New profile of Mohammad Sidique Khan

A new, updated profile of Mohammad Sidique Khan is now on the J7 Site, including information from Khan's personnel file at Hillside School correlated with conflicting information from other FOI disclosures, which in turn conflict with the Official Report. The profile also covers the revelations of an IT expert who claimed to have worked with Khan and Khan's alleged links through the Iqra to white Muslim converts, one of whom is a former anti-terrorism operative and the other with reported links to al-Qa'ida. Neither of these men are mentioned in the Official Report, despite their apparent connection to Khan and Beeston. Also included is an analysis of the supposed 'bonding mission' of a white-water rafting session in Wales, the erroneous reports of his involvement with 'terrorist activities' abroad and the apparent prior knowledge of Khan by the security services, who curiously sat back and did nothing, despite deciding he was worthy of quite intense surveillance.

To view the profile, click here.

On the hypothesis of the article on London bombings

J7 is pleased to reproduce the first draft of interdisciplinary researcher and writer Fazal Rahman's follow up to his August 2005 article, "London bombings: the unasked and unanswered questions". In "On the hypothesis of the article on London Bombings", reproduced below, Rahman explores hypotheses other than the evidence-free conspiracy theory touted by the British government in the Home Office narrative and disseminated by a compliant, complicit and unquestioning British media:

On the hypothesis of the article on London bombings

The article, “London bombings: the unasked and unanswered questions” was written on August 8, 2005, a month after the July 7th bombings. At that time, it was submitted to only one group in the UK, Red Pepper. They decided not to publish it.

On October 28, 2006, I submitted that same article, without any changes, to the Indymedia in Oxford. Through their link to the www.indymedia.org.uk, it also got published there.

Later, I was informed by the July 7th Truth Campaign www.julyseventh.co.uk, that it was also published on www.rinf.com, here. That is how I came to know about July 7th and RINF.

Nine comments have been posted, so far, on the article on the above Indymedia web sites. Some are very nasty, mindless, and vulgar, with the intent to provoke, smear, and disinform; a couple are supportive of the basic premises of the article’s hypothesis; while others reproduce the government information and conclusions, totally uncritically and unquestioningly, expressing annoyance that someone is raising some questions about those Absolute Truths!

On October 30, I found that the article had been abruptly removed from the front page of Oxford Indymedia! That is unusual as the articles there, as well as on the other web sites, normally run their course, descending gradually under the newly published articles. On October 31, I could not find the article on the Oxford Indymedia site at all in the archives. It seems that they have completely removed it! They only allowed it to stay on their site for a couple of days. We may never know why it was done or under whose pressure. One of the basic purposes of such web sites is to promote debate through diversity of comments and opinions. During the short time this article was allowed to stay on the front page of Oxford Indymedia, more comments were sent about it than any other article on the front page during that time. And yet, they selectively and deliberately removed it from the front page and, one day later, from the archives altogether!

I have now visited the www.julyseventh.co.uk web site and found excellent research data, information, and analysis of all the matters connected with the London bombings. Among other things, they have presented official and alternative hypotheses and correlated all the known facts with these. Their impeccable scientific approach to this whole matter is self-evident.

Whatever the nasty and vulgar as well as other critics have reproduced, in their comments, from the government sources, has already been logically, factually, and scientifically addressed and analyzed on the www.julyseventh.co.uk . I cannot do a better job of that and, therefore, would like to refer all the conformists and firm believers in the government information (disinformation) to that site. There, they will find a lot more than the logical and factual refutation of their “facts” and “arguments”. In this brief article, my focus is on the nature of the hypothesis I presented in the above article and its similarities and affinity with some of the independently arrived hypotheses of the July 7th group.

My focus in the article-written a month after the bombings - when almost all the details and specifics were being kept in the dark, and selective contradictory information was being released - was on outlining a brief logical and historical hypothesis. As is stated clearly in the article, it is a hypothetical analysis, with the following four specific and concrete logical, factual, historical, and philosophical premises, some explicit, others implicit, in it:

1. In the London situation, there was no need for a suicide bombing. It could have been, and most probably was, carried out, relatively easily, without endangering oneself.

2. Muslim resistance has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by engaging in such acts in Europe.

3. US and UK imperialists are the main beneficiaries of such terrorist actions in Europe.

4. Both the imperialists and the leaders of Muslim resistance understand and know these political, military, and logical facts and their policies and actions include these.

These are the essential premises of the hypothesis involved in the above article. I contend that these are apodictic and irrefutable. I invite the conformists and firm believers in the mainstream hypothesis to try to refute these and make my day. They can probably attempt to do so with part of the 4th premise and, attributing irrationality, incompetence, and ignorance to the leaders of Muslim resistance, may argue that they do not understand and implement these in their policies or actions. But that would only prove their own ignorance, arrogance, irrationality, and incompetence, rooted in racism and national chauvinism. During the early years of Vietnam War, the West was full of such idiots, who, projecting their own ignorance, irrationality, and incompetence to the Vietnamese, were loudly broadcasting and claiming that no Asian nation could stand up to and resist the superpower of US. As it turned out, the Vietnamese were far superior in strategy, tactics, planning, and their implementation, as well as in fighting, than the technocratic elites of the superpower. However, obviously, the imperialists have become intoxicated again and forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. They are relearning them the hard way, with great loss of life and other damages.

As pointed out by the July 7th group, the government’s position, in regard to the London bombings, constitutes only one of many alternative hypotheses. It does not constitute the Absolute Truth, which the conformists and firm believers are making it out to be. Logically and philosophically, that insight is of fundamental importance in this whole matter. If one remains ignorant of that, one remains trapped in the disinformation.

What the July 7th group seems to be demanding is that all the facts be investigated, revealed, and utilized in the construction or validation of alternative hypotheses, and not just some of them, self-servingly selected, to fit into the implicit or explicit hypotheses of the officialdom. That is precisely what the British government and mainstream media have done. The July 7th group has made a concrete factual and logical analysis of this matter and more details can be found on their web site. The key point here is that facts are facts only when they are integrated and related to each other in their common logical structure (paraphrasing Hegel here). Only in that form, they fit into and are consistent with an appropriate hypothesis or theory. “Facts” that are fragmented, abstracted, and isolated from each other and their common logical structure, can be implanted into a variety of false and erroneous hypotheses.

In the London bombings, there were three train explosions and one on a bus. There was contradictory information about the timings of these explosions and the nature of the explosives used. The authorities were, somehow, quickly able to associate these bombings with four dead Asian Muslims and determine their identities, while overwhelming majority of the rest remained unidentified at that time. From there, they started fitting these facts into the prefabricated hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for what had happened. Alternative hypotheses of the involvement of imperialists, their secret services, organized crime etc., along with the four dead men, were totally ignored and remained uninvestigated. For example, everyone knows that the CIA is one of the major instruments of US imperialism and it has a long history of subversion, sabotage, terrorism, overthrow of governments, assassination or attempted assassination of the popular and democratic leaders of other countries, and the use of organized crime in some of these actions, e.g., having obtained the services of Mafia for the assassination of President Fidel Castro of Cuba during the early 1960s. All that is well documented. It even caused some conscientious ex-CIA agents to leave the agency and expose its real nature, plots, and crimes. Philip Agee has been the most conscientious, courageous, knowledgeable, and internationalist of those ex-CIA agents, who has shed very important light on such operations of CIA, in his various writings, lectures, and solidarity work. If the CIA could do that in so many other countries, why it would not do the same in UK or other European countries, when needed? Of course, it would be totally hopeless and unrealistic to expect the British government and secret services to investigate such connections. To the contrary, they should be expected to do the opposite, i-e. to leave such a possible connection totally untouched and to cover it up if any facts or evidence emerge. Hence, the importance of great public service by groups like July 7th, which are keeping the flame burning. Just imagine, what will happen to the known facts, and the mainstream hypotheses-listed on July 7th site- of which they have been made part of, if some evidence emerges of the involvement of organized crime or some CIA front group with the four dead Asian Muslims, in the London bombings? In such a situation, the context of these facts will totally change and so will the meanings and nature of these facts. Right now, these are part of an illogical structure, as part of the mainstream hypotheses, the basic premises of which are, as indicated above, in diametric contradiction with the required logical-factual-philosophical-historical premises of this matter, explicitly or implicitly inherent in the hypothesis of the above article or some of the alternative hypotheses proposed by the July 7th group.

The July 7th group has also documented the profiles of the four dead Asian Muslims, accused of having committed that crime, as well as of their families. If these profiles are even halfway accurate, it is hard to imagine how such human beings could carry out such violence against themselves and so many others.

The following three alternative hypotheses have been listed, among others, on the web site of the July 7th group and their numbers below are also those that are given there:

6. The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.

7. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.

8. The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

These hypotheses are more of a factual nature in contrast with the hypothesis of above article, the premises of which are more of logical, historical, and philosophical nature. Some of the hypotheses of the July 7th group and that of the article complement each other and make each other more wholesome and holistic. For example, if viewed from the perspectives of aforementioned four premises of the hypothesis of the article, these three hypotheses from the July 7th group are consistent with those premises, while the other five-not listed here, which are various concoctions of the mainstream and the officialdom-are not. There is a natural and organic compatibility and fit between the general hypothesis of the article and the above three specific hypotheses of the July 7th group.

Within the framework of the above-mentioned four premises of hypothesis of the article, with some modifications and combination of the three hypotheses of the July 7th group, a new hypothesis, Hypothesis #9 can be constructed:

Hypothesis #9: In this hypothesis, #6 and #8 or #7 and #8 are proposed to be combined. #6 and #7 would remain essentially the same while #8 would involve a secret service, coordinating and guiding a front organization and an organized crime group. Here four possibilities are proposed:

1. As exactly in #6, The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs, money, confidential documents, or other material etc. to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.

2. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.

3. As in the July 7th group Hypothesis #8, proposed by Fintan Dunne, the four men were murdered before any explosions took place and then their body parts were planted on the sites of the explosions. In this scenario, the involvement of an organized crime group or some secret service front organization is more likely than that of the police, as proposed by Fintan Dunne.

4. There was a fifth man who followed the four men to one of the trains. This man was carrying the explosives. He left them near the four men and then got off the train. He noted down the car number and its location, etc., so that his contacts in the secret service knew exactly where to find the body parts of the four men, who then, through some key contact in the police, managed to link each of the four to the different sites of the explosions.

Third and fourth possibilities require the involvement and cooperation of some key police officials. The first and second possibilities do not need the involvement of any police official or organized crime. These would have required just one secret service or its front organization contact person with the four men. These seem to be the most likely possibilities.

Some of the above possibilities would have been relatively easy to arrange and implement for some resourceful, experienced, and powerful organization, with long global reach and presence. It would not even be too difficult to arrange something like that even for an individual, with some means at his disposal. For example, if Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city Federal Building bomber, had thought about it and wanted to, he could have lured and trapped some Muslim men into his plot by arranging to meet with them near his explosives-filled vehicle. Just before the explosions were set to occur, he could have excused himself for having to go to the bathroom or something like that, leaving the men near his vehicle. After the explosion and devastation, their body parts would have been found and they would have been identified. If that had happened, all the other facts would have been concocted and tailored to fit into the hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for that act and McVeigh would have been walking free, planning his next move. The official investigation would have ended right then and there at that point. It is almost certain that no other alternative hypotheses would have been considered in such a situation. Even at that time, there was hysteria about Muslim terrorism and in the aftermath of the explosion, in the absence of any evidence, Muslims were being blamed for that act of terrorism. It was only after the unexpected arrest of McVeigh that Muslims were exonerated from the responsibility for that terrorist act.

Regardless of the practical results, it is most important to continue to struggle for truth and justice against all odds. At this diabolical stage of history, the power of truth, justice, spirit, intellect, and authentic human nature is diametrically opposed and overwhelmed by the power of capital, in the form of imperialist corporations, governments and their agencies in various advanced capitalist countries. Under such conditions, the inner ecology of human nature itself has been powerfully and drastically disrupted, to variable degrees and forms. More than any other time in human history, it is essential to preserve and express one’s authentic human nature, to the best of one’s ability. Speaking and uncovering the truth is a most important part of that process and that is what is also involved the matter of London bombings. So many people lost their lives in that tragedy. Lies, concoctions, fragmented and abstract “facts” and tailoring them to fit into illogical structures of incompatible hypotheses, refusal to consider alternative hypotheses or to discover other facts that these point towards etc. desecrate and disgrace the dead victims. Only a thorough and in-depth investigation, oriented towards uncovering all the facts and their logical analysis, with the objective of discovery of truth on that basis, will honor and do justice to those victims. Poisonous and mindless “patriotic”, national chauvinistic, and racist prejudices not only damage the Muslims and other minorities, they also damage and desecrate all the victims of that tragedy, regardless of race or religion, as well as obstruct justice and truth.

The above is first draft of this article.... I will receive any constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement or modifications of this article or its hypothesis with gratitude.

New Content on J7 site: The Terror Rehearsal

On the afternoon and evening of 7th July 2005, information came to light about a private company running a terror rehearsal operation at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the London transport network.

These revelations came not from an anonymous source but instead from the Managing Director of the private firm running the terror rehearsal operation. The private firm is Visor Consultants and the Managing Director in question is Peter Power. The client for whom the terror rehearsal was being organised is, thus far, unknown.

On and after 7/7, Peter Power gave a number of interviews in which he referred to the terror exercise he was running on the morning of 7th July.

In his interview with Radio 5 live, Peter Power said:

"...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!"

Note how Power refers to 'simultaneous bombs going off'. Note also that it wasn't until 9th July 2005, two days after the incidents, that it was revealed the explosions on the underground were 'almost simultaneous'. Power's fictional scenario, as explained by the man himself on the day, bears a closer resemblance to the eventual story of 7/7 than it does to the actual story that had been presented to the public by the police and authorities at the time of his interview.

Only ex-Mossad Chief, Ephraim Halevi who wrote in the Jerusalem Post on 7th July 2005 of, "the multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system" was able to demonstrate the same level of 'insight' as Mr Power.

Since the precise timings of the explosions were not publicly established on July 7th, and Mr. Power points out later on that only "One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.", it could be said that Peter Powers' dramatic response to the events of July 7th, wasn't really warranted. So why, then, did the hairs on the back of his neck stand up at all, in reaction to a 'coincidence' he should not have been aware of on the day, and another 'coincidence' which he later went to the trouble of stating was not a coincidence at all?

Was Peter Power in possession of information that the police were not? Why did he back track from and play down his original statements, when he had also stated on July 8th that the 'mock broadcasts' he was organising on July 7th, were so realistic that people didn't realise there was a genuine attack when the genuine news bulletins began? Why did he later say the exercise was only carried out "on paper" when it clearly, from his other statements, was not?

For an in-depth analysis of Mr. Power's career, Visor Consultants and their connections and media terror operations, please see the new content page on the J7 site The 7/7 Terror Rehearsal.

New 7/7 Documentary: Ludicrous Diversion

The July 7th Truth Campaign received an email earlier today informing us about the release of a new 7/7 documentary called 'Ludicrous Diversion'.

Ludicrous Diversion

On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?

Please distribute the link to this documentary far and wide and join us on the July 7th Truth Campaign's Independent People's Inquiry Forum.

New information on July Seventh website

The profile of Shehzad Tanweer on the J7 site has now been updated to include an analysis of the video broadcast on al-Jazeera on July 6th 2006, with some background information on one of the key figures involved. Updated profile here.

J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition

Release the Evidence

---

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

---

To: The British Government

On 11 May 2006 the Home Office published the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.

The official report has since been discredited owing to a factual inaccuracy, namely the departure time of the train the accused are alleged to have taken from Luton to Kings Cross. This error was announced to Parliament by the Home Secretary on 11 July 2006.

To date, only one piece of evidence has been placed in the public domain showing all four suspects - a single CCTV image, outside Luton station, in which three of the faces are unidentifiable.

No credible explanation has ever been given for the lack of CCTV footage from Luton and Kings Cross stations, despite there being numerous references to CCTV in the official report.

In the absence of a truly independent public inquiry, outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, we call on the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that conclusively proves the official report beyond reasonable doubt.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Click here to sign the Petition

---

Send this Petition to a friend

John Reid: The Official Report into the London Bombings is Wrong

The British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, yesterday admitted in Parliament that the Official Report of the London Bombings, the narrative, is wrong! He then went on to rewrite over a year of 'history' by placing the alleged perpetrators of the July 7th attacks on a train that has never been referred to by any authority, or newspaper source, in over 12 months.

Further details from the BBC and the Guardian. Ananova is carrying the story with confirmation from Scotland Yard that the Home Office didn't get the wrong train time from the police, or even any train time at all. And we know they definitely didn't obtain the train time from Thameslink, so where exactly did the Home Office source their information?

A Truly Independent Public Inquiry

Calls to the government from all sections of the community are being renewed for an Independent Public Inquiry into the events of July 7th, after the government's admission of a flawed Official Report. The J7 Truth Campaign supports all calls for a fully Independent Public Inquiry and once again restates its alignment with Amnesty International, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Finucane Family Campaign, and many other human, civil and legal rights organisations in their call to Judges to boycott any inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The July 7th Truth Campaign are also calling for the repeal of the Inquiries Act 2005, which Amnesty International summarised as follows:

"The Inquiries Act 2005 came into force in June. It undermined the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and human rights protection. It therefore failed to provide for effective, independent, impartial or thorough public judicial inquiries into serious human rights violations. AI called for its repeal."

- Amnesty International: AI Report 2006

J7: RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

The July 7th Truth Campaign continues with its clear and simple call to the government and authorities to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE which conclusively proves the story outlined in the Official Report of the London Bombings.

An Open Letter: July 7th and the Inquiries Act 2005

The July 7th Truth Campaign are issuing the following letter to individuals and organisations lobbying the government for an inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. Full details of the organisations to whom this letter has been sent, along with the responses received, will published in due course:

The July 7th Truth Campaign, of whom you may be aware via recent media coverage in the Guardian 'G2' supplement, and the response we issued to that article on the 'Comment is Free' web site, was established with the aim of getting to the truth about what happened in London on July 7th 2005, the day that 56 people were killed and over 700 injured.

We have been outraged at the immediate and continued refusal of the government to hold a public inquiry. We believe that the excuses given by the government for their continued refusal to hold a public inquiry are, quite frankly, a nonsense. We also believe the continued refusal to conduct a fully independent public inquiry into such an atrocity is actively against the public interest.

Since the release of the official Home Office 'narrative' on 11 May 2006, which raised more questions than it answered, the July 7th Truth Campaign have mobilised around a single, simple call to the government, namely, that the authorities RELEASE THE EVIDENCE which supports the suppositions and conjecture contained in the official 'narrative'.

The July 7th Truth Campaign fully supports all calls, from all sections of the community lobbying the government for a truly Independent Public Inquiry and is writing to a number of organisations and individuals campaigning for a Public Inquiry into the events of July 7th, to determine their position on any 7/7 inquiry proposed under the terms of the Public Inquiries Act 2005.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14 times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder, as well as there being allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion.

Amnesty International has called for judges to boycott all inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, specifically in support of Pat Finucane's widow, and has also demanded that the act be repealed. To date, the UK government has not been able to identify any judge willing to take on the Finucane inquiry under the terms of the act.

Under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005:

• the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;
• each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;
• the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;
• the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;
• the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive's discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive's discretion, "in the public interest".

The July 7th Truth Campaign supports the joint calls of Amnesty International, The Law Society of England and Wales, the Finucane Family Campaign and other legal, human and civil rights organisations, in their opposition to any inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, including any inquiry into July 7th, should it ever be granted. We also support Amnesty International's call to repeal the act.

We are writing to ask you to join us in our call to the government and authorities to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that supports the official Home Office narrative, our demands for a fully Independent Public Inquiry into the events of July 7th, outside the flawed framework of the Inquiries Act 2005, and the repeal of the Inquiries Act 2005.

We hope we can count on your support and look forward to hearing from you soon.

The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/
http://j7truth.blogspot.com/
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/

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."

Full article here

Regardless of Mark Honigsbaum's scepticism, at least the concerns of the July Seventh Truth Campaign have been brought into public consciousness. He presented a balanced account from a few different perspectives, although I was unhappy with the way there was no differentiation between the approaches of all July 7th campaigners.

I was also puzzled by this paragraph:

"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."

Why the need for [sic]? The article Mr. Honigsbaum is quoting is speaking solely of the tube deaths, of which there were, in fact, 39 - excluding the alleged perpetrators.

I also found it interesting that he was effectively back-pedalling from his original report. He says:

"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."

and

"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."

and finally

"In the internet age, it seems, some canards never die."

Mr. Honigsbaum, although he at least accepts that the July Seventh website has outlined all the main theories and explanations for how the attacks were carried out, needs to understand that it was not just his audio report which suggested the bombs appeared to be underneath the trains. He can call his own audio report a "canard" now, if he wishes, but that does not negate the testimony of other passengers, on other trains who spoke of the holes in the floors of the trains having metal pushed upwards - suggesting that the explosions had, in fact, occurred underneath. Also, would he have felt it necessary to "check their statements" if they had reported seeing a man blow himself up on the train? I wonder.

One of our forum members also made a valid criticism: "The quotes....letting the police off the hook for not releasing more CCTV footage and blowing off the work that has been done on the train times were just slipped in there as if they represent some kind of credible response to outstanding questions. They aren’t."

The article states:"...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."

This makes little sense. If there are people in the background of the Kings Cross sequence (which, due to the conflicting reports, may be either from the concourse, forecourt, underground ticket hall or even Thameslink station) who still haven't been traced a year on from the event, surely it would make more sense now to simply release the footage asking the people to come forward and identify themselves - a method used commonly used in crime investigations. Furthermore, the suggestion that the police kept back details of what the men were wearing in order to corroborate witness statements doesn't really fit in with the fact that the police did release details of what they were wearing through a single CCTV image from outside Luton station which illustrated their outfits enough that they could be identified by anyone who views it.

The information regarding the cancelled train was not obtained from a train schedule, as suggested in the article, it was obtained (and certainly wasn't "demanded") directly from the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton who supplied the times that the trains actually ran that day. Therefore, the impossibility of the men being able to take this train cannot be dismissed.

The questions still stand and will continue to be asked.

Mind the Gap

MPS HeliTele Images of Number 30 Bus Explosion

The following seven stills are from Metropolitan Police Service Heli-Tele footage that was captured and broadcast on BBC World at some point after the 9.47am explosion of a diverted number 30 bus in Tavistock Square on July 7th, 2005.

It is interesting to note that Sky News was ordered to pull its helicopter out of the skies shortly after the explosion of the bus.

These images were found in an archive at http://terrorize.dk/

Update to 'The Impossible Train Journey'

This first section of Mind the Gaps Part 1 is updated to include more information:

THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY

It was originally announced that the men had taken the 0740 train from Luton to Kings Cross Thameslink on the morning of July 7th. An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning and that the 0740 never ran that day. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager at the time for Thameslink Rail at Luton.

When it was later reported that the men had taken the 0748 train, it was found that this scenario could not be the correct one either. The 0748 did not reach Kings Cross Thameslink in time for the men to have made the journey to Kings Cross station to have been captured on CCTV “shortly before 8.30am” as the police stated. The 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate.

The 0730 train actually left Luton station at 7.42am. Again, this train arrived at Thameslink station four minutes after the first of the bombed tubes had already departed Kings Cross.

The men were shown on a single CCTV image taken from outside Luton station, apparently entering the station six seconds before 7.22am, according to the timestamp on the image. On this basis, the earliest train they could have caught would have been the train that left Luton at 7.25am. This train arrived at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.23am.The Government narrative of the London Bombings states that the men caught the non-existent 0740 train and that it arrived at Thameslink at 8.23am.

The narrative then says that the men were caught on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.26am, whereas it was previously reported that this sighting had occurred at Kings Cross mainline station. The narrative goes on to say that the men were seen again, four minutes later at Kings Cross mainline, where they proceeded to split up in different directions, giving the impression that each man was off to board a tube train. The quickest route from Thameslink to the tube lines is through an underground subway but the narrative does not specify their alleged route from King's Cross Thameslink station to the mainline station.

TFL Journey Planner advises to allow 6 minutes to transfer between King's Cross Thameslink station and the mainline in the rush-hour, which doesn't allow sufficient time for the accused to transfer between the Thameslink and the mainline stations. The narrative states:

"The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system."

From the concourse of which the narrative is speaking, there are four directions in which the men could have gone:

1) Back down to the Thameslink platform they just came up from
2) Down to the northbound Thameslink platform
3) To the main exit out onto the street and
4) To the underground via the subway.

By saying the men were "heading in the direction of the London Underground system", the narrative is implying the men took the underground subway route. There have recently been refurbishments at Kings Cross station which now allow access from the Thameslink station to all tube lines. However, in July last year, it was only possible to access the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines this way. Therefore, this route would only have facilitated the journey of Lindsay, who is alleged to have boarded the Piccadilly Line train; the other two men who were alleged to have been on the Circle Line trains would have had to have found an alternative route to the Circle Line platforms, necessitating their splitting up and making it extremely unlikely they would have been seen together again at 8.30am, as the narrative reports.

If we bear in mind that the eastbound Circle Line train left first, at 8.35am, and that Tanweer was reported to have still been on the Thameslink platform at 8.26am, they would have had to have moved at a fast pace for him to have caught this train. There are no reported witness sightings of four men with large rucksacks running. It is extremely difficult to see how Tanweer got to the Circle Line platform so quickly, if he either had to go overground or take a complicated journey to the Circle Line platform from another of the only platforms he could have reached via the Thameslink subway.
We must also factor in that the narrative states:

"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."

The narrative does not state whether it was a sighting by a CCTV camera or a witness, or the exact location in Kings Cross station . However, this scenario of the men splitting up could only have occurred in the underground ticket hall of Kings Cross mainline station. There is only one entrance to the underground at Thameslink and also from the main concourse of the mainline station, so it would not be logical for the men to "split up" there.

Also confusing is that the Metropolitan police stated in a press conference that the men were already at Kings Cross mainline by 8.26am when they appealed for information about the movements of Hussain "between 8.26am at King's Cross and 9.47am on the no. 30 bus when the explosion occurred."

This states that 8.26am was the last sighting of the men, as opposed to the time of 8.30am given by the narrative and it is hard to see how they could have been on the concourse at Thameslink station at 8.26am and also at Kings Cross station at that time.

In conclusion, the incorrect train given by the narrative cannot be put down to simple error. Even if the men had taken a train from Luton which ran that morning, it still would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to have been sighted at Kings Cross at the time they were said to have been seen, or for them to have caught the underground trains which were later bombed.

The narrative even says there were witnesses on the non-existent train who believe they saw the men. How could this be so when there was no such train? The anomalies in the narrative account regarding the train, its arrival time and how the men could have been sighted at Kings Cross only serve to cause much confusion.

J7 Nominated for New Media Awards 2006

The July 7th Truth Campaign has been nominated for the New Statesman New Media Awards 2006. Below are the comments that were submitted with the nominations:

July 7th Truth Campaign

For seeking justice for those that dies at the hands of terrorists and for doing what the disasterous UK Government doesn't. Michael Allan

Independent investigation into the events in London on 7th July 2005, exposing the factual errors in the Home Office Official Report ("Narrative") and the many contradictions and unanswered questions in media coverage. Christopher Main

Superb, meticously researched investigative website questioning every aspect of the muddled and contradictory official narrative of the July the 7th bombings in London. mark groak

The July 7th truth campaign was set up in the wake of the London bombings. With it's associated People's Investigation Forum and blog, it provides a fully comprehensive analysis of the events of that day. Given the anomalies in the Govt's Official Report (such as the train from Luton that we are told they boarded, the 7.40, was cancelled that morning), the need for a fully independent public inquiry is essential to prevent the possibility of a massive miscarriage of justice that surpasses even the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4. Bridget Dunne

They are presenting information which other media won't touch. The New Statesman should consider awarding them an award in order to put pressure on the govt to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE AND FOR A FULLY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. It isn't just about dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the Iraq war blowback model, we need to first establish what happened before we can work out how to stop recurrence. The site is very tight, factual, questioning - it is NOT ideoplogically driven, but genuinely open-minded and critical. Keith Paton

Source: New Media Awards 2006

On behalf of the July 7th Truth Campaign and the 70 members of the July 7th People's Inquiry Forum, many thanks to those of you who submitted a nomination.

Mind the Gaps

The discrepancies, distortions, lies and inconsistent reporting of July 7th have made it extremely difficult to see how anybody can say with any conviction exactly what happened that day and who perpetrated those atrocities. The Government Narrative is full of vague assumptions yet is supposed to be a definitive account. The July Seventh Truth Campaign has put together a list of the most obvious errors and inconsistencies in the official account so far.

There are so many gaps, we had to split the document into two parts. Mind The Gaps Part 1 is here and Mind The Gaps Part 2 is here.

Meanwhile, here are just a few of the gaps you'll find listed:

THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY

It was originally announced that the men had taken the 0740 train from Luton to Kings Cross Thameslink on the morning of July 7th. An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning and that the 0740 never ran that day. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton.

When it was later reported that the men had taken the 0748 train, it was found that this scenario could not be the correct one either. The 0748 did not reach Kings Cross Thameslink in time for the men to have made the journey to Kings Cross station to have been captured on CCTV “shortly before 8.30am” as the police stated. The 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate.

The 0730 train actually left Luton station at 7.42am. Again, this train arrived at Thameslink station four minutes after the first of the bombed tubes had already departed Kings Cross.

The men were shown on a single CCTV image taken from outside Luton station, apparently entering the station six seconds before 7.22am, according to the timestamp on the image. On this basis, the earliest train they could have caught would have been the train that left Luton at 7.25am. This train arrived at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.23am.

The Government narrative of the London Bombings states that the men caught the non-existent 0740 train and that it arrived at Thameslink at 8.23am. The narrative then says that the men were caught on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.26am, whereas it was previously reported that this sighting had occurred at Kings Cross mainline station.

The narrative goes on to say that the men were seen again, four minutes later at Kings Cross mainline, where they proceeded to split up in different directions, giving the impression that each man was off to board a tube train. The narrative does not state whether it was a sighting by a CCTV camera or a witness. The quickest route from Thameslink to the tube lines is through an underground subway but the narrative does not specify their alleged route from King's Cross Thameslink station to the mainline station.

"The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system."

However, if they were seen on the concourse of Kings Cross mainline, like the narrative says, then this suggests that the men did not take the subway but took the overgound route, since the subway leads directly to the tube platforms. It is unlikely they would have made the somewhat senseless decision to come back out from the tube platforms and make their way all the way back up to the main concourse just to go back down again and board the trains.

But confusingly, the subway route seems to be the only one which could have got them to Kings Cross quickly enough to have taken the trains they are alleged to have been on. Furthermore, the subway from Thameslink only gives access to the Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly lines. Therefore, this route would only have facilitated the journey of Lindsay, who is alleged to have boarded the Piccadilly Line train; the other two men who were alleged to have been on the Circle Line trains would have had to have found an alternative route to the Circle Line platforms, necessitating their splitting up and not being seen together.

If we bear in mind that the eastbound Circle Line train left first, at 8.35am, and that Tanweer was reported to have still been on the Thameslink platform at 8.26am, they would have had to have moved at a fast pace for him to have caught this train. We must also factor in that the narrative states:

"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."

TFL Journey Planner advises to allow 6 minutes to transfer between King's Cross Thameslink station and the mainline in the rush-hour, which doesn't allow sufficient time for the accused to transfer between the Thameslink and the mainline stations.

There are no reported witness sightings of four men with large rucksacks running. It is extremely difficult to see how Tanweer got to the Circle Line platform so quickly, if he either had to go overground or take a complicated journey to the Circle Line platform from another of the only platforms he could have reached via the Thameslink subway.

In conclusion, the incorrect train given by the narrative cannot be put down to simple error.

Even if the men had taken a train from Luton which ran that morning, it still would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to have been sighted at Kings Cross at the time they were said to have been seen, or for them to have caught the underground trains which were later bombed.The narrative even says there were witnesses on the non-existent train who believe they saw the men. How could this be so when there was no such train? The anomalies in the narrative account regarding the train, its arrival time and how the men could have been sighted at Kings Cross only serve to cause much confusion.

THE SIMULTANEOUS ANTI-TERROR DRILL

A company named Visor Consultants was running an exercise for an unnamed company which involved the scenario of simultaneous bombs going off at the time when London actually did come under attack. The Managing Director of Visor, Peter Power, gave an interview on the afternoon of July 7th where he said:

"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." (Download MP3 audio file of this interview)

Despite this coincidence, sensationalized by Peter Power himself, he admitted later on that the drill had not completely mirrored the actual events, and had also involved mainline stations as targets. He also expressed surprise that people would be interested in the remarkable comments he made in his interview and also attempted to minimise the similarities between the exercise and the actual attacks. Despite the fact that he had said the exercise involved the bombs going off at ‘precisely’ the railway stations where the attacks had occurred, he later pronounced that in fact only two of the locations had been similar. However, even after downplaying the parallels, he went on to state "the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting".

Terror drills are not unknown in London, but other coincidences may be the involvement of Peter Power in several high profile tragic events before 7/7, such as the Kings Cross fire of 1987 and the Libyan Embassy siege of 1984, and the strong links that he has with the police and the Government.

He is a former Detective Inspector in counter-terrorism and is a close associate of Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Chief. He was also selected by the Government to write the Best Management Practice Guide on Crisis & Business Continuity Planning & Risk Management.

Peter Power also has connections to former New York Mayor, Rudi Giuliani; he served on the Advisory Board to the Canadian Centre for Emergency preparedness(CCEP), alongside the senior Vice President of Giuliani and Partners, Richard Sheirer, who was also Director of the New York Mayor’s office of Emergency Management, overseeing the rescue and recovery operations following the September 11th attacks.

Giuliani and partners is a security consultantcy and Investment Bank and Mr. Giuliani himself, by another coincidence, happened to be in London for a conference and just yards away from Liverpool Street station when the blast occurred there on the morning of July 7th.

Peter Power acts as an independent security consultant to the media examining the impact of terrorism on London. It would not be unrealistic that he would be conducting an anti-terror exercise, but it is strange that it happened to be on the same day, at the same time, and involving the same stations. Peter Power himself admits this, even when attempting to downplay the coincidence. It arouses suspicion when considering the ‘Wargames’ exercises of the morning of September 11th, involving the same scenarios that later occurred. The chances of these situations being simple coincidence appear quite slim.

THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS

Terrorism experts in the USA reported that they had been told by “intelligence sources” that at least one person had been warned that a terrorist attack was about to take place. The person they referred to was the Israeli Finance Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who was due to attend an economic conference in a hotel near Liverpool Street station.

"Just before the first blast, Netanyahu got a call from the Israeli Embassy telling him to stay in his hotel room. The hotel is located next to the subway station where the first attack occurred and he did stay put and shortly after that, there was the explosion."

Source: WTVQ

The Associated Press broke the story, and in a follow-up report, stated that the story had been denied by the Israeli Government who said that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts occurred. However, the head of Mossad had said in an interview with a German newspaper

"The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast. As a result, it was impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts."

Source: Israel Insider

Other reports even claim that the warning was not received minutes before the attacks, but days before.

Netanyahu himself also denied, though, that he had received any such warning, calling the reports "entirely false". Although this report claims that the AP "quickly replaced the story" but they never actually retracted it.

The following story can still be found on the Israel National News web site:

Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast10:43 Jul 08, '05 / 1 Tammuz 5765
(IsraelNN.com)

Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility at this time.
Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks.

Source: Israel National News

If there was advance knowledge of the attacks, even if they could not have been prevented, surely it would have been more constructive to have warned TFL Managers and people who could have worked to minimize the resulting confusion – if not the destruction - rather than a politician who was still in his hotel room and would not have been on a tube train that morning.

For the comprehensive list of anomalies in the official account of the July 7th attacks, see here and here.

The July Seventh Truth Campaign believes there are far too many errors and inconsistencies in the account to simply be attributed to lazy reporting and beaurocratic incompetence. Why does the narrative state the accused men travelled to London on a train which did not run? Did certain people have prior knowledge of 7/7 and if so, why? How could the former head of the CIA state that they had recovered timing devices from the blast sites, yet it later be stated that the bombs were detonated manually? Why was it reported by the authorities that military grade explosives were used, only for this to be swiftly denied within a couple of days? Why does the narrative state that it is still not known what type of explosives were used almost a year later? How is it that the narrative can accept there is no CCTV showing Shehzad Tanweer on the tube platform or the Aldgate train and no witness to attest to his presence, yet state that he 'must have been' there? How were the men identified so quickly on the basis of a couple of credit cards?

The narrative should have provided clear answers; instead it has only raised even more questions. It is not an adequate account of who bombed London on July 7th, how they did it and why.

July 7 'narrative' and ISC reports released

The July 7th 'narrative' that Charles Clarke offered the British People instead of a full Independent Public Inquiry has been released.

The BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 are all rolling CCTV footage of the accused from 28th June 2005 as if it were from July 7th (indeed the BBC even cropped out the time and date stamp for the full brainwashing effect) when, of course, no footage has ever been released of the four accused of perpetrating the atrocities on July 7th in over ten months since the incidents occurred.

Nor has any evidence been released that could convinct anyone in a court of law for what happened.

Here are some reports:

• The official Home Office 'narrative' of events.
• ISC Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005.
  
• The government response to the ISC report.

The BBC, true to form, is still using Mr Peter Power of Visor Consultants as an independent security consultant with no special connection to the events of July 7th, even though on the morning of July 7th he was rehearsing bombs going off in precisely the stations that they did.

When you're done reading the official confusions see the July Seventh Truth Campaign web site, and the associated July 7th People's Investigation Forum where you can read and join in the analysis and discussion that is shredding the Home Office narrative.

The 'real' story of 7/7 - a refutation.

My comments in bold.

THE REAL STORY OF 7/7

It was England's worst terrorist attack, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700. This week, the Home Office publishes its official account of the London suicide bombings of 7 July. Using police and intelligence records, Mark Townsend presents the definitive account of how four friends from northern England changed the face of western terrorism

Sunday May 7, 2006
The Observer

3am Hasib Hussain rolls sleepily from the sofa in the living room of his parents' home in Holbeck, Leeds. Dressed in the grey T-shirt, jeans and trainers that would become familiar to millions, the 18-year-old wanders through the red-bricked terraces of Beeston and waits outside the front door of his best friend, Shehzad Tanweer.

There is absolutely no evidence that any of the above scenario occurred. According to his father, Hasib Hussain was last seen by a family member at around 3.30pm on July 6th. On this basis, it cannot definitely be stated at what time he actually left the house, let alone where he went immediately after doing so.

3.15am In a deserted and dark Colwyn Road, Hussain and Tanweer, 22, stand beside a silver-blue Nissan Micra that Tanweer had hired days earlier. Although their movements at this stage are not captured on CCTV, it is thought they are now joined by Sidique Khan, 30, whose role as a primary school teaching assistant in Beeston had earned the respect of those still sleeping in the surrounding streets.

The only factual statement here is that they were not captured on CCTV. Therefore, again, how can it be stated with any certainty exactly what they did. Interestingly, the article refers to a "silver-blue Nissan Micra". Are they sure about that? This same newspaper refers to it as a 'blue Nissan Micra' in an earlier report; The Times reported it as a red Nissan Micra; The Mail described it as a 'silver Nissan Micra'. If the media can't even cohesively report on the simple issue of a car's colour, what hope is there for the rest of the story?

3.30am After a short drive across south Leeds, the trio pull up outside 18 Alexandra Grove, Hyde Park. Inside, lying in the bath upstairs, is the bomb-making factory that Khan had put together using recipes from the internet. Primitive in essence, the peroxide-based explosives were made from drain cleaner, bleach and acetone, bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops. Costing a few hundred pounds, the London bombs, based on a derivative of TNT called triacetone triperoxide or TATP, were paid for by Khan. No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda. Speculation that the four suicide bombers used the services of an Egyptian chemist studying at Leeds University are dismissed in the Home Office narrative, to be published on Thursday.

Once more, where is the evidence that Khan made the bombs? Why should anybody be expected to accept that he was the 'ringleader' when the authorities have not explained why they believe this to be the case, other than the fact that he was the eldest. The statement that the explosive components were 'bought without attracting suspicion in nearby shops' directly contradicts the reports that Lindsay spent £900 on perfume in three different shops in the Aylesbury area. This had apparently attracted the suspicion of his bank, who had rather curiously decided to hire private detectives to investigate Lindsay's spending habits.Moreover, saying 'No evidence exists of support from al-Qaeda' appears to contradict a report in the very same edition of the newspaper which carries this article today. The report is entitled "7/7 ringleader 'had direct link with terror cell" and also directly contradicts US Government consultant on Terrorism in Europe, Evan Kohlman, who after viewing the supposed al-Qaida-produced video of Mohammad Sidique Khan, said:

"There is zero percent doubt this is al-Qaida." He said the Khan tape was produced by the al-Sahab video company, which is controlled by al-Qaida, and the claim of responsibility for the July 7 attacks was done in the same way as its admission of carrying out the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001. Mr Kohlmann said: "I find it a little bit depressing that people don't realise this is al-Qaida's calling card. It shows how little some understand about al-Qaida."

Are the public going to receive an explanation for the question of exactly who - if it was not an al-Qa'ida 'claim of responsibility' - edited that video it to make it seem as if it was an al-Qa'ida production by intersplicing the scenes of Khan with those of Ayman al-Zawahri?

3:45am The trio carefully load five identical black rucksacks into the boot of the Nissan Micra. Each contains 10lb of explosive material with detonators packed inside plastic bottles, which in turn are packaged within containers from a nearby garden centre.

Interesting that this is the first mention in the media of the containers which were used to carry the bombs in the rucksacks since the The Mail first reported it - and could even name the precise store in which the containers had been bought, which they were able to do by the convenient discovery of the receipt which the men helpfully carried with them. Against the odds, this scrap of paper survived a blast which destroyed train carriages, buses and people. Yet another contradiction: The statement 'five identical rucksacks into the boot of the Nissan Micra' is at odds with an earlier report in this same newspaper which writes of a 'primed' rucksack being found underneath the passenger seat of the Micra. Leaving aside the logistics of fitting a bag that size under a car seat, this suggests that there were not five rucksacks in the boot of the car. Or if there were, one of the men carried two rucksacks. Either that or they took the trouble to move the fifth rucksack from the boot and squash it under the passenger seat instead, a manoeuvre that makes no sense whatsoever.

4am-5am Speed cameras track the car heading south through the city's leafy suburbs. To their left they pass Beeston, where Khan lives, an impoverished district of Leeds soon to become the focus of the world's media. The bombers join the southbound M1 at junction 40 and their progress is tracked as they journey south along the spine of England.

Many, many aspects of this statement are completely bizarre. 'Speed cameras track the car'? Unless they were consistently going through every speed camera on their journey at a speed-limit-breaking rate, there is no reason or justification for a speed camera being able to track them. Even if there is an error here and the article actually meant 'Traffic cameras', this still doesn't explain why they were 'tracked'. Who would be tracking them? Who would know at that point what the purpose of their journey was, for their 'progress' to be tracked as they journeyed south?

4.30am Germaine Lindsay says goodbye to his wife Samantha Lewthwaite, 21, heavily pregnant with their second child, and leaves their rented semi-detached home in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, in a hired red Fiat. Negotiating the B489, Lindsay arrives at Luton train station around 5am. The 19-year-old attaches a pay-and-display ticket to the vehicle's windscreen, from which DNA would later be extracted to identify his remains.

Samantha herself says that she asked Linsday to leave the house on the evening of July 6th, because she believed he was having an affair with another woman. She told the Sun newspaper:

"He left with a holdall and a bunch of door keys. I went to bed. Later that night I'm sure I heard him on the stairs and going into Abdullah's room. He must have been in there in the dead of night to kiss his little boy goodbye. He didn't get a chance when he left because I was angry."

This account bears absolutely no similarity to the one above. The issue of the DNA on his car park ticket which was used to identify his remains is also a confusing one. On July 14th, police said that the DNA identification process would "take some time"; yet Samantha says she was told on July 14th that the police had Lindsay's DNA, which was, they said,how they knew he was the perpetrator.

6:30am After 160 miles on the M1, the Nissan Micra turns off at junction 11, arriving at Luton train station car park at around 6:50am. There, amid the first of the day's commuters, is the imposing frame of Lindsay, a carpet fitter from Huddersfield. Like the others, Lindsay is judged in the narrative to have been exasperated by western foreign policy. Palestine, Chechyna and, in particular Iraq, are cited as factors motivating their deadly mission.

This states that the Micra arrived at Luton station car park at 'around 6:50am'. Other reports are much more exact with this time, saying;

"They arrived at Luton station at 6.51am, where they met Lindsay, 19, who had been waiting since 5am after travelling in another car."

The precision of the time at which they arrived suggests that it was taken from a timestamp of a CCTV camera which recorded them entering the car park. This is presumably how they knew Lindsay had been waiting there since 5am. Yet such footage has never been mentioned or shown. They have been 'judged' in the narrative to have been 'exasperated' by western foreign policy, yet no explanation is given as to how on earth the authorities know this, since the men were not, according to their friends, given to talking about politics. There is also no explanation as to how simple 'exasperation' causes the apparent knock-on effect of becoming a suicide bomber. Thousands of people all over the world, myself included, would have shared this exasperation but would be considerably less inclined to take such drastic action.

7am The four don their military-style rucksacks in the increasingly busy car park. Khan had loaded the Nissan Micra with more explosives than required. Contrary to speculation though, no fifth bomber was ever expected to carry a fifth rucksack of explosives holding two nail-encased bottles that were later found wedged beneath the front passenger seat. In the boot 14 components for explosive devices are also left. CCTV cameras, designed to capture car thieves, film the four engaged in a final prayer.

So, 'Khan loaded the Nissan Micra with more explosives than required' but 'contrary to speculation, though, no fifth bomber was ever expected to carry a fifth rucksack'. Why on earth did he do it then? If the men knew, as is being stated by the narrative, that theirs was a suicide mission, what's the use of leaving 'spare' bombs in the car, the only other purpose of which would be to lead the investigation very quickly back to the men.

7.21am Looking like day-trippers, the four stroll onto the southbound platform of Luton station. Leading the group is Hussain, his hands tucked in pockets. Lindsay follows, his white trainers poking from beneath a pair of loose jeans. Khan comes next, with only a white cap visible. Bringing up the rear is Tanweer, who had spent the previous night playing cricket. Tanweer appears relaxed, his rucksack slung over one shoulder.

All of this is based on the extremely suspect single frame CCTV image of the men entering Luton station. Aside from the anomalies of the image itself, it is a strange thing that the police only released this one, single image of the men together, in comparison to the myriad moving footage we were allowed to see for the so-called 'dummy run'. A plethora of evidence for a day that doesn't mean a thing and only shows that three of the men apparently took a trip to London, visiting none of the locations which were bombed on the 7th - but for the actual day itself, one blurred still image - where one can't even distinguish their facial features.

7:40am The four bombers catch a Thameslink train, which winds through the affluent commuter belt of Hertfordshire towards King's Cross.

As repeatedly pointed out, this train journey is physically impossible: See here.

8:26am The quartet are captured walking across the concourse of London's busiest station. They are chatting; Hussain is laughing. Minutes later, they are huddled in a final, earnest conversation.

This footage has never been shown.

8.42am Tanweer catches the Circle Line east towards the heart of the City, entering the second carriage of six on train number 204 where he stands by its rear sliding doors.

Not one eyewitness has ever backed up this story. Aldgate survivor Bruce Lait, who was in the bombed carriage, said he did not see anybody of Tanweer's description in the carriage.

8.43am Khan boards Circle Line train number 216 headed west. He stands by its first set of double doors in the second carriage.

This contradicts what was said by the only witness who claimed to have seen Khan, Danny Biddle:

"He was sitting by the first door of the train and I was standing about 10ft away. I noticed him reaching into his bag and he didn't say or do anything. He wasn't agitated or fidgety, he was very calm. He looked at me and looked around the carriage. Then he pulled some sort of cord."

According to Mr. Biddle, Khan was sitting - not standing. Furthermore, his description of Khan pulling 'some sort of cord' differs from what 'senior police sources' told The Guardian, which was that the bombs were triggered by 'button-like devices'.

8.49am Lindsay gets onto Piccadilly Line train number 311 travelling towards the West End and stands by rear doors in the front carriage. The train is described as 'extraordinarily full'. More than 900 passengers are crammed on board. Hussain, meanwhile, waits for a Northern Line service towards Camden.

There are several inaccuracies here. TFL stated they had made a mistake with the train number they originally gave as 311 and revised it to 331. This was verified by researcher Bridget Dunne. Why is this story still giving the train number as 311? The train was described as 'extraordinarily full'; an anonymous witness told a survivor that he had tried to board the train behind Lindsay and could not get on, the train was so full. In a few seconds, Lindsay had managed to board the train and fight his way down to the end of the carriage, carrying a large rucksack. The claim that Hussain waited for a Northern Line service is an odd one. It was stated on the day that the Northern Line was not running, and that had it been, the assumption was that Hussain would have boarded a train on that line in order to form some kind of 'burning cross' through London. This was based on a dubious claim of responsibility from an 'Islamist' website, calling itself the Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in Europe. None of this stands up now, since this article is claiming al-Qa'ida had nothing to do with the London Bombings. In addition, the Northern Line was running that morning, along with other lines on which Hussain could also have taken a Northern bound train.

8.50am Tanweer places his rucksack on the floor around 40 seconds after the tube pulls out from Liverpool Street. Twenty feet below Spitalfields' historical streets, the cricketer detonates his device. Yards away, Michael, a consultant, witnesses a 'flash of orange-yellow light and what appeared to be silver streaks, which I think was some of the glass going across.' Then, silence and darkness. Smothered in blood, Michael assumed he was dying.

Again, speculation. Nobody has publicly said they saw Tanweer, regardless of where he might have placed his rucksack.

8.51am Khan lowers his rucksack onto the floor next to his carriage's rear sliding doors less than 20 seconds after the train leaves Edgware Road station. Moments later, passengers recall 'an orange fireball' sweeping through carriages. John McDonald, a teacher, standing yards from where Khan killed himself, said: 'Small splintered pieces of glass were sticking in my head and face. I could not breathe; my lungs were burning.' Above ground, London Fire Brigade receive the first emergency call.

Where is the witness who saw Khan 'lower his rucksack on the floor'? Or indeed, any witness other than Danny Biddle, who states that Khan was sitting with his rucksack on his lap.

8.53am Lindsay's delayed train leaves King's Cross three minutes after the bombers' agreed deadline for simultaneous detonation. Train 311 has travelled just 261m towards Russell Square when Lindsay detonates his pack 20m below the district of St Pancras. Again, passengers hear a violent bang. For the third time in a matter of minutes, pitch blackness descended on a packed crowd of tube passengers.

The train sat at the station for four minutes? Why should this be so? For the incorrect train number, see above comment. Again, no eyewitness has stated they saw Lindsay apart from the anonymous person mentioned previously who apparently saw the back of his head when trying to board the train behind him.

8:55am Panic engulfs train 216, trapped below Paddington Basin. The low groans of the dying are heard. Shrieks emanate from outside carriages as passengers are hurled from the tube by the blast. McDonald sees a man known only as Stan trapped inside the hole where Khan had detonated his device. 'Stan was calm and conscious and looking at me.'

No other comment to make here other than the continued question of why Khan is definitively described here as the bomber, when this has never been publicly confirmed by the authorities. He is still referred to as a 'suspect'.

9am A broken-down train having thwarted his intention to catch the Northern Line, Hussain resurfaces, looking bewildered and bemused, onto the King's Cross concourse and stumbles into the first signs of pandemonium. The teenager wanders absent-mindedly into Boots the chemist before leaving the station.

See above for comment regarding the ability of Hussain to have caught the Northern Line train. The reference to Boots is based on the fact that a CCTV still of Hussain apparently exiting Boots was released the day after the Bali bombings last year. This image was captured at 9am exactly, according to the timestamp. The reference to the 'pandemonium' is presumably regarding the fact that the station was already being evacuated by the time this photo was taken. There are no signs of 'pandemonium' in the picture.

9:06am Inside train 206, passengers check bodies for a pulse. At least four are deemed dead. As the dust clears, a shaft of light illuminates Stan. His shirt has been blown off, the lower half of his charred body disappears beneath the mangled train floor. 'It was very peaceful and serene. The maintenance light from the tube threw a soft beam of light onto Stan's face,' said McDonald.

9.10am Emergency services are called to the underground. Moments later, the capital's alert system, devised in the wake of 9/11, is activated.

9.12am Passengers from train 204 fumble through the tunnel to Liverpool Street, past the twisted remains of the second carriage. Michael remembers bodies on the track. 'Two were motionless; one was just showing signs of movement.' In the gloom, he passes a woman blankly cradling the head of a hideously injured commuter. 'The whole body dynamic looked wrong, the way the lady was lying.' She is Martine Wright. She has lost both her legs above the knee. For another hour the 33-year-old will be held in the gloom, the last person to be pulled alive from the Aldgate tube bombing.

This fails to mention that some passengers made their way to Aldgate station and some exited at Aldgate East, giving some initial confusion as to where exactly the train had exploded.

9.15am Amid fears more explosions will follow, Transport for London chiefs decide to evacuate the entire underground system for the first time in the network's history. A series of 'bangs' is explained by a massive, mysterious power surge on the network. Seemingly alone in the darkness, McDonald attempts to keep Stan alive. 'I kept on telling him not to worry. I asked that, if he understood me, to blink his eyes twice, which he did.'

A 'mysterious' power surge? Why were the public initially told that a power surge had occurred on the underground, even though the National Grid denied it immediately? Even allowing for the confusion of the event, it would surely have been apparent very quickly that it was not power surges.

9:16am First passengers to escape train 311 reach Russell Square after 15-minute walk through tunnel. Many are injured, some have blood pouring from their ears. Commuters claim no ambulance or doctors are waiting for them. Chaos descends upon the capital. Metropolitan police told by the underground control centre that explosions have occurred.

No ambulances or doctors waiting, despite the knowledge of an underground incident. Survivor Angelo Power described an agonising 30 minute wait before passengers were allowed to leave the train.

9:10am Hussain wanders along the gridlocked Euston Road. He calls Khan. There is no answer. He dials Tanweer. Again nothing. Lindsay, too, is incommunicado. He leaves messages for all three, the youngster's tone increasingly frantic. At the same time, TfL change their explanation of events from 'power surge' to 'network emergency'. Scotland Yard announce there have been seven major 'incidents'.

In other reports, Hussain was alleged to have made the phone calls at 9am. Since he was pictured leaving Boots at 9am this would not be possible. He was also reported to have been eating in McDonalds when he makes the calls. This does not match up with a report in The Times that investigators could tell Hussain was walking fast as he made the calls.

9:25am Those wounded in the Aldgate blast taken by bus with police escorts to the Royal London hospital. Meanwhile, on train 216, McDonald draws strength from Stan's bravery. 'I could see he was dying from his injuries. He never shouted or cried. He knew he was dying, he remained calm and peaceful.'

9:30am More than 150 bleeding and soot-smothered passengers emerge from Edgware Road station and congregate outside a nearby Marks & Spencer store. Former fireman Paul Dadge ushers Davinia Turrell, 24, from the scene as she clutches a surgical burns mask to her face. The photograph of the 'mask woman' becomes the first iconic image of 7 July.

9.33am Half-a-mile-away Hussain boards number 30 bus which has been diverted off the now closed Euston Road. As the double-decker crawls south along Woburn Place, Hussain sits down at the rear of the upper floor.

Some reports claim that the number 30 was the second bus that Hussain had taken, after previously boarding another on the Euston Road. There are no witnesses who saw Hussain on the bus. One claimed to have seen a man with a rucksack, but in the pictures taken in the immediate aftermath of the bus explosion, there are at least two men with rucksacks seen standing on the upper deck. The only person who claimed to have seen Hussain was Richard Jones who quite clearly, from the description he gave of the man he saw, did not.

9.35am Aboard train 216, two passengers appear from the gloom and, taking guidance from McDonald, squeeze beneath the second carriage and finally free Stan. 'One of the men was calling Stan's pulse to me, which was fading and finally stopped. He died being held by his fellow passengers. They laid him down gently on the track.'

9:38am Bus passengers note a peculiarly distracted 'man of Mediterranean appearance' who keeps dipping into his rucksack at the rear of the number 30 bus to Hackney.

As stated above, the description given by one passenger in no way describes Hasib Hussain.

9.40am British Transport Police announce major incidents on the underground at five stations. Scores of ambulances arrive at affected stations.

9.47am Bomb explodes on number 30 bus in Tavistock Square outside the British Medical Association. Two minutes later, police receive a 999 call from the scene. 'There's people lying on the road. There's people trying to get out. I think there's an ambulance on the way, but there's people dead and everything,' said one.

Oddities regarding the bus explosion here, and here. There is also the strange identification of Hussain due to the injuries he apparently sustained due to the force of his strap-on explosives. Yet he was supposedly carrying his bomb in a rucksack.

Here the Home Office narrative ends. Within hours, Islamic terrorist groups attempt to claim responsibility. That the perpetrators might be four British men acting alone is not contemplated.

The idea that the men were acting alone was 'not contemplated'. Well, it wasn't - until the revelation that the suspected 'mastermind', Haroon Rashid Aswat was an MI6 asset.

10.00pm More than 12 hours later, in the lounge of a terraced home in Holbeck, Leeds, a mother is fretting. Her teenage son was meant to be in London for a night out with 'mates'. Unable to contact him, Maniza Hussain contacts Scotland Yard's missing persons helpline. The police get their first break.

In fact, Hussain had not told his mother he was going to London for a 'night out' but had told his parents he would be back on Thursday.