7/7. The Ripple Effect - a documentary by Muad'Dib

[Ravenmoon]

Brings up some interesting questions

http://www.livevideo.com/video/CTCC/A4C ... ffect.aspx

[Busker]

Am I right in thinking that our very own, Mr Peter Power of Visor Consultants appears in this video? That is him isn't it?

_________________

Ah - just continued watching and that is confirmed later in the video.

[blackcat]

Excellent video but a couple of problems I have with it. Firstly he says Attar's passport was found in New York at ground zero when it was a different hijacker I believe. Secondly, why does he bang on about the cancelled 07:40 train when a train left Luton at 07:42 for King's Cross anyway? This delayed train served effectively as the 07:40 did it not. I can't work out if they would have had time to get on the tube trains if they had caught this train and I don't think he addressed that.

[Ravenmoon]

Yeah i wondered about the 7:42 train as well,but whether they caught this or not,the official line is that they caught a train which was cancelled

[karlos]

Thanks for posting this up
it is a goldmine of useful info about 7/7

Including
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/sto ... d=10334992
'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
12:00AM Saturday July 09, 2005

A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).

Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said.

He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.

Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.

Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.

We must consider a Reuters chap to be a reliable source.
Were these the actual patsies being bumped off?
And why is this news report been effectively censored?

[numeral]

Yeah i wondered about the 7:42 train as well,but whether they caught this or not,the official line is that they caught a train which was cancelled

The Home Office have recently changed the narrative. They now claim that the alleged bombers caught the train which departed at 7.25.
See http://j7truth.blogspot.com/
The narrative now reads:

05.07: A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton station car park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone in this car. During the 90 minutes or so before the others arrive, Lindsay gets out and walks around, enters the station, looks up at the departure board, comes out, moves the car a couple of times. There are a handful of other cars in the car park. A few more arrive during this period.

06.49: The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.

One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks. It is not clear what they were for, but they may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey given their size; that they were in the car rather than the boot; and that they were left behind. Also left in the Micra were other items consistent with the use of explosives. A 9mm handgun was also found in the Brava. The Micra had a day parking ticket in the window, perhaps to avoid attention, the Brava did not.

07:14: Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.

prole comments:

So, having put on their rucksacks at 6:49, the men apparently do so again at just after 7:14, with Lindsay checking the departure board again at this time, having done so previously at 05.07.

[astro3]

Yes I agree this is a brilliant new video.

Its author Muad'dib conjectures that all four of the young men were roped into Peter power's 'mock' terror drill, which is why they bought return tickets from Luton that morning: however, due to the cancelled 7.40 train they arrived in London too late to be on the tube trains they had been told to be on. When they hear of the bombs going off it dawns on them that they have been set up, and - not being familiar with London, and with the phones not working - they try to escape via Canary Wharf, where they get shot. But, this does not include Hasib Hussein:

Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise

.

On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. How could suicide-bombers possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot?

This story appears in the New Zealand herald, concerning how 'apparent suicide bombers' were shot outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours.

The reported time of this shooting, 10.30 am, would fit quite well with the lads coming out of King's cross Thameslink and being too late for their assignments (getting the 7.48 at Luton, which arrived at 8.42), and hearing about the bombs going off then going to Canary Wharf. As to why they chose to go there -

At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France.

Meanwhile, the unworldly Hasib Hussein -

He was the youngest of the four, only eighteen years old, and described, by those who knew him, as a gentle giant. Therefore he was possibly the least worldly-wise, and he was also on his own, in a strange city, and a long way from home. He might not have realized he was in danger of being framed as a patsy, believed all the chaos around that part of London was just part of the mock-terrorism exercise that he was part of, and so just continued with his assigned role, which was to board a certain double-decker bus, at an appointed time, and sit at the back of the top deck.

The Government's 'Official Report' on 7/7 has Hasib Hussein get onto the 91 bus outside king's Cross Thameslink, and then change when he gets to Euston onto the 30:

We are told that Hasib Hussain started from King’s Cross Thameslink station, and was seen on a number 91 bus travelling West along Euston Road to Euston Station, where he caught the number 30 bus, that would have then travelled East, back along Euston Road retracing his steps, back to where he started from at King’s Cross, if it had not been diverted into Tavistock Square. Why would someone carrying a large, heavy backpack do that, unless he was following a script, written by someone who knew, in advance, that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, would be diverted into Tavistock Square, and that Hasib Hussain would therefore not be able to get on it at King’s Cross Thameslink, which is where he had arrived at, on the train from Luton? Only someone who is a stranger to London would do that without asking why, because it is a totally illogical thing to do, for someone who knows London, and knows that the number 30 bus goes past King’s Cross Thameslink station, so that they could have caught it there, instead. It would be a complete waste, of time, energy, money, and an unnecessary risk to take, and thus a totally illogical thing for a real terrorist to do.

The 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square. That is conclusive proof that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, was part of Peter Power and his customer’s mock-terrorist drill, pre-rigged with explosives, like the three tube-trains, and was pre-planned to be diverted into, and blown up in, Tavistock Square, rather than blown up by a backpack bomb. Whoever planned this, obviously planned to kill Hasib Hussain with that bus explosion, so he could not tell anyone what had happened,

Here Muad'dib seems to be arguing that H.H. might really have been on the 30 bus. Overall his story seems fairly plausible.

[Ravenmoon]

The Home Office have recently changed the narrative. They now claim that the alleged bombers caught the train which departed at 7.25.

Talk about shifting the goalposts

To me ,the biggest giveaway is the 'bus bomber' goes into one of the biggest companies of corporate capitalism & has a happy meal,half an hour before blowing himself up because he's that fundemental he's willing to die for his cause

[karlos]

there is no way a jihadi muslim would have gone into a Micky D's which only sells pork before 11.30am anyway.

there is no cctv or eye witness anyway so this is just disinformation

The story of two being shot dead in Canary Wharf is more important to find out who they were and why it was no widely reported

[Nick Cooper]

there is no way a jihadi muslim would have gone into a Micky D's which only sells pork before 11.30am anyway.

Now, I don't get into McDonalds much, but I'm pretty certain that if you went into one before 11:30 and asked for just a milkshake and a portion of fries, they wouldn't say, "no, you have to have some dead pig with it, as well..."

The story of two being shot dead in Canary Wharf is more important to find out who they were and why it was no widely reported

Why dispose of them so dramatically and publicly? Why not just bundle them into black Transits and deal with them elsewhere?

[karlos]

No autopsy details have been released so we dont know if these two are two of the alleged 7/7 guys.

Why was there a UK news blackout?

Let me explain staraker.
Muslims dont eat pork, nor do they allow pork ingredients to be used or for pork to be prepare simultaneously.
No biggie. No chips before 11.30am.
It is highly unlikely for a so called extremist jihadi to go to a McDonalds in the morning when Pork and bacon are all thats on the menu.
Let alone any practicing Muslim.
Let alone a person who supposedly is about to blow himself up.

I suggest he did NOT go to McDonalds it is a ruse to make the story sound plausible. Because many joe public punters will find it a human angle.

I dont believe that any of the 'bombers' took part in the bombings. I believe they were patsies and were probably bumped off elsewhere by their Mossad handlers.
They probably believed they were taking part in the BBC gameshow called SPY or some other staged drill.

[Nick Cooper]

No autopsy details have been released so we dont know if these two are two of the alleged 7/7 guys.

We don't actually have any proof that "these two guys" exist because a couple of hearsay-based news reports.

Why was there a UK news blackout?

Because it never happened? Wild thought, I know, but still....

Let me explain staraker.
Muslims dont eat pork, nor do they allow pork ingredients to be used or for pork to be prepare simultaneously.

Yes, I knew that, thanks.

No biggie. No chips before 11.30am.
It is highly unlikely for a so called extremist jihadi to go to a McDonalds in the morning when Pork and bacon are all thats on the menu.
Let alone any practicing Muslim.
Let alone a person who supposedly is about to blow himself up.

I thought martydom was supposed to trump such misdemeanours....

I suggest he did NOT go to McDonalds it is a ruse to make the story sound plausible. Because many joe public punters will find it a human angle.

Yet at the same time you claim it is wildly implausible. Obviously they didn't really think it through.

I dont believe that any of the 'bombers' took part in the bombings. I believe they were patsies and were probably bumped off elsewhere by their Mossad handlers.
They probably believed they were taking part in the BBC gameshow called SPY or some other staged drill.[/quote]

[karlos]

So you are saying that a Reuters correspondant is lying?

please dont bring the Martydom card into this. You know very well that suicide and murder is forbidden in Islam.
And if anyoe participates in any of these acts he or she goes straight to hell without passing GO.

[Disco_Destroyer]

So you are saying that a Reuters correspondant is lying?

please dont bring the Martydom card into this. You know very well that suicide and murder is forbidden in Islam.
And if anyoe participates in any of these acts he or she goes straight to hell without passing GO.

It also has to be pointed out that if Martyrdom was the goal they missunderstood the position of all UK Muslims

[Nick Cooper]

So you are saying that a Reuters correspondant is lying?

Someone saying, "two people I know saw something," without the identities of any of the three being know isn't particularly reliable.

please dont bring the Martydom card into this. You know very well that suicide and murder is forbidden in Islam.
And if anyoe participates in any of these acts he or she goes straight to hell without passing GO.

I'm not going to get into a theological argument, but it does seem to be self evident that more than a few who consider themselves to be Muslims have thought otherwise.

[astro3]

Let’s come back to the important question Staraker asked, concerning the Canary Wharf shootings of three unnamed persons on the morning of July 7th -

Why dispose of them so dramatically and publicly? Why not just bundle them into black Transits and deal with them elsewhere?

Answer: for the same reason that De Mendezes was bumped off so publicly and not bundled away somewhere first – namely, that the (straight-from-Mossad) Operation Kratos protocol mandates it! It allows certain members of the police to kill ‘suspected suicide bombers’ - but, they have to do so very quickly, because the protocol involves shooting them before they have time to detonate their (alleged) bomb. If they were hustled into some black transit, there would no longer be a valid assassination protocol!

Quoting from the NZ Herald of July 9th,

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time). Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said. He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.

Thus the story put about was that the men were ‘wearing bombs’ – one assumes they were no more doing so than was de Mendezes. Also, the ‘tough talk’ of 8000 workers being instructed to stay indoors for the next 6 hours indicates that it was not just the Met at work here – it was some elite bunch of killers.

Of course this story is genuine, Staraker – quoting further from the NZ Herald,

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower. Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.

And, in addition to this, a third was killed under a similar anti-terror protocol

There is another newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, which is approximately 1,400 feet, or 467 yards, away from the HSBC building, measured door to door.

(ref: SouthLondon.co.uk 'Hidden holdall bomb' causes carnage by Ben Ashford) - shot outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank.

Were those the three? The complete erasure of this story from all UK media surely indocates its central importance. Muad’Dib has here put together a hauntingly plausible scenario. He predicts that Hasib Hussein was really on the 91 bus (for only one or two stops) coming from King’s Cross Thameslink, having separated from the others.

[Nick Cooper]

Let’s come back to the important question Staraker asked, concerning the Canary Wharf shootings of three unnamed persons on the morning of July 7th -

Why dispose of them so dramatically and publicly? Why not just bundle them into black Transits and deal with them elsewhere?

Answer: for the same reason that De Mendezes was bumped off so publicly and not bundled away somewhere first – namely, that the (straight-from-Mossad) Operation Kratos protocol mandates it! It allows certain members of the police to kill ‘suspected suicide bombers’ - but, they have to do so very quickly, because the protocol involves shooting them before they have time to detonate their (alleged) bomb. If they were hustled into some black transit, there would no longer be a valid assassination protocol!

That doesn't actually make any sense in the context of the suggested scenario that the WY Four were roped into the supposed "terror drill". That presupposes they weren't carrying real bombs and they knew they weren't carrying real bombs. That being the case, if they had somehow got to Canary Wharf, there was no need to dispose of them under "Kratos Rules". More to the point, why shoot people known to be benign in such a public place.

Quoting from the NZ Herald of July 9th,

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time). Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said. He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.

Thus the story put about was that the men were ‘wearing bombs’ – one assumes they were no more doing so than was de Mendezes.

What "story put about"? This incident has had virtually zero coverage beyond the original unattributed hearsay-based report.

Also, the ‘tough talk’ of 8000 workers being instructed to stay indoors for the next 6 hours indicates that it was not just the Met at work here – it was some elite bunch of killers.

Must have been very "tough" if all 8000 remain silent to this day.

Of course this story is genuine, Staraker – quoting further from the NZ Herald,

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower. Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.

And, in addition to this, a third was killed under a similar anti-terror protocol

There is another newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, which is approximately 1,400 feet, or 467 yards, away from the HSBC building, measured door to door.

(ref: SouthLondon.co.uk 'Hidden holdall bomb' causes carnage by Ben Ashford) - shot outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank.

Were those the three? The complete erasure of this story from all UK media surely indocates its central importance.

Or that it's *.

[karlos]

There are lots of news stories that get quoshed or suppressed.
There is no reason to suppose that this report is not one such.

Let me remind people
Tony Blair's daughter's suicide attempt
George Bush's rape allegation
And George Bush's gay affair
George Robertson former defence secretary Links to 'P' ring

All of these stories appeared just once not in the mainstream press before they were suppressed.
They were valid news items nevertheless.

In terms of shootings and even killings, well i am from a part of London where shootings and killings occur frequently and do not make even a mention into the mainstream media. In any case 8000 would not have seen it happen. A handful may have been looking out of their windows and most would not have realised what was occuring. The same few may have even thought it was an episode of the Bill being filmed.

How many of the thousands of police 'anti terror' raids or arrests get any column inches? 1000+ have been arrested and held yet how many have been reported?
Virtually none.

So it is quite possible that it did happen exactly as appeared in the New Zealand press.

[Nick Cooper]

There are lots of news stories that get quoshed or suppressed.
There is no reason to suppose that this report is not one such.

There are also "new stories" that turn out to be *.

Let me remind people
Tony Blair's daughter's suicide attempt

Bizarre definition of "news". I think most people with children would be appalled if their child's suicide attempt was splashed over the newspapers. Pretending that it's justified because of who the parents are is the thin end of the wedge.

George Bush's rape allegation
And George Bush's gay affair
George Robertson former defence secretary Links to 'P' ring

I hope you have a good lawyer, Stelios.

All of these stories appeared just once not in the mainstream press before they were suppressed.
They were valid news items nevertheless.

In terms of shootings and even killings, well i am from a part of London where shootings and killings occur frequently and do not make even a mention into the mainstream media.

Most shootings do get media coverage, but it varies depending on the circumstances. Less than 100 people get shot dead in the entire country each year, so you're looking at <2 a week as it is.

In any case 8000 would not have seen it happen. A handful may have been looking out of their windows and most would not have realised what was occuring. The same few may have even thought it was an episode of the Bill being filmed.

Would anybody innocently assume that such filming would carry on on such a day? Would anybody take it to be such a recording in the absence of any cameras or production staff around? I would suggest that anybody seeing someone shot dead in the street on 7/7 would not immediately think, "Oh, they must be making an edpisode of 'The Bill'," and then fail to mention it to anybody else ever again. After all, would you?

How many of the thousands of police 'anti terror' raids or arrests get any column inches? 1000+ have been arrested and held yet how many have been reported?
Virtually none.

Plenty of them have been reported, often with a high number of arrests mentioned. For your claim to hold water, you would have to document those that have been reported and demonstarte that the numbers involved are significantly lower than a confirmed "total" of arrests.

So it is quite possible that it did happen exactly as appeared in the New Zealand press.

On the contrary, I would suggest that if it had happened as claimed, it would be virtually impossible to kill the story.

[kbo234]

Watch the film:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &plindex=0

[Prole]

On the contrary, I would suggest that if it had happened as claimed, it would be virtually impossible to kill the story.

Brian Paddick denied he knew anything about 'the police' shooting dead a suicide bomber, at a press conference on the 7/7, doesn't mean that the SRR didn't.

We have a thread on Canary Wharf on the J7 forum, which includes a copy of a live journal post:

Posted on 2005.07.07 at 12:54

I've just had a text message from Rachel (my little Rae of Sunshine). She's in London as was called in for holiday cover at Mirror Group where she works. She is locked in Canary Wharf Tower. The police have just shot a suicide bomber. She is safe but a bit freaked out.

Remember there are such things as D-Notices and that some journalists were banned from reporting on the 7/7:

The email, which was sent to all TMS newsdesk staff at 12.22pm by editorial director Marc Reeves, said: "Staff safety is the NUMBER ONE priority at this time.

"Please call back into the office anyone out in the field whether on bombrelated stories or not. Alternatively, send them home if they are closer.

[karlos]

There are lots of news stories that get quoshed or suppressed.
There is no reason to suppose that this report is not one such.

There are also "new stories" that turn out to be *.

Let me remind people
Tony Blair's daughter's suicide attempt

Bizarre definition of "news". I think most people with children would be appalled if their child's suicide attempt was splashed over the newspapers. Pretending that it's justified because of who the parents are is the thin end of the wedge.

George Bush's rape allegation
And George Bush's gay affair
George Robertson former defence secretary Links to 'P' ring

I hope you have a good lawyer, Stelios.

All of these stories appeared just once not in the mainstream press before they were suppressed.
They were valid news items nevertheless.

In terms of shootings and even killings, well i am from a part of London where shootings and killings occur frequently and do not make even a mention into the mainstream media.

Most shootings do get media coverage, but it varies depending on the circumstances. Less than 100 people get shot dead in the entire country each year, so you're looking at <2 a week as it is.

In any case 8000 would not have seen it happen. A handful may have been looking out of their windows and most would not have realised what was occuring. The same few may have even thought it was an episode of the Bill being filmed.

Would anybody innocently assume that such filming would carry on on such a day? Would anybody take it to be such a recording in the absence of any cameras or production staff around? I would suggest that anybody seeing someone shot dead in the street on 7/7 would not immediately think, "Oh, they must be making an edpisode of 'The Bill'," and then fail to mention it to anybody else ever again. After all, would you?

Why would they stop?
The BBC filmed a massive eplosion in Cardiff city centre on the same day as the fake car bombs in London and Glasgow. They later apologised for scaring people but the fact remains 'the show must go on'
When a person is looking out the window he may think this is a TV show, a drill or the real thing and when he does not read about it in any UK newspaper he will assume it was not a real event.
George Bush's rape allegations were published in the 'New Nation' in the UK. George Robertson's in the 'Scotsman' and the affair between George Bush and Victor Ashe and George Bush and Jeff Gannon are very widely reported. See for yourself.
So no solicitors required just yet.

Blair's daughter's suicide attempt is newsworthy. The fact is today's media is not any more an investigating media more simply an opinion based media. News stories are fed to the media and then repeated with whatever spin the writer or reader wishes to place upon it.

A Reuters correspondent is considered a good info source. A New Zealand newspaper too is considered a good news source. These are not some looney lefties.
How many Charles De Menezes witnesses have appeared in the media? You dont doubt that that event occured yet how many of several hundreds of witnesses and people in the train and in the station have made public comments?
So Canary Wharf, more witnesses may have come forward but their reports may not have been published or acted upon. this chap was himself a journo so he was able to bring his report out.

I would be more surprised if on a day when several bombs went off that there were not terror raids and arrests.
What we know for a fact is that if these four went to Luton and caught a Thameslink train they could not have made it to the underground trains that eventually blew up.
What we know for a fact is that there is no CCTV nor is there any credible eye witness accounts of any of them being on the trains or buses.

[Nick Cooper]

There are lots of news stories that get quoshed or suppressed.
There is no reason to suppose that this report is not one such.

There are also "new stories" that turn out to be *.

Let me remind people
Tony Blair's daughter's suicide attempt

Bizarre definition of "news". I think most people with children would be appalled if their child's suicide attempt was splashed over the newspapers. Pretending that it's justified because of who the parents are is the thin end of the wedge.

George Bush's rape allegation
And George Bush's gay affair
George Robertson former defence secretary Links to 'P' ring

I hope you have a good lawyer, Stelios.

All of these stories appeared just once not in the mainstream press before they were suppressed.
They were valid news items nevertheless.

In terms of shootings and even killings, well i am from a part of London where shootings and killings occur frequently and do not make even a mention into the mainstream media.

Most shootings do get media coverage, but it varies depending on the circumstances. Less than 100 people get shot dead in the entire country each year, so you're looking at <2 a week as it is.

In any case 8000 would not have seen it happen. A handful may have been looking out of their windows and most would not have realised what was occuring. The same few may have even thought it was an episode of the Bill being filmed.

Would anybody innocently assume that such filming would carry on on such a day? Would anybody take it to be such a recording in the absence of any cameras or production staff around? I would suggest that anybody seeing someone shot dead in the street on 7/7 would not immediately think, "Oh, they must be making an edpisode of 'The Bill'," and then fail to mention it to anybody else ever again. After all, would you?

Why would they stop?
The BBC filmed a massive eplosion in Cardiff city centre on the same day as the fake car bombs in London and Glasgow. They later apologised for scaring people but the fact remains 'the show must go on'
When a person is looking out the window he may think this is a TV show, a drill or the real thing and when he does not read about it in any UK newspaper he will assume it was not a real event.

Well, let's walk through what might actually have been seen in this scneario: A person shot, probably left lying in a pool of blood, police appearing, the body either being cordoned off or removed via an ambulance or a police vehicle, but absolutely no cameras or TV/film production crew. Do you honestly think somebody is going to write that off as dismissively as you suggest? Would you?

George Bush's rape allegations were published in the 'New Nation' in the UK. George Robertson's in the 'Scotsman' and the affair between George Bush and Victor Ashe and George Bush and Jeff Gannon are very widely reported. See for yourself.
So no solicitors required just yet.

Blair's daughter's suicide attempt is newsworthy. The fact is today's media is not any more an investigating media more simply an opinion based media. News stories are fed to the media and then repeated with whatever spin the writer or reader wishes to place upon it.

Nobody's child's attempted suicide is newsworthy, whatever our opinion of one or both parents.

A Reuters correspondent is considered a good info source. A New Zealand newspaper too is considered a good news source. These are not some looney lefties.

Let's be clear, what we are talking about is a New Zealand paper quoting an un-named New Zealander said to be a Reuters employee. More to the point, he didn't see anything himself, but was told what supposedly happened by two - also un-named - "English colleagues" in an unidentified building, although logically this would be Reuters's office at 30 South Colonade. This could just be a sick wind-up, for all we know. On top of that, the same report claims, "8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the New Zealand man said." Where is the proof of this? Where is even one of those 8,000 people who corroborates this with specific reference to the claimed shooting?

How many Charles De Menezes witnesses have appeared in the media? You dont doubt that that event occured yet how many of several hundreds of witnesses and people in the train and in the station have made public comments?

Quality of some of those witnesses aside, the quantity is self-evident, nobody disputes that it happened.

So Canary Wharf, more witnesses may have come forward but their reports may not have been published or acted upon. this chap was himself a journo so he was able to bring his report out.

We do not know he was a "journo," just an "employee" - he could be cleaner, for all we know.

I would be more surprised if on a day when several bombs went off that there were not terror raids and arrests.
What we know for a fact is that if these four went to Luton and caught a Thameslink train they could not have made it to the underground trains that eventually blew up.
What we know for a fact is that there is no CCTV nor is there any credible eye witness accounts of any of them being on the trains or buses.

That may be so, but neither is there any proof that some of them were later slotted in one of the busiest parts of town. Either they're in London or they're not - you can't have it both ways because it makes a better story.

[Reflecter]

I welcome the addition of this film but I do think it is way too fast to jump to conclusions and misuse certain aspects of the available evidence. Its more of a hypothesis to be examined than a purely factual piece. Its well made though.

I am pleased to see the Panorama segment of which i was unaware and also the inclusion of the Canary Wharf aspects. As as uncorroborated they remain, I for one (for the little its worth) distinctly recall this story breaking on the morning. I had the day off and watched events unfold all day.

The lack of the CW stories future coverage is one aspect that led to suspicions which were only acted upon when I became aware of WTC7 a month or so later. I did not tape the news that day as our vcr was broken but my wife will also confirm that this CW story ran and though recollection are hazy, I believe that footage from the scene was screened with a cordoned off area and busy police and that people inside the buildings were in touch with the news crew, as Proles points raise.

I agree it is near useless evidence though, as no one else has come foreword to speak on this issue and the tv footage all appears to have met the memory hole.

[karlos]

To the contrary - the fact that you recall seeing the Canary Wharf story that day is very important. It happened but has since been suppressed.
So for all we know the two may well have been two of the 7/7 guys being taken down.

The panorama is very interesting too. Most old panoramas are available on BBC archives or google video. Except this episode. Peter Power discussing the bombings of three underground stations and one overground tanker.
Maybe Mossad got the idea after watching this programme and then hired Peter Power to carry out the same drill. This is so similar tp what really happened as being prophetic. It could also be argued that the show may have given REAL terrorists the idea.

[KP50]

The NZ Herald is no better or worse than any other rag. It generally just prints world news direct from other sources, the only ones of interest are their own stories which generally feature NZers featuring in world events. Hence this story and the focus on the tragic NZ lady from the BMA.

And it is rather quaintly innocent to think that news stories are not squashed when they accidentally leak out - and that "someone would come forward". Who are you going to come forward to? The media that killed the story in the first place?

[Nick Cooper]

The panorama is very interesting too. Most old panoramas are available on BBC archives or google video. Except this episode. Peter Power discussing the bombings of three underground stations and one overground tanker.

On the other hand, the associated pages are on the BBC website are still available, as is the programme transcript. I'd have to check if other editions from the same time period are available "officially" or not; the fact that this one isn't doesnt mean much if most or all of for the rest of the year aren't, either.

[karlos]

This documentary contains several things i personally have not seen before neither here nor on the J7 website.

It contains an ITN interview with Richard Jones which does not appear to be anywhere else - or at least i have not seen it before.
Other than the New Zealand news report there is also a Canadian News report and the fact that the Canary Wharf incident was reported once on Sky news.
It cannot be denied that it happened.
Simply that the official narative took over and further coverage of the Canary Wharf incident was suppresed.

The assumptions about Richard Jones and his explosives factory aprenticeship are in my view a red herring as he clearly is a non existant person. As the docu states if he was genuine the police would not have allowed him to talk freely to the media.
The assumptions about Kingstar too are in my view wrong and a deliberate red herring as is the advert for the film The Descent - an excellent movie.

The cctv image from Luton is spot on, that is the fact that only one of the bombers went through at that time the others were added to the image later.
I must say this is the best 7/7 documentary i have seen and the production quality is fantastic.
Maybe a dvd with this, ludicrous diversion and mind the gap all in one would hit the spot.

[astro3]

Reflector writes concerning the Canary Wharf shootings:

I for one (for the little its worth) distinctly recall this story breaking on the morning… I believe that footage from the scene was screened with a cordoned off area and busy police and that people inside the buildings were in touch with the news crew,

This new video by Muad states:

On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London's East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons.

He can’t recall when it was. Well that’s three persons who recall the BBC report on the Canary Wharf shootings that morning.

This new video predicts that CCTV pics of the 4 were taken in London, especially at King’s Cross? Muad's theory is, that the four arrived too late – so, any refusal to show the CCTV by the police, would only be because it had the wrong timestamp on. Does that make sense?

He seems to be suggesting that CCTV of the 4 would exist at Luton, as they entered the station, but maybe only separately and at a too-late time.

He is definitely making the prediction, that a witness did really see Hasib Hussein on a 91 bus King’s cross to Euston that morning. Can that be corroborated?

[karlos]

As we know for a fact one of the four was a police informant and had even accompanied his MP on a tour of Parliament.
So the real possibility of these four being duped into taking part in the drill is plausible.
Clearly on the 26/6 they had carried out some sort of dummy run or drill rehearsal?
The trio may well have been heading for the safety of the newspapers after all the police station would be the last place they would go.