Wednesday, August 31, 2005

The Reason For This Blog

I have only one reason for starting this blog. It is to ascertain the facts behind the events in London on and since the 7th July 2005.

I have made many attempts to ascertain a few simple facts (and therefore truths) about the events on that morning.

Simply, what times did the trains leave Kings Cross that morning? You might think this was too obvious a question and that the answer would be easily available. But, no! It would appear to be totally absent from any newspaper or website, including that of the Metropolitan Police.

I will share with you all the replies that I have received and hope to receive from my enquiries.

Please aid me in this important quest for the truth. If you have any information or have made your own inquiries add them to this blog and hopefully together we can get to the true facts behind these events.

24 comments:

The Editor said...

Hi Bridget,

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of public transport, what generally happens is that timetables are organised and then publihed in advance so that commuters can know what time to catch a train whether it is the 6th, 7th or 8th of July.

This is the reason that there is no departure time declared for each specific day before and after the bombings. Each day before and since has been equally suspicious in this respect.

If you are unfamiliar with the London underground (or "tube") system, its timetables are available here:
TFL Website.

Using the timetables available on that site you can discover that the travel times between Kings Cross and the relevant stations are each between 2 and 11 minutes, along with the estimated departure times for each.

As reported by every media organisation worldwide, the three blasts all occurred at 08:50 local time. Not suprisingly this story generated the most coverage in the UK where it occurred. The UK-based BBC news has published quite visible and easily navigated summaries of the bombings for each of the three trains here:
BBC In Depth Reports

Using the power of deduction you can estimate the departure times for each separate train.

For more specific information than that I would suggest you will have absolutely no success with your requests for this information until you accompany them with an explaination of what purpose this information would serve.

To clarify, I cannot imagine in what way your question would qualify as "this important quest for the truth" .

The Antagonist said...

Seeing as you appear to like the concept and definition game, let's start a little closer to home with perhaps, Attrition, defined as:

1. A rubbing away or wearing down by friction.

2. A gradual diminution in number or strength because of constant stress.

3. A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death.

4. Repentance for sin motivated by fear of punishment rather than by love of God
.

In response:

1. Persevere.

2. Immediately apparent.

3. Equally as obvious.

4. Your nom de plume.

The timetables are great, everyone has those and thanks for pointing out the obvious. You don't happen to work for the Metropolitan Police Service do you? They said precisely the same thing.

The Editor said...

There does not appear to be any point to anything you just posted.

How you alerting me to the fact you have looked up my nym in a dictionary assists this woman is anyone's guess.

And this somehow passes for mystery does it ? That if you ask the police for a train timetable they will refer you to those responsible for train timetables. Well bugger me. Lock yourself in the basement, the NWO has taken over. Next they will tell you to go to a cinema if you want to see a movie. Fascists.

So if you want the actual time instead of the scheduled time you will really need to give someone a reason to care what it was before they will put any effort into finding out.

I have seen contact details for officials who have confirmed precise details on other scheduling delays as they have done for other people enquiring about the exact same thing. However I cannot be bothered finding these again unless there is a reason to.

Frankly I think if that such a reason did exist, and I think I can guess what it is, it disappeared when Mr Khan's confession got aired on Al Jazeera.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Attrition

Thank you for taking the trouble to comment on my posting.

Due to the heartsickening events in New Orleans I have not posted further correspondence yet, but will get around to it. Interestingly the times that the trains left Kings Cross that morning is absent from all of them.

Yes, there is a video supposedly of Mr Khan's confession on Al Jazeera but I do not take that to be substantive proof of what we are being told happened on the morning of 7th July. I prefer to look at the facts and make up my own mind. Like the vast majority of people, we can neither confirm nor disprove that the video or the one CCTV image we have been shown so far, is actually of Mohammad Sidique Khan. As I prefer to make up my own mind about what really happened on that morning rather than being told what to think, I will base the facts on the FACTS.

The lack of facts surrounding these events is (suspciously?) absent. I am only asking Why? It must be obvious to all that a genuine investigation would include this information if only to ask eye witnesses to come forward.

I find it hard to believe that I or any other member of the public should check a Transport for London timetable for that Thursday morning and from that work backwards to Kings Cross, trying to sumise at what time a train in a tunnel between Liverpool St and Aldgate would have left Kings Cross that morning. This information is obviously known, so why isn't it avaiable? It is as simple as that.

The mystery is not why I or anyone else concerned should be asking these questions, the mystery is the total absence of the answer.

I hope that this answers your question, and if you are aware of the answer from any official source please let me know.

Thanks.

The Editor said...

Quote: Yes, there is a video supposedly of Mr Khan's confession on Al Jazeera

It is not supposedly him, it is him. You can confirm this for yourself by viewing it online if his family confirming this has for some reason left doubt in your mind that the confession video exists.

but I do not take that to be substantive proof of what we are being told happened on the morning of 7th July.

Well what have you been told which you think remains unproven ?

The fact that the underground was bombed by this individual in a suicide attack as retaliation for UK policies against Muslims IS proven. A confession stating means and motive, plus a murder weapon, plus placing the perp at the scene of a crime proves any murder case anywhere. That matter is resolved.

What else have you been told which remains unproven ? Nobody can assist you without knowing this.

I prefer to look at the facts and make up my own mind. Like the vast majority of people, we can neither confirm nor disprove that the video or the one CCTV image we have been shown so far, is actually of Mohammad Sidique Khan.

Of course you can't. You had never laid eyes on the man. Why would you or the rest of the world think you could identify someone from a photo who you had never seen before ?

His family and friends knew him beforehand and have confirmed that it is him in the CCTV footage and the video confession.

So what conclusions do you think you can come to which have any relevance or bearing whatsoever compared to the fact that his family and friends have already confirmed that it is him in the CCTV and the confession video ?

Or put it another way. Would you encourage me to contact Mrs Menenzes to tell her to stop grieving and appearing on the TV demanding answers about her son's killing if I don't think the photos I have seen are of him ?
Is that a ridiculous idea or not ?
Because it is the exact same situation.

As I prefer to make up my own mind about what really happened on that morning rather than being told what to think, I will base the facts on the FACTS.

Well Khan confessed to planning to blow up these trains and was photographed on his way to the bombings, just before the bombings occurred.

What are the alternate scenarios that you are grappling with here ?

The lack of facts surrounding these events is (suspciously?) absent. I am only asking Why? It must be obvious to all that a genuine investigation would include this information if only to ask eye witnesses to come forward.
What lack of facts ? There were morgues full of facts. There were scrapyards full of facts. Bomb disposal units. Forensics units. And now a VCR full of facts.

Tell me what is absent from this body of facts which you think has any bearing on what is already known.

I find it hard to believe that I or any other member of the public should check a Transport for London timetable for that Thursday morning and from that work backwards to Kings Cross, trying to sumise at what time a train in a tunnel between Liverpool St and Aldgate would have left Kings Cross that morning. This information is obviously known, so why isn't it avaiable? It is as simple as that.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What do you find hard to believe about this ?
I find it hard to believe that you haven't done this already.
I just gave you a link that told you one train got less than a train-length away from Kings Cross when it blew up at 8:50. It got less than half-way through a 2 minute trip.
Are you going to wait for someone to tell you what time the Russell Square train left or tick that one off since you already know it ?

Because if you want to pretend that someone is withholding that detail form you then clearly you are trying to manufacture a myth rather than being interested in facts. That's not an accusation either, it is a decision you will make yourself right now. State whether I have already confimed that train's departure time for you or whether nobody has given it to you.

The mystery is not why I or anyone else concerned should be asking these questions, the mystery is the total absence of the answer.

No the mystery is STILL why you are asking. Because I have asked 3 times now what having this information would do for you. You have made 2 statements to explain why you are asking which don't specify what relevance these times have or how you think they could effect any outcome which is already known.

I hope that this answers your question, and if you are aware of the answer from any official source please let me know. Thanks.

No it clearly doesn't. Like I said, either there is a reason or there isn't. If there's not why should anyone care. You may as well say the police are withholding details of how many people on the trains were wearing moccasins.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Attrition

Thanks for taking so much time and trouble on this issue.

I would refer you to my latest posting on my reply from London Underground, and draw your attention to the information on the TFL and Government for London websites that was available soon after these events. That is, until the story changed.

As far as the video of Mr Khan, well, I recently watched a TV advert that I swear showed Gene Kelly dancing to Singing in the Rain. Have you seen it? Just amazing what technology can do with images these days.

The Editor said...

So you've made your choice then.
You wish you had a conspiracy theory like the yanks get to play with so you are going to manufacture one out of the London bombings. Rather than acknowledging known facts you will instead opt for suggesting possibilities without any credible basis for such suggestions. When your pleas for answers are answered and you are referred to evidence you will willingly ignore evidence if it doesn't suit your predetermined theory.

Welcome to crackpot country. It's getting a little crowded but I am sure they will make room for you. Only took 1 blog post to expose yourself too, must be a new record.

BTW... always remember that I offered you a chance to address the facts and you chose to turn that down because it didn't provide the outcome you wished to invent.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Attrition

Thanks once again for commenting and showing your concern for the truth.

You state "Rather than acknowledging known facts", if you read my posting on the reply from the London Underground you will see that I acknowledge the fact that on TFL's website on the 7/7 they stated the trains were going towards Kings Cross. The times of the explosions were also stated on many sites including Government for London (from information given them by the Metropolitan Police) to be different from that which we are later told. Did I make this up or are these known facts? That the story changed is also a known fact. That I have been unable to find out at what times these trains left Kings Cross is also a known fact.

BTW, it is also a known fact that when Channel 4 news played the video tape of Mr Khan to two of his friends they said "It isn't him it doesn't even sound like him" (Channel 4 News 2/9).

I am looking at ALL the evidence that I can find and then making up my own mind. That I am suspicious of what we are told ia also a fact, and one that continues to be compounded by the lack of facts.

History alone should teach us not to believe everything or even anything that is an official story, especially a story that lacks so many verifiable facts.

I am not aware of ever turning down a chance to address the facts, in fact I would have thought it fairly obvious that that is exactly what I am doing. If only I could find out the times that these trains left Kings Cross, I could address that as well.

The Editor said...

Quote: "You state "Rather than acknowledging known facts", if you read my posting on the reply from the London Underground you will see that I acknowledge the fact that on TFL's website on the 7/7 they stated the trains were going towards Kings Cross.

And ?
Do you think the police should question several hundred commuters again to ask why their accounts of what train they were all on differs from a webpage account written on the day of the attacks ?

Or question the transport authoirity on why the train which departed Kings Cross has a fucking big hole in it while the one approaching Kings Cross doesn't ?

Or do you possess the deductive powers to weigh those two conflicting accounts and decide which is the credible one ?

The times of the explosions were also stated on many sites including Government for London (from information given them by the Metropolitan Police) to be different from that which we are later told. Did I make this up or are these known facts?

No they are not known facts. Clearly those accounts from the day which are contradicted by what has been confirmed since are not facts. They are, as you have stated you are already aware, confused reports as you would expect when not all information was available.

For some perspective, the first police account on the day was that there were 6 locations bombed. If early accounts which conflict with absolutely every single other piece of evidence come to light since, aren't we missing a whole bunch'o'dead folks ?

There is a reason it is referred to as "playing dumb".

That the story changed is also a known fact.

Yes the story did change and you have already stated you know why this is.

That I have been unable to find out at what times these trains left Kings Cross is also a known fact.

Well you do know the departure time for one of them don't you.

BTW, it is also a known fact that when Channel 4 news played the video tape of Mr Khan to two of his friends they said "It isn't him it doesn't even sound like him" (Channel 4 News 2/9).

Kind of irrelevant if no images anywhere can be relied upon as a true representation of a visual setting based on the fact you saw a Gene Kelly commercial.

I am looking at ALL the evidence that I can find and then making up my own mind.

No you aren't. I just told you what time one of the 3 trains left Kings Cross and you aren't even willing to acknowledge that you are now aware of this information.

That I am suspicious of what we are told ia also a fact, and one that continues to be compounded by the lack of facts.

I already asked what lack of facts you were referring to and how they fit amongst the piles of dead bodies, injured commuters, eyewitness accounts and absolute lack of any commuters stating that the published accounts of the attacks were not accurate.

If there is something other than the train timetables then you might want to mention them at some point. See how well its stacks up against that pile of dead bodies.

History alone should teach us not to believe everything or even anything that is an official story, especially a story that lacks so many verifiable facts.

Actually history should teach you the opposite is the case. If you don't understand what that means ask a Viking to verify what you read in history books about English history.

I am not aware of ever turning down a chance to address the facts, in fact I would have thought it fairly obvious that that is exactly what I am doing. If only I could find out the times that these trains left Kings Cross, I could address that as well.

Well you just found out what time the Russell Square train departed Kings Cross and how to determine the same details for the other trains.

Using the same method you can find out the best estimate of the departure times of the other trains. Then you can use that knowledge for... well... who knows.... until you are presented with something which would give you a stronger case to use any other estimate of these times.

But let's not play dumb. We both know you could have done this already if you wanted to. This reveals your motivations.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Attrition

Back again but then that's the nature of the name.

As far as official stories not being trusted have you heard the one about WMD in Iraq? The one that has led to the slaughter of how many innocent Iraqis? On that basis alone I think we have a duty to ask questions and not take at face value what we are told.

Anonymous said...

I find it rather interesting that attrition opines that Bridget should accept as proof the video, which as yet has STILL not been verified as authentic by the `authorities' (whomever they might be) despite what the media are saying, that Mohammad Sidique Khan was one of four Muslims who bombed London. Attrition says

"Of course you can't. You had never laid eyes on the man. Why would you or the rest of the world think you could identify someone from a photo who you had never seen before ?"

In response to Bridget's comment that we cannot confirm that is is indeed him on the video.

By the same token, what, then, makes anyone think that we CAN?

It is NOT a fact that his family have confirmed it is his him. His family have released no other statement than their initial one. His friends have said that it appears to be him but looks significantly different than he did before the event.

Attrition says,
"Well Khan confessed to planning to blow up these trains and was photographed on his way to the bombings, just before the bombings occurred."

This is inaccurate. Khan made no `confession'. At no time, during the video did Khan mention London or indeed any specific intention he had to cause any damage to it. People have chosen to interpret his words thus, but if you listen to what is said during the video, and read the transcript, there is no statement of intent regarding London, trains, buses or anything else it has been attributed to. Secondly, the only photo released of the men on that day is of them apparently entering Luton station. How does this prove they were in London that day? It has simply been assumed.

Within the context of us being told these are the perpetrators, the public have taken it to be proof, but it actually means very little.
I personally find it hard to take very seriously a video released by an organisation that doesn't even exist, (something Tony Blair himself said very recently) which was recruited and funded by the CIA under the Reagan administration in the 1980s - a fact that was stated by Robin Cook and numerous political commentators.
I find this case woefully lacking in proof, and I cannot see how vilifying or ridiculing people who are understandably wishing to question quite clear anomalies and inconsistencies makes much sense at all.

keith said...

The struggle between attrition and bridget is fascinating; my sense is that attrition should try to be more respectful.
Attrition should know that the Luton photos have ben called into serious question; that the train times down from Luton are likewise in question (either they got the 7.25 arriving 8.23 or they got the 8.42 arriving too late? at 8.39 - but no way could they have got the 7.40 Thameslink (which didn't run) or the 7.48 as we have been told.

Attrition should also know that there are two credible reports (one in the Cambridgeshire Evening news
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

and one on Guardian On line http://nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=248#248

that the explosion on the two Circle line trains took place underfloor.

Other reasons people are suspicious concern Visor Consultants parallel 'Terror Exercise' with London Underground and (?Verint Systems) management that very morning focussed on those stations (what are the odds?) and also the speed with which the four men were identified when only one other victim had been identified.

None of this is conclusive, but abuse and the withholding of evidence won't help anyone. Surely you would agree that it is in everyone's interest for conspiracy theories to be scotched (if false) or confirmed (if true)?

Bridget,
If the information you seek is not on TfL website, then you have grounds for appealing to the Freedom of Information Ombudsperson, as they have invoked a reason which rests on a false premise.
So far as London Transport is concerned the man does say that they do of course have the information (which he didn't need to tell you), why not keep going with him, by phone perhaps? information is of course Guardian online and one and that Bridget

Attrition said...

@anonymous
Quote: "I find it rather interesting that attrition opines that Bridget should accept as proof the video ... that Mohammad Sidique Khan was one of four Muslims who bombed London."

Why you find that interesting is anyone's guess.
I mentioned it only to point out the extremely unfortunate timing of its release for someone just starting a London bombings conspiracy blog.

Quote: In response to Bridget's comment that we cannot confirm that is is indeed him on the video.
By the same token, what, then, makes anyone think that we CAN?


That is what I said. You don't count.

It is NOT a fact that his family have confirmed it is his him. His family have released no other statement than their initial one. His friends have said that it appears to be him but looks significantly different than he did before the event.

Yeah. They also clarified this by saying that they thought Khan probably recorded months if not a year prior. In the news report I just read that was stated (as you would expect) in the very next paragraph.

This is inaccurate. Khan made no `confession'. At no time, during the video did Khan mention London or indeed any specific intention he had to cause any damage to it. People have chosen to interpret his words thus,but if you listen to what is said during the video, and read the transcript, there is no statement of intent regarding London, trains, buses or anything else it has been attributed to.

You are of course referring to this transcript...
Khan Video Transcript
... and indicating you are not someone worthy of further response.

I guess we will never know why Khan thought the media would be giving him attention in the near future when he made his martyr-styled video , for some reason produced by al Qaeda and delivered to al Jazeera, in which referred to himself as a soldier and talked about spilling his own blood in response to the UKs policies against Muslim populations.

You think it might have been a Big Brother audition tape ?
Another big mystery.

attriti0n said...

@Keith

Quote: Attrition should know that the Luton photos have ben called into serious question

Not by anyone serious thought. I known that actual digital photographers have stated that it is not possible to make any determination about details in the photos given the low resolution of the stock.

A serious question about the photos would be do those nimrods over at prisonplanet actually think that the BBC etc got a website-sized photo to put on their website-sized website or whether if they wanted to do an actual analysis of the thing they should maybe make an effort to source it themselves.


that the train times down from Luton are likewise in question (either they got the 7.25 arriving 8.23 or they got the 8.42 arriving too late? at 8.39 - but no way could they have got the 7.40 Thameslink (which didn't run) or the 7.48 as we have been told.

Ok.

Attrition should also know that there are two credible reports (one in the Cambridgeshire Evening news
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
and one on Guardian On line http://nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=248#248
that the explosion on the two Circle line trains took place underfloor.


I was already aware of those statements.
I am not aware of any suggestion that this guy has any sort of forensics knowledge which would lead anyone to conclude his assessments of bomb damage would be in any way useful or of any merit compared to all those people who do have such experience who are involved in the investigation.

I am also aware that whatever question he was giving an answer to would have started along the lines of "tell us what you can recall right after you were blown up by a bomb".

Other reasons people are suspicious concern Visor Consultants parallel 'Terror Exercise'

That was debunked very early on. It was an excercise that in the same way all board meetings in offices are.

So to be more accurate you could in fact say that "people are suspicious because they read some speculative bullshit on prisonplanet".
Or just "they read prisonplanet" which says that just as effectively.

with London Underground and (?Verint Systems) management that very morning focussed on those stations (what are the odds?)

They didn't focus on those stations in any meaningful way which is why they didn't even know bombings had occurred until almost an hour after the fact. At which point the suits "switched from slow time to quick time thinking" in regard to how they conduct their business.

See the explanation given by the Visor Powers guy.

and also the speed with which the four men were identified when only one other victim had been identified.

Well the reason you would want to ID who was responsible as a priority is obvious.
Forensics are able to look at what is left and know where to start. From the extent and nature of the damage they can pretty quickly determine who was closest to a device. There are references for this online and you might find better results referencing Iraq since these investigations are undertaken for bombings there.

None of this is conclusive, but abuse and the withholding of evidence won't help anyone.

Help anyone what ? You are working on the basis that there is some point to finding an answer. A quick review of non-replies to that direct question here should set you straight on that.

Surely you would agree that it is in everyone's interest for conspiracy theories to be scotched (if false) or confirmed (if true)?

There is no theory here. As I have said there doesn't even appear to be a point to the question.

And since you appear to read English just as well as the rest of us lets not pretend that after reading references in September to websites containing factual errors on 7/7 that you think there is any likelyhood of a baseless theory being put down here.

Bridget Dunne said...

Hi Attrition

Glad you're back I've missed your contributions and the very fact you feel you need to return makes me think I am doing something right!
I find it more and more difficult to untangle your points but firstly it is important for me to say that the point of this blog, as you well know, is to ascertain a few facts behind all the endles verbiage newsreel and newsprint that we have seen heard read since the 7th July. In amongst all of that are huge gaps in those facts. Instead we have conjecture supposition and allegation. I have said from the beginning that the facts are missing. I refuse to 'move on' while there is so little known about the events that morning. Over 9 weeks have lapsed yet NO CCTV from any platform or train or from Kings Cross Thamelink subway or around the Kings Cross area has surfaced yet there must be a good few, if we take the images available after 21/7 as anything to go by. In fact there is no proof AT ALL that is in the public domain that links what we have been told happened and what actually happened.
Until there is I for one am not prepared to believe that we are being told the truth, yet.
Is this a conspiracy theory? I dont really care Attrition what anyone calls it but I do realise that in this world their often exists Conspiracy Fact.

attrition said...

Quote:Glad you're back I've missed your contributions and the very fact you feel you need to return makes me think I am doing something right!

This must be the part where I refer you to subsequent posts.

In amongst all of that are huge gaps in those facts. Instead we have conjecture supposition and allegation.

Well ok. Seems to be going well though. Doesn't seem to be posing a big problem for anyone.

So why would anyone who you are questioning care ?

Take a minute and understand that figuring this out would help you get answers. Also that the people you are questioning already at an 8 hour job with 8 hours of work to do.

You want some perspective... I have read WRH daily for a couple of years now and even I would trash your emails. Get it ?

I have said from the beginning that the facts are missing. ... Over 9 weeks have lapsed yet NO CCTV from any platform or train ... Kings Cross Thamelink subway or around the Kings Cross area has surfaced yet

Well in the meantime why don't you unearth some policy documents which suggest they should have. These need to establish:
1. Precedent for CCTV being released for interest's sake rather than as part of a public call for ID.
2. Something which establishes that evidence in these murders should be made public rather than being subject to restriction

Without this you really have no basis for suggesting you should have already seen this stuff.

there must be a good few, if we take the images available after 21/7 as anything to go by. In fact there is no proof AT ALL that is in the public domain that links what we have been told happened and what actually happened.

I said case closed and so has everyone else. If you dont then you dont. You are exactly where you were the day before you started the blog.

Literally too... the release of the prime suspect's al Qaeda produced martyr video since seems to have had absolutely no relevance to your search for "facts". If you dont regard that as one then you don't. All that says is you were biased going into this making the whole excercise pointless.

Until there is I for one am not prepared to believe that we are being told the truth, yet.

You can do that without emailing people though. However if you want people to provide you information on the basis that they are serving any purpose you are gonna have to address that.

Is this a conspiracy theory? I dont really care Attrition what anyone calls it but I do realise that in this world their often exists Conspiracy Fact.

Well perhaps intentional delusion is a better term to describe your references to unsupported reports from the day as meaning something in September.
You dont get to suggest you were calling into question which trains were bombed (seriously) as an attempt to clarify facts.

Bridget Dunne said...

Attrition

You say:

"Well in the meantime why don't you unearth some policy documents which suggest they should have. These need to establish:
1. Precedent for CCTV being released for interest's sake rather than as part of a public call for ID.
2. Something which establishes that evidence in these murders should be made public rather than being subject to restriction"

Is there any good reason in your mind why we are shown a tape recording of Mr Khan 8 weeks after the event which, if it is him, never mentions the actual incidents in London on 7/7 and yet no CCTV evidence from Kings Cross?

Given that there will be no trial of these 4 dead young people at which evidence can be heard and made public and Blair has ruled out an inquiry, how else will we ever see or hear this evidence?

You then say:

"I said case closed and so has everyone else. If you dont then you dont. You are exactly where you were the day before you started the blog."

Everyone else Attrition are you sure? Because just as the 9/11 truth movement is gaining momentum I find many voices questioning the events of 7/7. Mine being one of them.

We still have some civil rights left , I think, such as the Freedom of Information Act and this is not yet a police state and in that spirit I will continue to keep asking a very simple question.

As for being no further on than the day I started this blog, in fact, I am further along in realising that this question apparantly has no credible answer.

Anonymous said...

Attrition are you unaware that the trian timmes for 7/7 have not been released wheather or not there has been a scedule and the cctv has been tampered with if you look hard enough in the top left hand side so please give miss Bridget dunne some appreciation and lay off the grief as we have all been preocuppied with new orleans and maybe a future "terroriest attack" on london

attrition said...

Bridget said...
"Is there any good reason in your mind why we are shown a tape recording of Mr Khan 8 weeks after the event which, if it is him, never mentions the actual incidents in London on 7/7 and yet no CCTV evidence from Kings Cross?"

I think you are referring to the al Qaeda produced video where he refers to sacrificing himself to punish the UKs policies against muslims.

Yeah I do think there's a pretty obvious reason that made the news. If you can't think of one you really aren't worth anyone's time.

Don't take my word for it either. Write an email to someone in the government, police force, media, or any other random person on the planet and tell them you have no idea what the video was about. See how interested they are.

Given that there will be no trial of these 4 dead young people at which evidence can be heard and made public and Blair has ruled out an inquiry, how else will we ever see or hear this evidence?

I dunno... wait for the TV special ?

If the idea is you play dumb about the videos that are released while asking for other videos to be released then I really don't think I need to tell you how that's gonna work out.

attrition said...

Someone who couldn't work the choose an identity button said...
"Attrition are you unaware that the trian timmes for 7/7 have not been released

No. I am aware they have been released just as they were on all days prior and since.

"wheather or not there has been a scedule and the cctv has been tampered with if you look hard enough in the top left hand side"

All the CCTV you have ever seen has been tampered with in the same way. If you want to see untampered images stop looking at them on the web and go look at them on the CCTV monitors.

"so please give miss Bridget dunne some appreciation and lay off the grief as we have all been preocuppied with new orleans and maybe a future "terroriest attack" on london"

Ok then. I will lay off in the same way all the people she has emailed have.

Anonymous said...

Please see this link for much more information on the London bombings (and all the others as well).

http://www.crematonofcare.com (Joseph Skelton, Skipton, UK)

or http://www.threeworldwars.com (Michael Haupt, UK)

http://www.prisonplanet.com
(Paul Watson of the infowars.com
organization.) including http://www.propagandamatrix.com

Anonymous said...

to fix the typo above:

www.CremationOfCare.com

www.threeworldwars.com

www.prisonplanet.com

It turns out that the same network that was behind the recent London bombings were also behind Princess Di's and Dodi Fayd's assassination on 31-8-1997... and much more than those events as well.

Peter Robert North said...

attriti0n said...
(to Peter Robert North)

You've got issues.
=========================================================================================================

Attriti0n,

Sir, if you think that by being arrogant and sending obnoxiously rude messages - writing to me and saying I have "issues" for opposing Islamist Nazis in the Balkans and Israel,and for exposing the West's support for and covert protection of Islamist terror on my blog, then YOU are the one with serious "issues" that need to be resolved, and certainly NOT me. Learn to treat people with respect and dignity before you mouth off.


Cheers,


And have a happy day, Attriti0n,


Sincerely,


Peter Robert North.

(A Proud Libertarian American - unlike YOU and your Islamist Nazi terrorist friends at Camp X-Ray/Guantanomo Bay)

Anonymous said...

I was up in Edinburgh the day the explosions happened. All week the G2& make poverty history demonstators had been harassed, beaten, and illegally detained by Police. All of a sudden these guys in the body armour start behaving as if they were heroes, and the demonstration was all very well and good but they had a war to fight against baddies.
The whole anti-G8ommentum of the campaign and protests were reversed in one fell swoop. The media dropped the whole issue. Gleneagles was over and done with. The timing was perfect.