Cox Forum Forum Index Cox Forum
The Discussion Forums
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Alex's Xmas Blog: 2005.12.23 - 7/7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

forget it

Last edited by alwun on Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:34 pm    Post subject: as above Reply with quote

as above
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 91
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ alwun

Shame you removed your comment it made me laugh and it was a safe bet. After all, we've all known the taste of BS for 9 months.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


yes and no. This site deserves my best shot rather than a cheapish shot, and although you appreciated it, many might not - and truth to tell it was born of irritation rather than a wish to inform or further debate.

never mind. i notice elsewhere that the forthcoming 'narrative' seems to find the internet itself in the frame for the blame for the 77. this ties in with liar pc blair's already expressed wish to control access to the net.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:34 pm    Post subject: Eastbound? Reply with quote

Was an eastbound Piccadilly Line train involved on July 7th?

Mandy Yu was in the front of the second carriage and was evacuated through the back of the train (Steve Lovegrove, also in the second carriage, went out of the side, through the crossover and down the eastbound to King's Cross She does not say to which station. She was on her way to work in Islington. She says the explosion was at 0845, 300m from King's Cross, she does not say which way, i.e. north or south. If she evacuated to King's Cross an eastbound train would have to be to the north.

I'm very surprised that there were so many deaths claimed at the King's Cross explosion. I was standing at the front of the second carriage and apart from a couple of voices that were screaming and praying, there were no cries for help that indicated serious injury or even death. Especially as many as 21 or more as reported. People were in a state of shock but remained calm. Is there any information on how they died or how the explosion could have killed them?
Mandy Yu, London

"THICK soot from the tracks flooded through the train; it was so difficult to breathe that people were kneeling down in the carriage to try to get some air. A lady in the first carriage was screaming and screaming. People were praying. We passed messages from carriage to carriage for about 20 minutes in the dim light, saying there was no fire and people should try to stay calm. We had been trapped for more than half an hour when we were evacuated through the back of the train. There were people in the first carriage too shocked to leave their seats, and policemen and London Underground staff were trying to get to the carriage to help them off the train. As soon as I got out of the tunnel I started crying as the shock kicked in.

Mandy Yu, 23, was on her way to work in Islington

Mandy Yu, age 23, was caught in the King's Cross bomb on her way to work in Islington: 'At a quarter to nine, 300 metres into the tunnel from King's Cross, there was a shudder from the front of the train.

'Everything went black, then the emergency lights went on. Thick soot from the tracks flooded through the train; it was so difficult to breathe that people were kneeling down in the carriage to try and get some air. A lady in the first carriage was screaming and screaming. People were praying. We passed messages from carriage to carriage for about 20 minutes in the dim light, saying there was no fire and people should try to stay calm. Some people were trying to open the doors and smash the windows to get out, and to let air in, but were unable to. There was a numb panic as people tried to stay calm. We thought perhaps the train had derailed and had crashed into the tunnel. People were fighting the fear that there would be a fire.

'We had been trapped for more than half an hour when we were evacuated through the back of the train. The power on the tracks had been switched off, and we walked through the tunnel.

'There were people in the first carriage too shocked to leave their seats, and policemen and London Underground staff were trying to get to the carriage to help them leave the train.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: joe cells Reply with quote

joe cells work. peace and love to all. catfish out.
yeknom eht ta kool t'nod
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 91
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject: Re: joe cells Reply with quote

Quote Catfish:
joe cells work. peace and love to all. catfish out.

Baffled, what does this mean?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joe Cells- a type of energy which causes implosion rather than explosion.......

dnetrep dna retupmoc ym ta tis tsuj i tub yranoitulover a m'i kniht i......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Scuttlebutt from Iraq Reply with quote

In Iraq, many, perhaps most, of the American forces in the forward operations areas are essentially pinned down. They stay huddled for safety within their small, fortified (as best possible) bunkers and camps, both rural and urban, emerging only upon direct commands, to conduct their assigned patrols and sweeps while looking first and ever more exclusively to their own survival in all regards. They are literally stressed and terrified out of their minds, and most of them are also physically ill, many seriously so, from the effects of Depleted Uranium poisoning. Many of them, especially with their psychopathic "leaders" giving them almost carte blanche to do such, have taken on a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" modus operendi, at all times and in all circumstances when they're outside of their bunkers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:02 am    Post subject: Fjl on Rachel North's blog Reply with quote

fjl on R's blog:

My sentiments exactly Stevie. I deal with this frustration all the time. All the time, I have to see my research flower while weeds and thistles- metaphor for conspiraloon ideas or ranting anti-conspiracy theorists- try to strangle it, choke it, and bring it down. Either that or profiteers trying to make their names. It's so, so, stupid. If there is a serious, interesting conspiracy, perhaps more sensibly phrased as 'confederate group inside a department that have oversteppe their security remit and committed a crime', then it needs careful handling, it doesn't need to be drowned in conspiraloon theories or ranting ideas which do nothing but put the readership off. Research must be fact based. Anything else is lively simple-mindedness ( to be polite!) * despairs* ! Smile

I hope it does not get deleted. fjl is a most interesting character.


She has deleted it. After I asked her if she was really saying really saying that the 7th July crimes were committed by a rogue group inside a Britsh security organisation, she replied

No, I say the opposite.
It's quite clear that there were four men in the videos, and that these were suicide bombers, who committed the murder. Rachel is correct. As to how this was allowed to occur, that's a point of police research interest, apparently, but it is not my specific remit. My reference refers to my historical research, and the confederacies of 1888.

Mm. Police investigating Spooks.


Numeral said...

OK, do you go for LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (made it happen on purpose)? Were the Photoshopped Four just allowed to do it or were they helped?

FJL said...

As Rachel has made plain, the facts re the suicide bombers on video are clear for all to see. Anyone disputing the fact that the four who attacked the London transport system were suicide bombers is an obvious loon. Please, unless you've any good reason to get involved with research that doesn't concern you, belt up with your self appointed fruitbat ideas and go and do something else. I come here to chat with one or two interesting people, I am not here to answer snooping & imbecile questions.
Rachel, if you don't really want fruitbats on the board, all you've got to do is not let them through.

FJL said...

I have deleted the comment that accidentally invited conspiralooning. It seems you can't suggest that factions can exist atall without incredibly interfering people putting forward ludicrous ideas. It's a shame.
Rachel, apologies for being short but I have given advice about how to prevent loons, some of it from a DI and I feel I can only take a horse to water. It's not possible at the moment to have a discussion on the boards.

contrition said...


I am sorry. I didn't mean to incur your wrath. But you did say:

confederate group inside a department that have oversteppe their security remit and committed a crime

This does seem to rule out incompetence or lack of resources as the reason that the London explosions managed to occur.

I hope all this does not prevent you being so deliciously indiscreet in future.

fjl said ...
I come here to chat with one or two interesting people, I am not here to answer snooping & imbecile questions.

Contrition said...


The penny has dropped. How difficult it is to communicate, even between kindred spirits such as ourselves! You were talking about events in 1888.

Obviously, the new dogs have forgotten the tricks of the old dogs and no longer commit crimes.

Do they still talk about 1888 in the police canteens?

FJL said...


We are not kindred spirits.

They talk about modern times in the canteens. Not that it's your business! They also talk about 1888 Fenianism. They talk about security matters past and present, and they wax interesting. Guess why? They are interesting, unintrusive people.

Rach, that's it for me for this thread! x

FJL said...

ps...I'm not sure I'd call it a 'Police canteen' either, they are security buildings and there isn't a soul in uniform. But if you guys want to turn up in a sandwhich board stating 'which way to the canteen' I'm not stopping you. 'Bear in mind' though, that security techniques may be applied.
PPS they are very nice to researchers, and reach right into their pockets to buy lunch!
....... I don't know if soup's on offer for you guys but you could always give it a try?

Sorry Rach- couldn't resist. I'm done. x


fjl said...

A conclusion for Easter.


"The problem they create is that they give questioning officialdom a bad name, making it easy to write everyone off who raises a hand and says, 'No, I don't think that's a good enough explanation."

In a nutshell. Don't be shy about making this point.

I didn't have time to read this post before, (I read your comment Rachel,) but it's really helpful, well written.
I would have been pleased the other day, before my discourse was hijacked, to be able to suggest e.g.
"Perhaps more attention should be paid to that Officer who suggested that there was a trade off, freeing the wrong suspects", or "the Officer who talked about community networking he was looking into was interesting"( I have to keep details vague.) We could have had some creative debate and produced productive hypotheses.
One of my research observations re 1888 is just how little some of the basic structure and motivation has changed. It's very interesting. It's new research, and I'm happy to be a part of it. But you just daren't try to raise the matter, as conspiraloons will instantly seize it, make connections and turn it into a debate about bombs and microwave tampering and claim Bush is being poisoned by Argos. ( for example.)
Serious work is dragged into disrepute by association.
Anyone serious walking into the midst of all this has got to be brave indeed.
At worst, they can harass people and give them a really bad time, (which has come up elsewhere).
'Truthman' has written a new post directed at me, claiming he condensed four years supervised thesis work into his recent post 'A primer on conspiraloonacy' which I simply don't believe. In it he's claiming that Wall Street bankers answered his letters, which strikes me as highly unlikely.
I think people shouldn't be intimidated, but should firmly outline their views without fear of ridicule or interruption. If evidence of an isolated conspiracy re Security Services does comes up somewhere, boldly state the facts, and let the disruptives discuss their silly connections in a corner. Who cares what they have to say? Also, boldly defend the evidence if it suggests Security Services did the best possible job after the fact, re with the London events, as you have done.
Don't be crushed, but use the experience. Adversity is a good teacher.

It is interesting that she is using the C word. Such coy hints!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:51 am    Post subject: The last words from me ( from my blog, with additions) Reply with quote

Happy Easter Seth [one of my readers]and everyone else. Tim, [another commenter] I agree with you that it is important to engage out of the comfort zone and for that reason will pop up at Harry's Place or on other blogs where people disagree and try to put my case.

In terms of the 'conspiracy theorists'/'false flag researchers'/'independent internet investigators 'or what ever they want to call themselves this week, I do think I have engaged enough.

I have engaged in pages of debate on Alex Cox's blog, on the British 9/11 truth boards, on urban 75 and on my own website. I have been invited to one of their meetings and have attended with another survivor, and they have attended the book launch where I and Milan and others spoke. I have read the Antagonist's blog, team 8 plus boards, Bridget Dunne's blog, officialconfusion, whatreallyhappened, 77truth and all the alternative theories that have been put my way or linked on the 'official version' challengers sites.

I have found nothing, not one thing to convince me that they have any merit in their theories that it was not the 4 named young men and that it was not suicide bombs.

Since July 7th I have also spoken to police, many other survivors from all 4 sites, investigative news journalists and politicians, medical staff and fire officers, LU staff, some of whom I now count as friends. I do not believe they are lying to me or engaged in a cover up. I do not believe that there is a false story, one that they or I and everyone else is willingly or unwillingly or unknowingly complicit in.

I have given this subject of 'alternative theories about July 7th' enough time, I have contributed extensively and publicly to the debate and I have seen that whilst some on 'the other side' seek to make common cause with me, and are friendly and well-intentioned, I personally do not wish to make common cause with them. This is not because of the high levels of personal vitriol that are directed at me by some of their number, but because I think, however well-intentioned they may be, the fact that they deny a suicide bomb plot which resulted in mass murder and maimings and injury to hundreds is inappropriate.

I think it is inappropriate to deny the Holocaust took place. I also think it is inappropriate to deny the suicide bombings took place, in the face of all the evidence.

I repeat, I have read and engaged with all the questions they have, and I will give them one point: the bombers probably got an earlier train than the one initially suspected. This does not make a conspiracy.There are indeed some inconsistencies in a multi-sourced ongoing news story and a continuing police investigation. IMO this is only to be expected and does not indicate a mass conspiracy.

I note that those who relentlessly question what they term the 'official version' do not have a credible alternative theory of their own, nor any evidence to support it, save selective hearsay. ( Please note: we are still awaiting the official version, what you have is news reports, analysis and witness accounts thus far)

When the own families of the bombers have accepted their guilt, when everything I have seen and heard with my own experience, when everyone I have spoken to whom I trust checks out and when the only people who posit a false flag theory are a group of people who have no personal experience of the July London bombs, no contacts within the 7/7 investigation, no first hand knowledge of the dreadful events whatsoever; moreover who clearly have an agenda that begins with the presupposition that it is all a conspiracy involving, variously, the UK and US govts, the security services, the police, the New World Order, the Zioinists, Jews, Illuminati, Masons...then I am going to say this.

Enough. No, I do not see what benefit a third meeting, or giving the further oxygen of publicty to such people would have. It is not up to me, a survivor to 'defend' what they call 'my' 'official version' in a public meeting. It is not 'my' version. It is the truth, backed up by evidence, as found out by real investigators, not internet sleuths. It is YOUR 'alternative' version that runs against everyone else, is a tiny minority viewpoint and one which I find offensive, personally. If you have been the victim of a crime it is not pleasant to have a bunch of strangers claim you are complicit in it, it never happened, or that the perpetrator was innocent. To then be the subject of personal insults, nasty insinuations and smears, to have your personal details posted up on the internet and your work phone number and email address given out ( as a rape victim I have a legal right to anonymity whch everyone bar the conspiracy theorists respects) is unpleasant in the extreme. And I wonder at the motivations of those who do such things and then say that they care for the victims of 7/7. My own experience with them shows that they do not, they care only for theories and conspiracies and they do not care if chasing such fantasies causes pain to those who know what they say to be untrue.

I am not meeting you people any more, not opening myself up to further attacks, IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILTY to defend myself from your fantasies and to give your version of events any credibility at all.

I have I hope distanced my calls for an independent and wideranging public enquiry from the extremists within the '9/11 truth movement' and the conspiracy theorists. I seek to learn why this happened and what can be done to save lives and spare suffering and improve communication in the future. I do not seek to apportion blame, I want an enquiry for positive reasons because I believe there is much to learn, and since the ordinary people of the general public run the risks and as the threat is UK citizens against fellow citizens, then the public should be involved in and contributing to dialogue, policy decision and making their views known.

Doubtless you will yet again suspect an 'agenda' because I have wearied of this contact with you and refused your request for a third meeting. I would like you to consider this:

I have enaged with you often and publicly for months.
I have heard what you say and read what you have sent me, I have followed your arguments and tested them myself. I do not find them at all convincing, and I do not see that you even have a credible alternative version of events that checks out, or can be supported with any evidence at all.

I am the victim of a crime, I am the victim of a terrorist atrocity, I am a survivor of the worst peacetime bomb attack in the UK, I have walked from a ruined carriage and the screams of the dying. I live with the memories of this every day. I have been signed off work for a month with exhaustion as I tried too long to manage my job, my life, my work, my writing, my recovery with the nightmares and PTSD symptoms that haunt my dreams. I should like you to respect this and to leave me alone now please as I try to move on with my life. I have my reasons for being interested in the subject of July 7th: it is a day when for the second time in my life I was the random victim of attempted murder and great violence by a stranger. The attack on 7 July was not an attack on me, but an attack on many, and one in which many died and many were terribly wounded, physically and mentally. As you know, since many of you have expressed sorrow and sympathy for this.

After both attacks on my life I have sought justice and healing and to try to bring something positive out of the whole experience. Some will say it is not justice since the 7/7 bombers had no trial. I say this: they are dead, their families have accepted their guilt, from their remains and DNA and the evidence that places them there, with bombs, and plots to kill, at the scene. I can find no reason why the police, the families of the bombers and everyone else is lying, I say they are guilty, and dead, and justice is now best served by looking at why they did it and what we can do to prevent more deaths and more anger and more despair in the future.

I do not think justice or healing is served by picking fights with the survivor of a suicide bomb, not by trying to convert her to a set of theories which she has already explained she finds to be untruthful and offensive.

Let this be an end to your contact with me, please: I want no more of it, please accord me this respect as an ordinary passenger, twice-victim of terrible crimes, who was asked by fellow survivors to speak out, who has continued to try to engage with the events of July 7th to find healing and hope, who is part of a group of passengers and rescuers who did not know each other before that July morning but who have drawn comfort from each other's shared experiences, who is not a Spook nor a Spy not a Shill nor a Liar but an ordinary office worker in the advertising department of a commercial publishing firm, daughter of a priest, fiancee of a solicitor, part-time writer since the bombs gave me a voice, peace campaigner and teller of truths.

Please pass this message on to those who will read it since I cannot post these last words on the 9/11 board. To those of you who have bothered my family, I ask you to desist, for pity's sake. I see that you are passionate and that you believe that you are right. I wish that you would use that passion for more hopeful and fruitful ends rather than to mire yourselves in whispered conspiracies and paranoid lies. I wish that you would seek to engage with a clear head and an honest heart with those working for peace, who seek to stay the hand of those who use violence, whoever they are and wherever they are found. I forgive the insults against me, and I ask you to let go of your anger towards me, I am not your enemy. I wish you clarity and truth in the end. And hope: you seem to have so little hope, only such dark suspicions.

Happy Easter and peace be with you all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:53 am    Post subject: reality Reply with quote

I am willing to believe that the four accused (who have tried and convicted by the media) were the bombers and that they blew up the trains and bus in question (though which trains, and how they got from Luton to central London still seems to be confused and uncertain - which it should not be.)
But despite having read Rachel's long, self-pitying post, and Timothy Garton Ash's latest fantasy of dirty bombs in London,,1757027,00.html, I can't understand why neither she nor the illustrious don from St Anthony's isn't asking:
1. Who ordered the Visor terror-bombing excercise to take place at the same time?
2. How many people were involved in it, what did it do, and how did it 'go live'?
3. Were the four bombers aware of the exercise, and if so, who tipped them off about it?
4. Did the four bombers imagine themselves to be a part of the Visor exercise?
4. is the most troubling question for me. The Antagonist, Prole, and the whole 7/7 truth movement, are quite right to demand answers.

Last edited by alex on Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Report of Milan Rai meeting in Yeovil Reply with quote

7/7 - The London Bombings, Islam & the Iraq War

Report of Milan Rai Book Launch - Yeovil April 20th, 2006

Organised in conjunction with Yeovil Stop The War Coalition

Total in attendance = 15 (including Milan)

Average age of attendees >60

Youngest in audience = possibly me (very sad)!

Milan opened the meeting by speaking for about 30 minutes on the way in which the media manipulates public awareness of key events by using techniques such as:

- Burying key information deep inside the paper/article.
- self censorship.
- speculation and conjecture presented as fact.
- manipulation of facts to influence readers opinion.

Interestingly over 90% of the references in Milan's book on 7/7 are quoted as being from newspapers. When a member of the audience asked him whether he had contacted the journalist over a specific issue, he stated that he had not!

The local Chairman then proposed that Milan take three questions at a time and then respond to each. After about nine questions , the Chairman gave me an opportunity to address my question to Milan

I opened by reminding Milan of a comment he made in his book on Naom Chomsky, where he wrote:

"Careful reading is needed to overcome what Chomsky and Herman have called 'brainwashing under freedom'.""

I referred to page 46 of Milan's book on 7/7 where he twice states that Hasib Hussain was withdrawn by his teachers from his GCSE studies, referencing his sources as The Times and The Independent.

I asked Milan why he had not then quoted the subsequent report issued by Hasib's ex-Headmaster in which he refutes the earlier reports:

"There has been a lot of mis-information spread about this young man. He did sit the GCSE's, contrary to reports in the media ...he achieved GCSE's in English Literature, maths, science, Urdu, design technology and a GNVQ in Business studies."


Without hesitating, I then referred to pages 22 & 23, where Milan states (without any reference),

"The bombers ...had caught a Thameslink train from Luton at 7.48am."

He also states that the bombers ...were caught on CCTV at Kings Cross at 8.20am (again, without reference).

I pointed out, in detail, why this was not possible and asked why he had not checked or sourced his comments before commiting them to print?

I closed by asking Milan whether he was concerned that he was perhaps unwittingly becoming a party to the process of 'Brainwashing under Freedom"?

Milan then turned and stared at the Chairman for at least 10 seconds, waiting for the second question to be presented. However, the Chairman simply turned to Milan and said, "Well, would you like to answer the question?"

Milan failed to see the irony of his part in creating the perception of a disaffected youth with his wrongful statements about Hasib Hussains education record and rambled through a not too coherent dismissal of my point. However, I let it go because I was really more interested in his response to my comments with regard to the train times.

To cut a long story short; I might as well have been listening to Rachel North stating for the umpteenth time that she "doesn't care" how they got there ...'cos it was them wot did it'!

I managed to get three challenges in before he resorted to looking at the Chairman and said, "Look, did I come her just to get into a debate with this one guy?"
When the Chairman hesitated, Milan turned to the audience and said, "Do you come here just to hear what he (pointing at me) has to say?"

I quickly asked why he had not sourced his comments about the train & CCTV times. His response:

Well, I didn't think it was necessary as it was common knowledge!

Milan went on to claim that it was pointless to get too concerned about the details of how they got from Luton to where they set off the bombs because the evidence that they did it is overwhelming!

I could only shake my head in disbelief.

At the end of the evening I gave him an A5 page containing the following information and asked him to check it out for himself:

"The four terrorists were seen by a witness boarding the 7.48am Thameslink train to Kings X, arriving in the City at 8.20am

Source: Channel 4 News - 12th July 2005

Train Times

Timetable _______Actual

Luton Kings x____ Luton Kings x
7.04 - 7.40 _____ 7.04 - 7.40
7.08 - 7.56 _ ____ 7.08 - 8.26
7.16 - 7.48 _____ 7.16 - 8.18
7.20 - 8.08 _____ 7.20 - 8.18
*7.24 - 8.00_____ 7.24 - 8.20 No witnesses!
7.30 - 8.04 _____ 7.38 - 8.40 - Too Late to Connect
*7.40 - 8.16_____ Cancelled
7.46 - 8.28 _____ Cancelled
*7.48 - 8.20_____ 7.58 - 8.43 - Too Late to Connect
7.56 8.32 ______ Cancelled

Delays all due to problems with Over head Power Lines in the Mill Hill area.

Source: Marie Bernes - Email Aug 16th, 2005
Customer Relations - Thameslink

Underground Train Kings X departure times:

Eastbound Circle Line (Edgware Rd) 08:35
Westbound Circle Line (Aldgate) 08:42

Southbound Piccadilly Line (Kings X) 08:48

Info' provided by British Transport Police

Source: Vicky Hutchinson
Transport Security Directorate

All in all, it is evident that Milan is trotting out the orthodox 'Stop the War' message without application of any critical thought. The 'leaps of faith' that he appears to take, in the absence of corroborating and/or supporting evidence for his particular viewpoint, is quite staggering.

It is actually quite disturbing that he (and Rachel) appear to be almost actively campaigning for a Public Inquiry that specifically does not address these anomolies.

Milan appears to be extremely cavalier with the basic tenet of British justice that the case against any alleged perpetrator must, at the very least, produce evidence that they had the opportunity to be at the scene of the crime. The evidence that is presently in the public domain actually provides two of the four alleged bombers with alibis that would appear to 'prove' that they could not have been on their respective Circle Line trains! I refer. of course, to the allegations against Mohammed Khan (Edgware Road) and Shezad Tanweer (Aldgate).

I also advised Milan that the information on the train times had not only been in the public domain since last September but that the information had been sent to the Editors of all major UK newspapers. So why is it that the official 'pre-narrative' version of events still holds that they caught a train from Luton, which two Thameslink and two Transport for London sources have confirmed, did not arrive at Kings Cross until after the two bombed Circle Line trains had already departed?

Milan asked whether it was possible that the 7:24am train from Luton was late? So he appeared to acknowledge that the claim that they boarded the 7:48am does not stand up to scrutiny; as did Rachel North in her farewell missive posted on the Alex Cox forum yesterday (Thursday) morning.

I will give them one point: the bombers probably got an earlier train than the one initially suspected.


Based upon the evidence currently within the public domain, the Narrative may well suggest that the time on Camera 14 (07.21.54) is incorrect and that they did actually board the 7.24am train. If this is the case, why has this not been presented previously? Camera 14 is not the only CCTV camera at Luton station, so where is the corroborating CCTV evidence? To say nothing of the apparent lack of witnesses! It is surely inconceivable that four young lads carrying backpacks (supposedly each containing 10lbs of homemade TATP explosive) went sight unseen by any station staff or other passengers on the 7.24am?

...or will witnesses miraculously appear to claim that they were seen on the 7.24? Maybe Mark Whitby and Richard Jones could be pulled out of retirement to provide the necessary soundbites!

It was quite apparent that I was the only person in the room who had read Milan's book and there is no doubt that I was presenting questions regarding the official 7/7 account which had not previously troubled the assembled group.

The good news is that every one present took a copy of the flyer for my talk in Frome on May 3rd and three people (including the Chairman) came up to me after the meeting to express their interest in the points that I had raised.

When the meeting finished at 9.45pm, we all adjourned to the bar. Funnily enough, Milan elected to sit at the far end of the table from me ... I guess that I must have been wearing the wrong deoderant!

I do not question Milan's motivation in acknowledging the illegality of the invasion in Iraq and the tragedy and trauma caused by the presence of British and American troops. The scenario of disaffected young muslims pepetrating atrocities in the UK (or the US) is entirely plausible ... it's the lack of questioning of the 'newspaper reports' (so criticised by Milan in his oppening address), that causes me to be concerned. If this limited curiosity is representative of youthful political analysis, it perhaps serves to highlight the magnitude of our task in awakening the wider populous to the reality of the deeper poltical agenda.

7/7 - The London Bombings, Islam & the Iraq War is based almost entirely upon newspapaer reports cobbled together into a book. The basic tenet of the book is that everything occured just the way it has been portrayed by the media. One can only speculate why it is that any media report which would cast doubt on the official account has not found it's way ito Milan's musing. There is very little objective analysis of what has been presented to the British public, despite his opening remarks!

I can only hope that Milan will reflect upon what he is hearing at these meetings and that he might decide to apply a more objective analysis of available information ...but I regret to say, I won't be holding my breath!

Best regards,

Ian R. Crane

originally posted at

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was always led to believe that in this country people where innocent until they are proven guilty, but perhaps I was living under a misapprehension. Apologies in advance for any spelling mistakes.
yeknom eht ta kool t'nod
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 91
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of articles that have appeared in the Guardian recently that show how much the quest for the truth about 7th July has moved on. Some of the issues that were discussed on this thread (thanks to Alex) have now made it into the MSM, something many of us would not have envisaged all those months ago. Cheers:,,1806794,00.html
Seeing isn't believing

A year on from 7/7, wild rumours are circulating about who planted the bombs and why. Some people even claim this picture of the four bombers was faked. Mark Honigsbaum, who accidentally triggered at least one of the conspiracy theories, investigates

Tuesday June 27, 2006
The Guardian

On July 10 last year, Bridget Dunne opened the Sunday newspapers eager for information about the blasts that had brought death and mayhem to London three days earlier. Like many people that weekend, Dunne was confused by the conflicting reports surrounding what had initially been described as a series of "power surges" on the tube. Why were the Metropolitan Police saying that these surges, which were now being attributed to bombs, had occurred simultaneously at 8.50am, when they had originally been described as taking place over the space of 26 minutes?

Dunne, a 51-year-old foster carer, was also having trouble squaring the Met's statement on July 8 that there was "no evidence to suggest that the attacks were the result of suicide bombings" with the growing speculation that Islamic suicide bombers and al-Qaida were to blame for the blasts that had hit the London underground and a bus in Tavistock Square. The Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, had talked himself of "these people who oppose our way of life".

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist," insists Dunne. "I was just trying to make a cohesive, coherent story from the facts."

But while the papers that Sunday were full of interviews with people who had survived the bombs, and there was plenty of speculation about Osama bin Laden's involvement, Dunne could find nothing about the times of the tube trains in and out of King's Cross on the morning of July 7.

When, a few days later, police released the now famous CCTV image of Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain entering Luton station, her suspicions deepened. How had police identified the bombers so quickly? And how was it that amid the carnage of twisted metal and bloody body parts they had been able to recover credit cards and other ID placing the men at the scene of the crime?

Suspecting something was not right, Dunne, who lives in Camden, north London, wrote to her local paper. "Do you think we are being told the truth over these bombings?" she asked. "There are so many unanswered questions that just don't make any sense."

Dunne's letter was immediately picked up by a blogger called Blaugustine and within days she found herself the recipient, via the internet, of other intriguing snippets, such as the claim that on the morning of 7/7 a former Scotland Yard anti-terrorism branch official had been staging a training exercise based on bombs going off simultaneously at precisely the stations that had been targeted. Convinced more than ever that something was not right, Dunne decided to share her thoughts with her new friends on the internet.

"I have only one reason for starting this blog," she wrote last August. "It is to ascertain the facts behind the events in London on and since the July 7 2005 ... That the times of trains were totally absent from the public domain was one of the factors which led to my suspicions that what we were being told happened was not what actually happened."

It was a few days after the blasts that I first became aware of the disconnect between what most people believe and accept happened on 7/7 - that four British-born Muslim men decided, of their own volition and for reasons that we may never fully understand, to detonate a series of suicide bombs on the London underground - and what people like Dunne suspect happened.

Like many Londoners, I never reached my office on the morning of July 7 but arrived at the tube at 9.30am to find it already closed. Dispatched by the Guardian's newsdesk directly to Edgware Road, I arrived just as passengers from the bombed westbound Circle line train were emerging from the temporary triage centre that had been set up in Marks & Spencer by a former firefighter, Paul Dadge.

As with other major London crime scenes - the Israeli embassy bombing in Kensington, the Paddington rail crash, the Brixton nail bombing - the situation was one of confusion and flux. The police had only just begun to cordon off the station, while the fire brigade was attributing the incident to a power surge, even though it was already obvious to all but the greenest commuter that three simultaneous incidents on the tube made little sense even by London underground's woeful performance standards.

I asked passengers what they had seen and experienced and was told by two survivors from the bombed train that, at the moment of the blast, the covers on the floor of their carriage had flown up - the phrase they used was "raised up". There was no time to check their statements as moments later the police widened the cordon and I was directed to the opposite pavement, outside the Metropole hotel.

Moments later, Davinia Turrell, the famous "woman in the mask", emerged from M&S together with other injured passengers and I followed them into the hotel. It was from there that at around 11am I phoned a hurried, and what I now know to be flawed, audio report to the Guardian. In the report, broadcast on our website, I said that it "was believed" there had been an explosion "under the carriage of the train". I also said that "some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up, raised up".

It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.

"Did July 7 bombs explode under trains?" read a posting that referred to my report a few weeks later. "Eyewitness accounts appear to contradict the theory that suicide bombers were responsible for killing 39 [sic] passengers on London's tube network that day."

Another went even further: "How Black Ops staged the London bombings: Staged terror events - like magic tricks - rely on misdirection to throw people off the track ... The bombs on the underground were not in the tube carriages. They were under the floors of the carriages."

Soon, internet chatrooms and blog sites were buzzing with even more bizarre theories: the bombers thought they were delivering drugs but were deceived, set up and murdered; or they thought they were carrying dummy "bombs" designed to test London's defences; or the plot was monitored by any number of secret services, from M15 to the CIA to Mossad, who let it happen in order to foment anti-Muslim feeling. Then there are the claims by 9/11 conspiracy theorists that 7/7, like the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, were all part of a cunning scheme to further the pro-Iraq war agenda of the Bush/Blair governments and the "New World Order".

In the past week we have had two more claims. The first came in a book by US journalist Ron Suskind, alleging that Khan was considered so dangerous by the FBI that in 2003 the US placed him on a "no fly list" - a claim that was promptly rubbished by the FBI as a case of mistaken identity.

Then, on Saturday, this paper reported that a computer technician who helped to encrypt emails at an Islamic bookshop in Leeds where Khan and Tanweer used to hang out became so alarmed by their calls for jihad that in October 2003 he delivered a dossier to West Yorkshire anti-terrorist police. Martin Gilbertson's claims have not been denied. West Yorkshire police simply admitted it couldn't say whether or not his dossier had "made its way into the intelligence system".

Given such confusion, the proliferation of 7/7 conspiracy theories is hardly surprising. Ever since the Kennedy assassination, people's faith in the official narratives surrounding seismic political events has been steadily eroding. In their place have come what Don DeLillo, in Libra, his brilliant psychological novel about Kennedy's assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, calls "theories that gleam like jade idols". Such theories are seductive precisely because, as DeLillo puts it, they are "four-faced, graceful". Employing a 20/20 hindsight whose starting point is always cui bono - who benefits? - they masquerade as an interrogation of the facts but are actually a labyrinth of mirrors.

But whereas in 1988, when Libra was published, it took years for conspiracy theories to come together through the sluggish medium of print and telephone, today such networks can be created instantaneously with a few clicks of a mouse.

At first sight, Dunne appears as far removed from this paranoid ether-world as you could imagine. Ushering me into her flat, she says she would dearly love to "turn the clock back to before July 7, before I had all these questions" and, for a moment, I believe her.

"Before my letter was published in the Camden New Journal, I had little idea of how the internet or blogs worked," she tells me. "I was surprised to discover how many people shared my concerns."

Today, however, Dunne appears extremely internet savvy. She has invited a colleague to our meeting - a blogger with long dark hair who gives his name only as the Antagonist. From Dunne's blog you can link directly to the Antagonist and other bookmarked sites including that of the July 7 Truth Campaign.

At first glance this appears to be an objective guide to everything that happened on 7/7 and afterwards. But click a little deeper and it soon becomes apparent that the campaign, with its linked people's inquiry forum and petition calling for the release of "all the evidence" about 7/7, considers the official Home Office account, in which the blame is laid squarely on the four suicide bombers pictured entering Luton station, to be just a "story".

The first "hole" in the narrative is the Home Office's claim that on July 7 the quartet boarded a 7.40am Thameslink train to King's Cross. According to Dunne, when an independent researcher visited Luton and demanded a train schedule from Thameslink, he was told that the 7.40am had never run and that the next available train, the 7.48, had arrived at King's Cross at 8.42 - in other words too late for the bombers to have boarded the three tube trains that exploded, according to the official timings, eight minutes later at Aldgate, Edgware Road and Russell Square.

The next problem is the CCTV picture. If you look closely at the image, Dunne says, you will see that the railings behind Khan, the man in the white baseball cap, appear to run in front of his left arm while another rail appears to slice through his head. "It's just a theory but some people believe the image was faked in Photoshop," she tells me.

To Dunne's way of thinking, this theory is bolstered by the fact that police have never released the further CCTV footage showing the four emerging on to the concourse at King's Cross where, according to the home office narrative, they are seen hugging and appear "euphoric". Then there is the "fact" that in the only other CCTV sequence of the bombers taken on June 28 (the day police believe they made a test run to London), only three men - Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay - are seen entering Luton station. Hasib Hussain, who would detonate a rucksack bomb on the top deck of the No 30 bus, providing the only above-ground image of what Sir Ian Blair would later call "the largest criminal inquiry in English history", is nowhere to be seen.

"I know people who have spoken to Hasib Hussain's family," says Dunne. "He was in the middle of his college career. He was taking driving lessons. I don't have a conspiracy theory, but until I've seen all the evidence and can personally join the dots I can't say that he or any of these men were suicide bombers."

Dunne and the Antagonist aren't the only ones who would like to see all the evidence. Rachel North, who was travelling in the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square, and who miraculously escaped with only minor injuries, has also called for an independent public inquiry.

But unlike Dunne she does not think there is any mystery about what happened. "We all know what happened," she says. "We were there. What we want to know is why it happened."

She says that conspiracy theorists have repeatedly twisted her words to make out there was no bomb on her train and even that she is a professional M15 disinformation agent. When she challenged these claims, she says she was subjected to vitriolic abuse. As a consequence, she refuses to have anything to do with the July 7 Truth Campaign or related sites, arguing that they risk undermining the legitimacy of survivors' calls for a public inquiry.

"I have had endless run-ins with these people," she says. "Some of them are fairly well intentioned, if eccentric, others hugely offensive. I worry that they are making all of us look like conspiracy theorists and/or traumatised people who shouldn't be taken seriously."

She argues that given that inquests have yet to be held, and the ongoing mass-murder inquiry, it is hardly surprising that the police have withheld evidence from the public domain. Quite apart from the distress that the release of CCTV images might cause relatives, North says she has been told there are people in the background of the King's Cross CCTV sequence whom police are still trying to trace.

Police have also kept back details of what the bombers were wearing in order to be sure that witness statements taken from people who may have seen them on the Thameslink train can be corroborated. "Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life," says North dismissively. "Where conspiracy theorists go with this is that the train never ran, so the bombers were never on the train, or the bombers were lured to Luton and then taken away and killed and their body parts were placed on the tube later to incriminate Muslims. They just take these small anomalies, which is what you will get in any rolling, multi-sourced news investigation, and make it into evidence of a conspiracy."

North isn't the only person with first-hand experience of 7/7 whose testimony has been called into question. Paul Dadge, the "hero of Edgware Road" (it was his idea to set up the temporary triage centre in M&S), who was photographed leading Davinia Turrell from M&S to the Metropole hotel, has also been on the receiving end. On internet bulletin boards people have questioned why he is wearing blue surgical gloves in the picture (reproduced on the cover of G2) and wonder why Turrell, who is now 25, appears "so old" and where she got the mask from.

"Basically, people were saying the picture was made up by the government to forward the campaign against terrorism in Iraq," Dadge tells me when we meet near his office in west London.

Dadge never reached work on 7/7 but was forced to interrupt his journey at Baker Street. Travelling on a westbound Hammersmith & City line train just behind the bombed Circle line train, he left the station at 8.53am and began walking towards Paddington when he noticed the fire engines heading towards Edgware Road and decided to investigate. To this day, his abiding memory, like my own, is one of confusion and chaos. In his testimony to the London Assembly, Dadge told the inquiry team looking into the failings of the emergency response that he felt he had no choice but to take command of the situation as the police were clearly overstretched and it was "becoming difficult to establish who was passing public, and who was involved in the incident".

For the record, Dadge who works for the internet provider AOL and whose job there, ironically, involves monitoring discussion threads, says he was not part of any "black ops" but obtained the gloves from a paramedic in M&S. The same paramedics provided Turrell with the mask to protect her burns. Yet although Dadge, like North, has been a target for vitriol - some objected to his being described as a hero - he doesn't seem to mind.

"I don't read the conspiracy theories and get upset," he says. "I read them and I'm intrigued."

Indeed, it is natural after an event as cataclysmic and unexpected as 7/7 to want to interrogate what happened. But interrogation is not the same as understanding, and after a certain point you must move on.

As I leave Dunne's flat, she tells me that she and the Antagonist are in the process of refining the July 7 Truth Campaign site and are still uncovering new "facts". "I can't explain it but something shifted for me that day," she says.

When I get home, I decide to take a look. Under the heading Some Hypotheses is a list of alternative theories. Number one is "al-Qaida mastermind recruited British Muslims as suicide bombers". Number three is "homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind." But it is hypothesis eight that attracts my attention: "The four men were chosen or lured to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation'."

Beneath the headline is an extract from a newspaper interview with a passenger on the Aldgate train, reporting that the metal around the hole in the bomb carriage was "pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train". But it is the next entry that I find most alarming. Highlighted in blue is the sentence: "Mark Honingsbaum [sic] also recorded several witnesses speaking of explosions under the floor of the train."

I click on the link and listen once again to my off-the-cuff recording from the Metropole hotel. Then I press the button and loop the broadcast a second time. In the internet age, it seems, some canards never die.

Today the Guardian printed the following response from the July 7th Truth campaign:,,1811911,00.html

Inconsistencies and errors mar the July 7 narrative

An independent public inquiry into the London bombings is long overdue, says Beverley Martin

Tuesday July 4, 2006
The Guardian

As one of the editors of the July 7 Truth Campaign website, I would like to thank Mark Honigsbaum for listening to our concerns and for presenting a balanced view (Seeing isn't believing, June 27). Our website is not a "conspiracy" site with a theory to promote and, as Mr Honigsbaum himself saw, we have taken the time to outline all the proposed theories in our search for the truth; we do not subscribe to any one of them. We are not affiliated to any political or religious movement, and our only agenda is to establish the facts of the events of July 7 2005.

We all feel very strongly that we needed to raise awareness of exactly how riddled with anomalies and flaws the reports of this event are.

When referring to the 7.40 train from Luton to London that was cancelled on the morning of July 7, the article reported Rachel North, who stated: "Train timetables rarely bear any relation to real life. Where conspiracy theorists go with this is that the train never ran ... They just take these small anomalies ... and make it into evidence of a conspiracy."

The purpose of our site is not just to highlight the inconsistencies and errors in the media reporting of the London bombings, but also in the report of the official account of the London bombings - the narrative - from the Home Office, which was supposed to offer a definitive account of the events of that day.

In the case of this train, which the narrative stated the four suspects caught, the cancellation was confirmed by the communications manager for Thameslink Rail, who supplied the actual times the trains ran that morning. This information was not obtained from a train schedule, which, of course, would be unlikely to be accurate on any given day. This is merely one of numerous oddities in the narrative that we have documented on the website.

It should also be made clear that we do not endorse the "vitriolic abuse" of survivors; I acknowledge that there have been some quite outlandish accusations against Rachel North by a few people unconnected to our campaign, but we at J7 Truth have never suggested that Ms North is anything other than a genuine survivor. We have certainly never entered into speculation regarding Paul Dadge or Davinia Turrell. With an issue such as this, there will be different approaches by all who are questioning it, but the views expressed by a few should not be taken to represent the whole.

We would like to see an independent public inquiry into the London bombings of July 7, in line with the campaign by Amnesty International, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Finucane Family Campaign, and many other legal, human and civil rights organisations. They all oppose the Inquiries Act 2005 - a piece of legislation that renders all public inquiries subject to state approval and, therefore, not independent. The public have so far been denied any kind of inquiry and the narrative only served to raise more questions than it attempted to answer in the first place. There should not be this level of discrepancy and incongruity in the official account almost a year on from this terrible event.

Beverley Martin edits the July 7 Truth Campaign website,,1811911,00.html
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cox Forum Forum Index -> Cox Blog Discussions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 14 of 16

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group