2005 London bombings
|Date||7 July 2005 08:50 - 7 July 2005 09:47|
|Blamed on||Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay, Shehzad Tanweer|
|Interest of||Anthony John Hill, Nicholas Kollerstrom, Tom Secker|
|Description||A series of coordinated attacks on London's public transport system during the morning rush hour, allegedly carried out by four Muslim suicide bombers.|
The 7 July 2005 London bombings, also known as 7/7 was a set of coordinated explosions in London. On the day after London had won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, at least three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other around 08:50 on three London Underground trains, followed by a fourth at 09:47 on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square.
- 1 Official Narrative
- 2 Problems
- 3 Legal proceedings
- 4 Response
- 5 Information Sources
- 6 See Also
- 7 Related Documents
- 8 Related Quotations
- 9 The Official Culprits
- 10 References
Wikipedia is a good primer on the official narrative, which claims that the bombing was conceived and executed by 4 Muslim suicide bombers, armed with homemade organic peroxide–based devices. Although it contains a lot of information, Wikipedia's policies make it structurally incapable of properly addressing deep events. It does not mention Martin McDaid, for example.
As well as the police investigation, the below investigations appeared to have taken it as axiomatic that the guilty parties had already been established beyond doubt:
- Home Office Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005 - Published 11th May 2006
- ISC Report report. - Published May 2006
- Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 - Published May 2009 - Absolves MI5 & MI6 of any failures.
- Independent coroner's inquest - Published 9 May 2011 - Heather Hallett concluded that an official public inquiry was not needed
A stark illustration of the mindset of the BBC and was provided by journalist John Humphreys. To mark the opening of the October 2010 Inquest, BBC Radio 4's Today Program asked Rev. Julie Nicholson, whose daughter was killed in the attacks, "What do you want from this inquest? We know what the verdict will be, that goes without saying, but what do you want?"
While no single "smoking gun" has emerged, circumstantial evidence has accrued to suggests that the 7/7 attacks are not what they are claimed. Noting several people apparently involved but unindicted, Tom Secker stated in 2015 that he thought the most likely explanation was that 7/7 was a "Gladio-style" betrayal of the 4 accused by their handlers.
Deliberate obfuscation by MI5
Andrew Parker lead MI5's response to the 7/7 attacks. MI5's legal team argued that by law only "brief, neutral and factual" verdicts can be recorded, leading to charges that they were attempting to gag justice by restricting the verdicts of the inquests into the victims of the 7 July attacks. In 2011, it emerged that at the inquest into the deaths of the 7/7 victims, it emerged that in April 2004 an unnamed senior officer in the security services had sent a photo of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer to USA, supposedly in an effort to identify them. Rather than send the original photo, however, he cropped it, added noise, decreased the contrast, and rendered it in black and white. When asked why, an anonymous 'Agent G.' suggested that the aim might have been to get them identified "as speedily as possible". G insisted that it would be "nonsensical and offensive" to suggest that MI5 had failed to act to prevent an attack that they "supposed or hypothesised" was coming.
The May 2009 Commons intelligence and security committee inquiry into the preventability of 7-7 noted that the (above) butchered black and white photo of Tanweer was observed to be of "poor quality", and that 'Agent G' suggested that it was probably deemed too poor even to forward. The Guardian notes dryly that "The committee appears not to have been aware of the original, very clear, colour photograph of both men."
As the counsel to the inquests marked "I think one of my children could have done a better job of cropping out that photograph."
Peter Power, a former Anti-Terrorist Branch Metropolitan police officer and "crisis management specialist" volunteered the information that on 7-7 that he was working running a drill "based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning". In an interview he gave to the Manchester Evening News he spoke of "an exercise involving mock broadcasts when it happened for real". Details of this rather obvious lead remain failed to emerge over the next decade and Power has never been called to testify under oath about the matter. While initially not disclosing who had commissioned the exercise, he later stated that it was the publisher (and backer of the UK's largest arms fair), Reed Elsevier.
Operation Hanover was London’s police hold a little-known yearly terror-drill, which on 1-2 July involved three ‘simultaneous’ bomb attacks on three underground stations. Peter Clarke, head of the Counter Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard reports that he spent "the weekend before the London bombings of July 7 2005 with my colleagues in the anti-terorism[sic] branch, working through our response to.. multiple simultaneous attacks on the Tube".
Incorrect official narrative
The Home Office Official Account of the Bombings includes the following paragraph:
07.40: The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station. There are conflicting accounts of their behaviour on the train. Some witnesses report noisy conversations, another believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors. The 4 stood out a bit from usual commuters due to their luggage and casual clothes, but not enough to cause suspicion. This was the beginning of the summer tourist period and Luton Station serves Luton Airport.
Investigative reporter Nick Kollerstrom discovered that the 7:40am train, allegedly taken by the bombers, had been canceled on that day. In response Home Secretary John Reid made a statement to the House and revised the official narrative to state that the bombers caught the 7.25 am from Luton. This however was 23 minutes late according to station officials, making it hard to see how the alleged bombers could have reached their different destinations in time.
No CCTV footage of the bombers has been released by Verint Systems, the company that took charge of CCTV on the London Underground 10 months before the attacks. They claim that the cameras were not functioning on that day.
As of June 2010, nearly 5 years after the events, there had been two trials of so-called '7/7 helpers', the second a retrial. Both resulted in acquittals. No further judicial proceedings relating to responsibility for the attacks have been concluded. There have been two 'Pre-inquest' hearings into procedural matters  concerning pending Coroners Inquests into the deaths. An Inquest into the deaths of the victims opened at the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London on 11 October 2010. The Inquest will also inquire into alleged pre-attack failings by the police and MI5. There is no jury so that the verdict will be decided by the appointed Coroner, Lady Justice Hallett. Halleet was told that it would be "impossible" to reveal secret MI5 files about the attacks to the bereaved families or their lawyers.
Victims' families have been granted legal aid to be represented. Survivors will have 'witness status' rather than 'properly interested person status', which would have allowed them a legal representative with powers to question witnesses. An Inquest into the deaths of the alleged perpetrators is to be held separately; their families have been refused legal aid and denied the right to appeal this decision. 
The bombings were used worldwide by those seeking to restrict civil liberties in the name of the "war on terror", just as the Charlie Hebdo shooting was exploited, ironically, to curtail freedom of speech.
The UK attacks were a boon to the UK "counter-terrorism" industry. Tony Blair used the attacks to broaden the scope of "anti-terror" activity to encompass not just "violent extremists" but anyone promoting ideas that, as the BBC reported "could be linked to violence". His efforts to suppress people associated with "extremist" ideas faced trouble since officials could not agree on a definition of the word. The UK's Terrorism Act, passed in 2000, amended in 2001, was amended in 2005, and then again in 2006.[How?]
The bombings were cited in 2006 by the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who warned that "British lives on British streets" were at risk if the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into the Al-Yamamah arms deal continued. The memo asked: "If this caused another 7/7, how could we say our investigation is more important?".
A week after the attacks, the infamous US Justice Department lawyer John Yoo wrote in an article entitled "Go on the Offensive against Terror", that "renewing the Patriot Act and staying the course at Guantanamo Bay remain important tools for gaining the intelligence that can prevent another Sept. 11". The same article declared that "another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations."
- The July 7th Truth Campaign - Among the most comprehensive and reliable on-line sources of information and documents on 7/7. It is nevertheless careful - editorially - to stay firmly on the 'official narrative' side of a very sensitive line between "elements of the State/SIS knew much more about plans for the attack than has been revealed" and "those same elements were somewhere between 'deeply complicit' and the 'orchestrators' of the attacks". The campaign's "July 7th - Alternative Hypotheses" document  is an impressive exploration of nine possible hypotheses that, in varying degrees, fit the available evidence of what happened on that day. The Campaign site has also published an essay by Professor David MacGregor entitled 'J7 as Machiavellian State Terror'.  It too is strictly hypothetical but provides disturbing insights into well established historical cases of State sponsored "terrorism" deployed against domestic populations as a tool of policy.
- The J7 London Bombings Dossier - Another J7 Truth Campaign document. It is an absolute must-read for serious 7/7 researchers. Its author, David Minahan, has this to say by way of introduction to what is a thorough forensic examination of the available evidence by a professional investigator with no axe to grind:
I was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors so I have some experience of "forensic" matters. I was also some years ago the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus). I am convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about this matter.
- Official Confusion.com - Website maintained by the producers of the Video "Mind the Gap" is another comprehensive source of factual data and analysis about the events of 7/7 from the makers of the video "Mind The Gap" (See Videos below)
- Terror on the Tube Dr Nick Kollerstrom's blog - Author of a book by the same name ISBN 9781615770076
- J7:7/7 Inquests blog - Blog set up to discuss and comment upon the J7 Inquests hearings and evidence.
There have been a number of good videos of the issues surrounding 7/7, notable among them are:
- 'Mind the Gap'  - an early video narrated by David Shayler
- 'Ludicrous Diversion'  - A reference to Tony Blair's expressed opinion about the need for an official Inquiry - very professionally produced
- 'Ripple Effect'  - an amateur production drawn entirely from public domain information. Its plausible hypothesis of SIS orchestration caused quite a stir
- '7/7 The Big Picture'  An amateur production comprising public domain material. Detailed analysis of released video footage, stills and the anomalies concerning missing/smudged time-stamps and other timing issues. Puts the events in their broader 'war-on-terror' context. Up to date as at July 2010.
- '7/7:Seeds of Destruction'  Another professional production. The film examines some of the questions and theories about 7 July London bombings.
- The first half of the film examines covert operations from three different periods - Central America 1954-63, Italy 1945-1990 and Afghanistan/Pakistan 1979-Present day. These operations are used to provide context to the second half of the film, which is a detailed analysis not only of the events of the day of 7/7, but of the intelligence and security policy of the War on Terror in which 7/7 happened. Also available on the 7/7 Archive and in 18 parts on YouTube
BBC Conspiracy Files
In 2008 the BBC produced a program as part of its 'Conspiracy Files' series.  The July 7 Truth Campaign declined to take part. Skeptics who did take part were rewarded with ad-hominem attacks which skirted round the facts of the July 7 case. The linked video is a small part of the program; the remainder is available from the linked page.
Those so attacked were Nick Kollerstrom for 'Holocaust denial' and Anthony John Hill (aka Muad' dib) for his spiritual beliefs. The program set out to debunk Hill's video 'Ripple Effect' and the Wikipedia article on the Video, true to form, claims that it did just that.
- Juval Aviv, a Mossad spook once remarked that "It's easy to put a truck bomb, as we did, er, as happened in London."
- Complete newspaper archive of 7/7 coverage
- London Bombings Information Archive
- How to set up a Patsy
- The London Bombs - Blog
- The 7/7 Inquest blog - From the team behind the J7 Campaign main site and discussion forum
- More Brits Think Government Behind 7/7 London Bombings Rock Creek Free Press
|Document:7/7 Terror and Torture||blog post||7 July 2010||Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed|
|Document:The 7/7 Inquest Begins||article||12 October 2010||Nicholas Kollerstrom|
|Document:The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means||article||8 July 2005||Robin Cook||Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.|
|File:Machiavellian-state-terror.pdf||analysis||David MacGregor||A reanalysis of the events of 7/7 as possible 'Machiavellian State Terror'.|
|File:Theorising Truth.pdf||paper||2009||Rory Ridley-Duff||An investigation into the claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings of 7th July 2005:- 7/7 Ripple Effect and the BBC’s Conspiracy Files: 7/7. It concludes that both documentaries construct truth that supports their contrasting political outlook and agenda.|
|Peter Power||“HOST: How do you effectively provide security on an underground system?|
POWER: You're quite right. Security at the very best is proportionate, it'll never ever be absolute. The thing that concerns me is that what are we doing for the thousands of men and women actually who are in London working. And I say that because at half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
|Peter Power||7 July 2005|
|Peter Power||“POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time -|
INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
|Peter Power||7 July 2005|
|Peter Power||“There has been much nonsense written about why my company ran an exercise on 7 July 2005 that had very close parallels to the real thing that day. Since then I have made several attempts to add my own comments to numerous sites that seem to get increasingly excited about their own conspiracy theories and in the process exclude any rational debate. It seems those who occupy the world of finding conspiracy theories to replace just about any coincidence, do not want to have any dialogue with those offering a different view, but I have not yet given up hope. I am therefore hoping, perhaps naively, that someone might like to read an honest and factual account about a particular exercise my company ran in London three years ago.
Unfortunately, the BBC had postponed in 2008 a programme in their ‘conspiracy files’ series that would have done this. Our client three years ago agreed to be named in the BBC programme since the attitude of the producer and his team was very balanced (several conspiracy theorists were also invited to take part). We even allowed our complete exercise material to be made available to the BBC. Regrettably broadcasting in 2008 might have jeopardised an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to 2009.
Early in 2005 Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London, asked us to help them prepare an effective crisis management plan and rehearse it before sign-off. Several draft scenarios were drawn up and the crisis team themselves set the exercise date and time: 9.00am on 7 July.
The test was planned as a table-top walk through for about six people (the CM team) in a lecture room with all injects simulated. Everything was on MS PowerPoint. The location of their Central London office near to Chancery Lane was chosen as one test site. With many staff travelling to work via the London underground system, the chosen exercise simulated incendiary devices on three trains, very similar to a real IRA attack in 1992, as well as other events.
As there had been eighteen terrorist bomb attacks on tube trains prior to 2005, choosing the London Underground was logical rather than just prescient. With this in mind it was hardly surprising that Deutsche Bank had run a similar exercise a few days before and, prior to that, a multi-agency (and much publicised) exercise code-named Osiris II had simulated a terrorist attack at Bank tube station. Moreover, I had also taken part in a BBC Panorama programme in 2004 as a panellist alongside Michael Portillo MP et al, in an unscripted debate (we had no idea at all what the scenario was to be?) on how London might once again, deal with terrorist attacks, only this time it was fictional (created entirely by the BBC).
In short, some of the research for our exercise had already been done. The scenario developed for our client even started by using fictitious news items from the Panorama programme then, as with any walk through exercise, events unfolded solely on a screen as dictated by the facilitator without any external injects or actions beyond the exercise room. Also factored into the scenario was to be an above ground fictitious bomb exploding not far from the head office of the protected Jewish Chronicle magazine where for exercise purposes, our imagined terrorists would have been aware that commuters would now be walking to work (past a building already considered a target) as some tube stations would have been closed.
Of just eight nearby tube stations that fell within possible exercise scope, three were chosen that, by coincidence, were involved in the awful drama that actually took place on 7 July 2005. A level of scenario validation that on this occasion, we could have done without.
An exercise that turns into the real thing is not that unusual. For example, in January 2003, thirty people were injured when a tube train derailed and hit a wall at speed. At the same time, the City of London Police were running an exercise for their central casualty bureau where the team quickly abandoned their plans and swung into action to cope with the real thing.For a surprising number of people such coincidents[sic] cannot be accepted as such. There just has to be a conspiracy behind them, despite the obvious point that painstaking research will always identify probable above possible scenarios. By the way, the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of "terrorism" is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.”
|Peter Power||6 April 2009|
The Official Culprits
|Mohammad Sidique Khan|
- File:ISC 7 July Report.pdf
- File:ISC Report Mat 2007.pdf
- MI5 cropped 7/7 bomber out of picture shown to key informant
- Manchester Evening News "King's Cross Man's Crisis Course", 8 July 2005
- Pre-inquest hearings into procedural matters
- File:Inquest-coroners order.pdf
- Klausen, J. (2009). British Counter-Terrorism After 7/7: Adapting Community Policing to the Fight Against Domestic Terrorism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(3), 403-420.
- File:July 7th Alternative Hypotheses.doc
- Mind the Gap - Early video detailing anomalies and contradictions in the official narrative
- Video - 'Ludicrous Diversion' - a good, professionally produced resume of 7/7
- Video - 'Ripple Effect'
- 7/7 The Big Picture
- 7/7:Seeds of Destruction - Released on 3 August 2010.
- BBC Conspiracy Files -v- Ripple Effect -part 6 of 6
- Dr Nick Kollerstrom - Author of the 2009 book 'Terror on the Tube'
- Wikipedia article on the Video 'Ripple Effect'