by Home home
video of Mohammad Sidique Khan, and a last will
and testament, indicating that he intended to fight
jihad.
This ‘state narrative’ was very different from the accounts
given by the authorities in the immediate aftermath of the
7/7 attacks. Initially police were said to have used controlled
detonations to destroy suspect devices, and the widespread
disruption was a result of electrical power surges. This
quickly morphed into a story about suicide bombings.
For the first two days the bombs were said to have detonated
at different times. On July 7th 2005, Scotland Yard's Deputy
Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddock made a public
statement that the underground explosions occurred at
08:51, 08:56 and 09:17.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair stated that
he knew of “six explosions,” listing the six affected areas as
Edgware Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell
Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate, adding that it was “still
a confusing situation” .[93]
221
A Dangerous Ideology
Initial reports suggested victims were killed or injured while
heading towards Kings Cross, from where the bombers
allegedly caught the trains they attacked. Among them was
Jenny Nicholson, who sadly died in the Edgware Road blast.
She had called her boyfriend shortly before boarding her
train at Paddington. This meant she was eastbound at
Edgware Road.[100] Divinia Turrell, who suffered facial
injuries at Edgware Road, was also reportedly heading
eastbound towards Canary Wharf.[101]
Police initially stated, at 09.17, an explosion on a train
approaching Edgware Road blew a hole through the side of
the carriage and tunnel wall, impacting another train. They
maintained this account for more than a week. However, the
official story later attributed the Edgware Road blast to
Khan, on a single westbound train. Why the initial police
assessment of events lasted so long is perplexing.
Similarly, Manjit Dhanjal and Ana Castro were both on a
westbound Circle Line train, between Aldgate East and
Liverpool Street, when it was apparently bombed. They
described a loud explosion, thick black smoke, seeing
horrendous injuries and the bodies of the deceased.
This train was also heading towards Kings Cross, where
Tanweer was said to have caught the eastbound Circle Line
train he destroyed. Despite considerable evidence of a bomb
at Aldgate East this was soon excluded from the official
account.[99]
Transport for London (Tfl) issued a press update on the 7th
stating there had been an explosion on a northbound
Piccadilly Line train, heading towards Kings Cross. This was
corroborated by a Tube Lines’ statement to the same effect.
Initially this train was identified as the northbound 311.
Gary Stevens, the duty manager of Russell Square Station
confirmed 311 was bombed, as did the Piccadilly Line
operations manager. A year later the ‘official account’ had
Lindsay on the southbound train, leaving Kings Cross.
Investigators subsequently changed the times of the bombs
having analysed 'technical data' from London Underground.
[92] They also revised the number of reported explosions,
down from as many as seven, to four. By the time the report
222
A Dangerous Ideology
was released in 2006, the account had changed to four
suicide bombers on three trains and one bus.
Already suspicious of the official narrative, many were
unhappy about the amount of conjecture within it. There
was heavy reliance upon words like 'assumed', 'possibly',
‘must’ and 'suspected.' Certainly from 08.26 onwards, there
was a notable lack of evidence to support the given timeline.
The police investigation took some 20,000 witness
statements, it looked at 40,000 pieces of physical evidence
and cost the British tax payer £100M. However, to date, no
one has been convicted of any direct involvement in the 7/7
attacks.[26] Furthermore, the initial report, supposedly
based upon this thorough investigation, got some basic key
facts wrong.[17]
The four alleged bombers were said to have caught the 07:40
train from Luton. However, due to disruption caused by
damaged overhead lines in the Mill Hill area, the 07:40 was
cancelled that morning. The next available train was at
07:42 (the delayed 07:30) but that didn't arrive at Kings
Cross until 08:39. This would have placed their arrival at
Kings Cross about quarter of an hour after witnesses
supposedly saw them. It would also have meant Tanweer
would have missed the train he allegedly blew up. Nor could
they have caught the 07:56 (the delayed 07.48) as this would
have placed their arrival in Kings Cross at 08:42, too late for
either Khan or Tanweer to catch their respective trains.
According to the official narrative, they were caught on CCTV
entering Luton station at 07:15. However, the video was time
stamped at 07:21:54. This would not appear to have given
them enough time to catch the earlier 07:24 (delayed to
07:25.) This may explain why the Home Office thought they
had caught the later train. Although the delayed 07:24
arrived at Kings Cross Thameslink platform just after the
Home Offices stated time of 08:23 (time stamped CCTV
footage gave this as 08:25,) if the Luton video timestamps
were correct, it seems unlikely the terrorists ever intended to
catch this train. Frankly, the timings stated in the Home
Office's official account didn't make any logical sense and
were impossible in some instances.[52]
223
A Dangerous Ideology
After 'conspiracy theorists' had pointed this out, then Home
Secretary John Reid was forced to inform parliament the
investigation had got the train times wrong. Reid informed
MP's of the error stating the 'terrorists' actually caught the
07:24.[53] The police insisted they had informed the Home
Office about the correct train times when they first noticed
the error in the report. If so, it begged the question why the
impossible times remained in it for more than a year,
especially given that independent researches had been
pointing out the mistake for many months.
The reason for this error was further confused when footage
from Luton was released in 2008. This purportedly showed
the men going through the ticket barriers and waiting on the
Luton platform.
These clips should have resolved the timing issues, but the
timestamps were largely blurred out for some reason. The
Police had already suggested that some timestamps were
wrong and maintained they had entered the station at 07:15.
Unable to see many of the timestamps on the new footage, it
was impossible to independently verify this at the time.
However, CCTV footage from Luton, later given to the
inquest, clearly showed the previously
blurred out
timestamps, recording the men on the platform at 07:23.
This would have given them time to catch the delayed 07:24.
[97]
Therefore, the train timing fiasco was inexplicable. Why were
either investigators or the Home Office ever muddled? After
five years of disorientation, the Luton CCTV timestamps were
all revealed to be perfectly clear and entirely consistent with
the revised, now workable, account. The police claimed they
hadn't initially told the Home Office what time the bombers
caught the Luton train, only later correcting their mistake.
Surely such information was crucial? Why would the Home
Office ever issue a report without requesting this vital
evidence? Perhaps they just guessed. Incorrectly, as it
turned out.
At the time, the error strewn 2006 report was the only
publicly available account of the worst terrorist attack in
British history. The state’s protestations, that they hadn’t
224
A Dangerous Ideology
received all the relevant information, did not offer adequate
explanation.
It certainly didn't explain how the police possibly spoke to
witnesses who were recorded as being on the non-existent
07:40 train. These people were reported as stating the men's
casual clothes stood out from those of the average business
commuter. They interviewed other witnesses on the phantom
07:40 who recounted the four’s noisy conversations.
Although The Home Secretary John Reid claimed, during his
parliamentary apology, that the rest of the report was
accurate, it was not without good reason many had their
doubts. If the investigation couldn't get such basic
information straight, what confidence could any have in the
other ‘facts’ offered in the official account?
The calls for an independent inquiry increased but, for
reasons we will soon discuss, it never happened. The only
review of the state’s narrative came with the inquests, more
than 5 years later.
The 2011 inquests into the deaths of the 52 people killed by
the supposed suicide bombers returned verdicts of unlawful
killing for all.[18] The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, ruled
there would be no inquests into the deaths of the four
accused terrorists.
There is no official record of how these men died and
certainly no court verdict proving them suicide bombers.
None of the four alleged terrorists were pronounced ‘life
extinct’ at the scenes. It may seem a moot point to most but,
given the many other anomalies surrounding the official
account of 7/7, it is a notable addition to the list.
As the story of the four suicide bomber emerged, the official
account stated the four suspects were unknown to the
intelligence and security services. Then Home Secretary,
Charles Clarke, said they were so called 'clean skins.'[19]
Therefore, it seemed surprising to some that the police were
able to identify the men so quickly. Fortunately,
identification documents were found at the scenes, which
helped the police immensely.[27]
225
A Dangerous Ideology
Mohammad Sidique Khan's Identification documents were
found at Aldgate, Edgware Road and Tavistock Square.[95]
Tanweer's were found in a wallet at Aldgate and Jermaine
Lindsay's with his body at the scene of the Piccadilly Line
explosion. Hasib Hussain's driving licence and bank card
were found at Tavistock Square. It was noted at the inquests
the documents weren't damaged to the extent one might
expect if they were in close proximity to a bomb. The
government's QC, Neil Flewitt, explained this to the inquest.
“Although they were damaged to some
extent, they did not show the damage that
would be expected if they were on the body
of the bomber or in the rucksack, suggesting
that in each case they had been deliberately
separated by some distance from the actual
explosion.”
Therefore, we are told the bombers scattered identification
documents on the floors of the carriages and the bus, prior
to manually detonating their bombs. Suggesting their
intention to be identified. There were no witness testimonies
to corroborate this theory. It was simply assumed.[96]
The inquest was controlled by Lady Justice Hallett, She
determined what evidence could and could not be admitted.
Ultimately she concluded the key points of the government’s
narrative were all entirely correct. However, whatever her
ruling was based upon, it is difficult to see how it related to
the evidence openly revealed at the inquest.
Firstly the concept of the suicide bombers initially arose, and
was widely disseminated by the mainstream media (MSM),
thanks largely to the statement of one man.
Richard Jones said he saw a man, fitting the description of
Hasib Hussain, fiddling with his rucksack on the No30 bus
to Tavistock Square. For some unknown reason, never
explained at the inquest or in any official account, the No30
bus was diverted on 7/7. If, as suggested, Hussain changed
from the No91 to the No30 bus he would ordinarily have
been heading back in opposite direction. It was only the
diversion which resulted in the No30 ending its Journey in
Tavistock Square.
226
A Dangerous Ideology
Jones’ testimony placed Hussain on the lower deck. The
forensic evidence indicated the detonation occurred on the
upper deck, contradicting Jones' eyewitness statement.
Jones credibility, as a witness who could place Hussain on
the bus, was dubious.
He described Hussain as smartly dressed, wearing “hipster-
style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer
underwear, and a matching jersey-style top.” This was
completely at odds with the casual blue jeans, light purple
top and dark jacket Hussain was wearing in the released
CCTV images. Contrary to the ubiquitous media reports
asserting his reliability, Jones description did not match that
of Hussain. Something Jones later highlighted at the inquest
when he stated:
“......at no stage have I ever said I saw the bomber. Right?”
Inquest testimony, from a severely injured survivor of the
Edgware Road blast, Danny Biddle, also reported that
Mohammad Sidique Khan had been fiddling with his
rucksack as the bomb detonated.
Biddle was in a coma for more than 5 months. Upon his
recovery he was interviewed by investigators. Initially he was
unable to offer them any significant additional information to
assist their inquiries. Then he saw Khan's alleged
'martyrdom video' on TV. Suddenly, Biddle remembered
seeing Khan on the train. He testified that Khan had a small
black camping rucksack on his lap. This is the rucksack he
recalled Khan fidgeting with.[27]
Khan's martyrdom video was apparently released on an
Islamist website, by person's unknow
n. It suggested that
Khan was associated with al Qaeda. Footage of Ayman al
Zawahiri’s speeches were cut into the video. This implied
connection was contrary to the official account. No official
explanation clarified why Khan, or whoever made the video,
would promote the idea a wider terrorist plot.
Khan made no reference at all to either the London
Bombings or his own martyrdom in the video. He didn't
mention any of the other alleged bombers or name any
future London targets. It wasn't clear who he was talking to
227
A Dangerous Ideology
either. The video offered no evidence that Khan was involved
in the 7/7 bombings. Rather, it suggested he may have been
planning to fight jihad overseas.[51]
Biddle's testimony differed from the forensic evidence which
placed the Edgware Road device on the floor of the carriage.
The hand movements, seen by both Jones and Biddle,
suggested manual detonation but there was a lack of
supporting physical evidence. No manual trigger
mechanisms were ever found at any of the bomb locations.
Jones didn't appear to positively identify Hussein at all, and
Biddle's identification of Khan only came after he'd been
shown a video informing him that Khan as one of the four
alleged suicide bombers.
Officially the four terrorists were working entirely alone. The
inquest judged there were no reasons to suspect a wider plot
or consider any possible co-conspirator involvement.
However, contrary to Lady Hallett's eventual findings, the
evidence given at the inquests indicated otherwise.
According to the official story, Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad
Sidique Khan and Hasib Hussain collected the bombs from
their bomb making factory in Alexandra Grove, Leeds, on the
morning of the attacks. A local resident (Mrs Waugh) testified
that she saw as many as six individuals going to and from
the flat. This was supported by the discovery of at least 10
separate sets of finger prints found in the 'bomb factory.'
The same witness said that she had seen ‘at least’ 6 men
loading rucksacks into the Micra on the morning of 7/7. Mrs
Waugh remembered it because the early hour commotion
woke her. She saw three men get into one lilac car and at
least one more into a white car. She had assumed they were
drug dealers.[28]
This repudiated the official account. Supposedly only the
three named terrorists were present at the flat that morning.
