9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Tube Closure Versus Rachel's Story

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Tube Closure Versus Rachel's Story - The problem
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:16 am Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

Prole wrote:

As for poor Richmal Oates-Whitehead, it's very easy to libel a dead woman who cannot defend herself. She did tell the truth about the second controlled explosion on the bus, which was strangely denied by the police.

If she had not died, I think she would deserve our sympathy, rather than our condemnation, but she hardly makes an ideal witness. She may very well have been "right" about the controlled explosion as an event, but it seems unlikely she was a direct witness. Given the police's readiness to admit having carried out controlled explosions on other occasions, their denial in this case is strange, but it is a separate issue. Even Ian Blair appear on TV on Monday and said, "By the way, we got it wrong - we did deal with a second suspect device at Tavistock Square," it won't suddenly turn Oates-Whitehead into a reliable witness.

As she worked at the BMJ in the BMA building, why would she not be considered a reliable witness? Why was there any need for newspapers and magazines to write scurrilous acounts of this woman as if she was deserving of our contempt? She had also published medical papers (oddly on the very thing that killed her) and there is no reason to assume that she didn't help out at the scene of the bus explosion, we don't question other people's accounts of whether they did, so why her? Scotland Yard denied there had been a second-controlled explosion, they didn't just 'get it wrong' - not the sort of thing that should just be 'got wrong' anyway - they lied and that is more worrying than any stories about Richmal.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: 7/7 Debate

ianrcrane wrote:

'This house believes that that the evidence, currently available in the public domain, does not support the official version of events (i.e. Goverment Narrative) which allegedly occurred on 7th July 2005'

I wish to offer Staraker the opportunity to publicly debate the above motion with me, in London, at a date to be agreed but no later than March 31st 2008.

Both Staraker and I shall have the opportunity to be seconded by persons to be announced by no later than 31st January 2008.

Each proposer to have 30 minutes to present their case and each seconder to have 20 mins to support/respond.

The debate to be opened to the floor for 60 mins.

All major media to be advised of the event (even though we know that they won't have the cajones to report on it).

The time has come to take this debate into the public arena ... and I am ready Staraker ... are you?

Ian R. Crane

Note to Staraker: I presented 'The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' on 22nd July 2005; co-incidentally, I was giving this presentation at the exact same time as Jean- Charles de Menezes was being 'taken out' by 'Common Purpose' Graduate Cressida Dick's team of Mossad trained assassins.

I now have the benefit of a further two years of research and it is time to raise the game.

Well, boys and girls, I find this both flattering and somewhat amusing. A bit of context for you:

I failed to get on a Piccadilly line train on 7/7, and eventually went home and watched BBC 24 and other news for most of the rest of the day, some of which I even recorded for personal posterity. The next day I went into work, and like most Londoners I just got on with my life. Inevitably I followed developments in the news in the days and weeks that followed, but I wasn't taking notes. I have many other time-consuming interests and pastimes, and I wasn't looking for a new one, although as the London Underground is central to a couple of the former certain aspects of subsequent 7/7 news caught my eye in particular.

For most of 2006 and early 2007 I was working on a DVD release relating to one of my non-LU related interests - anyone with an interest in 1930s British science fiction films shouldn't have much trouble working out what it is - which eventually paid off to good reviews by The Guardian and Channel 4. No doubt this makes me tainted as a tool of the media. Even so, during this time period I also started editing on Wikipedia, generally on the subjects that interest me. This included the 7 July page, although originally it was only to amend some historical inaccuracies, but it therefore ended up in my watchlist (along with far too many other pages), which resulted in other minor contributions as and when prompted by the edits of others. One of these was the addition of Daniel Obachike's "story" in April this year in a misleading way, which I checked up on and dealt with at the time, and then moved on to other more interesting (or more likely more distracting) things. Occasionally aspects of 7/7 - including Obachike - would crop up when talking to my brother, who is deeply into the whole conspiracy theory thing and is quick to steer the conversation in that direction, but as he lives in Hull and I live in London, it wasn't that often.

In late August my brother said he wanted to come down for the talk at the IYMCA, so I ended up there, half-dragged, but also half-curious as to how Obachike would stand up, as - prompted by the event - I again took a cursory look at both his claims and what others seemed to think of them, and found them wanting. A raised three specific points at the meeting, and noted to myself the similarity to attitudes I encountered when involved with my local CND in the early-1980s, mostly the barely-veiled dogmatic hostility to anyone who apparently did not buy 100% into the supposed shared orthodoxy.

Afterwards, curiosity as to how other people saw the event brought me here, where I found the inevitable mix of people who were apparently trying to look at things objectively, but mostly others for whom standards of evidence, procedure, or even basic common sense seemed remarkably lacking. Still, it was amusing to be labelled an "MI5 desk officer" within a couple of days, after having had the temerity to point out some of the more blatent inaccuracies or misconceptions some were labouring under. Inevitably certain things caught my eye, either because I knew them to be false or misunderstood, or because the line of reasoning being pushed did not seem logical to me, so I inevitably sought to address those. In the meantime, I had read Obachike's book, bought by my brother at the meeting, but left with me as he wasn't in a great rush to read it, and found it as wanting as others even here have acknowledged, mostly for the same reasons, but also for some which only I seemed to have noticed. I found it especially curious the way some witnesses were so readily dismissed when they contradicted certain people's conspiracy theories, and yet many of the same people accepted Obachike's account implicitly, despite its many glaring failures.

So, you see, I find it amusing that you - with a claimed two years of presumably intense "investigation" into this subject - suddenly feel so threatened and so desperate to engage with someone who has been fitting a far less obsessive interest in with other things (including another DVD project and some long-needed updates to my personal websites), as well as a 9-5 job. It is, however, also flattering that you apparently think I have managed to be so challenging in such a small space of time with - believe me - so little effort, although then again information is my business, both professionally and in relation to many of my private interests, so perhaps I do have a knack of finding out things quicker than some others might, and being able to assess that data objectively. It could be said that anyone so emphatically connecting 7/7 with 9/11 in such an apparently short space of time as you seem to have done shows all the hallmarks of someone starting with a pre-conceived conclusion, rather than developing one based on the balance of even the limited evidence available at that stage.

So no, I have no interest in taking up your "challenge," anymore than I would expect you to pick up the gauntlet if I gave you two months to research one of the subjects I'm far more interested in, and then publicly debate with me on that matter. For one thing, I do not actually consider the Official Narrative to be the definitive account of what probably happened, so can hardly back it 100% in the manner you would like. Also, you must forgive me, but given the propensity for many here to make "points" based on "facts" which subsequent investigations show to be completely false, I will restrict my contributions to an arena in which I can check the veracity of what I am responding to before I do so. No doubt some with gleefully take this a a "victory," but the reality is that I have better things to do with my time and energy.

Last edited by Nick Cooper on Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject:

dh wrote:

Ian, you want to debate with a sadster who has no cajones.

How very "playground" of you. What's your next perceptive and intelligent contribution going to be? "Staraker's mum smells"?

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject:

staraker wrote:

prole wrote:

Surely the PA reporting only one explosion by 9.15 when there had been three explosions is concerning - not that anyone would have known as news coverage of these explosions didn't start until 9.17, and then only to report power surges.

"There were even longer delays in reporting the explosions at Edgware Road and KX/Russell Square. People travelling in London were therefore not given the information that would have enabled them to make an informed choice in how they travelled.

I'm surprised you seem surprised. It was a fast-moving and developing news story, and we don't have to look very far to know that media organisations these days - particularly the rolling news channels - fall over themselves to be the "first" to report such events, even if they have virtually no real information at the time. It starts of with, "we have just had a report that X has happened..." and it rolls on from them. We see this all the time, so absolutely none of us should be surprised or concerned if the first reports about 7/7 hinted at only a fraction of what happened.

'Fast-rolling' news, how fast is the BBC reporting the Edgware Rd explosion at 9.39 and as the 'second explosion' and the one at King's Cross/Russell Square at 10.24. Not very fast-rolling is it?

staraker wrote:

prole wrote:

As for where the '4th bomb' would have exploded - I find your speculation as worrying as that employed by Stelios.

Do you? It seems quite mild considering some of the wilder suggestions made around here, such as Astro3's idea that the Piccadilly line train may have reversed at King's Cross and not come from the direction of Finsbury Park, after all. Wow! How could we miss that one?! The truth of the matter is that there are various scenarios - both official and unofficial - as to who planted or detonated the bombs bandied about, and if people are happy to say or suggest that, "if the authorities had done X, then Y would not have happened," it is equally valid to suggest that Z might have happened instead. The official line suggests that Hasib Hussain couldn't get on a train, so he targeted a bus. On the other hand - to name but one alternative - there are those who believe that the bus bomb was planted by someone else, either earlier, or immediately before it detonated. If the buses had stopped running, however, what would whoever was responsible have done instead? If we are condemning one set of people for not doing something, we should not automatically assume that things would not have been as "bad" if they had done something else; we may just have ended up with a different form of "bad."

Firstly because you take them to task over speculating and then do the same thing yourself, just with a different bias.

We're told in the official report that perhaps Hasib was unable to get on a Northern Line train yet we know the Northern Line was running through KX that morning. This leads onto ridiculous speculation about 9v batteries which still remain pure speculation. According to the official report he is also said to have caught a number 91 bus - why not detonate his bomb then if that was his intention?
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: 7/7 debate

ianrcrane wrote:

Hi dh,

of course I don't expect the 'sadster' to rise to the occasion. The liklihood is that he/she is another 'internet obsessive' who is part of the team fighting a rearguard action to try to wear down the resolve of the hardened dissenters (seasoned researchers or conspiraloons, depending upon your perception of reality!).

Wonderful! That's almost as good as "MI5 desk officer." Funny how I get to be such a challenge to "seasoned reserchers" from virtually a standing start in just two months.

Quote:

However, I have reached the point where I am 'so sad' that I have the gall to take this debate off the internet and into the halls of an appropriate venue in London.

No thanks. I'll stick to a venue in which I can work out if what someone claims is * before I say it's *.

Quote:

Let's take it mainstream!

Come on Staraker, here's your chance to put the full extent of your deep resources on public display. I am ready to stand up and be seriously counted ... are you?

"Deep resources"? You flatter me. It says a lot, though, that in many instances a couple of minutes with Google are enough to demolish the "facts" claimed by some here.

Quote:

Ian R. Crane

PS. This is my real name ...what's yours?

You're so smart, you work it out. In fact, anybody who was interested enough could have done that weeks ago. Oh, and my moniker here has nothing to do with tortuous anagrams, as suggested by someone already, rather it it something I have been associated with in the past in a completely separate context, but was the first thing that came into my head when registering here. I also don't see why I should be singled out to clearly identify myself, since those that do - yourself included - are very much in the minority here.

Last edited by Nick Cooper on Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

To be fair Staraker did come to the public meeting in September at the Indian YMCA. Although he was just as dogmatic on that day as he is here, credit where it is due he did come and argue his case.

To be accurate, Stelios, I raised three very specific points:

1) I questioned Obachike's assertion that the footage he claimed - and continues to claim - shows him "returning" to the site of the bus bombing is of CCTV origin. I have since demonstrated that, despite his insistance that it was, that it couldn't have been. In retrospect, this is a rather important issue, as so much currency is applied to the "suspiscious" lack of CCTV footage from the Square, when certain quarters - Obachike amongst them - claim that there are "cameras everywhere." Upon subsequently visiting Tavistock Square, I found this was also untrue, and that the only camera that could have "seen" the explosion is (from memory) some 200 metres away, even assuming it had been pointing in the right direction at the time.

2) I pointed out that while people are quick to claim Power's "terror drill" to be a massive and suspiscious "coincidence," the size of London and the number or companies and organisations based in it suggest that it would have been more strange if there hadn't been something of the sort going on at the time. To illustrate this, I mentioned that I work for the NHS, each component organisation of which - of which there are more than 70 in London alone - carries out such contingency planning. Add in the rest of the public and commercial sectors, and we're looking at hundreds, if not thousands. The same, of course, also applies to the various other meeting and conferences that people claim as being "suspsciously coincidental."

3) When someone may a glib comparison between the level of compensatrion paid to 9/11 victims/families compared to those on 7/7, I pointed out that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is restricted by law as to how much it can pay out, and to do more would be illegal, so what it did pay has to be seen in that context. I clearly stated that I thought CICA payment should be higher in general, i.e. that all victims of crime should get more. Of course, we could argue that the government could have bypassed CICA, but how would that have gone down with the victims of "conventional crimes"?

I was not, then, arguing a "case," but rather addressing a few specific issues as and when they were brought up by others.

Quote:

So i would imagine he would be likely to accept the challenge.

Well, given that I wouldn't have been there had not my brother (the younger, taller and more good-looking guy I was with) wanted to come all the way from Hull for it, you overestimate my level of interest and/or motivation.

Last edited by Nick Cooper on Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:22 pm; edited 2 times in total

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Staraker wrote:

Prole wrote:

As she worked at the BMJ in the BMA building, why would she not be considered a reliable witness?

I wouldn't take anyone's employer as an indication of their own personal character. I consider myself to be a reasonable and I would hope reliable witness, should be need arise, but I've worked alongside people who are borderline psychotic or congenital liars, despite our shared employer.

Quote:

Why was there any need for newspapers and magazines to write scurrilous acounts of this woman as if she was deserving of our contempt? She had also published medical papers (oddly on the very thing that killed her) and there is no reason to assume that she didn't help out at the scene of the bus explosion, we don't question other people's accounts of whether they did, so why her?

Actually, it seems to me that a lot of witnesses are "questioned" in this manner by various people. As to what her medical knowledge actually was, apart from being trained in (IIRC) some radiological capacity, her subsequent work - and what qualifications she needed for it - seem to have been misundertstood by many, as it seems she was essentially a collator and editor of existing research, as opposed to being the author of original work herself. This is valuable work and should not be underestimated in the skills needed to do it, but it neither requires someone to be nor makes them equivalent to being medically qualified. It's like in what I do, if someone comes to me and says something like, "What data have we got on diabetes rates in the area? How would it be recorded and can we measure it?" I can answer their questions and collate what they require, but that doesn't make me an endocrinologist.

Quote:

Scotland Yard denied there had been a second-controlled explosion, they didn't just 'get it wrong' - not the sort of thing that should just be 'got wrong' anyway - they lied and that is more worrying than any stories about Richmal.

Agreed, but then as in most things we have to balance what is reported to have been said with what other evidence tell us seems to have happened. Reporting is the problem. We know that the press will say to a celebrity, "Is it true that you have a problem with drugs and drink that is adversely affecting your career," and cajole them into acknowledging it might just be true, but the headline the next day is, "X says, 'drugs and drink is ruining my career'." Much of what we have to deal with has already been "filtered" in the same way. It may very well be that some journalist asked a police press officer if there was a second device in the bus, without mentioning a controlled explosion, and they - technically accuractely - said no, there wasn't a second device, or that they didn't know there had been one at the time. Regardless of the caveats, the denial gets repackaged and used in a context if may not originally have been given in.

And, of course, once something becomes a stock answer, it remains a stock answer. It's like, virtually every book which discusses the London Underground during WW2 will tell you that 19 people - specifically 16 Belgians and 3 Brits - were killed when Bounds Green station was bombed on 14/10/40. Some of them are positively prosaic in painting a vidid picture of the irony of Belgian refugees fleeing the Nazi invasion of their country, only to die in London. Even the memorial plaque in the station quotes the same details, but it's wrong all the same, because everyone who mentions it either directly or indirectly cites it back to a single book published by London Transport in 1947. Years ago I investigated it via a different route and not only worked out that amongst other inaccuracies the total number of deaths was wrong, but also named them all and showed that only three of them were Belgian. That information has been on the net for years, easy to find and staggeringly obvious for anyone who might be researching the same subject, and yet authors are still printing the "16 Belgians and 3 Brits" version. Myths can take a long time to be shattered, if they can be at all.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject:

Staraker your need to fill in the holes and imagine what connects A to B worries me especially as I respect much of the research that you've carried out.

staraker wrote:

She may very well have been "right" about the controlled explosion as an event, but it seems unlikely she was a direct witness.

She was right about the second controlled explosion. What makes you think she wasn't a 'direct witness' given that she worked for the BMJ in the BMA?

Staraker wrote:

As to what her medical knowledge actually was, apart from being trained in (IIRC) some radiological capacity, her subsequent work - and what qualifications she needed for it - seem to have been misundertstood by many, as it seems she was essentially a collator and editor of existing research, as opposed to being the author of original work herself.

Richmal Oates-Whitehead's qualifications according to her employer the BMJ;

Quote:

Richmal Oates-Whitehead
Area of expertise: nausea and vomiting in pregnancy

Dr. Oates-Whitehead is an epidemiologist (a doctor who studies how common diseases are in groups of people). She has done research on health management, medical philosophy, ethics and forensic science. She is also an editor for the Cochrane library, which collects and analyses research to help doctors put research into practice.

An authored research paper cited by a Parliamentary Select Committee:

Quote:

18 Oates-Whitehead R M, D'Angelo A, Mol B. Anticoagulant and aspirin prophylaxis for preventing thromboembolism after major gynaecological surgery (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004.

Someone who is able to do such important research and analysis yet due to what can only be described as a hatchet-job on her character (JCdM and Mohammed Kahar?) we are somehow not to believe what she describes as the events of 7/7:

Quote:

Dr Oates-Whitehead, a NZ doctor, is a hero of the London bus bombing. She was the only doctor to climb into the devastated double-decker to treat trapped victims despite warnings of a second bomb. Oates-Whitehead, 35, says she simply did the ethical and moral thing - she was among British Medical Association staff who ran to help after the bus exploded in outside their office on July 7, killing 13 people.

Dr Oates-Whitehead describes the devastation "It was surreal. I remember seeing body parts and I thought: is that really what I think I'm seeing?"

After helping to remove victims from the bus she then moved to assist with triaging and treating the victims "assessing people, putting in drips, trying to stop bleeding, giving oxygen ... "

staraker wrote:

Reporting is the problem

Yes we know that the media is very content to publish lies and very reluctant to ever correct these lies. We also know that the media has remained totally silent over the anomalies and lack of rigour in the Official Report on 7/7.

staraker wrote:

Myths can take a long time to be shattered, if they can be at all.

Which can depend on whose interests maintaining these myths serve.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

Last edited by Prole on Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Staraker your need to fill in the holes and imagine what connects A to B worries me especially as I respect much of the research that you've carried out.

staraker wrote:

She may very well have been "right" about the controlled explosion as an event, but it seems unlikely she was a direct witness.

She was right about the second controlled explosion. What makes you think she wasn't a 'direct witness' given that she worked for the BMJ in the BMA?

Well, we have to balance her description of it as, "another enormous bang" (as per The Guardian's quote), with the fact that such a controlled explosion is more akin to a shotgun, precisely because that's essentially what the mechanism used is. We have the news footage shot diagonally opposite, and it seems more in line with that, rather than what she described.

Ultimately, though, whether she was stood next to the bus or still in the BMA courtyard when it happened, it ultimately doesn't actually tell us much beyond the fact that the Met have not practiced 100% disclosure of what happened that day, which is hardly a revelation. This also undermines the suggestions of those who are so keen to believe she was bumped off; she didn't actually say anything that by any stretch of the imagination can be thought to merit that, especially compared to other witneses who seem to have survived saying things that might be seen as far more damaging.

Quote:

Staraker wrote:

Richmal Oates-Whitehead's qualifications according to her employer the BMJ;

Quote:

An authored research paper cited by a Parliamentary Select Committee:

Quote:

Someone who is able to do such important research and analysis

Sorry to disagree on a technicality, but the following abstract more accurately defines what the paper was:

Quote:

BACKGROUND: The reported overall risk of deep venous thrombosis in gynaecological surgery ranges from 7 to 45%. Fatal pulmonary embolism is estimated to occur in nearly 1% of these women. Pharmaceutical interventions are one possible prophylactic measure for preventing emboli in women undergoing major gynaecological surgery. Agents include unfractionated heparin (low -dose and adjusted-dose), low-molecular-weight heparins, heparinoids and warfarin. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of warfarin, heparin and aspirin in preventing thromboembolism after major gynaecological surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched 15 August 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2003), EMBASE (1985 to April 2003), and CINAHL (1982 to April 2003). References from relevant articles were searched and authors contacted where necessary. In addition we contacted experts in the field for unpublished works. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of heparins, warfarin or aspirin to prevent thromboembolism after major gynaecological surgery were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Thirty-three trials were identified in the initial search. On careful inspection only eight of these met the inclusion criteria. Trials were data extracted and assessed for quality by at least two reviewers. Data were combined for meta-analysis using odds ratios for dichotomous data or weighted mean difference for continuous data. A random effects statistical model was used. MAIN RESULTS: The meta-analysis of heparin versus placebo found a statistically significant decrease in the number of DVTs in both the all women group (including those with and without malignancy) (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.76) and the subgroup of only women with malignancy (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89). There was no significant difference in the incidence of PE. Oral warfarin reduced DVT when compared to placebo in all women (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.86) and in women with malignancy (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87). Meta-analyses of UH and LMWH showed no statistical difference in any comparison. No studies compared aspirin alone to placebo, heparin or warfarin. There was a statistically significant increase in injection site haematomas associated with heparin compared to placebo (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Women, undergoing major gynaecological surgery and without contraindications to anticoagulants should be offered thromboprophylaxis. Evidence suggests that UH and LMWH are equally as effective in preventing DVT and the one trial available suggests that warfarin is as effective as UH. There is no evidence as yet to suggest that warfarin, heparin or aspirin reduce incidence of PE.

This is not original research, but rather the collation and comparison of pre-existing studies. That is not to denigrate the importance of such work, as it is often a stepping stone to deciding is further research is needed, or if comparisons between previous studies highlights anything that each separately didn't, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is basically statistical analysis.

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject:

Staraker. Sorry to disagree with you on a technicality, but you seem to me to be getting more ridiculous with every post mate. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Staraker.

Sorry to disagree with you on a technicality, but you seem to me to be getting more ridiculous with every post mate.

Mark, I have to say that I am grateful for Staraker's contributions. They really are valuable. I personally do not feel affronted by them. I do not think anyone should waste much time wondering whether the bombed Piccadilly line train was empty at Kings' Cross, or whatever. Maybe for a minute but that's all. This does not mean that against the grain possibilities should not be considered. Of course, they should. But the available evidence also needs to be considered. Staraker is good at this.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject:

Numeral thanks. I am of the opinion that Staraker seems to be squirming. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Numeral thanks.

I am of the opinion that Staraker seems to be squirming.

Well, he up against the invincible J7 team. Very Happy

Let's change the subject and talk about the nature of the explosions.

Did the 7/7 bombs consist of ground back pepper plus hydrogen peroxide as the main charge with HMTD as the detonator? Were they set off by mobile phone timers or manually?

Over to you, Staraker.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject:

OK What evidence is there for bombs of any kind ? What evidence is there for suicide bombers ? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject:

numeral wrote:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Numeral thanks.

I am of the opinion that Staraker seems to be squirming.

Well, he up against the invincible J7 team. Very Happy

Interesting question numeral, I'd be interested to know Staraker's views on this.

To remind ourselves, the official report claimed:

Quote:

How the bombs were made

59. Expert examination continues but it appears the bombs were homemade, and that the ingredients used were all readily commercially available and not particularly expensive. Each device appears to have consisted of around 2-5 kg of home made explosive. The first purchase of material necessary for production so far identified was on 31 March 2005?.

60. No great expertise is required to assemble a device of this kind. It is possible that the know-how necessary could be obtained from open sources, but more likely that the group would have had advice from someone with previous experience given the careful handling required to ensure safety during the bomb making process and to get the manufacturing process right. Materials consistent with these processes were discovered at Alexandra Grove. The mixtures would have smelt bad enough to make the room very difficult to work in. Both Tanweer and Lindsay bought face masks from shops and on the internet. The signs are that the bombs were made with the windows open but the net curtains taped to the walls to avoid being seen. The fumes had killed off the tops of plants just outside the windows.

61. The mixtures would also have had a strong bleaching effect. Both Tanweer and Hussain’s families had noticed that their hair had become lighter over the weeks before the bombing. They explained this as the effect of chlorine from swimming pools (the two men and Khan regularly swam together). There were shower caps at 18 Alexandra Grove which may have been used during the manufacturing process to try to disguise this.

62. It is also likely that the group would have needed to carry out at least one test explosion although when and where this may have taken place is not known.

No great expertise required? Yet during the 21/7 trial we have:

Quote:

Investigators spent many hours examining the devices used on 21 July and comparing them with the 7 July bombs.

There was only one minor difference - the 7/7 bombers mixed ground pepper into the mixture while the gang two weeks later used chapatti flour.

Clifford Todd, the chief investigator with the government's Forensic Explosives Laboratory, spent months working out how the bombs on 7/7 and 21/7 were designed.

No-one had ever come across devices with these characteristics before. But when Hussein Osman first claimed that it had been a hoax, it was Mr Todd's job to separate the science from the science fiction.

Hydrogen peroxide is well known among experts as a potential bomb ingredient- but only if used in the correct concentration.

The trial heard that Ibrahim and Yassin Omar spent many hours heating the hair bleach in the New Southgate bomb factory to achieve that concentration - and it is not clear if they succeeded.

But when it came to detonation, the hydrogen peroxide failed to react.

All four bombs simply made a "popping noise" and began leaking onto the floor of the three Tube trains and one bus where they were found.

Clifford Todd's team of scientists took small samples for chemical analysis - but when some of the mixture continued bubbling, experts were forced to destroy the rest amid fears of an explosion.

Reconstruction

The scientists at the FEL realised they would need to construct copies of the devices in order to test the hoax theory further - and it took months of carefully planning by a large team to come up with a safe way of trying to do what the bombers did in a council flat.

Failure: But impossible to predict how it would work

When it came to detonating the device, the situation was so dangerous that the scientists relied on a remote-controlled robotic device to insert the detonator and initiate the explosion. The device worked.

More importantly, Mr Todd's team established there was no way in the world that Muktar Ibrahim could have known how the devices would have behaved on the day - his claims of a hoax were lies.

Dr Black is in no doubt that the 21 July devices were potentially lethal.

Dr Black said: "Hydrogen peroxide is widely used in explosive devices in Iraq and elsewhere but July 2005 was the first time it was used in the UK. It was definitely a turning point."

"It would have been devastating. The death toll may not have been as high as 7/7 but that is only because the trains were less crowded. The devastation would have been the same. It was very destructive."

DIY bomber

Back in the laboratory, Clifford Todd's team had one last check to make: was it possible that Ibrahim had learnt how to build these bombs from precise instructions in academic, military or scientific journals?

Their research drew a blank - with the team finding no mention at all of this type of device.

Ibrahim himself claimed he had downloaded the instructions from the internet - although in the mass of other documentary evidence nothing was found at his home.

Despite all Clifford Todd's efforts, the conspiracy to cause explosions charges against these men were quietly dropped as the trial ended.

BTW Britz showed both flour & black pepper!
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

guzman
Minor Poster

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 53

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: Richmal Oates-Whitehead

Staraker wrote:

bridget wrote:

Quote:

An authored research paper cited by a Parliamentary Select Committee:

Quote:

Someone who is able to do such important research and analysis

Sorry to disagree on a technicality, but the following abstract more accurately defines what the paper was:

Quote:

This is not original research, but rather the [almost comprehensive -guzman] collation and comparison of pre-existing studies. That is not to denigrate the importance of such work, as it is often a stepping stone to deciding is further research is needed, or if comparisons between previous studies highlights anything that each separately didn't, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is basically statistical analysis.

Nevertheless it was important research and analysis. The technicality doesn't exist because Bridget never talked of it as being original research.

Page 108 of Coming to Term: Uncovering the Truth about Miscarriage by Jon Cohen highlights Richmal Oates-Whitehead's abilities and thoroughness.

Quote:

At least thirty clinical studies have evaluated whether progesterone can prevent miscarriages. In 2003, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, an ob-gyn epidemiologist in the Royal College of Paediatrics in London, sorted out the often conflicting results of these studies with an exhaustive examination of the best of these trials. Pooling the results from these fourteen studies into a meta-analysis that allowed them to evaluate far more patients than otherwise possible. Oates-Whitehead and coworkers found that in 1,098 women who received either progesterone or a placebo, the treatment produced no significant difference in birth rates. The only hint that progesterone might have helped came from three relatively ancient studies - one from 1953 and the other two from 1964 - of women who had three or more consecutive miscarriages.

It surprised me that the only studies of progesterone and recurrent miscarriage that Oates-Whitehead cited were so old. I asked her why she thought no researchers effectively addressed the question in four decades. "I think people stopped doing progesterone studies because they didn't get sexy outcomes," Oates-Whitehead said. "Nothing was happening."

Oates-Whitehead's perspectives deserve close attention - and not just because she carefully analyzed the entire body of scientific literature on the subject.

The above suggests that Richmal Oates-Whitehead work and 'meta-analysis' was valuable on its own and not just an indicator to where there needed to be further research. You'll also note that in 2003 she's not referred to as a doctor.

Quote:

but that doesn't alter the fact that it is basically statistical analysis.

Only the end result of the work could said to be 'basically [a] statistical analysis'. Original research can finish up as a body of statistics, doesn't mean the researchers haven't done a lot of work to get to the end result. Likewise, Richmal Oates-Whitehead and co put a lot of effort into their works.

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:03 am Post subject:

guzman wrote:

In 2003, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, an ob-gyn epidemiologist in the Royal College of Paediatrics in London,

It's the BMJ 'Best Treatment' website for NHS Direct who describe 'an epidemiologist as 'a doctor who studies how common diseases are in groups of people' in reference to Richmal. Her paper on nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is still to be found on there.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

guzman
Minor Poster

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 53

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

stelios wrote:

To be fair Staraker did come to the public meeting in September at the Indian YMCA. Although he was just as dogmatic on that day as he is here, credit where it is due he did come and argue his case.

Apart from the CCTV cameras on the bus of course.

Staraker wrote:

2) I pointed out that while people are quick to claim Power's "terror drill" to be a massive and suspiscious "coincidence," the size of London and the number or companies and organisations based in it suggest that it would have been more strange if there hadn't been something of the sort going on at the time. To illustrate this, I mentioned that I work for the NHS, each component organisation of which - of which there are more than 70 in London alone - carries out such contingency planning. Add in the rest of the public and commercial sectors, and we're looking at hundreds, if not thousands. The same, of course, also applies to the various other meeting and conferences that people claim as being "suspsciously coincidental."

What would stretch the imagination of a coincidence theorist is the number of top-level meetings coincidently going on at roughly the same time. BMA, BTP, Network Rail, London Ambulance Service, LGA, G8, DEFRA, and HEMS. Peter Power was running an exercise considering attacks on three underground stations for a company based in the City. A meeting in Gray's Inn that was attended by a Dr Ian McKinley and was considering possible terror threats against the nuclear infrastructure found itself cut short due to the attacks. There were plenty of trainee police officers helping with the aftermath and Metronet were holding training sessions for new personnel.

The Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition in London ended on July 7th and the exhibition had included a 'virtual reality simulation of a London Underground evacuation'.

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the morning before 7/7, gave an assurance to a gathering of Labour whips at the Commons that there was no imminent terror threat.

Also meeting on the day were: Sainsbury's Business Continuity Management Team, the National Primary Care Development Team and the Forensic Science Conference. And further afield was East Midlands Regional Resilience Forum and the East Midlands Branch of the Emergency Planning Society.

Main Reference

Staraker wrote:

3) When someone may a glib comparison between the level of compensatrion paid to 9/11 victims/families compared to those on 7/7, I pointed out that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is restricted by law as to how much it can pay out, and to do more would be illegal, so what it did pay has to be seen in that context. I clearly stated that I thought CICA payment should be higher in general, i.e. that all victims of crime should get more. Of course, we could argue that the government could have bypassed CICA, but how would that have gone down with the victims of "conventional crimes"?

We can all agree that the CICA could have dealt with the victims more humanely.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1996 is a flexible piece of legislation and enshrines it's power in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and 'the Tariff'. It's the scheme itself that is limiting.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995

2. (2) '(a) a standard amount of compensation, determined by reference to the nature of the injury; '

It's calculated to the injury not the individual. Thus the hackneyed job of claiming which injury could or could not be claimed for had no basis in the act.

Furthermore, the standard amount to be paid to claimants was to be determined in accordance with 'the Tariff' - a table produced by the Secretary of State.

Quote:

(6) The Secretary of State may at any time alter the Tariff—
(a) by adding to the descriptions of injury mentioned there;
(b) by removing a description of injury;
(c) by increasing or reducing the amount shown as the standard amount of compensation payable in respect of a particular description of injury; or
(d) in such other way as he considers appropriate.

To make an alteration to the Scheme or some parts of the Tariff it would have to be approved by both houses. So, it wasn't unreasonable to call for greater compensation because (a) the scheme could easily be updated or amended and (b) there was no requirement in the act to judge together the separate injuries suffered. The act also doesn't specify it as a crime to award greater compensation than what is set out in the scheme, although I don't know if that would be covered by other legislation.

Last edited by guzman on Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:18 am; edited 2 times in total

guzman
Minor Poster

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 53

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:51 am Post subject:

Prole wrote:

guzman wrote:

In 2003, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, an ob-gyn epidemiologist in the Royal College of Paediatrics in London,

Thanks Bridget. I'm working at the moment on a rebuttal to the articles smearing her name. What they all fail to note is that she's only given the title of doctor - either by third parties or by her own hand - after a certain date, around June 2004. This change to being called a doctor occurs while still being employed for the Royal College of Paediatrics, so they wouldn't suddenly start calling her a doctor for no good reason.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:18 am Post subject:

guzman wrote:

And if i am not mistaken Rudi guiliani and Benjamin Nethanayu were also in town attending a meeting that day?
_________________

Prole
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject:

guzman wrote:

Prole wrote:

guzman wrote:

In 2003, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, an ob-gyn epidemiologist in the Royal College of Paediatrics in London,

If she had a Phd she was entitled to be called Doctor (as in Dr Larry O'Hara I presume!). It's interesting that it was after she gave her eye-witness account and before she died that 'someone' decided to check her qualifications and claim she was a fraud. Did this happen to anyone else who gave their eye-witness accounts and why Richmal?
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK

astro3
Suspended

Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:42 pm Post subject:

Staraker writes,

Quote:

the TfL Journey Planner puts the Arnos Grove/King's Cross journey as 20 minutes, not 26

Adding,

Quote:

You need to come up with a more robust control than a single journey

Very funny – you expect me to do it again? There were no stops in-between stations on that journey, nor any extra-long platform stops. I guess that anyone else doing it in rush hour would get more or less the same time as I did, 26 minutes.

I was told by tube expert Clive Feather ('Davros') that 'Scheduled running time for Arnos Grove to Russell Square is 21 minutes,' and I did this journey to check up on this. It took six minutes longer than that, in rush-hour.

Mr Staraker is indeed well-informed, but he does tend to miss out on the central significance of what is here involved. I suggest that he does the journey and tells us how long it took him - if he doesn't believe me; then let him explain, if the blast was at 08.50 and Arnos Grove re-opened at 08.28, what happened? You cannot have trains leaving Arnos Grove before that time, not can you have any trains hanging about in between stations, during a fire-alert.

There is only one aspect of survivor testimony that one might not want to rely upon, and that is their time-estimate of when the blast happened: thus Rachel on an adjacent thread places the time at 08.55 'ish.' Given the trauma and lights going out, it seems quite feasible that an error of several minutes could have crept in here.

I thnk its a shame that Staraker should be promoting the orthodox line on thread after thread, and then when challenged he just wimps out of having a public debate. I would just say to him (with respect), (a) do you agree that a public debate is desirable? and if so, (b) do you agree that you are the nearest we are going to find, to someone who will promote the official view? This does not mean that you 'really believe' the government view, it just means that for the purpose of having a public debate (which would be fun), you are prepared to expound it.

...................................................................... ..............
PS The moral sense of our moderator Mr Gosling has gone seriously off the rails, and I thank Stelios for pointing out that nobody on this thread is accusing anyone else of lying - we are merely exploring the testimony of Rachel's book versus factual parameters of station closure.

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject:

astro3 wrote:

I was told by tube expert Clive Feather ('Davros') that 'Scheduled running time for Arnos Grove to Russell Square is 21 minutes,' and I did this journey to check up on this. It took six minutes longer than that, in rush-hour.

Mr Staraker is indeed well-informed, but he does tend to miss out on the central significance of what is here involved. I suggest that he does the journey and tells us how long it took him - if he doesn't believe me; then let him explain, if the blast was at 08.50 and Arnos Grove re-opened at 08.28, what happened? You cannot have trains leaving Arnos Grove before that time, not can you have any trains hanging about in between stations, during a fire-alert.

Maybe Starakers Maths ain't up to scratch. Just like his History.
If the first train left at 8.28 and took maximum 21 minutes it should have arrived at 8.51.
As it was rush hour that would make it at best at 8.57.
The only evidence we have as to who was on which trains are by the people themselves.
Of course evidence allegedly exists but only the police have this.
If no other evidence exists this will go the way of the evidence for the 7/7 bombers travelling on a non-existent train and being in time to detonate bombs...

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:13 am Post subject:

David Lee, 50, a partner in the accountancy firm BSG Valentine, was at his desk in Upper Woburn Place when he heard the bomb. "We were evacuating the building. I did a right into the foyer and saw bodies being taken into our lobby and guys were coming up to me and pleading for help. I didn't know what to do. I saw injured people wandering around with clothes torn and facial and arm injuries. And there were people on stretchers already there. It was gruesome.'"

quote taken from the Independant
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article297658.ece
My question is WHY were they evacuating the building BEFORE the explosion?

Full Article in case they delete it wrote:

Tavistock Square: 'I watched as the anxious man on the bus kept going into his bag'
By Andrew Malone
Published: 08 July 2005

As the rich and powerful gathered to talk politics and money amid the splendour of the Gleneagles Hotel,life on board the No 30 bus from London's Hackney to Marble Arch went on much as it always did.

People stared out of the bus windows. Drivers nosing through the grinding rush-hour traffic stared back. Some passengers read newspapers; others listened to music. Nobody knew that terror was about to strike the heart of the capital.

Yet Richard Jones, 61, a computer specialist from Bracknell, did notice something odd as he sat on the bottom deck of the No 30. A tall man aged about 25, who had an "olive skin", was becoming increasingly agitated. He watched as the young man "kept going down in his bag. I didn't actually see his face but he was becoming more and anxious".

Mr Jones got off the bus - he did not know why - and started walking. He had gone about 10 yards when there was a loud bang. All the pigeons scattered and took off. The roof of the bus flew up in the air.

"It opened up like splitting an olive," he said. "People were crawling over each other. I'm not sure if the bomb was upstairs or downstairs."

The bus was just inside Tavistock Square. The roof landed 20 metres away. Red pieces of metal - they looked like wings - stuck out from either side of the destroyed vehicle. Bodies were strewn across the road. Blood dripped from the walls of the headquarters of the British Medical Association (BMA). A traffic warden wiped his arm in an bewildered manner, repeating to himself: "I think I've got human flesh on me."

Lorenzo Pia, 34, was on his way to work at the nearby Institute of Cognitive Science when he came across the carnage seconds after the blast. He joined other people trying to help the victims.

"Some of them were dead," he said. "The police were placing white sheets over them."

"I feel lucky," he added. "I had two coffees. That's [why] I arrived one minute after the bomb."

Luis Borreia, a data engineer from north London, saw the bus explode. "I was 50 yards from the explosion. The top of the roof was destroyed and there was smoke coming from everywhere. Some people were jumping out of the top and others were jumping from windows. I saw people on the floor including women and one looked badly injured."

Other witnesses described horrific scenes. Ade Soji, 35, of Dagenham, Essex, ran for his life when the bus exploded moments after the driver had stopped to ask him for directions as the bus was on diversion due to the incident at King's Cross.

Just as he was about to go over to help the driver, Mr Soji said the bus roof flew over his head.

"In another second I would have been dead." Pointing to his blood-soaked clothes, he added: "I think this is blood from the passengers. I can't believe what has happened."

Peter Gordon, 30, who works in Tavistock Square, said: "I looked out of the window and saw it happen but I wish I hadn't."

He added: "I have never been so scared in my life. I feel shocked by the sight. We could hear police sirens and helicopters. People were screaming, the glass from the bus windows had broken and some were trying to scramble out. I looked for a couple of seconds and felt sick. Two minutes after the explosion we were evacuated from the building. I walked down and saw there were more bodies on the floor, there were people panicking everywhere.''

David Lee, 50, a partner in the accountancy firm BSG Valentine, was at his desk in Upper Woburn Place when he heard the bomb. "We were evacuating the building. I did a right into the foyer and saw bodies being taken into our lobby and guys were coming up to me and pleading for help. I didn't know what to do. I saw injured people wandering around with clothes torn and facial and arm injuries. And there were people on stretchers already there. It was gruesome.''

In what appeared to have been a cynically co-ordinated attack, the No 30 was even busier than usual as Tube stations were closed amid confusion over rumours that bombs were exploding all over London.

Many rushed from the stations to board buses. Belinda Seabrook, who was on the bus in front, watched as the "packed" bus behind exploded. "I heard an incredible bang and I turned round and saw half the double decker bus was in the air," she said. "It was a massive explosion and the roof was about 10 metres in the air. Then it floated down. There were a lot of dead people."

It is believed that up to 10 people may have been killed. The police were last night still holding back details until relatives could be informed. Nor would they comment on speculation that a suicide bomber was responsible.

Specialists at the BMA treated casualties after the explosion outside their headquarters. The building was used as a mini hospital while casualties were moved away from the road and were waiting to be taken to hospital.

Dr Laurence Buckman, from the BMA's GPs committee, said ambulance staff at the scene told him that about 10 people been killed in the blast. He said two died in the BMA courtyard as doctors tried to treat them.

"The most extreme thing I noticed as I walked in was that there was someone in bits in the road. The front of BMA house was splattered with blood and not much of the bus was left," he said.

Dr Buckman said he saw the bus driver who was among the walking wounded at the scene. He appeared to be uninjured.

Doctors were treating patients for shock, administering drips and stemming bleeding, working alongside ambulance and other emergency staff.

By last night, the injured had been taken to specialist hospitals across London. Doctors said the victims' injuries ranged from fractures to burns to impact injuries.

The police cordons remained up as forensics experts began poring over the wreckage for clues. Light rain fell intermittently on the scene.

Some buses started running again, as thousands walked through a city hit by the biggest terror atrocity in its history. This is London. Slowly, the city started moving again. And grieving relatives of the dead remembered their lost ones aboard the No 30 from Hackney to Marble Arch. And they wept.

'There was an eerie quiet'

Stephanie Riak Akuei, 44, witnessed the bus bomb at Tavistock Square: "I heard the noise of the bomb and went over to help. There were at least seven people who were obviously dead.

"I was joined by doctors from the British Medical Association building and later on by paramedics. We treated about nine people but I don't know if they survived. At first there was an eerie quiet.

"One man we extracted from the bus began screaming and screaming. Another man was only visible by his head. When we pulled him out the bones of his legs were in pieces and the flesh was torn out.

"Some people who might not survive were calling out. We were trying to soothe as many as we could by saying, 'At least you are alive.'

"I just keep thinking of whether the others made it."

_________________

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:06 am Post subject:

Quote:

EXCLUSIVE: MY LEG.. WHERE'S MY LEG?

Joe, 19, tells of horror on bombed Tube

By Paul Gallagher 11/07/2005

TEENAGER Joe Orr was travelling on the Piccadilly Line on a weekly college visit when the second bomb ripped his train apart.

Joe, 19, a maintenance engineer from Enfield, Herts, had been sitting halfway down the first carriage of the Tube as it pulled out of King's Cross at 8.56am.

Moments later the bomb exploded claiming the lives of up to 41 commuters.

Here is his diary of that horrific day.

7.45am: Leave my house in Enfield at my usual time and drive to Arnos Grove where I work with Tube Lines.

8.10am: Today is my weekly visit to Newham College in Stratford, East London, where I'm studying for a diploma - so leave the car at work and get on the Piccadilly Line to Holborn.

8.15am: Tube arrives. Arnos Grove is one of the first stops on the Piccadilly so I always get a seat.

8.22am: End up waiting for several minutes at each Tube stop as there has been a fire alert at Caledonian Road. Our train is packed because of the delays holding people up.

8.50am: Finally get into King's Cross where the platform is heaving. Only a few more people can fit into our carriage.

8.56am: Leave King's Cross. We never make it to the next stop.

About 10 seconds after leaving the station the bomb goes off at the end of the carriage I'm in.

Of course, the times given here could be wrong but the Arnos to KXSP journey took 35 minutes. The train was already six minutes late at Arnos and ended up 21 minutes late arriving at KXSP.

The interesting thing is the hold up at KXSP. This could have been due to the failure of the Tunnel Telephone System. When that happens drivers must be shown a T-board to inform them that the TTS is out.
_________________
Follow the numbers

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:28 am Post subject:

But i thought the tunnel telephone system failed because of the bomb? His timeline has to be wrong but obviously his watch could be fast or he has been misquoted. There is no reason for Rachel's timeline to be wrong after all she had had two years to think about it and correct any mistakes. Within all these conflicting stories one thing is clear - the official version is wrong no matter how they revise it it still does not fit the facts. Your piece about the explosive. I am not convinced that a viable explosive can be made from those ingredients. i am more in agreemnet with the opinion that that military grade high explosives was used. Never in history has any terrorist made a bomb from those ingredients. I think the reason for attempting to prove those ingredients was so that many ethnic supermarkets, wholesalers, etc could be targeted under anti terror laws. None of us is a terrorist but one would imagine they had basic common sense. Surely they would not use an unproven experimental highly unstable explosive and would go for easy to make and easy to use commonly used explosives? _________________

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:22 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

But i thought the tunnel telephone system failed because of the bomb?

Which bomb? From the DOM report:

Quote:

At 0850hrs, the tunnel telephone for Holloway Road – Russell Square westbound Current Rail Section tripped. The train service was held whilst station staff checked the tunnel telephones at relevant stations. Early indications were of a serious power failure, with loss of CCTV monitors in the central area.

It could have been the Aldgate bomb which damaged a 22KV cable and led to widespread power failures including the tunnel telephone system. Train 331 could have been held at the KXSP platform until the tunnel telephone system was reset.
_________________
Follow the numbers

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject:

Surely the piccadilly line bomb which went off between 08.50 and 08.51 must have been the cause of the trip? If it wasnt then it is yet another in the long line of coincidences. I cannot see how a power surge can occur let alone cause the cctv to malfunction anyway. What do you reckon about David Lee who says his office was being evacuated before the bub bomb went off. If it is true it proves foreknowledge by the police and goes along with theories that say the area was already cordoned off. _________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Numeral thanks.

I am of the opinion that Staraker seems to be squirming.

Bothered.

numeral
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Surely the piccadilly line bomb which went off between 08.50 and 08.51 must have been the cause of the trip?
If it wasnt then it is yet another in the long line of coincidences.
I cannot see how a power surge can occur let alone cause the cctv to malfunction anyway.

That's what TfL and the police said back in July 2005 but:

Quote:

Richard Barnes (Chair): Thank you all very much indeed. We will move into questions now. The timelines have indicated that the bombs went off at 8.50am at Liverpool Street, 8.51am at Edgware Road, and 8.53am at King’s Cross.

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/resilience/2005/77reviewnov03/minute s/77reviewnov03trans.pdf

There was a power surge on 17 May 2005 which was very similar to the one on 7/7:

Quote:

On 17 May 2005 BBC News carried the following report.

"Tube network hit by power surge
Commuters faced huge delays after a power surge shut several Tube
stations in central London.

Transport for London (TfL) said the electrical fault happened just after
1800 BST on Tuesday forcing them to close ten stations.

TfL said although the trains were not directly affected power was lost
to systems such as escalators and CCTV.

Most stations reopened about an hour after the surge but services on
many lines were running with severe delays.

TfL added that they were working with EDF Energy, who supply power to
London Underground, to find out what caused the surge."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4557129.stm

Quote:

The Final Incident Investigation Report - Mansell Street - 17th May 2005 - INF No. EDF-INF-SSE-05-101

Executive Summary

On Tuesday 17th May 2005 at 18:03 hours a fault occurred at Mansell Street in the cable termination chamber of the Cobourg Street [next to Euston] 22kV feeder F2293.

Mansell Street is one of the main Bulk Supply Points feeding the London Underground Power Network. The incoming supply is at 132kV from the National Grid, which is transformed to provide the 22kV supplies required to operate the London Underground Railway Network.

This fault occurred within the switchgear fed directly from these Grid Transformers, and this situation would account for the intensity of the voltage depression that occurred during this incident.

Although the duration of the fault was only 0.6 seconds, consequential substation plant failures occurred which effected [sic] the operation of the London Underground Railway Network fed from Mansell Street derived supplies. All these failures are being investigated.

The main aim of the investigation was to identify the root cause of the incident, which has been established as an internal fault inside the red phase cable termination of F2293, due to poor jointing craftsmanship. The general design of these terminations was that utilised in the mid 1980's when these terminations were assembled. These methods of cable termination preparation had already been superseded, prior to this incident occurring.

Due to an erratic operation of the Translay protection auxiliary tripping relay, the circuit breaker failed to clear the fault in the minimum time. This allowed the fault arc to transfer to metalwork inside the switchgear chamber, causing extensive damage within the chamber and a voltage depression on this part of the Distribution Network.

My guess is that this Translay relay was also the problem on 7/7.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum