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

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

sorry i still dont understand how can you have a power surge anyway? too much electricity? Surely the system is a grid, meaning that tracklines work according to several seperate parellel circuits with multiple breakers. Stuff such as lights, adverts, signs, escalators, and cctv runs on much lower voltages and so must again be split into multiple parallel circuits. When do you ever get power surges in your house or factory or office. I have never come across the phenomenon. When other than 7/7 and 21/5 has power surges occured on the tube or overground rail? What were the 10 stations involved on the 21/5 If a power surge occured at 08.50 which took a while to clear how come none of the people like Rachel North report the train stuck at the station waiting for it to move for several minutes? Why dont platform or escalater passengers report lighting failures or escalater failures? _________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

Prole wrote:

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

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.

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

I said previously something to the effect that I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually military explosives, possibly from the Balkans, but I can think of numerous reasons for suppressing this information at the time.

Quote:

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.

I would take that to mean that nobody at the FEL had come across such a device in their previous work at first hand, as it's made clear later on that it is not unknown outside of the UK.

Quote:

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.

"A safe way" is the operative term. Certain types of drugs, such as MDMA (ecstasy) and crystal-meth can be - and are - manufactured in council flats and the like, despite some of the processes being very dangerous to carry out in such conditions. Amateurs are inclined to be recknless, while scientists are inclined to be over-cautious.

Quote:

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!

I'm a bit puzzled by the concentration on hydrogen peroxide "alone" as the explosive, while it's use in the manufacture of acentone perxoide (i.e. TATP) is widely disseminated, e.g. here I haven't watched Britz yet, although did look at the "manufacturing" scene while editing the adverts out of my recording, and it did seem to be acetone peroxide that was being made.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: Richmal Oates-Whitehead

guzman wrote:

Staraker wrote:

bridget wrote:

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

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 [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.

I was making the distinction between what is essentially a "paper exercise" based on existing research, as opposed to a new trial in a clinical setting, which would be a lot harder for a non-qualified person to pull off. I have also not said that it was not important work, to the contrary I have stressed that it "still" is, regardless of who carried it out.

Quote:

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.

Indeed, as I have repeatedly acknowledged. But this doesn't change the fact that she was not as medically-qualified as she claimed.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject:

guzman wrote:

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.

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.

Apart from the CCTV cameras on the bus of course.

I think that goes without saying. Obachike's point was that because he found what he thought was CCTV footage of the wreckage of the bus, then there should be footage from the same camera - or the other cameras be erroneously claimed were "everywhere" - of the explosion.

Quote:

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.

Superficially that may convince some people, but it really means nothing without knowing how many similar meetings have been held by those and other similar organisations or bodies, both before and since 7/7. For example, the LSA meeting was related to an exercise carried out a few months beforehand, prior to which there must have been other a number of meetings to plan it in the first place. I would also be fascinated to discover what possible connection anyone might find or claim between the events of 7/7 and Primary Care Trust (PCT) Commissioning, which is what the National Primary Care Development Team conference was about. Sainsbury's is a red herring, as that meeting was in response to the events of 7/7, in the same way they met in response to the 2001 foot & mouth outbreak and other events. Details here.

Quote:

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.

Well, more than one relative of mine had similar experiences (although with relatively minor injuries) in the CICB days, and it was not to easy and quick back then.

Quote:

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.

I would suspect that there may have been legal challenges if the government bypassed CICA, or if CICA itself had exceeded the Tariff. After all, someone who had just lost a leg to a drunk driver and been paid according to the Tariff would no doubt be a bit miffed if another criminal leg amputation resulted in a higher payment simply due to the circumstances of the crime.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject:

astro3 wrote:

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?

Well, amazingly as you may think, yes. You simply cannot take a single attempt to time the journey as conclusive.

Quote:

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.

So the working timetables are wrong, the TfL journey planner is wrong, but you are right? Until fairly recently, one leg of my commute was King's Cross to London Bridge, which the TfL journey planners says is 11 minutes, but was frequently 10, but sometimes as much as 15, if not longer.

Quote:

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 seem to be pressuming that the timing will be the same as yours. If it isn't, and is more in line with the timetable/journey planner, then there is nothing to "explain."

Quote:

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.

Excuse me? In the event of line closures, it's not unusual for trains to move to the next station for evacuation, and hold there until the line reopens. Bearing in mind the fire alert related to a train on the eastbound line, clearing those on the westbound past Caledonian Road would not have been a problem. unless an actual fire broke out.

Quote:

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.

Even supposing people's watches/phones/whatever had the right time, and also that they didn't "round up" to the nearest 5 minutes, as people are wont to do.

Quote:

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.

I would suspect that anybody prepared to endorse the official view 100% wouldn't be arsed coming here in the first place, let alone hanging around long enough to be recognised as a "worthy opponent." As it is, I'm flattered, but not interested, as I have far more important things to do with my time and energy.

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

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.

You think 28 + 21 = 51 ?!
I think it's your maths that's not up to scratch, not mine.

Quote:

As it was rush hour that would make it at best at 8.57.

Are you serious? Timetabled running times are deteremined by the requirements of a regular service, not the fastest the trains are capable of going. For the first trains to run through after a closure, with little ahead of them and a desire to clear the backlog of passengers, it's more likely that the time taken could even be slightly less than normal by cutting a few corners speed-wise. For example, the top speed of the line is 45mph, but there is a 30mph limit when going through the disused York Road station, which I have noticed drivers ignoring on more than one occasion.

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

BBC 1/10/05 a power surge sent a flare 10 foot into the air from the track.

Power surges in themselves are serious and do cause explosions. Indeed, Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone said as much at a 7 July Review Committee Meeting [PDF] on March 1st 2006:

"You could have had a power surge with a quite catastrophic casualty level. We have always been aware of that on the Underground."

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-liverpool-street-aldgate.html#powersu rge
_________________
'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: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

sorry i still dont understand
how can you have a power surge anyway? too much electricity?

Surely the system is a grid, meaning that tracklines work according to several seperate parellel circuits with multiple breakers.
Stuff such as lights, adverts, signs, escalators, and cctv runs on much lower voltages and so must again be split into multiple parallel circuits.

When do you ever get power surges in your house or factory or office. I have never come across the phenomenon.
When other than 7/7 and 21/5 has power surges occured on the tube or overground rail?

What were the 10 stations involved on the 21/5

If a power surge occured at 08.50 which took a while to clear how come none of the people like Rachel North report the train stuck at the station waiting for it to move for several minutes?
Why dont platform or escalater passengers report lighting failures or escalater failures?

17/5

The report lists 8 stations closed: Westminster, King's Cross, Oxford Circus, Angel, Warren Street, Caledonian Road, Mornington Cresent, Hampstead.

Mornington Crescent - the lift supply tripped and was reclosed by 18:26.

Metropolitan Line - loss of site signalling causeses the service to be suspended from Baker Street to Aldgate from 18:04 to 18:54. H&C and Circle were suspended between Moorgate to Aldgate East/Aldgate between 18:04 and 18:30. Train 222 was stalled on the north curve between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East.

East London Line - Signalling control and power were lost in New Cross depot.

District Line - Signal mains and traction current lost between Tower Hill and Victoria for 3 minutes. Eastbound train 5 was stalled between Tower Hill and Aldgate East unit 18:25.

Piccadilly Line lost several OPO monitors.

Victoria Line - All signalling control and diaigrams at Cobourg Steet Control Centre lost until 18:10.

Jubilee Line - At Stratford Market Depot all Depot DC tripped by the Mass Trip function. All restored by 18:12.

7/7

08.51 [Northern Line] Stations closed due to loss of power supply.
Angel, Kentish Town, Bank, Kings Cross, Camden Town and Old Street stations were closed and the City branch was suspended due to stations closing following a loss of local power supply. Mornington Crescent was closed due to lifts becoming defective and stalled with 20 customers who were released at 10.10hrs.

East London Line

08:51 Service Suspended on East London Line in consequence of a Signals Mains Failure together with Traction Current supply failure; caused by a major power failure in Leicester Square Power Control Room.
All trains were in stations at the time of the incident with the exception of train 172 that was approaching New Cross station and became stalled in section.
Stations Rotherhithe, Whitechapel, Wapping and Shadwell were all closed and evacuated due to loss of station lighting and power.
Traction current was restored at 09:03 together with the signal mains; however numerous track circuits on the East London Line failed.
Train 172 was brought into New Cross Station under rule, arriving at 09:07.

The East London Line continued to operate a service until 09:21, when a general “Code Amber” message was advised by the NCC following the terrorist attacks on the system.

Jubilee Line Network Incident from 08.51

08.51 – Report received from LSQ power control room that traction current had gone off in SMD [Stratford Market Depot]. In addition to this it was noted by control room staff that the phone system went down for 4-5 seconds and the radio began to log itself off.

08.53 – Power confirmed on at SMD.

08.54 – Tunnel Ventilation showed a loss of communications to the A comms.

08.56 – Green Park was non-stopped on both roads while escalators where restarted following a power failure, normal services resumed to the platforms at 08.58.

08.58 – Westminster requested the service to non-stop while they restarted their escalators. It remained closed until further notice.

09.02 – Baker Street advised that there was no interchange onto the Met and H & C.

09.05 to 09.16 – A number of reports where received of an incident in the Aldgate area on the Met and smoke in the tunnel in the city area.

09.17 – CODE AMBER issued for all lines via NCC

Victoria Line

08.50 Victoria line SSOs reported that the line diagram ‘went dim’

09.15 Code Amber declared and imposed at 09.20. All trains were empty and platforms evacuated by 09.42.

Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle lines

0845
Loss of traction current at Aldgate and Edgware Road, Major incident declared with explosions on trains.
08:49 Position of trains before incident
Aldgate: 432 I/R 447 O/R
Aldgate East Nth Curve 235 I/R 204 O/R
Liverpool St 211 I/R 411 O/R
Moorgate 222 I/R
Barbican 227 I/R
Farringdon 463 I/R 450,433
Kings X 217 I/R 205 O/R
Euston Sq 461 464,467 O/R
Grt Port St 242,430 I/R
Baker St 233,206 O/R
Edg Rd 216 O/R

09:15 Network wide Code Amber issued
Stalled trains being detrained all complete by 10:05 except train on North curve which was detrained back to Aldgate East by 11:08 318 people.
Additional train 201 stalled between Notting Hill Gate and Bayswater Detrained by 11:36
_________________
Follow the numbers

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

I would take that to mean that nobody at the FEL had come across such a device in their previous work at first hand, as it's made clear later on that it is not unknown outside of the UK.

Fort Halstead does the majority of its work for the MOD and the article claims that these devices are commonly used in Iraq, one can only wonder why the FEL has not examined the potential of this type of explosive before. Seriously negligent if it hasn't.

Staraker wrote:

Suppressing information of this type would entail 'inventing' a bomb factory.

Is there any reason for the lack of a fire (thankfully) on the trains, whatever explosive was used, given the mass of flammable material (granted train seats are probably designed to be non-flammable)?
_________________
'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: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject:

I have never heard of peroxide explosives being used in Iraq and I do keep in touch.

Quote:

http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/2007/01/nigel-sweeney-and-flour-peroxi de-bombs.html
Dick Destiny
Expert rock and roll ratings and expert national security affairs stories by George Smith, not necessarily in any order or absolutely guaranteed.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

NIGEL SWEENEY AND FLOUR & PEROXIDE BOMBS: Incompetent Londonistan terrorists again

Readers of DD blog know that London must have a certain class of incompetent terrorist. Whether they wish to make ricin, other biopoisons or dirty bombs, this class always comes up with ridiculous formulations or impractical processes ending in failure. (Obviously, this is good.) That a number of different bombers succeeded in an attack on 7/7 seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

They are so nuts in this regard one becomes curious as to the provenance of their plans. Where do they get their wretched ideas? (This is a bit of a rhetorical question. Generally, they come from "Pyro home chemistry for young menninnies" forums, semi-popular on the net, as per exampleshere and here.

With GlobalSecurity.Org Senior Fellow T-shirt on, DD can be convinced of the malicious intent of the incompetent but not by any aptitude they have for causing mass death.

The latest news from Londonistan is the case of the flour and peroxide bombers.

Their bombs were a hash -- fizzled and now a half-dozen are in the dock.

Over at Snapping Turtle, Bruce Rolston dubs the flour bombers complete idiots -- it's not too strong a description -- and comments on the formulation of bombs made from over two hundred bottles of drugstore peroxide. Yesterday, "Scare Us, We Love It," DD maintained astonishment that there are still people determined to believe drugstore peroxide is deadly.

"Here's the math, in case you don't get why this is such a joke," writes Rolston. "One story says the plotters purchased exactly 284 bottles of hydrogen peroxide. Pharmacies normally sell peroxide in pint bottles (473mL) at 3% concentration. That means the plotters could well have had 134.3 litres of solution, or the equivalent of 4kg of actual pure peroxide if all the water were to be boiled off and there was no loss."

Further, Rolston explains, "Between the five containers, there then would have needed to be at least 10.5L of concentrated peroxide solution, post-distillation, to make the 'bombs.'

"Do the math and that indicates the peroxide was likely at no more than a 40% concentration when it was mixed with the flour (the remainder being water and other impurities). That level of peroxide isn't even strongly corrosive, let alone explosive."

There's a lot more to the discussion and with the utmost enthusiasm, DD recommends you read it here.

As an intellectual exercise, consider the differences between such bombers -- and the more effective kind on display daily in Iraq where no one uses cooked drugstore peroxide and flour, buddy-boy!

In reporting from the trial, USA Today published an article containing statements from Crown prosecutor Nigel Sweeney. These were repeated across the land's newspapers through the wings of Associated Press.

From USA Today: "Sweeney said [one defendant] had told police that the bombs were 'a deliberate hoax in order to make a political point' and were not intended to kill. But Sweeney said forensic scientists had tested the mixture, and 'in every experiment this mixture has exploded.'"

In the parlance, this is known as a strapped down chicken test, a rigging.

It's another way of saying that scientists are allowed to go forward and make mimic bombs from highly concentrated peroxide and flour, correcting all the intellectual deficiencies and formulations of the terrorists, using lab assets terrorists do not have, to make something work in order that the case be made more convincing in court.

[Sidebar: Can you make a bomb of 70 percent to pure hydrogen peroxide? Yes, the Luftwaffe was good at it. Called T-Stoff, it was mixed with a fuel mixture called C-Stoff, in rocket-assisted takeoff pods used with jet aircraft and short runways. And rather infamously in the Komet, a dangerous in a useless way rocket-powered one-man bomber interceptor. Trivia note: The Komet was even modelled in the WW II air combat flight simulator, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, which DD played regularly, refusing to ever fly the Komet, which was just as awful on PC as it was in real life.]

Readers with long memories may remember Nigel Sweeney from the botched case of the London ricin ring. In it, Sweeney presented the poison recipes of killer Kamel Bourgass.

"These were no playtime recipes ... These are recipes that experts give credence to and experiments show work. They are scientifically viable and potentially deadly," Sweeney claimed.

In matter of fact, Kamel Bourgass's plans were, indeed, "playtime recipes," downloaded from Yahoo servers in California. Copied to paper by hand, and later translated for the court, DD -- who consulted to the defense for this trial -- had the evidence and posted it on GlobalSecurity.Org here where the world was free to see that -- yes, Virginia -- they were the formulations of the utterly incompetent.

So when one hears or reads of prosecutor Nigel Sweeney attesting to matters in which something is claimed to be scientifically viable and deadly, or that other forensic scientists have reverse-engineered a thing that didn't work in the first place, one must always keep in mind that Nigel Sweeney has never been scientifically viable, so to speak.

One can admire and applaud his zeal for the locking up of the murderous but not his grasp of the science of mayhem.

Related: Dhiren Barot, the Londonistan dirty bomber who thought he could make a WMD from smoke-detectors.

posted by George Smith at 10:18 AM

_________________
Follow the numbers

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:50 am Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

astro3 wrote:

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.

You think 28 + 21 = 51 ?!
I think it's your maths that's not up to scratch, not mine.

Quote:

As it was rush hour that would make it at best at 8.57.

I put in the numbers to see how you would argue...

Rachel allegedly took the third train not the first or second according to her book. Now you argue a delay in the system implies the trains go faster than normal and arrive in their destination quicker!

So platforms are full, the trains are waiting in a queue and you get to your destination faster than you would normally.

You must actually travel on a different underground to me Staraker.
Next you will be saying they create backlogs to get you there faster.

A bit like when they dont run overground trains as there are leaves on the track.

You will actually argue anything irrelevant to what is being said.

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

Power surge explodes 'superloo'

A so-called 'superloo' exploded in a town centre when an electrical fault caused water to surge back into the toilet, blowing off its roof and lifting the pavement.
Luckily no one was using the Automated Public Convenience at the time but it was badly damaged and remained closed on Wednesday while engineers worked at the site.
Energy bosses blamed a fault in high voltage cables underneath the toilet, in Hanley town centre, Stoke-on-Trent, and said an investigation was under way.
Police were called to reports of an explosion in Hanley town centre, Stoke-on-Trent, at 0445 GMT on Wednesday.
Officers found the roof ripped off and smoke coming from inside
Parts of the surrounding pavement had also been lifted.
A spokesman said there were also unconfirmed reports that nearby traffic lights had been affected.
'Technical problem'
Rebecca Jackson, from Aquila, said they had isolated the cable but were investigating the fault and the siting of the toilet.
"This could have been quite distressing if not dangerous if someone had been in there and we are taking it very seriously," she said.
"We would like to reassure domestic customers this isn't something that is likely to happen in their own homes.
"They have low voltage cables and lines going into their properties, their homes should not be sited over high voltage cables."
The toilet, an Automated Public Convenience, was operated for the city council by JC Decaux.
The council's spokesman, Terry James said: "The toilets have been there for around two or three years.
"It doesn't appear to be vandalism or terrorism, it does appear to have been a technical problem."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3457965.stm
_________________
Follow the numbers

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:14 am Post subject:

Another report on the hold-up at KXSP

Quote:

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

....

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

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769440,00.html
_________________
Follow the numbers

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:08 am Post subject:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

Staraker wrote:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

astro3 wrote:

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.

You think 28 + 21 = 51 ?!
I think it's your maths that's not up to scratch, not mine.

Quote:

As it was rush hour that would make it at best at 8.57.

I put in the numbers to see how you would argue...

Yes, the numbers you "put in" being:

Quote:

If the first train left at 8.28 and took maximum 21 minutes it should have arrived at 8.51.

Either your maths is fúcked, or you English is.

Quote:

Rachel allegedly took the third train not the first or second according to her book. Now you argue a delay in the system implies the trains go faster than normal and arrive in their destination quicker! So platforms are full, the trains are waiting in a queue and you get to your destination faster than you would normally.

No, I said a delay that results in the line ahead being totally (or almost totally) clear of other trains means the first train/s to run through can move through that cleared section quicker, if necessary. Even if - and we have never seen anything categorical either way on this aspect - one or two trains had been held at stations between Oakwood and Caledonian Road, it's still more or less a clear run for anything leaving Cockfosters after the suspension was lifted. If, as some reports have said, the bombed train was the second to run through from Cockfosters after the suspension was lifted, we only have to account for one train held between Oakwood and Wood Green (working on the principle that ones starting from Tunrpike Lane or Manor House would not get full enough) to account for Rachel's first of three trains.

Quote:

You must actually travel on a different underground to me Staraker.

I travel on it everyday, pal. However, it seems that unlike you I notice more that happens than just the bad bits.

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Staraker wrote:

I put in the numbers to see how you would argue...

Yes, the numbers you "put in" being:

Quote:

If the first train left at 8.28 and took maximum 21 minutes it should have arrived at 8.51.

Either your maths is fúcked, or you English is.

Quote:

You must actually travel on a different underground to me Staraker.

I travel on it everyday, pal. However, it seems that unlike you I notice more that happens than just the bad bits.

[/quote]

The only evidence that Rachel was where she says she was is herself.
The only evidence the alleged bombers did what they did is 2nd hand information. Someone who has seen police info on our behalf.

Does one trust the messenger or the source?

Much like your analysis. You overturn once more almost everybodys experience on the underground alluding to the fact that because their is a clear track the train goes faster when it has been delayed and catch up occurs.

Even when office workers evacuated Tavistock Square prior to the controlled explosion on the bus and even when people weren't allowed into Kings Cross but were being evacuated and surrounded by police when the bombs went off you will argue this is normal... London is a big city its normal for drills to occur in many places at once.

You are right in one thing. I wouldn't want to stand in front of people and be ridiculed if I came out with this medieval nonsense. At least you are honest enough to refuse a debate as the discussion would soon turn to stand up comedy.

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject:

Staraker made a perfectly sensible point that a train with a clear run ahead could well travel faster. Set against that is the fact that it will take longer to set down and pick up passengers at the stations.

There is a futility about this thread. There is no way that it can be established that train 331 could not have left Arnos Grove before 08:28. Even if it did leave at 08:28, it still *could* have arrived at KXSP at 08:48, although I would not bet on it.

What is the point of trying to radically discredit Rachel's account of her experience when it is of very limited value to the investigation, anyway. It is unreliable in some ways but this is to be expected.

The issue with Rachel is her propaganda that 7/7 was carried out by death cultists. Those guys were not Decent (David Aaronovitch, Euston Manifesto et al).

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=8293

Quote:

The Humanitarian With the War Machine
Iraq was a humanitarian war – that is what made it so dangerous
by Brendan O'Neill

David Aaronovitch, the London Times columnist who supported the war in Iraq, is sorry. He is sorry "for Abu Ghraib and for Donald Rumsfeld. For not understanding the insurgents. For the looting. For the dire planning." He's also sorry for "the election workers assassinated, the police trainees blown up, the parents of children caught in crossfire…."

And yet he stands by his decision to support the war, on the grounds that these disasters are less than the disaster of Iraqis being "massacred, shredded, gassed, beheaded, suppressed, starved, immiserated, terrorized, and tortured" under Saddam.

Johann Hari, another British newspaper columnist who cheered the invasion of Iraq, is also sorry. He's especially sorry for Abu Ghraib, those photos that show a "GI with a lacerating grin and empty eyes dragging a collapsed, naked Iraqi on a leash like a dog." Hari admits that he was wrong to see America as a force for good in Iraq, and "George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld as the praetorian guard of Amnesty International."

Yet he, too, stands by his pro-war position, on the basis that "there would be no peace for Iraqis with Saddam left in power, and a majority of Iraqis wanted the invasion to proceed."

On both sides of the Atlantic, various left-leaning and liberal commentators who supported bombing Iraq are indulging in this kind of self-flagellation. They throw their hands in the air and say: "Yes, aspects of the war and occupation have been ugly. But it was still right to invade. It was the humanitarian thing to do."

I don't know what is more gobsmacking about these semi-mea culpas: The sheer narcissism of cheap newspaper hacks to believe that they have the right and authority to offer solemn apologies to the people of Iraq – or their blinkered belief that the looting, insurgency, terror, and torture are aberrations in a generally good war, the result of mistakes or misjudgments in an otherwise decent, humanitarian campaign.

Here, they make an elementary mistake. The violence and instability of postwar Iraq are not a deviation from the humanitarian script; this is humanitarianism in action. Present-day Iraq is not humanitarianism gone wrong; it is the direct and logical consequence of a humanitarian interventionism that is motivated more by the West's desire for moral satisfaction than by the needs or wants of people in the Third World. Yes, Iraq – like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan before it – was a humanitarian war; that is what makes it so dangerous.

When I tell people I'm opposed to humanitarian intervention, some respond by asking: "Oh, so you're not a humanitarian?" When I tell them I opposed the invasion of Iraq, they say: "Were you in favor of leaving Saddam in power, then, and letting him trample over Iraqis' rights?" In fact, the reason I'm against humanitarian intervention is precisely because I want to see freedom and democracy in Iraq and other parts of the world, and I recognize that humanitarian intervention does not deliver these things. It makes local situations worse. It exacerbates tensions, leaves volatile political vacuums in its wake, further removes power from the hands of ordinary people, encourages nihilism, and kills and injures thousands of men, women, and children.

Why am I against humanitarian intervention? Because I am a true humanitarian. Why did I oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom? Because I believe in real freedom.

For close to 15 years now we have been told that newly enlightened Western powers are finally – after decades of imperialist looting and communist-bashing – using military intervention for good. In the 1990s, following the end of the Cold War, Western intervention became redefined as humanitarian intervention, and a great number of liberals and left-wingers (and many on the right, too) celebrated this new interventionism as a means of righting wrongs in far-off lands and bringing peace and stability to beleaguered peoples. Even as such caring imperialism left tens of thousands dead, and entire cities and towns destroyed, its supporters demanded more and more of it to "liberate" the Third World from tyrannous dictators.

What they failed to realize (as they made their Doublespeak demands for more war in the name of liberty) is that the new humanitarianism is even more dangerous than old-fashioned imperialism. Where the war parties of old were at least constrained by considerations of realpolitik and diplomacy, by the need to plan for and restore order after conquering a territory for economic or strategic gain, the humanitarians have no such constraints.

They see their interventions as being about much more than trifling matters of territory and politics; they see themselves as part of a grand mission to save humanity. As Tony Blair said of his bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, "[this is] no longer a military conflict. It is a battle between Good and Evil; between civilization and barbarity."

President Bush updated this vision of a new and never-ending war between good guys and bad guys while talking about the war on terror and Iraq in 2003. "Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides," he said. "Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos."

In such a self-flatteringly fundamental battle, the righteous humanitarians do not feel themselves constrained by any of the rules or mores of mere "military conflicts." Where traditional militarists of the Cold War era launched wars to defend their national interests, and thus tended to tailor their battle strategy to take account of politics, diplomacy, and order, the humanitarians on a mission to vanquish evil and save mankind do not recognize any such restraints.

Those who proclaim to have right on their side can do no wrong. They can drop bombs for peace, occupy land in the name of liberty, and kill and maim under the banner of humanitarianism. Freed from the old geopolitical constraints, these moral missionaries can pretty much do as they please. Their interventions are best understood as moral stunts, spectacles intended to demonstrate the whiter-than-white credentials of the decent West against some wicked tinpot loser "over there."

And it is precisely this stunt-like nature of humanitarianism – where the mission is to topple a tyrant to make the West feel good about itself – that breeds such terrible instability in places like Iraq.

Aaronovitch and others distinguish between their high-minded humanitarian desire to get shot of Saddam and the grubby reality on the ground: looting, insurgency, instability, and the rest of it. But there is no distinction: their high-minded humanitarianism created this grubby reality.

The humanitarians brought down the Ba'athists but replaced them with nothing of substance. They achieved their mission's aim of getting rid of Saddam but gave little thought to what would happen next. And because the Ba'athists dominated every aspect of Iraqi society – from politics to education to healthcare – their swift and sudden removal left a gaping hole at the heart of Iraq. Here we see the deadly nature of humanitarianism: It can easily remove dictatorships, but it cannot so easily put something new and convincing in their place.

Where the old interventionists, motivated by clear national, economic, or political agendas, would have devoted their energies to building an indigenous movement that could take the reins of power after the war and keep order, the humanitarians, motivated by a preening desire to be seen as international do-gooders, give little consideration to such matters. In Iraq they have since attempted to insert a stable government, but it has little real legitimacy or grassroots connection with the people.

As a direct consequence of the humanitarians' narcissistic intervention, Iraq was not liberated but rather was left in a volatile and vacuous state. That is why the supposed liberation was followed, not by celebrations or gatherings of the Iraqi people to decide what to do next, but rather by mass outbreaks of looting – because Iraqis did not win or own their "liberation," but rather were handed it, overnight and without consultation, by the humanitarians.

Liberty and democracy in Iraq can only really come about through the struggles of Iraqis themselves. It is only in the process of fighting for freedom that a people start to conceive of what kind of freedom they want and how their society should be governed. In removing the ruling regime and knocking down some statues of Saddam, the humanitarians did not bring freedom but rather brought chaos – and the Iraqi people responded in kind, by ransacking the emptied-out government buildings, stealing what they could, and generally behaving in a way that you would not expect a truly liberated people to behave.

This is perhaps the greatest con of humanitarianism: It promises liberty to people in the Third World but in truth it disarms them, turning them into pathetic victims who must wait for brave warriors from the West to come and rescue them. For all its grand talk of freedom and liberty, it further disempowers people from being able truly to liberate themselves.

More recently, religious groups and violent insurgents have moved into the vacuum left by the humanitarians' toppling of Saddam. Again, this is a direct consequence (not an aberration) of the coalition's war, which created the conditions for the rise of various armed, unrepresentative groups seeking to assume control over parts of the new, hollowed-out Iraq.

The only freedom the humanitarians brought to Iraq is the free-for-all to see which group can take over which patch of land in this messy, unstable state. The humanitarians' myopic and self-serving focus on "getting rid of evil," pushing aside wicked dictators, showing that good can triumph over bad, leaves the big fundamental questions of government, society, and law unresolved. Such is their obsession with saving mankind from the scourge of evil that they overlook basic matters of policy and stability and what will happen after the shock 'n' awe.

Unlike the old interventionists, the new humanitarians have little by way of a clear strategy or plan, except to make themselves look good by taking on the bad guys – which means that once the bad guys are gone, things tend to get worse rather than better.

Why am I opposed to humanitarian intervention? Because there is little truly humanitarian about it, and it puts off further the day when people in the Third World might liberate themselves from tyranny.

There are many issues with Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked Online, but he does not seem to be a Decent.

Rachel is self-proclaimed anti-war so perhaps should not be tagged with this Decentism. Yet she seems to me hard to distinguish in practice.
_________________
Follow the numbers

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:

numeral wrote:

It could indeed but not on that day.
We had power surges all morning and trains were everywhere.
Staraker argues in a vacuum not specific to the event.
In an ideal world trains would run ahead of time.
On the London Underground they do not. They are always delayed at that time in the morning. I use it.

Staraker discredited Obachikes account by stating he did not seen him on the video he alluded to be on in his presentation.

Rachel does not even have an alleged video of herself yet I have failed to see Staraker comment on that one. I wonder why?

People have different takes on events. My one is I cannot trust someone I do not know, someone who bases their whole argument on police information, someone who says evidence exists but no one of any independent authority has seen it even when 3 years will soon go by.

Like I said before if the evidence wasn't made publically available withing 6 months of these event happening then there is a reason for that. Politics dictates the 'war on terror' not evidence.

Like the fake plane that hit the Pentagon this one will run on and on. For their is nothing more to see. Its been shown already. The curtains have been drawn. The stage set has already been packed off.

The media only focuses on periphery issues now.

21/7 and De Menezes. 7/7 is taken as a given.

So until J7 publishes its findings or organises its own independent public investigation calling independent lawyers it will remain an internet based analysis.

Prole
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:03 am Post subject:

Conspiracy Analyst wrote:

7/7 is taken as a given.

So until J7 publishes its findings or organises its own independent public investigation calling independent lawyers it will remain an internet based analysis.

The Inquests have not yet been held and there will be a trial of the 3 accused of complicity, strangely arrested 18 months later, due to take place Easter 2008.
_________________
'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: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:13 am Post subject:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

Quote:

We had power surges all morning and trains were everywhere.
Staraker argues in a vacuum not specific to the event.

There was only one power surge, at 08:50. The rest were mechanical defects, a broken axle, a broken compressed air pipe and a rubbing brake. The Circle line was running without problems. You are arguing in a vacuum not specific to events.

I have always seen the central issue as very simple. Were there suicide bombers or not? That is the challenge we must keep making? We have to recognise that we cannot reconstruct what happened that day from what evidence is available. Practically all, the evidence has been hoovered up by the Met. Believe me, they have done a springclean.
_________________
Follow the numbers

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

numeral wrote:

Logic dictates that just because they are delayed sometimes, it cannot be argued that they are always delayed. As Numeral has agreed, the first trains to run through after the fire alert would not necessarily have taken any longer to complete their journey. In the absence of a full log of train movements that morning - including the possibility that some trains were held between Oakwood and Wood Green during the alert - you cannot argue with the degree of certainty that you do that what reported movements there were were not possible.

Quote:

Staraker discredited Obachikes account by stating he did not seen him on the video he alluded to be on in his presentation.

No, I discredited that aspect of his story by first questioning and then verifying that there is no CCTV camera that could have taken the footage he claims is of that origin, and determining where it probably was taken from, i.e a flat window in Upper Woburn Place. Someone else subsequently turned up a much higher resolution version of the footage used by Obachike, in which the figure he identifies as himself actually seems to be European.

Quote:

Rachel does not even have an alleged video of herself yet I have failed to see Staraker comment on that one. I wonder why?

Dear me, haven't you run out of straw yet? How many of the Tube survivors have produced CCTV footage to prove they were there? How would they obtain it except by chance? Do you doubt all of them, as well?

Quote:

People have different takes on events. My one is I cannot trust someone I do not know, someone who bases their whole argument on police information, someone who says evidence exists but no one of any independent authority has seen it even when 3 years will soon go by.

Well, that's good, because I'm not basing my "whole argument on police information." I would also be interested in you being able to cite a single example where I have categorically stated something exists, as opposed to suggesting that it does on the basis of probability and/or reference to other events.

Last edited by Nick Cooper on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:58 am Post subject:

Prole wrote:

Conspiracy Analyst wrote:

7/7 is taken as a given.

So until J7 publishes its findings or organises its own independent public investigation calling independent lawyers it will remain an internet based analysis.

The Inquests have not yet been held and there will be a trial of the 3 accused of complicity, strangely arrested 18 months later, due to take place Easter 2008.

Thierry Meysan published a book calling the Pentagon events a Fraud a few days after the event. It stood the test of time. Nothing since has shown it to be anything different.

J7 unable to put their money where their mouth is refuse to do the same.
We have to wait for stage managed inquests to prove what?

The bombers were never there. The whole thing was a stage set up.
A theatrical reproduction of 9/11.

The sooner this gets into print the better.

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject:

Staraker wrote:

Quote:

Staraker discredited Obachikes account by stating he did not seen him on the video he alluded to be on in his presentation.

No, I discredited that aspect of his story by first questioning and then verifying that there is no CCTV camera that could have taken the footage he claims is opf that origin, and determining where it probably was taken from, i.e a flat window in Upper Woburn Place. Someone else subsequently turned up a much higher resolution version of the footage used by Obachike, in which the figure he identifies as himself actually seems to be European.

Quote:

Rachel does not even have an alleged video of herself yet I have failed to see Staraker comment on that one. I wonder why?

Quote:

If Daniel as the 2nd eyewitness has no evidence of being there but alleges to and you dispute it, then by analogy another eye-witness that has no evidence of being there or event attempts to show any, then why should I believe either?

There is no CCTV for any of the alleged bombers yet I am expected to take
a) Rachels word for it as the police has shown her the ...evidence
b) Daniel for he says he was there based on an image on a CCTV camera which you say does not exist
c) you as you selectively choose parts of what you want to believe and what not to.
d) I choose to believe nothing as nothing has been proved either in a court of law or has any evidence been made available
e) as I impose time frames on events such as these. 6 months have gone by since the original events, so my conclusion is they are fabricated.

Quote:

You have said the police may have the evidence. God may also exist. We aren't dealing in metaphysics or beliefs here. Evidence not made publically available within 6 months of such a monstrous crime leads us to political reasons. Politcs in the end overrides evidence. We have a continuation of Britains cover ups a tradition they are world renouned for.

How else would they have had an empire and maintained it for so long? With peace, truth and flowers? I think not.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject:

Has everyone taken note of the fact that after failing to answer some very simple questions about her book - Rachel has dissappeared again. No doubt she will resurface if we keep posting stuff but i cannot see any reason for her not to answer some very basic questions raised by her book. Staraker - by now you will have read her book - when are you going to defend her. Or explain the obvious errors? _________________

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject:

Regardless of what the answers are to the questions asked, I for one can understand why Rachel would choose not to answer here

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject:

conspiracy analyst wrote:

Prole wrote:

Conspiracy Analyst wrote:

7/7 is taken as a given.

So until J7 publishes its findings or organises its own independent public investigation calling independent lawyers it will remain an internet based analysis.

The Inquests have not yet been held and there will be a trial of the 3 accused of complicity, strangely arrested 18 months later, due to take place Easter 2008.

There is an excellent book on 7/7 that has been published for over a year. The London Bombings, An Independent Inquiry by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed:

Quote:

ISBN 0715635832
June 2006
£8.99 / B Format Paperback, 256 pages
Subject: Economics, Politics & World Affairs

On July 7th 2005 London experienced its most serious terrorist attack since the V-2 raids of WW2. We still don’t know who planned the attacks or whether they remain at large in the U.K.

At first the police were sure that the bombers used weapons-grade plastic explosives and sophisticated timers. Two weeks later they changed their minds – the bombs were home-made and were detonated manually. Since then the official account has changed repeatedly and remains riddled with anomalies and confusion. The government is resisting calls for a full inquiry and instead intends to present a ‘narrative’ written by a civil servant that will stand as the definitive account of what took place. As Mosaddeq demonstrates in this exhaustive investigation, such an approach cannot hope to provide the public with an adequate explanation of what took place. He further shows how the attacks can only be fully understood in the light of extensive co-operation between the Islamist extremists and Western Intelligence in Central Asia, and U.S.–U.K. state interests. The London bombings, much like the attacks on New York in 2001, were a widely predicted consequence of the West’s global strategy. If we do face a future of terrorism we should at least understand the extent to which our governments have accepted this as the price of business as usual.

There were 2 copies in Borders at Fulham Broadway when I was there on Sunday
_________________
Follow the numbers

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

Regardless of what the answers are to the questions asked, I for one can understand why Rachel would choose not to answer here

when are those other threads going to be reinstated?
I am not bothered about my posts but there were some very good posts from people Like Guzman and i know it must have took alot of time to write those posts. So many of us would like to see those threads reinstated.
_________________

Nick Cooper
Suspended

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject:

stelios wrote:

Has everyone taken note of the fact that after failing to answer some very simple questions about her book - Rachel has dissappeared again.
No doubt she will resurface if we keep posting stuff but i cannot see any reason for her not to answer some very basic questions raised by her book.
Staraker - by now you will have read her book - when are you going to defend her. Or explain the obvious errors?

No, I've been busy this week and have only got upto page 50 or so. However, I'm going up to York tonight and may get a chance to read some more (fiancée permitting).

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject:

Congratulations in advance despite our differences i do respect you as a very capable adversary _________________

numeral
Validated Poster

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

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:21 am Post subject:

The Telegraph is the only paper to mention HMTD as the detonator on 7/7.

Quote:

'We've never seen a bomb like 21/7 devices'

By Duncan Gardham
Last Updated: 2:18am BST 12/07/2007

Until July 2005 the scientists at Fort Halstead in Kent had never seen a hydrogen peroxide bomb.

Despite 130 years' experience gathering information on home-made and military bombs from across the world they had yet to come across the type used in the attacks in London on July 7 and 21.

The first attack meant a gruesome and painstaking process of picking through the debris from the tube carriages and bus to find fragments that might tell them how the bombs were made.

But on July 12 they had a break-through with the discovery of a bomb factory in Alexandra Grove in Leeds.

The flat was strewn with the remnants of the bombs' ingredients and furnished with industrial fridges to keep the mixtures cool.

Cliff Todd, principal forensic investigator at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Fort Halstead, was still in the flat nine days later when he heard on the radio that another set of bombers had tried to launch a second attack.

Mr Todd travelled south to join his team in London, where they faced a new problem. Across the floor of the tube carriages and bus was a yellow goo, and they did not know what it was.

"We really didn't know what we were dealing with," a source at Fort Halstead said. "The Shepherds Bush device began smoking, it was very alarming. People at the scene said they were very scared. If it starts to get hot, an improvised explosive device is very dangerous."

The next morning Mr Todd decided to transport the devices out of London and destroy them as soon as possible. That left them with another problem: they had only small amounts of the main charge left and little idea about how the bombs were put together.

On July 23 there was another breakthrough when Jackie Whitcombe, a park keeper in Little Wormwood Scrubs, found a complete bomb discarded in the shrubbery.

The July 7 bombs and July 21 bombs were not identical, but they were, a source at DSTL said, "similar in principle". Both were a mixture of hydrogen peroxide, made by boiling down hair products, and an organic material - in the first case black pepper, in the second chapatti flour.

The detonators were also similar - in the case of July 7, made from hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD), made by combining hydrogen peroxide, hexamine tablets from camping stoves, and an acid such as citric acid or dilute sulphuric acid. In the case of July 21 the detonator was triacetone triperoxide (TATP), made by combining hydrogen peroxide, acetone from nail varnish and sulphuric acid.

The differences amount to just two main ingredients - nail varnish rather than camping stove tablets and flour rather than pepper - and leave the possibility that both bomb-makers were taught by the same man. The cost of the devices was also relatively low - just £500 was spent on hydrogen peroxide.

Although TATP and HMTD had been used in a small number of bombs before, notably the shoe bomb of Richard Reid, using hydrogen peroxide as a main charge was completely unknown.

"Hydrogen peroxide was completely new to us," said the source. "It was certainly new to the UK and we have spoken to contacts around the world and they were not aware of it either."

The detonator had the equivalent power of TNT or gelignite, and the bombs would have killed dozens of people and injured hundreds more.

The July 21 bombers' only mistake was not concentrating the hydrogen peroxide enough - it was 15 per cent short of the strength they had marked on the bottles.

"Given the way these bombs were constructed, there is no way that you could believe they wouldn't work," said the source. "The July 21 devices were sophisticated and potentially viable. If they had worked, the effect would have been pretty much the same as 7/7."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BYJYSX3G3TDINQFI QMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/07/11/nplot211.xml

The trouble is the FEL has got form.

Quote:

Key Lockerbie Witness Admits Perjury

by Prof. Ludwig De Braeckeleer

Global Research, September 15, 2007

They have eyes to see but do not see
and ears to hear but do not hear

Ezekiel 12:2

The Lockerbie Affair has taken yet another extraordinary twist. On Friday August 31st, I received from Edwin Bollier, head of the Zurich-based MeBo AG, a copy of a German original of an Affidavit.

The document is dated July 18th 2007 and signed by Ulrich Lumpert who worked as an electronic engineer at MeBo from 1978 to 1994. I have scrutinized the document carefully and concluded that I have no reason to doubt its authenticity or the truthfulness of its content.

Lumpert was a key witness (N° 550) at the Camp Zeist trial, where a three Judges panel convicted a Libyan citizen of murdering 270 persons who died in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

In his testimony, Lumpert stated that: "of the 3 pieces of hand-made prototypes MST-13 Timer PC-Boards, the third MST-13 PC-Board was broken and [he] had thrown it away."

In his Affidavit, certified by Officer Walter Wieland, Lumpert admits having committed perjury.

"I confirm today on July 18th 2007, that I stole the third hand-manufactured MST-13 Timer PC-Board consisting of 8 layers of fibre-glass from MEBO Ltd. and gave it without permission on June 22nd 1989 to a person officially investigating in the Lockerbie case," Lumpert wrote. (The identity of the official is known.)

"It did not escape me that the MST-13 fragment shown [at the Lockerbie trial] on the police photograph No PT/35(b) came from the non-operational MST-13 prototype PC-board that I had stolen," Lumpert added.

"I am sorry for the consequences of my silence at that time, for the innocent Libyan Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi sentenced to life imprisonment, and for the country of Libya."

In just seven paragraphs, the Lumpert affidavit elucidates the longstanding mysteries surrounding the infamous MST-13 timer, which allegedly triggered the bomb that exploded Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on December 21st 1988.

The discovery of the MST-13 timer fragment

In the months following the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, someone discovered a piece of a grey Slalom-brand shirt in a wooded area located about 25 miles away from the town. According to a forensics expert, the cloth contained a tiny fragment - 4 mm square - of a circuit board. The testimony of three expert witnesses allowed the prosecutors to link this circuit board, described as part of the bomb trigger, to Megrahi.

There have been different accounts concerning the discovery of the timer fragment. A police source close to the investigation reported that it had been discovered by lovers. Some have said that it was picked up by a man walking his dog. Others have claimed that it was found by a policeman "combing the ground on his hands and knees."

At the trial, the third explanation became official. "On 13 January 1989, DC Gilchrist and DC McColm were engaged together in line searches in an area near Newcastleton. A piece of charred material was found by them which was given the police number PI/995 and which subsequently became label 168."

The alteration of the label

The officer had initially labelled the bag 'cloth (charred)' but had later overwritten the word 'cloth' with 'debris'.

The bag contained pieces of a shirt collar and fragments of materials said to have been extracted from it, including the tiny piece of circuit board identified as coming from an MST-13 timer made by the Swiss firm MeBo.

"The original inscription on the label, which we are satisfied, was written by DC Gilchrist, was “Cloth (charred)”. The word ‘cloth’ has been overwritten by the word ‘debris’. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this was done."

The judges said in their judgement that Gilchrist’s evidence had been "at worst evasive and at best confusing".

Yet the judges went on to admit the evidence. "We are, however, satisfied that this item was indeed found in the area described, and DC McColm who corroborated DC Gilchrist on the finding of the item was not cross-examined about the detail of the finding of this item."

It has long been rumoured that a senior former Scottish officer, who has worked at the highest level of the Lockerbie inquiry, has signed a statement in which he claims that evidence has been planted. UK media have confirmed the story. Thus, the Scottish officer has confirmed an allegation previously made by a former CIA agent. The identity of the officer remains secret and he is only known as "Golfer".

"Golfer" has told Megrahi's legal team that Gilchrist had told him that he had not been responsible for changing the label.

The new page 51

According to documents obtained by the Scotland on Sunday, the entry of the discovery is recorded at widely different times by UK and German investigators. Moreover, a new page 51 has been inserted in the record of evidence.

During the Lockerbie investigation, Dr Thomas Hayes and Allan Feraday were working at the DERA Forensic laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.

Dr Hayes was employed at the Royal Armament Research Development Establishment (RARDE). In 1995, RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). In 2001, part of DERA became the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL).

Dr Hayes testified that he collected the tiny fragment of the circuit board on May 12th 1989. He testified that the fragment was green. (Keep in mind that the board stolen from Lumpert is brown.) His colleague, Alan Feraday, confirmed his story at the Zeist trial.

The record is inserted on a loose-leaf page with the five subsequent pages re-numbered by hand. Dr Hayes could not provide a reasonable explanation for this rather strange entry, and yet the Judges concluded that: "Pagination was of no materiality, because each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes."

The argument of the Court is illogical as the index number Dr Hayes gave to the piece is higher than some entry he made three months later.

And there is more. In September 1989, Feraday sent a Polaroid photograph of the piece and wrote in the attached memorandum that it was "the best he could do in such short time." So, are we supposed to believe that it takes forensic experts several months to take a Polaroid picture?

Dr Hayes could not explain this. He merely suggested that the person to ask about it would be the author of the memorandum, Mr Feraday.

This however was not done. At the young age of 43, Hayes resigned just a few months after the discovery of the timer fragment.

Based on the forensic Dr Hayes had supplied, an entire family [The Maguire seven] was sent to jail in 1976. They were acquitted in appeal in 1992. Sir john May was appointed to review Dr. Hayes forensic evidence.

"The whole scientific basis on which the prosecution in [the trial of the alleged IRA Maguire Seven] was founded was in truth so vitiated that on this basis alone, the Court of Appeal should be invited to set aside the conviction," said Sir john May.

In the Megrahi’s case, Dr Hayes did not even perform the basic test which would have established the presence of explosive residue on the sample. During the trial, he maintained that the fragment was too small while it is factually established that his laboratory has performed such test on smaller samples.

Had he performed such test, no residue would have been found. As noted by Lumpert, the fragment shown at the Zeist trial belongs to a timer that was never connected to a relay. In other words, that timer never triggered a bomb.

Dr Alan Feraday’s reputation is hardly better. In three separated cases,where men were convicted on the basis of his forensic evidence, the initial ruling was overturned in appeal.

After one of these cases in 2005, a Lord of Justice said that Feraday should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics.

According to forensic scientist, Dr Michael Scott, who was interviewed in the documentary The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie, Feraday has no formal qualifications as a scientist.

The identification of the MeBo timer

Thomas Thurman worked for the FBI forensics laboratory in the late 80’s and most of the 90’s. Thurman has been publicly credited for identifying the fragment as part of a MST_13 timer produced by the Swiss company Mebo.

"When that identification was made, of the timer, I knew that we had it," Thurman told ABC in 1991. "Absolute, positively euphoria. I was on cloud nine."

Again, his record is far from pristine. The US attorney General has accused him of having altered lab reports in a way that rendered subsequent prosecutions all but impossible. He has been transferred out the FBI forensic laboratory.

"He's very aggressive, but I think he made some mistakes that needed to be brought to the attention of FBI management," says Frederic Whitehurst, a former FBI chemist who filed the complaints that led to the Inspector General's report.

"We're not necessarily going to get the truth out of what we're doing here," Whitehurst concluded.

The story shed some light on his formation. The report says "Williams and Thurman merit special censure for their work. It recommends that Thurman, who has a degree in political science, be reassigned outside the lab and that only scientists work in its explosives section."

And the legal experts were just as fake as their scientific counterparts. In late 1998, Glasgow University set up the Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit [LTBU] to provide impartial advice to the world media on the legal aspects of the complex and unique trial.

Andrew Fulton, a British diplomat, was appointed as a visiting law professor to head the Unit. Fulton has no legal experience whatsoever. Prior to his appointment as head of LTBU, Fulton was MI6 station chief in Washington DC.

The modification of the MST-13 timer fragment

Forensic analysis of the circuit board fragment allowed the investigators to identify its origin. The timer, known as MST-13, is fabricated by a Swiss Company named MeBo, which stands for Meister and Bollier.

The company has indeed sold about 20 MST-13 timers to Libyan military (machine-made 9 ply green boards), as well as a few units (hand-made 8 ply brown boards) to a Research Institute in Bernau, known to act as a front to the Stasi, the former East German secret police.

The two batches are very different but, as early as 1991, Bollier told the Scottish investigators that he could not identify the timer from a photograph alone. Yet, the Libyans were indicted in November 1991, without ever allowing Bollier to see the actual fragment, on the ground that the integrity of the evidence had to be protected.

But in 1998, Bollier obtained a copy of a blown-up photograph that Thurman had shown on ABC in 1991. Bollier could tell from certain characteristics that the fragment was part of a board of the timers made for East Germany, and definitely not one of the timers delivered by him to Libya.

In September 1999, Bollier was finally allowed to see the fragment. Unlike the one shown by Thurman on ABC, this one was machine-made, as the one sold to Libya. But, from the absence of traces of solder, it was obvious that the timer had never been used to trigger a bomb.

"As far as I'm concerned, and I told this to [Scottish Prosecutor Miriam Watson], this is a manufactured fragment," Bollier says. "A fabricated fragment, never from a complete, functional timer"

The next day, Bollier was shown the fragment once more. You may have already guessed that it now had the soldering traces. "It was different. I'm not crazy. It was different!" says Bollier.

Finally, at the trial, Bollier was presented a fragment of a circuit board completely burnt down. Thus, it was no longer possible to identify to which country that timer had been delivered. As he requested to explain the significance of the issue, Lord Shuterland told him that his request was denied.

How did the Judges account for all the mysterious changes in the appearance of the fragment? They simply dismissed Bollier as an unreliable witness.

"We have assessed carefully the evidence of these three witnesses about the activities of MEBO, and in particular their evidence relating to the MST-13 timers which the company made. All three, and notably Mr Bollier, were shown to be unreliable witnesses. Earlier statements which they made to the police and judicial authorities were at times in conflict with each other, and with the evidence they gave in court. On some occasions, particularly in the case of Mr Bollier, their evidence was self contradictory." (§ 45)

A scenario implausible on its face

"The evidence which we have considered up to this stage satisfies us beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the disaster was the explosion of an improvised explosive device, […] and that the initiation of the explosion was triggered by the use of an MST-13 timer," wrote the three Judges. (§ 15)

Lockerbie experts, such former CIA Robert Baer, have suspected that the MST-13 timer could have been given by the Stasi to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command [PFLP-GL], a terrorist group based in Syria, funded by Iran, and led by Ahmed Jibril.

The allegation deserves attention as it is well known that the two organizations had strong ties. Moreover, the archives of the Stasi reveal that agency had infiltrated the Swedish government and it is well documented that Jibril’s close collaborators were operating from Sweden. Yet, I never believed for a moment that the Lockerbie bomb had been triggered by a timer.

No terrorist would ever attempt to bomb an airliner with a timer triggered bomb, and definitely not during the winter season, let alone Christmas time, where the time tables are absolutely useless as delays are the norm rather than the exception.

Don’t take my word for it. Terrorists such Ahmed Jibril and counter-terrorists such Noel Koch have stated that much.

"Explosives linked to an air pressure gauge, which would have detonated when the plane reached a certain altitude or to a timer would have been ineffective," Jibril said.

"I know all about the science of explosives. I am an engineer of explosives. I will argue this with any expert that the bomb went on board in London. I do not think the Libyans had anything to do with this."

Noel Koch headed the US Defence anti-terrorism Department from 1981 to 1986. Koch ridiculed the idea that terrorist would gamble on the likelihood that an unaccompanied luggage would be successfully transferred twice, first from Malta to Frankfurt, and then from Frankfurt to London.

"I can tell you this much that I know about terrorism: it's simple," Koch says. "You don't complicate life. Life's complicated enough as it is. If you've got a target you want to get as close as you can to it and you don't go through a series of permutations that provide opportunities for failure and that provide opportunities for discovery. It doesn't work that way."

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

On November 13th 1991, two Libyans were indicted for the murder of 270 people who died in the Lockerbie bombing. The indictment was the outcome of a three year US-UK joint investigation.

Although Libya never acknowledged a responsibility in the matter, a decade long UN sanctions forced Colonel Gaddafi to handover the two men accused of the worst act of terrorism in the UK. On April 5th 1999, they were transferred to camp Zeist in the Netherlands where they were judged under Scottish Law.

On January 31st 2001, a panel of three Scottish Judges acquitted one of them. They convicted the other for murder and sentenced him to life. Megrahi is serving his sentence in a prison near Glasgow.

Megrahi’s appeal was rejected on March 14th 2002. The European Court Of Human Rights declared his application inadmissible in July 2003.

In September 2003, he applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission [SCCRC] for a legal review of his conviction. His request was based on the legal test contained in section 106 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

The provision states that an appeal may be made against "any alleged miscarriage of justice, which may include such a miscarriage based on … the jury's having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned."

On June 28th 2007, the SCCRC has decided to grant Megrahi a second appeal and to refer his case to the High Court. An impressive 800 pages long document, stating the reasons for the decision, has been sent to the High Court, the applicant, his solicitor, and Crown Office. Although the document is not available to the public, the Commission has decided "to provide a fuller news release than normal."

Is it too much to ask why the "fuller news release than normal" lists only four of the six grounds that justify the Commission conclusion that a miscarriage of justice might have occur?

As recently pointed out by Dr. Hans Koechler, who was an international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Lockerbie trial, we may also wonder "why a supposedly independent judicial review body [the SCCRC] would try to exonerate “preventively” officials in a case which is being returned to the High Court for a second appeal because of suspicions of a miscarriage of justice."

Indeed, the SCCRC’s statement: “The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment [of the MST-13 MeBo timer]” is rather difficult to justify.

Towards a criminal investigation ?

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the tragedy, describes the ruling of Megrahi as the most disgraceful miscarriages of justice in history, blaming both the Scottish legal system and US intelligence.

"The Americans played their role in the investigation and influenced the prosecution," Swire told the Scotsman Newspaper.

Top level UK diplomats tend to agree with him, such Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya.

"No court is likely get to the truth, now that various intelligence agencies have had the opportunity to corrupt the evidence," Miles told the BBC.

The spectacular decision of the SCCRC is certain to give a second life to the dozen of alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Nearly two decades later, the case is back to square one.

Back to square one

Let us give Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Maclean some credit. After hearing 230 witnesses and studying 621 exhibits during 84 days of evidence, spread over eight months, the three judges of the Lockerbie trial almost got correctly the date of the worst act of terror in the UK.

In the first line of the first paragraph of the most expensive verdict in history (₤80m)

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/index.asp, they wrote: "At 1903 hours on 22 December 1988 Pan Am flight 103 fell out of the sky." As a matter of fact, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded on December 21st 1988.

Michael Scharf is an international law expert at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. Scharf joined the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser for Law Enforcement and Intelligence in April 1989. He was also responsible for drawing up the UN Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Libya in 1992.

"It was a trial where everybody agreed ahead of time that they were just going to focus on these two guys, and they were the fall guys," Sharf wrote.

"The CIA and the FBI kept the State Department in the dark. It worked for them for us to be fully committed to the theory that Libya was responsible. I helped the counter-terrorism bureau draft documents that described why we thought Libya was responsible, but these were not based on seeing a lot of evidence, but rather on representations from the CIA and FBI and the Department of Justice about what the case would prove and did prove."

"It was largely based on this inside guy [Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka]. It wasn’t until the trial that I learned this guy was a nut-job and that the CIA had absolutely no confidence in him and that they knew he was a liar."

The magic luggage

According to the Lockerbie verdict, the bomb was hidden in a Toshiba Radio, wrapped in clothes, located in a luggage that was mysteriously boarded in Malta.

The Court has examined this allegation in depth and the matter occupies 24 paragraphs of the final verdict (§ 16 to § 34). After reviewing all the evidence and testimonies, the three judges came to the following conclusions.

"Luqa airport had a relatively elaborate security system. All items of baggage checked in were entered into the airport computer as well as being noted on the passenger’s ticket. After the baggage had passed the sniffer check, it was placed on a trolley in the baggage area to wait until the flight was ready for loading.

"When the flight was ready, the baggage was taken out and loaded, and the head loader was required to count the items placed on board. The ramp dispatcher, the airport official on the tarmac responsible for the departure of the flight, was in touch by radiotelephone with the load control office. The load control had access to the computer and after the flight was closed would notify the ramp dispatcher of the number of items checked in. The ramp dispatcher would also be told by the head loader how many items had been loaded and if there was a discrepancy would take steps to resolve it.

"In addition to the baggage reconciliation procedure, there was a triple count of the number of passengers boarding a departing flight, that is there was a count of the boarding cards, a count by immigration officers of the number of immigration cards handed in, and a head count by the crew.

"The records relating to KM180 on 21 December 1988 show no discrepancy in respect of baggage. The flight log (production 930) shows that fifty-five items of baggage were loaded, corresponding to fifty-five on the load plan.

"On the face of them, these arrangements seem to make it extremely difficult for an unaccompanied and unidentified bag to be shipped on a flight out of Luqa.

"If therefore the unaccompanied bag was launched from Luqa, the method by which that was done is not established, and the Crown accepted that they could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded.

"The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case.

A internal 1989 FBI memo indicates that there is no indication that an unaccompanied luggage was transferred from Air Malta to Pan Am. Law authorities from Malta and Germany came to the same conclusion.

And yet, without any explanation, the judges wrote in the conclusion of the verdict that: "the absence of an explanation as to how the suitcase was taken into the system at Luqa is a major difficulty for the Crown case but after taking full account of that difficulty, we remain of the view that the primary suitcase began its journey at Luqa." (§ 82)

The Maltese storekeeper

According to the verdict, Megrahi bought the clothes, in which the bomb was wrapped, in Sliema, a small town of Malta, including the "cloth" in which the fragment was "discovered" by Dr Hayes. At first sight, the "cloth" appears to be part of a slalom shirt, indeed sold in a little shop, Mary’s House, located on the island of the Mediterranean Sea.

However, upon closer examination, the "cloth" raises a series of issues. Firstly, the colour of the label is incorrect. A blue slalom shirt label should have blue writing, not brown.

Secondly, the breast pocket size corresponds to a child shirt, not a 16 ½ sized allegedly bought by Megrahi, for the pocket would have been 2 cm wider.

Thirdly, German records show the shirt with most of the breast pocket intact while the evidence shown at Zeist has a deep triangular tear extending inside the pocket.

Fourthly, last but certainly not least, the storekeeper initially told the investigators he never sold such shirts to whoever visited him a few weeks before the Lockerbie tragedy.

Tony Gauci's (the storekeeper) testimony was pivotal in the case against Megrahi. Gauci gave a series of 19 statements to the police which are fully inconsistent. Yet, the Judges found him trustworthy. Allow me to disagree.

On January 30th 1990, Gauci stated: "That time when the man came, I am sure I did not sell him a shirt." Then, on September 10th 1990, he told the investigators that: "I now remember that the man who bought the clothing also bought a 'Slalom' shirt." And to make things worse, two of his testimonies have disappeared.

When were the clothes bought?

According to the verdict, Megrahi bought the clothes on December 7th 1989. Gauci remembered that his brother had gone home earlier to watch an evening football game (Rome vs. Dresden), that the man came just before closing time (7pm), that it was raining (the man bought an umbrella) and that the Christmas lights were on.

The game allows for only two dates: November 23 or December 7. The issue is critical for there is no indication that Megrahi was in Malta on November 23rd but is known to have been on the island on December 7th.

Malta airport chief meteorologist testified that it was raining on November 23rd but not on December 7th. Yet the judges determined the date as December 7th. This rather absurd conclusion from the judges raises two other issues.

The game Rome-Dresden on December 7th was played at 1:00 pm, not in the evening. What is more, Gauci had previously testified that the Christmas lights were not up, meaning that the date had to be November 7th.

On September 19th 1989, Gauci stated that "the [Christmas] decorations were not up when the man bought the clothing." Then, at the Lockerbie trial, Gauci told the Judges that the decoration lights were on. "Yes, they were … up."

Who was the mysterious buyer?

"We are nevertheless satisfied that his identification, so far as it went, of the first accused as the purchaser was reliable and should be treated as a highly important element in this case," wrote the judges.

In fact, Gauci never identified Megrahi. He merely stated that Megrahi resembles the man to whom he had sold the clothes, but only if he were much older and two inches taller. Gauci had however identified another man: Abu Talb.

And in case you wonder, Talb was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command [PFLP-GL], the terrorist group led by Ahmed Jibril.

In late October 1988, the senior bomb maker of the PFLP-GC, Marwan Khreesat, was arrested in Frankfurt in company of Hafez Dalkamoni, the leader of the organization German cell.

Dalkamoni had met Talb in Cyprus and Malta the weeks before. In their car, police found a bomb hidden in a Toshiba radio. Khreesat told the police that he had manufactured five similar IED’s.

Each device Khreesat had built was triggered by a gauge pressure that activates a timer - range from 0 to 45 minutes - when the plane reaches a cruising altitude of 11,000 meters. The timers of all recovered bombs were set on 30 minutes. It takes about 7 minutes for a 747 to reach cruising altitude. Pan Am 103 exploded 38 minutes after take-off from London.

German police eventually recovered four of the IED’s Khreesat had built. No one seems to know what ever occurred to the fifth one which was never recovered. When police raided Talb apartment in Sweden, they found his appointment notebook. Talb had circled one date: December 21st.

Contrary to Jibril’s statement, and surely he must know better, a bomb triggered by a gauge pressure set at 11,000 meters would not have detonated during the Frankfurt to London flight as the airliner does not reach cruising altitude on such short flight.

Then again, such device would not have detonated at all if it had been located in the luggage area as the hold is at the pressure of the passengers’ zone and never drops below the pressure equivalent to 2,400 meters.

This is why, when the judges were presented with the undisputable and undisputed evidence that a proper simulation of the explosion - taking proper account of the Mach stem effect – would locate the explosion outside the luggage hold, they simply decided to dismiss the existence of a scientifically well established fact.

"We do not consider it necessary to go into any detail about Mach stem formation," the judges wrote.

Had the judges deemed "necessary to go into the details regarding Mach stem formation", they would have been forced to acknowledge that the position of the bomb was fully incompatible with the indictment. That a magic unaccompanied luggage went mysteriously three times through airport security was "plausible". That it jumped on its own out of the luggage hold at London airport was a little too much to believe.

In truth, a proper simulation of the explosion locates the bomb just a few inches away from the skin of the plane, a position fully consistent with the very specific damages left by the explosion.

The truth was inconvenient. The three judges had to dismiss it in order to justify a verdict that had been decided more than a decade before the first day of the Zeist trial.

Shame on those who committed this horrific act of terror. Shame on those who have ordered the cover-up. Shame on those who provided false testimony, and those who suppressed and fabricated the evidence needed to frame Libya. And shame on the media for their accomplice silence.

And to those who seek the truth, I advise them to follow the drug trail on the road to Damascus.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6786
_________________
Follow the numbers

astro3
Suspended

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

Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject:

Now I’m really confused. Numeral (on November 5 th) is asking us to accept a survivor Mr Joe Orr’s testimony that:

Quote:

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.

- So the line was not closed, after all! A Tube full of people was traveling through! This takes us right back to Rachel’s position, where several packed-out tube trains arrived soon after the fire-alert closure was lifted.

We need an Enquiry, to try and resolve what was happening, over the 9 Piccadilly line stations Arnos Grove to Caledonian Road that morning, 8-8.30 . Was there really a fire? Were stations closed, or not?

Staraker has suggested that more than one train could have been waiting but not moving in any of those stations: ‘In the event of line closures, it's not unusual for trains to move to the next station for evacuation, and hold there until the line reopens’ – in which case, the trains turning up for Rachel after the line reopened would have had to be empty, as Stelios has argued, not full.

If there really had been a fire hazard alert over those stations, then surely (a) no train would be rumbling slowly Southbound through the stations, and (b) any train held immobile at one of those stations during the fire alert, would have been emptied out of people. They would not be waiting on the platform but would have been sent out of the station. Otherwise the fire-alert just has to be just theatrical.

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 Next
Page 3 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