New 7/7 Bombing Photo Contradicts Official Story

by Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet

Bomb appears to have been UNDER the subway car (click to enlarge)

Bomb appears to have been UNDER the subway car (click to enlarge)

A new photo released on the fourth anniversary of the 7/7 attacks in London appears to contradict the government’s official story that Muslims with backpack bombs were responsible for the Tube and bus bombings which killed 52 people.

The image seemingly dovetails with a survivor’s eyewitness statement that the bombs on the Tube trains were placed underneath the carriage and that suicide bombers were nowhere to be seen.

Debunkers have attempted to dismiss this vital hole in the official story by claiming that questions about eyewitnesses stating bombs were placed under the train have been explained. London Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum interviewed witnesses who stated that “tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up,” when the bombs were detonated. Honigsbaum later said that the quotes were taken out of context when they were cited as evidence that the bombs were planted under the trains – and debunkers duly seized on this in an attempt to dismiss the entire issue.

However, one very reliable eyewitness statement is very clear in making it plain that no suicide bombers were involved, and the bomb could only have been planted underneath the train, contradicting the official story completely.

The words of 7/7 survivor Bruce Lait, who was just yards from the explosion when it happened, cannot be taken out of context.

Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing, described to the Cambridge Evening News how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.

“We’d been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now,” he said.

He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been.

“The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said.

In his statement, Lait makes clear four things – according to what he witnessed, there was no suicide bomber, there was no rucksack or backpack that could have contained a bomb, there was nobody around the location where the bomb exploded, and the bomb appeared to have been placed underneath the train.

The fact that the policeman had to warn them of a “hole” as they were being led out to safety obviously suggests that the hole was in the floor and therefore a potential hazard to them exiting the train.

The photo displayed below is currently being carried on the Daily Mail website with the caption; “Warped and blackened by the blast, this is the Piccadilly Line carriage where Jermaine Lindsay’s bomb detonated at Russell Square station. A forensics officer in white rubber gloves inches his way along the floor – itself sheared away in the blast, exposing metal beams – searching for the smallest of clues.” Note that Bruce Lait’s comments refer to the Aldgate tube bombing. This photo is from the Russell Square bombing, but it appears to dovetail his testimony that the bombs were planted under the train.

Despite the fact that the image is cut off at the point where the hole begins, one can clearly see it at the very bottom of the picture. The cabling underneath the floor cover is exposed and the area to the right of the hole is raised up, as if pressure has been exerted from underneath.

The contention that there were no suicide bombers actually on the train at all, as Bruce Lait contends, is consistent with other evidence surrounding the attacks.

The fact that the ID’s of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID’s would have had a reasonable chance of surviving relatively unscathed if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

Remember that the London Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch themselves reported that from studying the behavior of the alleged suicide bombers before the attacks via CCTV footage, the bombers “did not fit the preconceived terrorist profile.”

The suspects were seen to be arguing with cashiers, walking in and out of shops, including McDonalds, and “bumping into people” in the minutes before the blasts – hardly the behavior of people who are in the final crucial moments of planning a terror attack in which they will be killed, and who wish to go unnoticed.

“I’ve seen the CCTV footage of these people. They do not appear to be on their way to commit any crime at all,” a London Metropolitan Police representative said.

“The roundtrip tickets, the fact that one of them spent a lot recently repairing his car and one of them had a family and was the teacher of the disabled and underprivileged children, it doesn’t ring right,” said Paul Beaver, a security and defense expert in London with close police contacts. “If you had that much commitment, how are you going to take your life? It’s happened in Palestine, but these people were brought up in the UK.”

Turning back to the question of devices planted under the train, the get out clause of the “exercise” or “drill” scenario would have also provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for a company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security and alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange ‘coincidence’.

It is important to stress that this is just one piece of evidence amidst a myriad of smoking guns that all directly contradict the government’s official story. A summary of that evidence can be found here. An archive containing further stories can be found here.

Questions surrounding the 7/7 bombings have been met with a stonewall response from the British government, leading victims’ relatives to call for an independent inquiry.

Scotland Yard’s former head of counter-terrorism Andy Hayman, who was Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations at the time of the bombings in 2005, has also publicly called for an independent investigation into the bombings.

“Incidents of less gravity have attracted the status of a public inquiry — train crashes, a death in custody, and even other terrorist attacks. How can there not be a full, independent public inquiry into the deaths of 52 commuters on London’s transport system?,” said Hayman.

However, individuals who produced Internet documentaries about these questions, such as the author of 7/7: Ripple Effect, 60-year-old Anthony John Hill, have been targeted for character assassination by the media, and in particular the BBC. Hill was arrested merely for sending a copy of his DVD to a jury member after authorities accused him of perverting the course of justice.

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. I think you want there to have been a conspiracy, and now you’re looking for evidence to support your theory.

  2. why thank you Mr. Hoover. I stand corrected. and by the way, may I say, that is a lovely dress you are wearing…

  3. Mr. Hoover…I think you’ve been too busy making out with Clyde Tolson to make sense of things.

    That picture absolutely puts the lie to the official story…unless you can explain how the blast was actually propelled upwards…much the same way that a shot from behind JFK’s head supposedly made the head propel backwards.

    Right…that’s it. Move along, nothing to see here.

  4. […] backpacks was contradicted by eyewitness reports and photos indicating that the explosions originated underneath the carriages. The Israeli company Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel’s Comverse Technology, handled […]

  5. “London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security and alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange ‘coincidence’.”

    Their suspicions would have been dampened? Really? Would yours? If staff, or management, had been told that dummy devices were being placed under the trains, and those same trains later blew up, I think suspicions would have skyrocketed.

  6. […] backpacks was contradicted by eyewitness reports and photos indicating that the explosions originated underneath the carriages. The Israeli company Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel’s Comverse Technology, handled […]

  7. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-77-london-bombings-and-mi5s-stepford-four-operation-how-the-2005-london-bombings-turned-every-muslim-into-a-terror-suspect/5341948

    This recent post on globalresearch.ca presents the 7/7 bombing and related events in a clearer light than I’ve ever seen before. Thought I’d share just in case it’s of interest to regulars of this website.

    “[Jean Charles de Menezes] might have noticed a police car parked in front of the station; a marksman was awaiting his arrival. Suspecting nothing, he picked up a free newspaper, showed his identifying “Oyster” subway card at the ticket office and strolled to the subway platform. The subway car seemed to be parked there, so he made a quick call on his mobile before taking his seat in the car and settling in with his newspaper. The subway driver had arrived at 10 a.m. to find the light red, so he wasn’t moving. The light remained red until the 10:06 killing.

    The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

    There were about 17 other passengers in the subway car. One witness, Anna Dunwoodie, noticed a jumpy, frightened-looking man sitting near her. When what looked like a bunch of rowdies approached their car, he jumped up and pointed de Menezes out to them. Without a word, they surrounded de Menezes, who looked up at them calmly questioningly. He was suddenly pinned down and the shots started. The “rowdies” pumped eleven dumdum bullets into de Menezes, with at least five hitting his head. According to an eye witness who had to insist that her testimony be included in the IPCC report, the shots came at about three-second intervals and lasted for 30 seconds.

    The other passengers ran for their lives. One of the police killers chased the terrified subway driver into the tunnel, where he ran across live subway wires and the paths of oncoming trains to escape the “terrorists”.” Karin Brothers

  8. “When people heard about the public police killing of a suspected terrorist, they assumed that the victim had to be black and Muslim. A self-proclaimed eyewitness quickly came forward to say that the targeted man was wearing a “puffy jacket with wires hanging out” and had been chased by police into the Stockwell Subway station, a chase that sounded no more than a few minutes. Police claimed that the CCTV cameras were not operating. Unfortunately for them, this time they were.

    There was shock as the news dribbled out that the victim had been a young white man who had been followed by elite units for half an hour, allegedly mistaking him for a North African. Police tried to smear him: he was an illegal; he looked suspicious. One after another, they turned out to be lies. A whistleblower released a photo of the dead De Menezes; he had been wearing a light denim jacket — not any “puffy jacket” with wires. She was quickly fired and harassed. The CCTVs showed him strolling leisurely into the subway; it had been the police leaping over barriers, not de Menezes. The police version was that an interminable number of miscommunications had occurred leading to the deadly mistake. If one believed that the Gold Team had been as incompetent as they claimed, the person in charge would have faced a career disaster. Instead, Cressida Dick was promoted to Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; her associate was also rewarded with a promotion. No one was to be held accountable in any way for Jean Charles’ murder.” Karin Brothers

  9. “On Khan and Tanweer

    Witnesses testified that the initial death counts at the Edgware and Aldgate sites included only commuters, not the bodies of “suicide bombers”. Police added one to each of these tallies later that day so that the accused would be included in the count. A day or two after the bombings, body parts of the accused would be located at the private, off-limit subway sites.

    Ÿ “Sid” Khan’s remains at Edgware:

    Ÿ A large part of Khan’s corpse –without hands, head, or even teeth– was found on 6 am July 8th; police turned over the remains at an unspecified date, identifying it when presented to the Home Office Forensic Science Service as belonging to Mohammed Sidique Khan, with a request to confirm the identification through DNA links his parents. (Police apparently were not aware that Khan’s father had married a woman with the same name as Khan’s biological mother.) The identification was not done using DNA known to be Khan’s. (J7 blogspot: Khan)

    Ÿ The Edgware death count confirms what had been published. Police had identified Khan as a “suicide bomber” on Tuesday, July 12 even though police then acknowledged that Khan’s body was missing from the Edgware site. (BBC, 7,2005)

    Ÿ Khan’s intact ID papers were apparently planted at Edgware, Aldgate and on the bus.

    Shazad Tanweer’s remains at Aldgate:

    Ÿ On Saturday, July 9th, only a 1.8 Kg spinal fragment allegedly belonging to Tanweer was found on the train; the DNA lab work, dated July 13 to 28th, included no indication of how police had already identified the remains as belonging to Tanweer; (J7 blogspot: Tanweer)

    Ÿ Note that Tanweer’s identification cards – found at both Aldgate and the No. 30 bus — survived the virtually total disintegration of his body.” Karin Brothers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: