Document:The 7/7 Inquest Begins

 file of unspecified type of unknown authorship

---

Source: Terror on the Tube blog

★ Start a Discussion about this document

---

The 7/7 Inquest Begins

On 6th October, the ‘July 7th Truth Campaign’ submitted a weighty, twelve-part contribution to the forthcoming Inquest. On its first day – October 11th, at the Old Bailey – this was acknowledged. Before Lady Justice Hallett, the barrister Mr Keith said:

One particular campaigning group has submitted voluminous submissions to the Inquest team, and the submissions reflect long-held views expressed on the website, that website, to the effect that there are a large number of anomalies that merit detailed attention. We consider it important that such claims are identified and addressed.

Five years after the event, a no-jury pre-fixed Inquest finally begins. An Inquest is supposed to answer basic questions about the deaths: who, how, when and where? But, in this case no legal representatives from the families of the four accused will be allowed. But, they died too did they not? Their absence from this trial, means that it will only be concerned to ascertain the causes of death of the 52 who died on that morning in a pre-ordained manner.

When the conclusions to be reached are fixed in advance, it used to be called scholastic reasoning. In Mediaeval times, scholars had to indulge in this kind of reasoning, where the theological conclusions they had to reach were pre-ordained. That’s what’s going on at this Inquest. Or as ‘Sinclair’ expressed the matter:

When your conclusion is actually an implicit or explicit premise in your argument then your argument is circular. It also engages a certain degree of doublethink – evidence they weren’t guilty isn’t evidence they weren’t guilty, because we know they were guilty, and hence there’s no evidence they weren’t guilty. This is a bloody pantomime. It not only presumes a desired conclusion, but seeks to refute ‘conspiracy theories’ by merely repeating the very thing the ‘conspiracy theories’ are questioning. It’s like they’ve let the BBC’s Conspiracy Files crew loose to carry out the inquests.

Yep.

The proceedings of this five-month Inquest are going to be online – so you can check up each day. Visitors (like me) do not get into the courtroom, just a marquee round the back where the televised event is relayed.

John Humphreys Sums it Up

On BBC Radio 4 that morning, 11th October, John Humphreys interviewed Reverend Julie Nicholson, who resigned from her church after her daughter was murdered on the morning of 7/7/05.

He asked her, "What do you want from this inquest? We know what the verdict will be, that goes without saying, but what do you want."

Sombrely commented Kevin Boyle, ‘Yes it does go without saying. The narrative is fixed.’

A security service agent spent a while whining about how their information could only be given privately to the Inquest ‘for national security reasons.’ Their concern was to protect the public, and so their info could not be publicly heard, he said. Uh-huh.

Timing of the Bombs

Exact times were ascertained (on 11th October 2010, pm) of the initial explosions, the first being at Aldgate. It was given as being ‘at precisely 08.49.00.’ That time given to the nearest second is indeed of interest. Barrister Mr Keith added: "...it seems that the bombers intended to explode all four bombs at the same time, namely, 49 minutes past the hour." That is a highly synchronised event – in no way to be expected from three separate suicide bombers – at a rather significant moment. It indicates a link to the earlier false-flag terror event of 9/11. For that time is 11 minutes to 9. The English date ‘9/11’ would be ‘11/9,’ for Britons put the day first before the month. I suggest that that looks Kabbalistically chosen – rather like the date for the Madrid bombings being 911 days after 9/11.

Conspiracy Theories Dismissed

For what little it may be worth, here is Barrister Mr Keith dismissing non-Muslim guilt claims:

‘The activities of the bombers, though superficially out of place, are in our view entirely consistent of course with their apparent determination to conceal their activities. The rental of the Nissan Micra for four days from the 4th to the 8th and the purchase of return tickets, if that is indeed what they bought, are further examples. Nor have we seen anything to support the notion that the plot was monitored by one or more domestic or foreign secret services, and was allowed to happen in order for such agencies to exploit the situation politically. More prosaically, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the explosions were connected to any sort of power surge — that the Aldgate explosion caused extensive power cuts is an issue that I will return to shortly — or that the explosions took place under the trains and thus had nothing to do with the bombers, or that they were connected to fictional events aired on a Panorama programme in May 2004, or to a fictional terrorism training exercise that had been carried out apparently that same morning by a private crisis management company. The suggestion in some quarters that the explosions may have been caused by some sort of electrical failure is contrary to the injuries, the forensic evidence and the obvious fact that there were four connected explosions, of which one of which occurred on a bus, nowhere near any electrical source in plain sight of those around it. Turning to the CCTV which appears to be the object of the substantial bulk of the claims, there is nothing to suggest that, where there is CCTV missing, this reflects anything other than the fact that many CCTV systems do not continuously record. Hence, there is no mystery in the fact that the CCTV at Woodall Services is not continuous or that the CCTV at Luton railway station appears superficially to cut part of Lindsay’s leg off or that several frames appear to place the railings outside the station in front of Tanweer. What would, we rhetorically ask, be the point in anybody fabricating CCTV evidence showing them at Luton when later CCTV evidence, not apparently fabricated or challenged, proves them to be at King’s Cross?’

General comment

This isn’t justice – its police storytellers let loose, knowing that no-one will challenege anything they say – because any ‘other side’ has not been allowed. Here are just two examples of the rather half-baked narrative that is now emerging.

• Loads of alleged phone calls made to ‘hydroponics’ shops – to get hydrogen peroxide! Hydroponics is a way of growing crops using only water not earth – such shops won’t sell hydrogen peroxide in large quantities. They may sell small amounts for disinfection.

“Between 22 February and 22 15 June 2005, there were 41 telephone contacts between mobile phones attributed to Tanweer, Khan and Lindsay and hydroponic outlets, that is to say places selling hydrogen peroxide. Hussain’s computer at college revealed the names of two particular shops for which he had searched online, and business cards and other literature found at Alexandra Grove related to other such similar shops.

• Hasib Hussein wasn’t at college. Business cards at 18, Alexander Grove? (the so-called ‘bomb factory’ – to which no journalists were allowed access) – do me a favour! ‘Literature’ found at 18, Alexander Grove - O yeah? These are mere police pipedreams, made knowing no-one will contradict them. Why were these alleged mobile phone calls to ‘hydroponic outlets’ not mentioned at the 2008 ‘July 7 trial’ at Kingston? Or earlier? Its a bit late now to be bringing out brand-new ‘evidence’ – evidence that no-one else is allowed to see.

Ripple Effect Story Remains Intact

I’ve been rather sceptical over whether the Four really were in London that morning. But, on the afternoon of Thursday 13th October, all of the CCTV showing Hasib Hussein at King’s Cross was shown at the Inquest. There was a lot. Its clear that he was really there – I was convinced at last. From 8.55 to 9.22 he was shown pottering about with his big rucksack.

I suggest this makes it unlikely that the Four had caught the 07.25 train from Luton, arriving at 8.23 – in that case he would have appeared on film a lot earlier. No, Let’s say they got the 7.42 (actually the delayed 7.30) which arrived in King’s Cross 8.39 – that would fit better with his appearance on the CCTV at 8.55 in the main King’s Cross station area.

It gets better. On the day before the Wednesday the Met at last released their non-pixellated images of entry into Luton station, so the times could be read. On the earlier visit of 28 June, (three of them – no Hasib Hussein) it took five minutes from the car-park door of Luton through the station and down onto the platform – which seems about right:

28/6

08.10.07 Enter Luton, 08.14.26 Go through barriers, 08.15.07 Enter platform

Various people have tried doing this, and generally reached a similar estimate. Now, on the moring of 7/7, we are given:

7/7

07.21.54 Enter Luton, 07.22.29 Ticket hall, 07.22.43 Go through barriers, 07.23.27 On platform, 07.24.47 Train arrives, 07.24.56 Board, 07.25.36 Train leaves

7.22 they enter, and a minute and a half later they are on the platform. No way!

They cannot take only half the time carrying big, deadly rucksacks. Don’t forget, for a whole year all the media and the Met were singing from the same hymn-sheet, all saying that they had gotten onto the 7.40. Don’t forget, even Andy Hayman’s 2009 book on the whole subject had still said they got the 7.40 – this would be unthinkable if they really had had all of the CCTV they are now pretending to have, showing the Four caught the 7.25. (Credit to Bridget Dunne for this vitally important insight )

Plus, they are now pretending to have witnesses on the 7.25 train who noticed them – just as in the 2006 Official Report they had witnesses on the 7.40 train who recognised them. It’s baloney.

I suggest we are obliged to conclude, that if they really did enter Luton station at 7.22, as the famous (fiddled-with) picture shows, then they had absolutely no intention of catching the 7.24.

So, this takes us right into the Ripple Effect story, whereby the Four ‘missed their train’ or at any rate more or less caught the 7.40 they had intended to catch (the 7.42, arriving 8.39), and arrived too late to participate in the terror-drill that morning – which was what they came for.

That I suggest is the only story now left standing.

Lindsay at King’s Cross

But, what about the other three? Here’s a brief glimpse of Germain Lindsay. A Customer Service Assistant by the name of Fayaz Patel gave a witness statement back in April 2006, concerning a man resembling Jermaine Lindsay who approached him ‘on the gate line’ at Kings Cross, adamantly asking to ‘speak to a duty manager’ about “something very important.” Let’s listen carefully to his testimony given on October 14th:

The guy was tall, male, black, short hair, I wouldn’t say dressed — he wasn’t wearing a suit, but he was dressed quite smart, and –Q. In what way, a jacket of some sort or — A. Just wearing a shirt tucked in, smart trousers and it’s very strange for a passenger to ask for the duty station manager. That’s not really — it seems as if — a passenger wouldn’t know — wouldn’t refer to the person in charge of the station as the duty station manager, that’s more for staff.

Mr Patel went to get the duty station manager, but by that time Linsay had gone. He was confident of recognising Lindsey. The time he estimated as between around 8.15 and 8.40 – i.e. shortly before the bombs went off. Source: Sinclair of the 7/7 team , or checkout October 14 transcripts, para 65.