameras after seizing about 80,000 recordings for review. On July 17th, it was reported that the police had "no plans" to release the footage they claimed to have of the men together at Kings Cross, prompting speculation that this may be because it showed a fifth man with them; a notion that was dismissed by the Home Office report which states that there was no fifth man.

Patrick Mercer MP questioned Hazel Blears, the Minister of State, about whether this footage existed on April 18th, 2006. The response was that it did exist but was not being released, except for one still image of one of the men, due to the ongoing investigation.

The Home Office report, once again, omits to mention any of the men being captured by CCTV on any of the platforms they would have waited on the board the trains. The Aldgate train left at 8.35am, the Edgware Road train at 8.42am and the Piccadilly line train at 8.48am. If, as the Home Office report states, the men were seen at Kings Cross at 8.30am, there should certainly be considerable footage of Lindsay, who strangely appears to have elected not to have boarded the first available train, but to have waited almost 20 minutes before boarding one.

The Home Office report only mentions CCTV footage of the platform at Liverpool Street station with the eastbound Circle line train alongside it seconds before it is blown up. It simply states "Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second carriage from the front." This is quite an assumption, given that the Home Office report offers no other evidence to suggest that Tanweer had boarded that train. Moreover, the Home Office report gives detailed descriptions of the activity on the platform at Liverpool Street before and after the explosion, yet gives no similar details for any of the other stations close to the sites of the incidents, including Kings Cross.

In the instance of Hasib Hussain, there were 81 minutes unaccounted for at the time the police gave their press conference on July 14th. There should potentially be rather more footage of Hasib Hussain than his three suspected accomplices, given that he is claimed to have wandered around the Kings Cross area before allegedly boarding a number 30 bus. The Home Office report states that at 8.55am, Hussain walks out of Kings Cross Underground onto Euston Road. The time of him leaving the station must have been taken from a CCTV camera which caught him leaving, but no footage or still image has been shown. At 9am he is reported to have re-entered the station through a Boots store. A CCTV still was released alleged showing Hussain exiting the store onto the main concourse of Kings Cross station.

This image is again curious because, if the Home Office report is to be believed, three simultaneous suicide bombs are alleged to have exploded on the Underground 10 minutes previously. Yet the CCTV that allegedly shows Hasib Hussain entering the main concourse at King's Cross on July 7th shows other members of the public shopping in a perfectly normal manner and there is no indication of any panic or mass exit from the station.

There are no references to further sightings of Hussain on CCTV. The CCTV on the number 30 bus was reportedly not working that day, with no explanation as to why. This is quite ironic given the poster campaigns throughout the city of London promoting the existence of CCTV on four out of five buses, advertising the 'security' they offer passengers.

Consider also the information contained in the email received from Stagecoach by an independent J7 researcher which suggests that the CCTV hard drive was indeed recovered by the police.

Dear [name withheld]

Thank you for your e-mail of the 16th July 2005 concerning the CCTV cameras on board London buses.

I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the Route 30 service, the route involved in the terrorist attacks, and explain the wider efforts made by London Bus Services Ltd (part of TfL) to improve security.

The Route 30 Stagecoach bus did have CCTV equipment fitted and the hard drive was recovered from the vehicle and passed to the Metropolitan Police.  As this matter is in the hands of the Police, we cannot comment on the matter for legal reasons and will therefore be unable to provide answers to your questions.

However, speaking generally, CCTV equipment on buses is not designed to withstand a major blast of the type experienced on July 7 this year.  It is not known whether the equipment was damaged and, if so, to what extent as a result of the explosion.

It is worth noting that 96 per cent of the 8,000 buses in London are fitted with CCTV. This will rise to 100 per cent by December 2005.  The set up of the cameras also means they cannot be accessed or switched off by the vehicle driver.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us and I trust that you have found the information provided useful.

Yours sincerely

[name withheld]
Customer Services Manager

ANALYSIS OF THE CCTV IMAGES RELEASED

hasib hussainOnly three Closed Circuit TV images have ever been released to support the story of an attack on London perpetrated by four young, British men who are alleged to have carried out the first suicide bombings in Europe.

Initially, only two images were released, within a couple of days of each other; the first being an extremely closely cropped still of Hasib Hussain, showing no unique point of reference to identify the location at which the photo was taken, nor any time or date stamp. The second image purports to be a group photo of all four of the accused outside Luton station.

CCTV Still #1: Hasib Hussain

At a press conference on July 14th, DAC Peter Clarke announced , "The picture shows Hussain at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am on the morning of July 7. We know he traveled from West Yorkshire and that he arrived in London with three other men. You can see from the CCTV image that he was carrying a rucksack."

It is hard to understand why DAC Clarke is speaking of the time of the image as being "approximately 7.20am". There should have been a timestamp on this image giving an exact time and this would be a crucial detail in any appeal for eye-witnesses.

There is no explanation for why the photo was cropped in the manner shown, nor any explanation of where the other three men who are alleged to have been with him inside Luton station that morning might be, nor why all unique points of reference have been removed from the image which might indicate from whence it was taken.

This photo offers no proof of Hussain's location. It certainly cannot be offered as proof that he was in either Luton or London on July 7th.

CCTV Still #2: 07:21:54 Outside Luton Station

luton cctv imagesOn July 16th, at another Metropolitan police press conference, DAC Peter Clarke stated, "We are this evening releasing a CCTV image showing the four men at Luton train station at approximately 7.20am. We know they traveled together from here on a Thameslink train to King's Cross in central London."

Again, DAC Clarke is speaking of the time in approximations; all CCTV images have time stamps and, in an appeal for witnesses and information, it would be reasonable to provide as much information as possible to ensure eye-witnesses came forward.

There are many anomalies regarding the image. Firstly, it is peculiar that there is just this one still image as opposed to the reams of moving footage released showing just three of the men entering Luton station on June 28th 2005.

Points of debate or note include:

The asphalt paving in the area adjacent to, and to the right of the entrance to Luton train station shown in the preceding image has been the cause of some debate in regard to why the foreground appears both lighter and dryer, whilst the background is both darker and wetter - the sharp light/dark, wet/dry boundary line running across the pavement. A plausible explanation for this is that:

  1. Areas that appear dryer and lighter (foreground) - where there is no sign of standing water but still evidence of moisture (reflections), have been treated with more openly structured asphalt containing less tar in the mix, making it porous - quite possibly deliberately so to prevent the formation of sheet ice in the cold, and to keep interior floors dryer in wet weather.
  2. Other areas that are wetter and darker (background) - where water has pooled have a more compacted, tighter surface treatment, a higher tar content, and possibly finer aggregate in their composition making them more watertight, as well as poor level consistency - or subsidence - and pitch/slope.

These differences in composition would be far less apparent in fine weather conditions and only in the event of reasonably persistent rainfall would the variance become highly visible.

Alternatively, the different appearance of the two areas may be simply down to the age of the surfacing - the background being more recently resurfaced.

CCTV Still #3: Outside Boots at King's Cross Station

hasib hussain bootsOn October 2nd, just under three months after the London bombings, another still image was released of Hasib Hussain on his own. He is apparently exiting the Boots store at Kings Cross mainline station. Like the earlier image of him, there is no date or time-stamp on the image. Therefore, this image could have been produced at any time. The media stated that the image was captured at 9am on July 7th, but by this time, Kings Cross station was being evacuated, and there are reports of "pandemonium", of which there is no sign in the picture.

There has been no explanation as to why this image was released so long after the others. According to the reports that accompanied the image, the police were hoping that it would jog the memories of potential witnesses. Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Met said, "It is possible that he bought items in Boots or other shops, or that he spoke to people. We would urge anyone with any information to come forward."

hussain's blue and white shirtsIf the public's memories are to be jogged, especially three months after the event, it would surely make more sense to release as many images as possible, not just of Hussain at Boots, but all the other locations in which he would have been captured on camera. The image of Hussain at Boots only places him within that context and may not prompt the memory of a person who saw him, or any of the other accused men, somewhere else in the area that morning.

Remember, quite apart from the journey from Luton to King's Cross, the Home Office report has Hasib Hussain wandering around Central London for nearly an hour after the incidents underground. There are hundreds of CCTV cameras in and around King's Cross station and on the section of road between King's Cross and Euston and along which Hasib Hussain is alleged to have walked before boarding a diverted number 30 bus.

THE JUNE 28TH IMAGES

On September 21st 2005, CCTV footage was released showing three of the four suspects at both Luton Thameslink station, and Kings Cross, taken from June 28th 2005. This footage has repeatedly been rolled in news coverage of the events of July 7th, minus the time and date stamps, giving the impression that it might be footage of the accused on July 7th.

J7 researchers and campaigners have lodged numerous complaints to any media organisations adopting this fraudulent and deliberately misleading tactic.

The images from June 28th have been widely reported as being a 'dummy run' for the events of July 7th yet, aside from the act of traveling Luton to London as the footage clearly shows, there is little actual resemblance to what they are alleged to have done on July 7th.

On June 28th, Hasib Hussain was not present. The three men did not arrive at Luton station until after 8:10am, some 30 minutes after the train that the Home Office report states that they caught on July 7th, the cancelled 07.40 train, now amended to 7.25am.

Therefore it is hard to imagine exactly what it is they were rehearsing, especially since they did not split up at King's Cross and go their separate ways as they are alleged to have done on July 7th. Furthermore, on 28th June they are reported to have visited Baker Street.

Peter Clarke, head of London's anti-terrorist branch, said surveillance television footage showed three of the four bombers visited London on June 28 and stayed in the city centre for nearly four hours.

"The obvious suggestion is they possibly were conducting a reconnaissance on that day. We know that's part of terrorist methodology," said Clarke. "It was a dry run."

He said they travelled by train from Luton and arrived at Kings Cross station in London just before 9 am. They were then captured by closed circuit television cameras at Baker Street underground station and again at Kings Cross before 1 pm.

Source: New Zealand Herald

This begs a number of questions, not least of which is: What business did three of the men accused of perpetrating the London bombings have in London and/or Baker Street just over a week before July 7th?

luton cctv animationWhen the image from July 7th is overlaid with a still from the June 28th footage, even more oddities emerge. Lindsay is carrying exactly the same carrier bag in the same hand in both. Tanweer's outfit on the 7th appears to be a negative image of what he was wearing on the 28th. Notice also how the kerb stones appear disjointed at the point where the vertical kerb arcs to the right in the image purporting to be from July 7th 2005.

THE KHAN VIDEO

On September 1st 2005, a video of Khan was released. At the time, this was accepted by the media to be proof of al-Qa'ida involvement in the attacks, since the tape also contained footage of Ayman al-Zawahri, the alleged deputy to bin Laden. The Home Office report disregarded this idea, stating that the men had carried out the operation alone, with no explanation for how al-Zawahri appears in the tape or who edited the tape to make it seem as if al-Qa'ida were involved.

In the video, Khan makes a rather rambling statement, referring to himself as a soldier at war. However, despite his allusions to his responsibility to protect and avenge his Muslim brothers and sisters, giving life to his words with blood and the mention of three al-Qa'ida operatives whose names are well known to Westerners, there is no mention of any specific intentions he has. He does not refer to the crime he is suspected of perpetrating and it is not even clear who exactly he is addressing in the video. He says:

"Until we feel security, you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

Source: BBC News

'khan' videoWho, exactly, the 'you' is that he is apparently directing his speech at is not clear. Khan is not looking straight at the camera; his eyes move around as if he is addressing a group of people in front of him. It is fairly obvious that the British public, and more particularly, the commuters and tourists of London, do not engage in the torture that he speaks of, yet we are led to believe it is 'us' he is speaking to. The idea that Khan saw ordinary Western citizens as different to himself - or even his enemies - is contradicted by friends of Khan, who told of how 'Western' Khan, known by his Anglicised name of 'Sid' considered himself, and returning home from a trip to the USA besotted with all things American.

This tape would not be admissible in a court of law as evidence that Khan carried out a suicide bomb attack, since he never directly mentions any such crime. It should also not be assumed that the tape provides proof of the involvement of the other three men, since Khan does not mention them, only making a vague reference to "brothers". The video has also been dismissed by the authorities as having been edited or tampered with in some way and therefore has been discounted as being any sort of evidence at all.

tanweer videoThere were rumours that a similar video had been made by Tanweer, yet this only materialised on the eve of the first anniversary of the attacks. There are many similarities between the Tanweer and Khan videos and, consequently, many of the same anomalies, including the fact that there is no reference to the attacks of July 7th. Further analysis of the Tanweer video will be added in due course.

With regard to the Khan video, those that knew him have been sceptical about the video:

"It's a fake," said one. "Look at the way his lips were moving; they looked odd, the whole thing is a fake."

"It's crap," said Mohammed Afsal, a father of five and member of the Hardy Street mosque.

"I know people can change in a second, but I can't say he is one of them. He taught my son, he was a very good teacher. He was never hardline - no one could say he was an extremist - he was peaceful and dedicated to the children. They all loved him."

Source: The Guardian

Other friends have stated that Khan had a "changed appearance" and looked "significantly different" in the video to how he did in July and and even people who didn't know Khan have suggested that the video might not be all that it seems.

For information on how real-time video can be manipulated, please see these links:

http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Summary and Conclusion

To conclude, all the video and photographs which relate to the alleged perpetrators of the July 7th attacks, for all the reasons outlined above, cannot objectively be taken as proof that the accused actually did carry out the attacks. Considering all the inconsistencies which surround the events of 7/7/, that the official story of 7/7is sparse and contradictory, and that there is no other evidence that attests to the story outlined in the Home Office narrative, this is very unsettling.

The public have only been shown the barest minimum of CCTV images for that day, when the police are apparently still trying to establish the movements of the men in their ongoing investigation.

No credible explanation has ever been given for the lack of disclosure of any of the CCTV evidence that would conclusively prove the account outlined in the Home Office report of the London bombings.

It is perhaps worth comparing the three images released from July 7th with the images released of three of the accused from 28th June (download WMV file of 28 June footage), and with the images released showing the perpetrators of the 'demonstrative act' carried out by the 'no bombs bombers' of July 21st. It is also interesting to note that 43 people were arrested immediately following the non-attack of July 21 when no bombs went off, no one was killed and no one was injured yet, at the time of writing, there have been no arrests in connection the attack on 7/7 which killed 56.

As a brief aside, a J7 researcher highlighted the following:

An interesting exercise is to compare two completely different investigative approaches. Contrast the information released in the quest for July 7th eye-witnesses with the appeals after the shooting of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky. In the latter case, precise details were given of times and locations as well as specifics about the car alleged to have been used, right down to the number plate. Rewards of £50,000 were offered for information about those responsible.

In the case of July 7th, J7 researchers have been advised by a Detective Inspector at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of Scotland Yard that, with regard to July 7th, 'preciseness is not in the public interest'!

Hard to believe, perhaps, in 'the largest criminal inquiry in English history', but here is the full quote:

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'.

Offers of a £50,000 reward for information and full disclosure of information in the hunt for the killers of one policewoman, yet no rewards for information, nor anything that vaguely resembles full disclosure of information - apparently because it is not in the public interest - when it concerns the deaths of 56 people and the injury of over 700. How strange.

This, like many aspects of 7/7, is extremely illogical and the July 7th Truth Campaign continues to call on the government and the authorities to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE which conclusively proves, or disproves, the story outlined in the Home Office report.

|


Please sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition
j7 logo J7:Inquests Blog | J7:Blog | J7:FB Group | J7:FB Page | J7:Forum | Contact J7 | Espanol | italiano | portuguese | Francaise | german |