9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Alleged discrepancies in July 7 witness testimony

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Alleged discrepancies in July 7 witness testimony
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

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

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:48 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Astro - there was reports from passengers who posted in usernet discussions that the picadilly line was closed from Arnos Grove to Kings Cross. This was due to a fire alert at Caledonian Road. For example several people have said that Bounds Green and Wood Green were closed at 08.30.

Stelios, I really do find your selective memory quite remarkable. As I have already corrected you once in the "LONDON - 7/7 bombing victims' meeting" thread (Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:39 pm - page 6), the person in the Usenet thread I directed you towards who mentioned Bounds Green being shut was me, and I did not say it was shut "at 08.30." What I actually said was:

"I was running late yesterday morning, so caught the BBC London travel bulletin around 08:55 and they said there were _ongoing_ severe delays to the Northern, Piccadilly & Bakerloo, two of which I'd normally use. I figured I'd walk to Bounds Green, see what was happening, and then back-track to Bowes Park to get WAGN into Moorgate if necessary. Funnily enough, just before I left - by which time I'd switched the TV off - a friend from Manchester texted me to ask if I was at work, which I thought was a bit odd. As it was, when I got within sight of Bounds Green I saw the gates were down, so walked straight back to Bowes Park..."*

Clearly, the time I saw the station closed was well after 08:55, let alone 08:30. Nobody else in the thread mentioned Bounds Green in this context, and nobody else seems to have said anything similar in any other Usenet thread around the same time. You really don't help yourself by continuing to misrepresent matters in the way you do.

* http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport.london/msg/b618e51ffe644 3b5

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:20 am Post subject:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

I've been pondering on what seemed wrong about my journey yesterday, and the time of events doesn't make sense unless London Underground had suspicions something was amiss.

I arrived at Wood Green station at 8:30 to discover it was locked and a notice saying the service was suspended between Arnos Grove and Kings Cross.

This is the first quote i read, and it clearly states that Wood Green was closed at 08.30. I reproduced the quotes for everyone to read earlier in this topic.
If the Picadilly line was closed at 08.30 all stations north of Kings Cross then whether YOU said that Bounds Green was closed or someone else said that Bounds Green was closed is irrelevant it obviously was closed at 08.30.
As Numeral stated the first train did not start running until 20 minutes after it's scheduled time because of the delays caused by the fire alert.
Meaning accordingly it would have arrived at Wood Green 08:33.50
According to Numeral this train was a through train from Cockfosters meaning the bomb could have been placed at the Cockfosters depot.
The purpose of the station closures and the fire alert would be to REDUCE the number of passengers on the train.
What you are suggesting is what?
That they opened the line from Arnos Grove to Kings Cross for a few minutes AFTER 08.30 and then closed it again after the bomb at 08.52.
Many like yourself would have walked away from the closed stations and made alternative arangments.
Meaning much less than normal numbers were on that train that day.

Now the question remains, you yourself have confirmed the station closures that morning.
So how did people like Rachel get onto the train?
What time after 08.30 did the stations reopen?
_________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:45 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:

You're evading the issue. You claimed: "several people have said that Bounds Green and Wood Green were closed at 08.30." The only person to mention Bounds Green was me, well outside of that timescale, and only one person mentioned Wood Green being closed at that specific time. To conflate all that into a claim that "several people" mentioned those two stations specifically at that specific time is misrepresentation, plain and simple.

Quote:

As Numeral stated the first train did not start running until 20 minutes after it's scheduled time because of the delays caused by the fire alert.
Meaning accordingly it would have arrived at Wood Green 08:33.50
According to Numeral this train was a through train from Cockfosters meaning the bomb could have been placed at the Cockfosters depot.
The purpose of the station closures and the fire alert would be to REDUCE the number of passengers on the train.

Nonsense. The effect of such a relatively short closure (i.e. 31 minutes after the line had be running for around 2h 39m) is invariably that the first trains to run are more full than usual, as even when stations are closed, people inevitably gather outside waiting for them to reopen.

Quote:

What you are suggesting is what?
That they opened the line from Arnos Grove to Kings Cross for a few minutes AFTER 08.30 and then closed it again after the bomb at 08.52.

The line ran from just around 05:18 to 07:57, and reopened at 08:28. The latter time to 08:52 is hardly "a few minutes."

Quote:

Many like yourself would have walked away from the closed stations and made alternative arangments.

People who arrive at closed stations while they are still closed will obviously consider other options, but equally those who arrive afterwards will invariably enter and wait for the first/next train. If the first train to run through from Arnos Grove left at 08:28, by the time it got to Finsbury Park there will have been open for more than ten minutes, and a lot of waiting people can build up in that time, whether changing from the Victoria line or national rail, or coming into the station. Add to that the similar build up in even more time for the stations between there and King's Cross, and for you to suggest that the first trains were not full is preposterous.

Quote:

Meaning much less than normal numbers were on that train that day.

The majority of the eyewitnesses suggest otherwise. At least one to my recollection couldn't get on the first because it was at crush capacity, and doesn't give the impression that the second was as deserted as you want to believe.

Quote:

Now the question remains, you yourself have confirmed the station closures that morning.

No, I confirmed closure after the explosion. Other sources confirm what time the line reopened.

Quote:

So how did people like Rachel get onto the train?
What time after 08.30 did the stations reopen?

The line reopened at 08:28, as has been mentioned before. Some stations may have been less quick off the mark reopening, even if it took ten minutes for them to do so, that would still be about a quarter of an hour before the explosion.

astro3
Suspended

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

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject:

OK, I grovel with apology. How wrong I was! So it sounds from the testimony of Joe Orr (thanks, Numeral) Mirror 11.7.05
www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721675&method=full&siteid=9 4762&headline=7-7--war-on-britain--my-leg---where-s-my-leg---name_page .html
as if a bomb went off just where Rachel said it did …. Although maybe under the train rather than in it. Let’s listen to her testimony given to the July 7th Review Committee last year:
www.london.gov.uk/assembly/resilience/2006/77reviewmar23/minutes/trans cript.pdf

Quote:

There was an immediate scraping noise as the train, I think, derailed, and then immense screaming began, as the passengers who had been rolling on the floor in the darkness struggled to find out what had happened to them.

Plus this testimony of Jane -

Quote:

On 7 July, I boarded the train at Arsenal to go to Russell Square. As it turned out, I was at the front of the third carriage of the Piccadilly Line train on which there was a bomb. Shortly after leaving King’s Cross, on a very packed train, there was a huge thud and a blast, and everything went black. I was thrown and buffeted into fellow passengers.

Suppose we want to believe that there was only one single position of the blast, maybe a bomb, and that it was in the first carriage, what would cause this experience in the 3rd carriage? It seems to me that this testimony rather confirms Rachel’s experience of the carriage being derailed. That would jolt the whole train and bring it to a sudden halt. A bomb going off inside a coach would not tend to cause its derailment, would it?

From Joe Orr’s testimony, we hear of legs and feet being blown off. The dialogue is of the form: ‘My leg, where's my leg?" and "My foot's missing" (He puts the blast at 08.56). This is reminiscient of the Edgware Road blast which also seems to have come from underneath the carriage. (Other refs as bomb-witnesses cited by Numeral: Gari Holness, Danielle Kolias, Mark Margolis, Susan Harrison.) Likewise ‘I tried to get up and I realised I had lost my leg.’ And, ‘Gill Hicks, 37, who lost both legs at King’s Cross.’ But, Mark Margolis in the first carriage did not initially realize that any bomb had gone off. I haven‘t located the other testimonies cited by Numeral.

One would like to ask the King’s Cross Survivors group, about how limbs blown off all seem to have been legs or feet – as with Edgware Road? And, did anyone confirm that the carriage had derailed?

The London assembly heard from ‘Kristina’ in the last carriage: ‘We had no idea what had happened, being on the last carriage, no idea how we were going to get out.’ She indicated that persons in that carriage did not know what had happened, they were only scared at being trapped. As Staraker points out, if the 6 coaches were 166-566-366-417-617-217
Then 166 and 566 were left in the tunnel, and the other four come back into King’s Cross station, with two of them 366 and 417 looking severely blackened (image below). But, Staraker quotes a ‘Piccadilly line driver’ as saying that the other coaches apart from 166 are still in use, so maybe those two well-blackened coaches just had to be cleaned up! .

Concerning the bizarre Observer headline "Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A’ this being (one gathers) an impossible number -

Quote:

Aaron Roche and his colleagues found that, inside the carriage of
Piccadilly line 346A, 26 people had died. It was the carriage
where Britain's bloodiest attack since the Second World War took
place; where the deadliest of the 7 July bombs was detonated

.
Let’s notice that the Queen doled out gold, silver and bronze awards, to tube, fire and police staff, for their ‘heroic’ July 7th services (6 silver, six gold, 25 bronze) – and Aaron Roche there is the only name we recognize. No mention at all of the driver of the tube train, for his rescue work!
‘http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/lfepa/reports/2006/FEP830.pdf

PS I query Stelios’ claim, ‘From what I have read of the survivors, none of them describes their route’ – eg Joe Orr told of how got on at Arnos Grove at 08.15, while Kirsty got on at Manor House, and Angela got on at Oakwood (we are only given first names from re London Resilience hearings) all travelling down on the Picadilly line, so there could not have been any problem with through trains.

PicTrainBackinK'sX.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

53.17 KB

Viewed:

151 Time(s)

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject:

astro3 wrote:

As Staraker points out, if the 6 coaches were 166-566-366-417-617-217
Then 166 and 566 were left in the tunnel, and the other four come back into King’s Cross station, with two of them 366 and 417 looking severely blackened (image below). But, Staraker quotes a ‘Piccadilly line driver’ as saying that the other coaches apart from 166 are still in use, so maybe those two well-blackened coaches just had to be cleaned up!

It's widely accepted that the explosion and the action of parts of the train scraping the tunnel walls disturbed a large amount of tunnel dust, which many passenger erroneously assumed to be smoke. Tube trains get covered in it during the normal course of operations - as anyone who is careless boarding one will attest - so it's hardly surprising.

Last edited by Nick Cooper on Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject:

Quote:

PS I query Stelios’ claim, ‘From what I have read of the survivors, none of them describes their route’ – eg Joe Orr told of how got on at Arnos Grove at 08.15, while Kirsty got on at Manor House, and Angela got on at Oakwood (we are only given first names from re London Resilience hearings) all travelling down on the Picadilly line, so there could not have been any problem with through trains.

But we know from many sources including LU that there was a line closure from Arnos Grove to Kings Cross because of a fire alert at Caledonian Road. that is a 100%. All the stations in between were closed with various sources stating that they were closed at around 08.30.
If Joe Orr had got on at 08.15 he may have got in BEFORE the closures but his train would have been stuck in between stations because we know that Caledonian Road fire alert occured.

This is why the official story cannot possibly be true

Quote:

The timetable of Train 331

Trip 1 Cockfosters Depot 0749 to Cockfosters platform 2 0752.5
Trip 2 Cockfosters 0800.5 Oakwood 0802.5 Arnos Grove 0809 Wood Green 0813.5 Finsbury Park 0820.5 King's Cross 0829 Holborn 0832.5 Green Park 0838.5 Hyde Park Corner 0841 Knightsbridge 0842.5 South Kensington 0845 Earl's Court 0848 Hammersmith 0853 Acton Town 0859.5

the train was delayed 20 niutes because of the station closures and fire alerts
_________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:26 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Quote:

Which "various sources" are these?

Quote:

If Joe Orr had got on at 08.15 he may have got in BEFORE the closures but his train would have been stuck in between stations because we know that Caledonian Road fire alert occured.

This is why the official story cannot possibly be true

Why, specifically? Orr's account actually runs:

Quote:

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.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721675&method=full&siteid=9 4762&headline=7-7--war-on-britain--my-leg---where-s-my-leg---name_page .html

The section from Cockfosters to Arnos Grove was still running, ergo the latter station was open and trains arriving. We know trains will have been moving on that section of track at 08:15, so this is not some astounding revelation. The next entry of his account is ambiguous, as it does not say what time his train left actually Arnos Grove. We also do not know if it is the full version he gave to the Mirror, or if someone has "tightened" it up by omitting what may have seemed "superfluous" detail. For example, he may have said he was waiting at 08:22, left a few minutes later, stopped for a few minutes at Bounds Green, the same at Wood Green, etc., but a journalist or editor at the newspaper decided to conflate all those details into a single overall statement about delays.

astro3
Suspended

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

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

I asked top expert Clive Feather (www.davros.org) about the delay that morning:

Quote:

Q: 'As the bomb went off approx 08.52 it does not allow a lot of time for the stations to reopen and for the through train STARTING at Arnos Grove to reach Russell Square'

.
and he replied:

Quote:

Scheduled running time for Arnos Grove to Russell Square is 21 minutes, so that would not be a problem. In any case, I don't think 331 starts at Arnos Grove at 08:30.
My memory (I can't be bothered to go and check sources right now - you should be able to do that without difficulty) is that train 331 was at the front of the queue of trains waiting to go through when the stations re-opened

.
That does sound interesting: if the train that blew up was somehow 'special' i.e. it had been tampered with, then they may have needed some way to adjust its timing so as to coincide with the story of the three bombers getting on at King's Cross.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject:

WE KNOW THAT TRAIN 331 was special. It came from the depot and that was it's first journey that day. Secondly i believe it had a non conforming carriage number - the one that contained the bomb. Obviously the cctv we have not seen the footage and now the carriage has been melted down for scrap hence destroying all evidence where the bomb may have been planted. Ofcourse there are alot of coincidences that day. I do not think that they would allow trains to sit between stations while they wait for the fire alert to be sorted. What if it is a REAL fire and you have several trains backed up in the tunnels FULL? so the train would always wait at arnos grove where you have facilities. Also what if passengers get on at northern stations and want to get off at wood green or arsenal? They cant get out because these stations are temporarily closed. So again they will not let people get on in the first place. Q. was there any train replacement bus? Even just one? I know our resident sceptic will say everything is explainable and there is nothing unusual. But nevertheless, how many coincidences can we accept before we become suspicious? Any passenger from any of the intervening stations should describe the closures and the delays because even LU admits trains were running 20 minutes late. At the least it would have made people late for work and pissed off. If the train was actually full rather because of it's status as the first train through what would have happened if the 'bomber' was unable to get on it with his rucksack? _________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

WE KNOW THAT TRAIN 331 was special.
It came from the depot and that was it's first journey that day.

Along with all the other trains that came out of depots on their first journeys of the day....

Quote:

Secondly i believe it had a non conforming carriage number - the one that contained the bomb.

No it didn't. A newspaper report propagated an incorrect car number, which is a completely different matter.

Quote:

Obviously the cctv we have not seen the footage and now the carriage has been melted down for scrap hence destroying all evidence where the bomb may have been planted.

Presumably only after being pored over by forensic investigators, and photographed from every conceivable angle.

Quote:

Ofcourse there are alot of coincidences that day. I do not think that they would allow trains to sit between stations while they wait for the fire alert to be sorted.

They wouldn't - trains would be moved to the next/nearest station and the doors opened. The usual form is that passengers are told there is a problem and informed how long it may take. Eventually they may be told something within a more definite timescale that cause some/most/all of them to seek alternative routes, but this isn't usually the first thing they're told.

Quote:

What if it is a REAL fire and you have several trains backed up in the tunnels FULL?

"Several trains backed up in the tunnels" where, exactly? At the most you might expect one train in tunnel behind the affected train, which could be worked back to the previous station - in this case to King's Cross - if necessary.

Quote:

so the train would always wait at arnos grove where you have facilities.
Also what if passengers get on at northern stations and want to get off at wood green or arsenal? They cant get out because these stations are temporarily closed. So again they will not let people get on in the first place.

Once again you demonstrate an unfamiliarity with what happens in the Real World. I can rememebr plenty of occasions in which trains I have been on have been held at stations due to fire or security alerts further down the line, and no attempts are made to prevent new passengers joining them.

Quote:

Q. was there any train replacement bus? Even just one?

No, and you wouldn't expect there to be one in such a small space of time. The usual practice is that local buses are instructed to accept Underground tickets, as one driver has confirmed:

Quote:

"I am a London bus driver and worked part of Thursday 7th July. I can confirm bus drivers were told just before 8.00am, via radios in their cabs, of a fire alert at Caledonian Road Tube Station on the Piccadilly Line. We were asked to carry passengers in the area and accept thier tickets. This is standard procedure when tube stations close and this sort of request is very much part of our job."

http://www.advfn.com/stocks/congratulations-bush-and-blair-7-7-7-regar ds-illuminati_9447247.html

Quote:

I know our resident sceptic will say everything is explainable and there is nothing unusual.
But nevertheless, how many coincidences can we accept before we become suspicious?

No, some things that people may - as a result of ignorance, misundertsanding, or whatever - think are suspiscious are explainable. Most importantly, people should learn the different between an ambiguity and a contradiction.

Quote:

Any passenger from any of the intervening stations should describe the closures and the delays because even LU admits trains were running 20 minutes late. At the least it would have made people late for work and pissed off. If the train was actually full rather because of it's status as the first train through what would have happened if the 'bomber' was unable to get on it with his rucksack?

False premise. It was the second train to run through. And every day people with rucksacks manage to jam themselves into seemingly inpenetratively-full Tube cars.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject:

Quote:

ok so the fire alert was before 08.00 which means that the line would have been closed?
_________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject:

astro3 wrote:

Quote:

Why "tamper" with a train that was scheduled to go out earlier in the first place? Surely they would rather "tamper" with one that was due to go out later, which would not entail the need to "adjust" anything? And why only the need to "adjust" the Piccadilly line trains?

This, of course, is where the "bombs pre-planted on trains" theory falls down, as day-to-day running of the Underground clearly suggests that it would be virtually impossible to plant devices on specific trains and be sure that they would be in the right place - or would have earlier passed a certain spot - at the right time.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Quote:

ok so the fire alert was before 08.00 which means that the line would have been closed?

Only the bit between Arnos Grove and King's Cross, as trains can reverse at those stations, rather than carrying on to Bounds Green or Caledonian Road respectively.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject:

Ok so you dont find anything funny that none of the newspaper witness statements mentioned this? Many passengers got on the buses others were unable to enter the stations. So the actual victims were rather unlucky because they got into the station and onto the train during a very narrow window of opportunity. _________________

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Ok so you dont find anything funny that none of the newspaper witness statements mentioned this?
Many passengers got on the buses others were unable to enter the stations. So the actual victims were rather unlucky because they got into the station and onto the train during a very narrow window of opportunity.

Someone I know who tried to get into Kings X that morning could not. A lot of police then appeared in the area. Then the alleged bombs went off and police helped the area be cleared and sealed off.

When I see him again I will ask the approximate time.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Ok so you dont find anything funny that none of the newspaper witness statements mentioned this?

Do you mean the fire alert? Joe Orr certainly mentioned it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15721675&method=full&siteid=9 4762&headline=7-7--war-on-britain--my-leg---where-s-my-leg---name_page .html

As did Jahor Gupta here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/talking_point/4659237.stm

In any case, it's not exactly unexpected that the nedia would be more interested in the bombs exploding than the fire alert.

Quote:

Many passengers got on the buses others were unable to enter the stations. So the actual victims were rather unlucky because they got into the station and onto the train during a very narrow window of opportunity.

While other people were lucky for precisely the same reasons - see Jahor Gupta above, for example. The flipside is that had there been no fire alert, other people would have been un/lucky.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject:

you have made alot of posts on the google groups, you seem to be quite dogmatic about many things i could describe as a long term sceptic to me there are many failings in the official story, what is your view of them scrapping the train carraiges? Did they allow victims families access to pay their respects? _________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:04 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

you have made alot of posts on the google groups, you seem to be quite dogmatic about many things i could describe as a long term sceptic

LOL! I'm sure that would amuse most people who actually know me.

Quote:

to me there are many failings in the official story, what is your view of them scrapping the train carraiges?

It would be more pertinent to ask what you think of it, since you lump it in with a statement about "failings." I would imagine that the Met view is that they reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary. The same would be true of any investigation involving a large artefact that cannot be kept indefinitely. I would also think that given the modern propensity to seek to erase completely places of things relatign to tragic events (e.g. Fred West's house), LU would have been loathe to even salvage the reusable parts, while also taking the view that the longer they hung onto the damaged cars, the more chance they might draw the attention of morbid souvenier hunters.

Quote:

Did they allow victims families access to pay their respects?

I really have no idea. Why don't you ask LU?

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:58 am Post subject:

The scrapping of the trains is hugely important especially as the Edgware Road survivors questioned the then Home Secretary John Reid about the Official Report's positioning of the explosion on that train only to be told that a final forensics report has not been received by the Met as late as August 2006. It also limits the defence in the case of the 3 defendants who are now charged with complicity in these events from having an independent forensics examination carried out or any independent public inquiry being able to examine the wreckage. http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html#edgwarer oadsurvivors _________________ '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

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:56 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

...
to me there are many failings in the official story, what is your view of them scrapping the train carraiges?
Did they allow victims families access to pay their respects?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1971884,00.html

Quote:

The 7/7 bomb survivor's tricks of memory

Alexander Linklater
Saturday December 16, 2006
The Guardian

At 8.50am on July 7 2005, Thomas, a 38-year-old computer scientist from Germany, was sitting on a tube at Edgware Road when, a few feet away, the suicide bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan blew himself up. The story of what happened to Thomas next was reported in this magazine for the first anniversary of the London bombings. He had remained conscious, and walked out of the wreckage with only minimal physical injuries. Yet for months afterwards he could remember almost nothing. No sight nor sound of the explosion, no image of mutilated passengers, no emotion. It was as if he hadn't been there.

At the time he first spoke to this magazine, Thomas's memory was still incomplete. He had been suffering a bewildering array of psychological symptoms, the worst of which was a paralysing concentration problem, which he described as an internal pressure that built up in his brain whenever he tried to set his mind to even the simplest task.

He had also been experiencing shocking flashbacks, in which he would catch the whiff of an appalling smell, or the sound of screaming, but nothing that formed a sequential memory. The strangest of his symptoms, however, was what happened if he laughed. When he found something funny or joyful, his laughter would be replaced, an instant later, by an overwhelming rush of horror.

This sudden switch of feelings turned out to be a kind of code for his lost memory. Four months after the London bombings, Thomas was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and referred to an NHS psychotrauma clinic for a programme of cognitive behaviour therapy. There, his therapist encouraged him to relive his experiences in order to "reprocess" them. As a computer scientist, Thomas appreciated cognitive explanations for how his "fight or flight" reflexes had short-circuited his memory systems, causing his mind to "dissociate". His disconnected memories were playing themselves out in repetitive loops. What he needed to find instead was a clear narrative sequence and a coherent emotional response.

The first clue came during one of his "relives", when he recalled that he had been reading a book by one of his favourite comic authors as he sat on the tube. Thomas realised that, at the moment of the explosion, he had been laughing.

This was a breakthrough connection. Thomas began to regain his concentration and a sense of reality. He was merging three separate pieces of the puzzle: his conscious memory, the shards of recollection from flashbacks, and the new recollections he got from therapy. But he still had no full visual image of the scene in the carriage after the blast. It was this last piece of the puzzle that he felt he needed to complete the therapy. Dreadful though it was, Thomas wanted to confront that picture.

He decided that the only way of achieving this was to see the 7/7 crime-scene photographs. It was a potentially risky request and, for several months, the police tried to put him off. But Thomas got the approval of the director of his psychotrauma unit and a date was set this summer.

When Thomas walked into the viewing session, however, it was to confront only disappointment. The pictures provided by the police were of the bare, twisted carriage, after it had been cleaned up. It was meaningless, except perhaps as a metaphor for his own amnesia: the distorted structures of memory were there, but emptied of their terrible contents.

The psychologist accompanying Thomas has since told him he can still try for a viewing of the real pictures. But Thomas recently started a new job and found that his concentration problems have mostly gone, so there is no longer any urgent clinical need. It seems that, among those closest to the 7/7 bombs, he was not only lucky to survive, but also fortunate in his ability to adapt. Now he has just the occasional flashback, or a moment when he'll laugh and find himself overcome by that old rush of horror.

Thomas has made peace with the fact that he will not put all the pieces back together. Yet he has also become acutely aware of what a remarkable piece of work is the brain. The effort to retrain his memory has produced some odd side-effects. Now when he plays a computer game during the day, he finds he can also play it at night, inside his own head. This is not a retinal replay of images, but an actual manipulation of the game scenario. It may be a minor consequence of trauma, but it says something powerful about the nature of memory. "Some part of my brain is picking up on those images and creating its own game," he says. "Although it sounds absurd, I'm reliving the game as if it were a reality."

Names and details have been changed.

_________________
Follow the numbers

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:31 am Post subject:

staraker wrote:

I would imagine that the Met view is that they reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary. The same would be true of any investigation involving a large artefact that cannot be kept indefinitely. I would also think that given the modern propensity to seek to erase completely places of things relatign to tragic events (e.g. Fred West's house), LU would have been loathe to even salvage the reusable parts, while also taking the view that the longer they hung onto the damaged cars, the more chance they might draw the attention of morbid souvenier hunters.

Well hold on a minute when have the Met's view been the deciding factor?
Firstly there are ongoing criminal trials. There have not been any inquests for the dead nor for the alleged bombers. Surely a Judge or a coroner has to make the decision that such key pieces of evidence as three train carriages must be kept.
Surely a QC defence Barrister like Michael Mansfield will demand the jury visit the crime scene and establish beyond doubt that the bomb was here this is where the remains of the bomber were splattered and your client is guilty because his phone number was used to contact the bomber.
for example.

Why were they not able to scrap Princess Diana's mercedes?
Because i am sure they would have loved to.

And another thing even if the alleged are convicted evidence must be stored pending any number of appeals.

So to destroy evidence is VERY strange.

You mentioned Fred West's house and there have been other horror houses like the guy who was just up the road from me who buried his victims under the floorboards.
These places were kept sealed for years because of trials and forensics and identifying remains.
Who are these morbid souvenier hunters?
A train carraige in a covered sidings at the depot intensively being studied by forensics people?
So what morbid souvenier hunters?
Is that the same thing as saying youre either with us or youre with al queda?
_________________

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:18 am Post subject:

stelios wrote:

So to destroy evidence is VERY strange.

Indeed, but it follows a well worn path.
That of the removal of the twin towers.

The evidence is destroyed so no investigation can occur regarding bomb residue, its military grade which will lead to the source.

In Lockerbie the Yanks commissioned indirectly a Swiss detonator company and then tried to force the MD to blame it on ...Arabs.

The whole thing is a comedy show with real life victims.

astro3
Suspended

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

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:52 am Post subject:

Some very interesting stuff is developing here, if we could maybe tone down the bickering. Conspiracy Analyst, if you could kindly get us some more detail on your story

Quote:

Someone I know who tried to get into Kings X that morning could not. A lot of police then appeared in the area. Then the alleged bombs went off and police helped the area be cleared and sealed off.

That would be wonderful*. Can you definitely substantiate that a load of police arrived before 08.50?

Staraker, one would ‘tamper’ with the train that is due to blow up shortly before the long-planned event, and one might need to have to have some means of delaying it a bit. The fire alert was ideal for this, and that was presumably its purpose. It could not have been the other way round that it arrives after, do us a favour. The ‘bombs pre-planted on trains" theory’ hasn’t fallen down at all, that I can see.

You very absurdly miss the central importance of destroying the crime scene ie the coaches which took the blasts**. –

Quote:

the Met view is that they reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary. The same would be true of any investigation involving a large artefact that cannot be kept indefinitely.

Some of us believe that the holes in the floor of the coaches would show the metal curving upwards resulting from blasts that came from below, not from rucksacks in a carriage. That is the REASON WHY they had to be demolished without a single journalist having access, without a single photo being permitted of the floor. Note that the photo supplied by Prole of what is presumably the first carriage omits the floor. It is also the reason why virtually all the injuries reported are of legs and feet being blown off.
After the line was re-opened, train 331 ‘was the second train to run through,’ you tell us - contradicting what Clive Feather, (‘Davros’) said, that it was the first. How do you know this?

* Remember the big FEMA lorries that arrived to clear up Ground Zero after 9/11, proud how promptly they arrived? In fact they got there Monday evening….
** Just as Mayor Giuliani ordered the destruction of all the steel of the WTC after the collapse, and forbade photography.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:01 am Post subject:

Prole wrote:

The scrapping of the trains is hugely important especially as the Edgware Road survivors questioned the then Home Secretary John Reid about the Official Report's positioning of the explosion on that train only to be told that a final forensics report has not been received by the Met as late as August 2006.

It also limits the defence in the case of the 3 defendants who are now charged with complicity in these events from having an independent forensics examination carried out or any independent public inquiry being able to examine the wreckage.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html#edgwarer oadsurvivors

Obviously there is a conflict here between what we think should have happened to the directly-damaged cars, and the working procedures of both the Met and the Underground, more so to those who may consider either or both of those organisations complicit in some way with what happened on day ("Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"). Ultimately, before we can read it is inherently suspiscious, we have to ask if such disposal contravenes force policy on the retention and/or disposal of evidence.

Looking around, it is clear that all police forces in the UK have policies on the rention and disposal of evidence. There is a separation of "vehicles" from everything else, although only in the context of road/motor vehicles. For the record, the Met's policy on the latter is here:

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/vres_policy.pdf

Some may find it useful to compare it with that of another/neighbouring force, e.g. Hampshire:

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7D7378B4-9E8C-40A7-9D28-AE E66C49531A/0/14510.pdf

The Met's policy on "Long Term Storage and Disposal of Crime Related Property" is here:

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/storage_and_disposal_policy .pdf

Again, we can compare it with that of another force, such as Lancashire, which seems far more informative and comprehensive:

http://www.lancashire.police.uk/fileadmin/users/documents/ERP_Policy.d oc

Sections 3.8 and 3.9 relates to evidence retention and disposal respectively, although they refer to specific procedures documented elsewhere/not online.

It seems in the case of the Met the detail is in the "MPS Property Manual," which does not seem to be available online. It would be necessary to obtain a copy before knowing if they have contravened their own policy on evidence retention/disposal, but in general it seems that is no desire for forces to hang onto evidence indefinitely, although there of course should be a paper trail relating to anything that is subsequently disposed olf.

Incidentally, the Met's policy on photographic evidence may be of interest:

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/immediate_capture_of_eviden ce_for_front_line_officers_policy.pdf

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:26 am Post subject:

astro3 wrote:

Staraker, one would ‘tamper’ with the train that is due to blow up shortly before the long-planned event, and one might need to have to have some means of delaying it a bit. The fire alert was ideal for this, and that was presumably its purpose. It could not have been the other way round that it arrives after, do us a favour. The ‘bombs pre-planted on trains" theory’ hasn’t fallen down at all, that I can see.

OK, so you have people tampering with trains in the depot, and others arranging a fire alert at Caledonian Road. The latter involved someone telling the driver they had smelt burning in one car, the driver investigating, other LU engineering staff confirming a brake defect, etc. That makes it as complicated as the supposed tampering with the train, and makes LU staff inherently complicit. Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

You very absurdly miss the central importance of destroying the crime scene ie the coaches which took the blasts**. –

See my other post. Before we can really pass judgement - whatever we may think personally - we have to be able to establish that such disposal is - or is not - usual practice in the course of a criminal investigation.

Quote:

I note your selective-quoting removed my qualification to the above statement, i.e. "I would imagine that the Met view is...." This changes it from aknowledged speculation on my part to a definite statement, which is misleading on your part.

Quote:

No, that is why you think they "had to be demolished." Try not to confuse opinion with fact. And as to journalistic access to crime scenes, since when is that usual?

Quote:

Note that the photo supplied by Prole of what is presumably the first carriage omits the floor. It is also the reason why virtually all the injuries reported are of legs and feet being blown off.

Absolute rubbish. In an explosion below floor level, while much of the explosive force is expended by penetrating the floor, the result is an upwards force causing lower limb (but also groin and lower trunk) injuries to only the people directly over the device; the blast will then rebound off the roof, causing head and upper limb injuries to those further away. Much of the blast will not actually enter the car, but will instead damage structures under the floor. In comparison, in an explosion at floor level, while some of the force will be expended in a downwards penetration of the floor, what remains of the floor will "channel" a lateral force consistent with multiple traumatic amputation of or severe injury to lower limbs. The only way that a device under the car could cause the widespread lower limb injuries seen would be if it was so massive as to destroy much of the floor in the process, which of course nobody has described. These are matters of simple physics, or do you need a diagram?

Quote:

After the line was re-opened, train 331 ‘was the second train to run through,’ you tell us - contradicting what Clive Feather, (‘Davros’) said, that it was the first.

Well, if that's the statement you posted previously, he actually said: "My memory (I can't be bothered to go and check sources right now - you should be able to do that without difficulty) is that train 331 was at the front of the queue of trains waiting to go through when the stations re-opened." In other words, he was not 100% sure and urged yo to seek corroboration. Did you do so?

Quote:

How do you know this?

Witnesses have said that it was the second to run through King's Cross, as the first was too full to get on.

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

In an explosion below floor level, while much of the explosive force is expended by penetrating the floor, the result is an upwards force causing lower limb (but also groin and lower trunk) injuries to only the people directly over the device; the blast will then rebound off the roof, causing head and upper limb injuries to those further away. Much of the blast will not actually enter the car, but will instead damage structures under the floor.

Brian Paddick stated in one of the early press conferences:

Quote:

Police do not know whether suicide bombers carried out the attacks or whether bombs had been left in packages on the Underground or in buses, according to Brian Paddick, Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner.

Paddick said it wasn't clear whether the bombs were on the trains or in the tunnels.

U.S. law enforcement sources said investigators have discovered remnants of timing devices that may have been used in the train explosions -- but that no such fragments have been found at the site of the bus blast.

_________________
'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 Oct 13, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Staraker wrote:

Brian Paddick stated in one of the early press conferences:

Quote:

Yes, although the CNN story was posted at 13:45 GMT on the Friday, which make it a very early report. The fact remains, however, that contrary to astro3's claim, the high number of injury to or traumatic amputations of feet and legs is consistent with a device at floor level, not under it. Of course, they can equally be said to be inconsistent with a device in a rucksack that was being worn at the time, i.e. at chest level.

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

Prole wrote:

Staraker wrote:

Brian Paddick stated in one of the early press conferences:

Quote:

What do you suggest caused the experience of being 'electrocuted' which was very common amongst survivors?
_________________
'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: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:39 am Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Staraker wrote:

The fact remains, however, that contrary to astro3's claim, the high number of injury to or traumatic amputations of feet and legs is consistent with a device at floor level, not under it. Of course, they can equally be said to be inconsistent with a device in a rucksack that was being worn at the time, i.e. at chest level.

What do you suggest caused the experience of being 'electrocuted' which was very common amongst survivors?

That's always puzzled me, but possibly not for the same reason. The problem is that most people have never actually experienced being electrocuted by high voltages in the first place. They are, however, familiar with mild static electricity shocks, or - for the adventurous amongst us - sticking their tongue on a battery. Neither of these compare to being actual exposure to mains voltages/currents.

As to actual witness statements, "Ian" gave two differing but similar accounts:

Quote:

"I remember thinking that I've never been on such a packed train. The next thing I remember was reading a paper and then getting a sharp feeling of electrocution, like I imagine anyone who has been struck by lightning gets. I was knocked unconscious either during or after the electrocution and I maybe came round about 10 minutes afterwards."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4346812.stm (16/10/205)

Quote:

"I was unconscious for quite a while down there, so by the time I came round, anyone who could get out had got out, so you were pretty much on your own.I was struggling because I had been by the double doors and once the double doors gave way, I got blown back against the tunnel and as I did so my chest got heavily hit so it was very bruised. I was blown out and then back in. There are electric cables running along the tunnel and that is what I hit. I was blown out and then I was electrocuted and I was just thrown around the carriage like a frisbee, quite frankly; you are semi-conscious and you go with it. There was a lot of burning and blood down the whole left side from that."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article625637.ece (06/06/06)

Also we have:

Quote:

"Gracia Hormigos, 58, a housekeeper from north London, told a London Daily Telegraph reporter just after the attack that when the bomb exploded, she felt as though she'd been electrocuted."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wocros174374749aug07, 0,194444.story (07/08/05)

Quote:

Katie and Emily Benton:
A minute later, a blast filled the subway car.

"Everything was totally normal, and then everything went totally black," Katie said. "I mean, like the exact instant it went black, it felt like we were being electrocuted. And the noise was just deafening."

"I felt like I was on fire," Emily said. "I could feel my skin, like, peeling off. I thought I was dead. I thought I was going to die."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=967012&page=1 (22/07/05)
More on the sisters: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1269/62

In Ian's case, he seems to have rationalised his own quite plausible explanation, which of course still may not be right. Not everyone describes something similar, suggesting a subjective reaction, rather than a common cause. My own thought is that we may be seeing something more complex, a result of the initial shock of the explosion, concussion, and/or acute stress reaction ("symptoms of shock") afterwards.

I think there may also be a degree of automatic mental association between sensations a person cannot readily identify/explain and the fact that most people are aware that the Tube runs on electricity. Effectively putting two and two together and getting five. Something similar happened to my great-great grandfatehr in WW1, when (according to his medical notes) he interpreted an injury which blinded and knocked him out to "a big gun" going off nearby while he was leading a horse across a stable yard, causing the animal to kick him. In fact, it was a shell landing nearby and a piece of shrapnel hitting him in the head, but as he had worked with horses all his civilian life - and may even have been kicked by a few - his own interpretation does not seem so unreasonable.

Some papers on blast injuries, which I'll have to digest after I get some sleep:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masscasualties/explosions.asp
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic63.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7509/119?rss
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1723514&blobtype =pdf

astro3
Suspended

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

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject:

Staraker, you ask concerning the fire at Caledonian Road that morning -

Quote:

So you have people tampering with trains in the depot, and others arranging a fire alert at Caledonian Road. The latter involved someone telling the driver they had smelt burning in one car, the driver investigating, other LU engineering staff confirming a brake defect, etc… Is that what you're saying?

Sure. The suspension of nine Piccadilly line stations immediately preceding King’s Cross over the key half-hour, prior to fated train going through, was assuredly a prepared event. It was part of the Plan and no coincidence. But I don’t have any details of what happened there, do you?

Certain things were pre-arranged for that day. For example, the London Resilience Mortuary which took the dead on July 7th, was made ready, together with the crisis plans for taping off areas, etc, merely days before July 7th:

Quote:

The London Mass Fatality Plan had only just been circulated when the bombings took place. This involved guidelines, about cordoning off areas etc. As part of the Mass Fatality Plan, these were only issued to responders days before July 7th (J7). ThisPlan had been prepared over a number of years under the aegis of a multi-agency planning group which included representatives of all the key relevant agencies. It was approved by the Forum in March 2005 and formally circulated to all stakeholders at the end of June, just days before the bombings. London Regional Resilience forum

That was a planned synchrony, which enabled the coroners, police, local authorities, pathologists and the London Resilience Team to deliver a ‘Resilience Mortuary,’ ready to receive the deceased victims in 24 hours.

Another example: nurses were meeting in Tavistock Square to discuss how they would respond to a crisis if terror struck London, when it did:
London Ambulance Service was meeting at their headquarters to discuss a previously held simulation of "four terrorist bombs going off at once across London."

Quote:

9.10 am - Julia Dent, chief executive of the South West Strategic Health Authority, was in charge of the response of the National Health Service to any major disaster. By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service - and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London. Source: The Independent 10 July 2005

That was likewise part of the plan, and naturally they were using Peter Powers’s terror-drill scenario. Some things are ‘mere’ coincidence, but the time-adjustment of that Piccadily line train was not. The swiftly-arriving fire engines outside Caledonian Road station were pure theatre. Eight stops away, the notice went up at Arnos Grove about ‘due to fire’ – there was no real fire, was there?

07.57 The Piccadilly Line was "suspended between King's Cross St Pancras and Arnos Grove from 07:57 to 08:28 due to a defective train at Caledonian Road." Reports of a fire at the station exist and fire engines were reported outside Caledonian Road station.
08.25 A fire engine parks outside Caledonian Road station.
08.30 A notice at Arnos Grove Underground states, "Due to fire, Piccadilly Line suspended between Arnos Grove and Kings Cross".
08.48 The Westbound Piccadilly Line train No. 331 leaves King's Cross

…………………………………………….
Concerning the way the blasted carriage was disposed of without anyone being allowed to see it - I’m sure Rudolf Giuliani would agree with your views! But seriously I suggest you go back to the very beginning of this thread, and note how, when the police had to move the location of where the blast had happened from the first to the second double doors, due to Rachel North writing to them and protesting, there is no hint that anyone is able to have a look and see where a huge hole in the floor is located. Your statement concerning this acrriage that the Met

Quote:

reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary

needs to be translated as, they hid away the central evidence of the crime so that nobody, NOBODY, was allowed to see it. Likewise with the Edgware Road Circle line train there is a persistent ambiguity as to whether it was the first or second set of double doors where the blast happened.

Actually you already had quite a good reply to this from Stelios, with his analogy concerning the disposal of the Diana crash Mercedes.

………………………………………………..
As for your claim that an explosion from a floor-level rucksack would ‘"channel" a lateral force’ that would blow off feet and lower limbs, but not arms etc, that sounds like bad science to me. But I guess neither of us knows enough about this subject argue it further. I'd say your case here is a conjecture - not a ‘fact’ which ‘remains.’

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> London Bombings of Thursday 7th July 2005	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6

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