The London Transport Bombings of 2005

Elias Davidsson, Version 1.0

Powerful explosions rocked three underground trains in London in the morning of July 7, 2005. Another explosion occurred shortly later on a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people reportedly died in the explosions and over 700 were wounded. Numerous individuals lost limbs in the explosions. The deadly operation manifested careful planning and coordination.  Four young British Muslims were named as the suicide-bombers. 

British media began immediately to promote unsubstantiated, unverified and unverifiable allegations regarding their alleged radicalisation, relying almost entirely on unidentified security sources. A typical example of such coverage was “Britain’s Enemy Within” by Scotland on Sunday of July 17, 2005. Apart from attributing unreservedly the crime to these four young Muslims who have not been found guilty by any judicial authority, the authors cited “some friends”, unidentified “Pakistani intelligence officials” or “US investigators”, as sources for their allegations and used repeatedly phrases such as “X is believed to” or “Y is understood to”, to establish their narrative. Throughout their piece they attempted to make the point that ordinary, nice, friendly young British Muslims are capable to conceal within their hearts murderous intentions and willing to carry these intentions out against random citizens that might include Muslims.

While the official account on the events of September 11, 2001 became etched in stone within 24 hours and remained unchanged ever since, the official account on the London bombings (hereafter 7/7) settled only after numerous modifications.  

Persistent questions surrounding the events of 7/7, including suspicions of official cover-up, or even complicity, have finally prompted public officials, including the leading counsel of the belated Inquest, Mr. Hugo Keith, to acknowledge these suspicions on the very first day of the Inquest: 

"I have mentioned this evidence because a number of unlikely conspiracy theories have been aired in the press and on the internet. 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.[...] The law does not oblige you to conduct an inquisition into every stated rumour and suspicion. There must be a reasonable basis in evidence for such a suspicion before any coroner can be expected  to conduct an inquisition into it. There is no evidence at all that we have seen to suggest that the bombers were duped in some way so that  they did not know that they were going to die or, even more absurdly, that they did not know that they were carrying explosives at all. Indeed, such claims run  entirely contrary to all the evidence that I have  summarised so far."

The British authorities accused four young men to have perpetrated the mass-murder of 7/7.  These four young men have not been seen since. Their guilt was not determined by due process. The British authorities claim they died in the mass-murder by blowing themselves up while causing the deaths of 52 other persons and wounding hundreds others. Yet, the British authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their disregard for the truth, including in furtherance of the war of aggression against Iraq. Authors Robert and Zuckerman remind us that

in a well-functioning democracy, criminal censure and punishment are imposed in the name of the people, and all citizens are morally implicated in the truth, or falsehood, of official determinations of guilt.1

To the extent that criminal censure is imposed in the name of the citizenry, citizens are entitled to scrutinize official allegations against innocent individuals2 and shall do so with great circumspection.

Part I below might be regarded as an attempt to provide a belated defense to the four accused, whom the British government designated guilty of mass-murder without any due process. Such defense will, necessarily, be constrained by three major handicaps: (a) Lack of access to government-suppressed documents; (b) Impossibility to cross-examine witnesses and government officials; and (c) Lack of resources. Despite these handicaps, the study demonstrates that committed citizens can, even with modest means and relying solely on public documents, effectively challenge official allegations. It is the hope of the author that this demonstration will produce in the minds of unprejudiced readers (the jurors) reasonable doubt about the guilt of the four suspects, sufficient to clear them and their families of a terrible blame.  

As will be gradually transpire, the accusations against these four young men were unsubstantiated: The British authorities failed to prove that the four young men were present at the sites of the bombings on the morning of 7/7; they failed to prove that these four young men possessed a motive to kill themselves and murder ordinary passengers (including Muslims); they failed to prove that the four young men possessed the skills necessary to fabricate bombs capable to cause the observed harm. I submit that an impartial judge, if presented with such a case, would immediately throw out the case for lack of merit. The question then arises who actually perpetrated the mass-murder, how it was perpetrated and why it was perpetrated.  Part II begins by briefly reviewing the reluctance of the British authorities to carry out a public inquiry into the mass-murder and their swift determination to attribute the events to Islamic terrorists. It will then proceed by listing numerous puzzling circumstances and coincidences that were not investigated. It will be shown that the British authorities possessed motive, opportunity and means to carry out the crime. Circumstantial evidence is presented that suggests official complicity in the crime. While falling short from attributing to individual British or foreign officials direct complicity in the mass-murder, the accumulated facts are more than adequate for justifying a reasonable suspicion that the then British government had instigated and authorized this mass-murder, as well as a reasonable suspicion regarding the participation of various public and private officials in covering up the crime. It is the burden of the public authorities, under law, to prove beyond reasonable doubt criminal accusations, and do so according to the standards of criminal justice. The British authorities have not discharged this burden and will therefore remain suspects for the mass murder lest they adequately discharge their evidentiary burden.

I divide my conclusions into three categories: Indicative, tentative and definite conclusions.  By an indicative conclusion I refer to a reasonable suspicion that requires further research. By a tentative conclusion I mean one based on the preponderance of the evidence. Such a conclusion is usually sufficient for adopting policies but is insufficient for convicting a defendant. By a definite conclusion, I mean one that appears to be unassailable. It may be compared to “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, the highest standard of evidence in criminal law.

I consider the following conclusions of the present study as definite:

1. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove the participation of  the four alleged attackers in the London bombings.

2. The UK authorities have failed to produce reliable forensic evidence to prove that the numerous deaths resulted from home-manufactured explosives.

3. The UK authorities have displayed reluctance to properly investigate the attacks of 7/7.

4. The UK authorities have failed to establish a definite tally of 7/7 fatalities.

5. The UK authorities have failed to explain the reason for the sudden failure of CCTVs on 7/7 that would have recorded the movements of the alleged attackers.

The following conclusions are indicative:

1. An unexplained connection appears to exist between the attacks of 7/7 and the terror exercise conducted by Visor Consultants in the morning of 7/7.

2. Several persons appear to have been shot by police or by an army unit at the Wharfs in the morning of 7/7

  The present study draws heavily on original research carried out by the July 7th Truth Campaign. Among citizen investigators, a few persons should be particularly highlighted for the quality of their research: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, David Minahan, Tom Secker and Nick Kollerstrom. While guided by their diligent efforts, I bear the entire responsibility for selecting and checking the enclosed facts and interpreting them. 

Part I: The Forensics

1. No wish for a public inquiry

It will be recalled that the British government and mass media designated the London bombings as the first case of a suicide-attack committed in Europe. The nature of the event and the fact that British intelligence apparently had no clue about its planning, cried for a public inquiry.

Yet, against all expectations, the British government led by Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected from the outset a public inquiry of the London bombings as a “ludicrous diversion”.3 Sir Ian Blair, London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner, later revealed that the Government had consulted with the police before deciding not to proceed with an inquiry into the July 7 bombings.4 

The decision to avoid an independent investigation into the mass-murder was not accepted silently. Survivors, victims' relatives, MPs and Muslim Groups openly demanded such an investigation, but to no avail.5

As a placebo, the government staged a series of inquiries managed by government appointees. The first of these efforts was an internal inquiry by anonymous officials of the Home Office, who released in May 2006 their "Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005". Shortly thereafter, on June 1, 2006, a report was issued by another secretive entity, named the “7 July Review Committee”. 

None of these reports were intended to replace a proper police investigation or a public inquiry. Finally, inquests were conducted from October 2010 until May 20116 concerning the deaths that occurred at the London bombings.7 

The purpose of an inquest was described by Bingham MR in R v North Humberside Coroner, ex p Jamieson [1995] 1 QB 1, as 

a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a coroner, with or without a jury, to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions. The first of these relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of his death, the third to the time of death. In most cases these questions are not hard to answer but in a minority of cases the answer may be problematical. The fourth question, and that to which evidence and inquiry are most often and most closely directed, relates to how the deceased came by his death.8 

Far from providing reliable answers to these questions, the inquests of 7/7 represented a concerted effort to legitimize the government’s accusations against the four deceased accused, who could not defend themselves. Disregarding the presumption of innocence of the accused, Lady Hallett, acting as coroner, and her legal team9, conducted the inquests on the assumption of the suspects’ guilt.

In order to determine the exact cause of deaths, as required after acts of murder, the authorities should have carried comprehensive post-mortem examinations of the victims’ bodies, including assessments of internal damage. Mr. Patterson, representing families of deceased persons, revealed at the Inquest in 2010 that no internal examinations [of the deceased’ bodies] had been performed.10 He wondered: “[W]hy was the decision taken that there would be no internal examinations? Although the cause of death was clearly the explosions, the precise mechanism of death was not explored.”11 His question was not answered.  Or consider the following exchange that took place at the Inquest between Dr. Awani Kumar Choudhary, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and Andrew O’Connor, of the Inquest legal team, regarding one of the fatalities of 7/7:

AKC: [...] I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere … So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprise [...]

AO’C:  Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, they don’t –

AKC: [...] I’m absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I’m absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.

AO’C: Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.

AKC:  Sorry.

AO’C:  I was simply informing you so that we didn't chase any red herrings, but we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter.12 

Let the last sentence melt on our tongue! If it is of no concern of an inquest how a victim died, what then is the concern of the inquest?

In view of official reluctance to establish the truth on 7/7, a citizens’ investigation, already mentioned earlier, was initiated shortly after the events.13 The high quality of this citizens' initiative was reflected in government reactions, including amendments made to the official narrative and the release of some suppressed information. Yet, crucial findings by this citizens’ initiative were ignored by the Inquest and continue to be disregarded by established media and the legal profession. These findings will be reviewed henceforth.

2. When did bombs explode?

One would assume that officials of the Transport for London and of the London Metropolitan Police had no difficulty to determine almost immediately the precise times of the explosions on the underground trains. During the 1990s the London Underground network embarked upon a program of installing CCTV coverage across its 250 odd stations. Before 2002 CCTVs were also installed on trains.14 In September 2004, Metronet Rail selected the Israeli company Verint Systems to install its networked video solution in Underground stations, in order to “enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track.”15 All these devices automatically imprint a time stamp on security video recordings that permit to determine the precise time and location of incidents. Clocks are found in virtually every office and virtually every person carries a watch. In addition, computer systems, including those monitoring the underground train network, automatically log transactions with the precise time, down to the second.

It is, therefore, startling and remains unexplained why it took 48 hours to publicly acknowledge the quasi simultaneous occurrence of the explosions.

On July 7, The Associated Press issued a timeline of the explosions, quoting Brian Paddick, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The published timeline was intended to demonstrate the staggered nature of the explosions:

8:51 a.m. - London Underground train explodes 100 yards into a tunnel near the financial district.

8:56 a.m. - Explosion near the King's Cross station in north London.

9:17 a.m. - Explosion near Edgware Road station.

9:47 a.m. - Double-decker bus explodes near Tavistock Square.

The staggered timeline gave rise to the initial theory that a single bomber was involved, moving from site to site to plant his bombs and then escaping.

Two days later, the account changed drastically. On July 9, "police revealed that, contrary to earlier reports, the bombs on the underground had not occurred over a 30-minute period as had been previously thought...After analysing technical data provided by the London Underground, the police confirmed the three devices detonated within moments of each other."

Strangely, the very official Home Office report does not list specific times for the bombings. It rather states that “[a]t about 8:50 am” there were 3 almost simultaneous explosions at three underground locations.

It remains a mystery why it took two full days to publicly acknowledge the near simultaneity of the explosions, what prompted the dissemination of a precise, but false, timeline earlier on and why the British authorities failed to disclose the precise times of the underground  explosions.

3.  Where exactly did bombs explode?

Initially, around noon on July 7th,  the Metropolitan Police “confirmed” that explosions had occurred “in at least three London buses” and that “six explosions in London buses and subway stations” had taken place, as “confirmed” by Scotland Yard.  One hour later, British police confirmed that there were “at least six explosions in the London Underground and at least one bus.”  One hour later, British Interior Minister Charles Clarke revised the number down to “four explosions, three of which occurred in underground stations and a fourth in a bus.”16 This was to remain the official position.  It was not revealed why the Police and Scotland Yard had initially “confirmed”  at least six explosions, thereof on at least three buses.

According to the official account, the explosions were caused by bombs that the four alleged bombers carried in “large and full” rucksacks17 and detonated at the bombing sites. It is not widely known that the precise locations within the trains where the explosions occurred remain in dispute.

3.1   Did the bomb  explode near the first or the second set of doors?

The Home Office report of 2006 suggested that, “Mohammad Sidique Khan was in the second carriage from the front, most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors. He was probably also seated with the bomb next to him on the floor. Shortly before the explosion, Khan was seen fiddling with the top of the rucksack.”18 Note the tentative language used. Is it plausible that forensic investigators had for 10 months been unable to determine the precise location of the detonation? Or were there other, unstated, reasons for such equivocation? Years later, at the inquests, the Metropolitan Police claimed the detonation occurred near the second set of doors.   

3.2  Were bombs placed below the floor of the carriage?

Anita Kinselley, 29, a survivor from the Edgware Road bombing site, told The Guardian: "The tiles on the floor of my carriage suddenly shot up. The next thing I knew there was an almighty crash and the train filled with smoke."19  Sean Baran, a 20-year old student and survivor from that same site, similarly told the Guardian that a “gentleman” had told him “the floor of the train had blown up.”20 

Bruce Lait, a survivor from the Aldgate bombing site, said shortly after the events that when he and his partner Crystal Main made their way out from the carriage, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been: "Mind that hole, that's where the bomb was”. Lait added: “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”.21 

It was reported both in media and at the Inquests, that an unusually number of victims suffered severe leg injuries or had their legs amputated in the explosions. Tourniquets were applied to at least a dozen victims because of such injuries. These injuries indicate that the bombs exploded either at floor level or from below the floor, as suggested by some survivors.

In his book The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry, Ahmed concludes with a typical understatement: “[I]f the bombs were in fact planted underneath the carriages […], rather than on top of the floors, the official police depiction of the bombers’ (sic) activities is flawed.”22 (emphasis added)

3.3   Were there multiple explosions on the same train?

Evidence of holes in the floor of the bombed carriages at the Edgware Road and Aldgate sites were already mentioned above. One of the holes at the Aldgate site was also designated as a ravine or a cleavage.23

Some witnesses testified, however, to have perceived more than one hole in the floor of the carriage at the Edgware Road site. John (family name initially not disclosed) described in March 2006 his ordeal. He said that when moving toward the blast scene he "walked into an unknown hell". At the centre of the carriage he fell through a hole and dangled above the live rail. Another passenger pulled him out. He said a seriously injured commuter called Stan had fallen through another hole: "Stan was calm and conscious and he was looking at me. I repeatedly told him not to worry and that help was on its way. He never shouted out or cried. He knew he was dying. He remained calm and peaceful."24

John – who was identified at the Inquest with family name McDonald – confirmed that he fell into a hole in the carriage that was not at the epicenter of the explosion.25 Asked how extensive the crater was into which Michael (“Stan”) Brewster fell, John said: “That was completely different...the hole in which Mr. Brewster had been blown into was massive. It occupied the whole area where the double door platform was and it went into the area of the central aisle...I would say perhaps it was about a third of the width of the carriage.”26

Daniel Belsten, a survivor from the Edgware Road blast, told the Inquest his experience of falling into a hole:

Q:  What do you recollect of the explosion itself?

A: I just felt a whack to the side of my head and just a big white flash, a big whack to the side of my head and — I don’t know, just everything was in slow motion. I just felt everything was just going in slow motion and I just felt like I was falling through the floor of the carriage, and I could feel — you know, I could smell all hot metal burning and felt like I was being electrocuted, you know….

Daniel Belsten sat in seat no. 2 in the second carriage.  The hole he mentioned must, therefore, have been in the front of the carriage, representing a second (or third) hole in that carriage. He was then led out via the first carriage, where he discovered further holes in the floor:

Q. Did you stay in the first carriage for a bit or –

A. No, there was — all the manholes in the bottom of the carriage were blown out, but I couldn’t stay on my feet, you know, I was falling on my feet, and Susanna and this other bloke, you know, helped me up and kept saying “Watch the holes in the floor”, so we was like — but it was like other people all sat there, you know, knocked unconscious or whatever, I don’t know, but we just got to the end of the carriage and there was, like, some ladders, wooden steps, to bring you onto the track.’

No explanation has been provided for these multiple holes, including in the first carriage, which – according to the official account – was not affected by the explosion.

How did the Inquest deal with the evidence of multiple holes? Determining the precise location of the holes should not have been difficult, yet for unexplained reasons, the authorities were reluctant to settle the matter, as manifested in the Inquests. In spite of testimonies of multiple holes, which would suggest multiple explosions, these facts were glossed over in the Inquests.

4.  How many people died?

If we find the vagueness surrounding the times and locations of the explosions odd, what are we to make about the failure of the British authorities to conclusively determine the number of fatalities?

On July 8th 2005, Sir Ian Blair made the following statement in a press conference: "There is a great difficulty in deciding how many fatalities or determining how many fatalities there are because two of the scenes are very difficult in terms of recovery. One is the bus, which is taking some time because of the nature of the explosion.” 

After severe floods or earthquakes, it may indeed be difficult to determine with precision the number of victims. But was there any particular reason why determining the number of fatalities of the bus explosion that occurred in daylight, was so difficult?

Surprisingly, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, had it all right on the early morning hours of July 8th. He stated in a press conference at the time that according to the “latest advice” he was given, “the death toll is currently 52.”27 This was, indeed, the final official number released later by the British authorities, after some victims had died in hospital from their injuries after July 7. But how would PM Howard know that number in advance? Who informed him of this final figure at this point in time? These are, indeed, highly disturbing questions.

This “final” number of fatalities was only confirmed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on July 14, 2005. According to a press release of that date from the MPS,28 the break-down of the 52 fatalities was as follows:

7 from the Liverpool Street/Aldgate incident

7 from the Edgware Road incident

25 from the Kings Cross/Russell Square incident

13 from the bus

But even that break-down was not final: In the final tally, the number of fatalities from Kings Cross/Russell Square was increased from 25 to 26, whereas those from Edgware Road was reduced from 7 to 6.29 Was one body moved from the Edgware Road site to that of the Kings Cross/Russell Square site or were bodies mixed up at the Mortuary?

Lee Harris and his girl friend Samantha Badham, who were in the train carriage at Aldgate, died in hospital on July 16, 2005.30 They could not have been included, therefore, among the 52 fatalities mentioned by Australia’s Prime Minister on July 8th, or among those 52 fatalities mentioned by the MPS on July 14. Does that mean that the ultimate number of fatalities exceeded 52?

Did the New York Times of July 10, 2005 perhaps provide a clue? According to the newspaper, the four explosions in London left at least 49 dead, but "20 to 50 people remain unaccounted for by hospitals, coroners, friends and relatives."31 Going by these figures, it appears that the number of fatalities exceeded what the British authorities have acknowledged.  If this was the case, the question would arise why this fact was being suppressed?

Another figure yet was given by the Washington Post on July 15, 2005. According to the Post the “suspected bombers […] killed at least 54 people in coordinated suicide attacks on London's public transport system.”32

Witnesses from the scene at Tavistock Square (the site where bus no. 30 exploded), differed significantly in their estimates of the number of fatalities (see table below), though none of the estimates reached the official number of 13. 

Source of testimony

 (Inquest Exhibit No.)

Testimony made on:

Number of estimated. fatalities

LAS704-17, Peter Holden

7 July 2005


BTP412-2, drawing by Inspector Ciaran Dermody (Inquest, 18 January 2011)

7 July 2005


BTP415-2, drawing by PC Gary Peter Sims

 (Inquest, 18 January 2011)

7 July 2005


LFB24-2, message from Tavistock Square

7 July 2005, 10:39:54


LFB24-3, message from Tavistock Square

7 July 2005, 12:08:58


LFB26-1, log signed by DO Wolf, London Fire Brigade

7 July 2005, 10:25


LA5565-79, accident report

7 July 2005, 10:33


LAS698-2, Paul Gibson

7 July 2005


MPS (see drawing below)


6+ bomber

Official account

14 July 2005


Even the following diagram prepared by the MPS for the inquest did not indicate more than six fatalities attributed to bus no. 30, in addition to the alleged bomber.

Bus 30 fatalities diagram.jpg

Diagram produced by the Metropolitan Police in 2010 

Paul Gibson, an Ambulance Operations Manager of the London Ambulance Service (LAS), wrote in his Incident Report (LAS698-2) that “it appeared that we had an incident that had readily accessible casualties with rich medical resources balanced by few LAS resources but no officers.”33  This meant that there was no difficulty to access the casualties (and count them) and that before LAS personnel came, numerous medical staff were at hand at the site. What made the counting of fatalities at that site so difficult? Gibson mentioned only three dead casualties and “other limbs and body tissue” of unstated quantity. 

The following photograph taken of bus no. 30 immediately after the explosion shows passengers still standing upright on the top deck and preparing to go down. None of the ten passengers on that photograph appears seriously injured. Who were they and what were their testimonies? Who are the other persons shown on this photograph?


No explanation has been provided to the public for (a) the initial determination of 52 fatalities; (b) the widely differing estimates of fatalities from Tavistock Square; and (c) the alleged difficulty in counting the fatalities from that site.  Is there any relation between these puzzling facts and the mysteries below?

4.1 The mystery of Miriam Hyman

Miriam Hyman, 31, is officially listed as one of the fatalities from the explosion of bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square. She was, according to her father, on her way to work at Canary Wharf.34  Author Kollerstrom lists three major reasons why Hyman could not have been on that bus35:

According to Miriam's father, quoted by the Observer,36 Something Jewish,37 the Jewish Journal38 and the  Guardian39, she called him at 9:45 from King's Cross station.40 She told him she was sitting on the pavement outside King’s Cross.41 Her father suggested she find a coffee shop and wait until things calmed down.42 A bomb on bus no. 30 exploded two minutes later at Tavistock Square. Assuming that Miriam’s father provided an approximately correct time for her call, she could not have reached Tavistock Square at 9:47.

Soon after the call to her father, Miriam reportedly called her workplace. She was told not to bother to come in. Her father said to the Independent on Sunday of 10 July 2005 before being informed of her death: “[H]er office phoned her at about 10am, which was about 10 minutes after the explosion to say 'don't come in'“.43 Miriam’s mother, equally, told the Jewish Journal: "She phoned work to say she was going to be late. She was still obviously determined to get in. I think she didn't understand the seriousness of what was going on."44

Miriam’s father told to the Independent that the “only other possibility, apart from a road accident, is if she was on the bus that was blown up. The reason we think that is unlikely is because it wouldn't make sense for her to take that route.”45

No mention was made by the police to have found Miriam’s mobile phone in the wreckage of bus no. 30. Yet, that mobile phone might have revealed when her calls were made. In the trial of Mohammed Shakil, Waheed Ali and Sadeer Saleem, the jury was told that Mohammed Sidique Khan’s mobile telephone was recovered from the debris at Edgware Road, and could be examined for numbers called.46 Is it plausible that Miriam’s mobile phone was not found at the bombing site while that of Khan, whose body was not sighted at the bombings site, was found and could be read?

In attempting to assess whether Miriam Hyman could have made it to Euston Station in order to board bus no. 30, I discovered that the precise time at which this bus took passengers at Euston has not been formally determined. Neither the driver of bus no. 30 nor surviving passengers who boarded the bus at Euston station and testified at the inquest were asked for that information. The failure to determine this time compounded by the failure to determine the times of Miriam’s phone calls made it possible for the authorities to maintain the theory that she succeeded to reach Euston in time to board bus no. 30 (although this still leaves out the question why she would go to Euston in the first place). 

The disappearance of Miriam Hyman on July 7th prompted her family and friends to search all London hospitals and put posters around King's Cross and St. Pancras, asking if anyone knew what had happened to her. Her family was only informed on July 11th, that Miriam's body had been found.47 According to the authorities, it was found near bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square. Yet, no reliable evidence supports this claim.

Michelle Du-Feu, a medical doctor, stated in March 2006 that in the morning of 7/7 she had treated a person lying at the rear of bus no. 30 on the road at Tavistock Square.48 She described that person as a middle-aged Middle-Eastern or Asian-looking woman.49 In 2010 she was shown a photo of Miriam Hyman and was told that this was the person she had treated.  At the Inquest in January 2011, she said that, after having been shown the photograph, she got very confused, "because things obviously weren't how I had remembered them."50 By subtle questioning, lead counsel Hugo Keith attempted during her testimony to have her admit that she had treated Miriam Hyman. But she stood her ground. Ms. Gallagher, counsel for Miriam Hyman’s family acknowledged that Dr. Du-Feu was “not so sure” to have treated and seen Miriam.51

Dr Michael David Peters, who ran a support services called Doctors for Doctors at the British Medical Association (BMA), was also invited to testify at the Inquest in the hope he could confirm to have seen the body of Miriam Hyman. He said that when he came out from the BMA building he saw a torso: "There was a sort of mass of sort of tissue, red, about one metre by a metre there. And then, on the other side, to the left as I was looking from the square in, there was a body of, I think, a black woman who was wearing a dress. The body seemed to be swollen, motionless, and I presumed she was dead."52 Upon this description, Hugo Keith tried to convince Dr. Peters that he may actually have seen Miriam Hyman, but Dr. Peters held his ground, insisting that the woman he saw was black. 

Clive Featherstone, a web designer at the British Medical Association, whose office lies at Tavistock Square, testified at the inquest. He said he came out as soon as he heard the explosion and said he saw several victims. He said he knelt down beside a “young woman with very dry, matted hair”, who was lying on the pavement.53  He said she “kind of moved to try to lift herself up or towards me” and had open eyes.54 After about a couple of minutes, he said, a doctor whom he had not seen before came over, felt her pulse and said “She’s gone, there’s nothing there.”55 He said he didn’t want to believe that, so he carried on holding her hand for a bit longer and then went away. When he returned to her shortly later, he said “I thought she did move slightly again for a second time...That’s what I felt and that’s what I remember.”56  It is not known who took the pulse of the victim and determined her life extinct. The Inquest’s counsel told him that the person he had seen was Miriam Hyman. 


Miriam Hyman's case raises disturbing questions. First, it is difficult to reconcile her boarding bus no. 30 with the fact that she made a phone call from King’s Cross Station at 9:45 and another call at 10:00, after the bomb exploded on the bus and she was supposed to be dying. But even if her father had been widely mistaken about the times of the calls, the question remains why Miriam would walk to Euston station to catch a bus that she could have caught where she was. 

According to the Telegraph, inquests were opened on 13 July 2005 into the deaths of Miriam Hyman and others. According to the coroner, Dr. Andrew Reid, most victims – including Miriam Hyman – were identified by dental records. These could only have been obtained via her parents.57 Dr. Reid then adjourned the inquests until after the end of police investigations.


4.2 Other mysterious deaths

Shahera Akther Islam, 20, is another perplexing case. According to The Guardian, she tried to call her uncle at 9.45 am on the morning of July 7th.58 Her uncle, Nazmul Hasan, 25, told the newspaper that he led the search for Shahera. He said he and her family searched more than ten hospitals and had police officers looking for her as well.59 Other families, too, were searching for their next-of-kin for days until told that they had perished at the bombings. What prevented the authorities to invite families to identify their loved ones at the mortuary?

Sam Ly, the only Australian fatality of the London Bombings, died on 14th July in hospital, with his father and nephew by his bedside, as reported by the BBC.60 He could not either have been included in the count of fatalities reported on July 8th by Australia's Prime Minister.

Anthony Fatayi-Williams is also claimed by the authorities to have died in the Tavistock Square blast. The Guardian reported that his mother, Marie Fatayi Williams “flew in from Nigeria to try to find her son.” She said she had not heard from him since Thursday: “As only one black man is said to have died on the 30 bus blast, why did it take four days to identify him?”61 Anthony’s cousin, Yomi Williams, said to The Independent on Sunday: “We sent his pictures to the newspapers, posted them on the internet. We did a lot of TV interviews, we’ve put posters everywhere, checked all hospitals about for or five times and still didn’t get anything...I haven’t eaten or slept for two days.”62 Anthony’s family held a press conference in London on 11 July appealing for information about what had happened to him because they had heard nothing of him since the attacks. It was only the next day that police announced he had been killed in Tavistock Square.63

According to the Home Office report of May 2006, the explosion on bus no. 30 at Tavistock Square killed 14 people and injured 110. Yet, according to the driver of the bus, 30 to 50 passengers disembarked before the explosion.64 This was confirmed by author Daniel Obachike, who said he survived the bombing of that bus. In a book he authored he wrote that while the bus was “creeping it’s way down Tavistock Square,” it was “half empty” with only him, the driver and “a handful of people seated towards the rear remaining on its lower deck.”65 Survivor Tania Calabrese also said that “[t]here were a lot of people getting off [the bus] just before [the explosion] happened.”66 Survivor Louise Barry similarly said that “[a]ll the people standing were gone” before the bus had reached Tavistock Square.67 A survivor from bus no. 30, designated by initial M., testified to the London Assembly: “There was a mass exodus off of our bus, as things were still coming to the ground and bits were flying everywhere.”68 It is, therefore, a mystery how the official account arrived at the figure of 110 wounded from the explosion of bus no. 30.69 The following diagram, produced by the London Metropolitical Police, indicates that at the time of explosion there were, in addition to the driver, 60 passengers on the bus.70 Assuming that 14 of them had died and not everyone had been injured, the number of wounded passengers could hardly have exceeded 40.  

Bus 30 diagram.jpg

It transpired from an email of July 10, 2005 from Roger Chapman to Peter Holden released by the Inquest that “visiting RLH HEMS crew” did the formalities of confirming some deaths at the Tavistock Square site while the “rest of the deaths were formally confirmed by a police surgeon attached to the forensic team”.71 The identity of that police surgeon was not revealed, nor were the identities of those whose death he confirmed and the exact time he did so. The decision to have a police surgeon confirm death was made by Peter Holden. He explained this decision as follows: “I avoided any of you [BMA medics] having to attend various judicial proceedings in the future merely because you had confirmed a death.”72 Was this decision in conformity with existing regulations?  

A doctor from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS), Tim Richard Harris, was actually prevented from confirming death by the police. He was told that "the area within the cordon was not declared safe [...] to enter [...] to assess the bus or the area immediately around the bus" due to the fear of a secondary device.73  Was the police attempting to suppress facts?

Several articles in Spanish newspapers expressed their surprise at the duration it has taken for information on the number and names of the dead from the London bombings to come out: “Twenty-four hours after the train bombings in Madrid in 2004, Spaniards knew at least 190 people had died. And by then most of the bodies had also been identified. Most were buried within three days of the attacks.”74 Considering that the bombs which exploded on the Madrid trains were far more powerful and caused far more body fragmentation than in the London incidents, the public is owed a frank explanation by the British authorities why it took many more days to identify the 50 odd London victims than those of the 192 victims of the Madrid bombings. One cannot escape the suspicion that the delays in the London body identifications were related to a criminal cover-up or worse.

It is most likely that most passengers on bus no. 30 carried personal documents, such as credit cards, and a mobile phone. It is inconceivable that all these items were destroyed in the explosion because readable documents belonging to the alleged bombers were found and led to their identification.  Why did it take almost a week to identify the bodies from that site? 

The parents of Carrie Taylor, who died at the Aldgate site, endured even a 10-day wait before they were informed of her identification.75  What caused such a long waiting period?

5.  What caused deaths and injuries?

The first indications that something went wrong in London on 7th of July were reports by British Transport Police that incidents on underground trains were the result of a power surge.76 Indeed, several survivors from the Aldgate site said they felt they had been electrocuted.77 Their descriptions suggest that injurious power surges may have occurred in the morning of 7/7, in addition to the detonation of bombs.

Attributing the incidents solely to power surges changed after 10:00 am. News media began reporting that bombs had exploded on underground trains and on at least one bus in London. 

On July 8, 2005, ABC News cited British police to the effect that it had recovered from the bombing sites what it believes to be remnants of timing devices, leading police to believe they were not suicide bombs but explosives planted in packages or bags and left behind.78 Although terrorist bombs are constructed in different ways, the timers and detonators usually survive the explosion – with the result that, normally, three-quarters of a bomb can be recovered from the scene.79

On July 9, 2005, Andy Hayman, in charge of Scotland Yard's antiterrorism unit, announced that the four bombs detonated in London contained each less than 4.5 kilograms of explosive material. Scotland Yard DAC Brian Paddick told a news conference on the same day, that these had been "high explosives...Whether it is military explosive, whether it is commercial explosive, whether it is plastic explosive we do not want to say at this stage."80 

On July 11, 2005, World Tribune cited unnamed officials to the effect that the "bombs were so powerful that none of the 49 known dead had been identified over the weekend." On the same day The Observer wrote: “ It is now accepted that the type of explosives used were not amateur or hand-made, but small 10 lb commercial high explosives linked to a timing device.”81

On July 13, 2005, an unnamed senior European-based counterterrorism official told The New York Times that the bombs were "technically advanced." He added: "There seems to be a mastery of the method of doing explosions. This was not rudimentary. It required great organization and was well put together." British investigators contacted by the newspaper reportedly believed "that the bombs [...] contained 'military quality' high-grade explosives."82  Investigators were so convinced that the explosions were caused by military-grade bombs that British intelligence officials "asked their counterparts elsewhere in Europe to check military stockpiles and commercial sites to determine for missing explosives.83  

Then, suddenly, the story changed. On July 15, 2005, The New York Times wrote that "a new theory emerged about the nature of the explosives in the bombings. A senior American official and two senior European officials [unidentified], helping in the inquiry, said investigators [unidentified] had discovered evidence of a low-grade, homemade explosive material in the case." The unidentified officials said material found in a private home in Leeds was TATP, a highly volatile explosive. Expressing doubt on this theory, one unidentified British explosives expert said to the London Times: "Frankly, I wouldn't like to be wandering around with 10 lb of TATP on my back." According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “production [of TATP] is extremely dangerous” and “extreme care should be taken during transport because of sensitivity to heat, shock, and friction.”84

Officials thereupon changed their story again, now insisting that the explosives were composed of HMTD (Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine), a similarly unpredictable high explosive organic compound. In a Statement by Sarah Lancaster, an explosive expert, read at the Inquest, it was suggested that “the damage in and around carriage 6713 of the Circle Line Underground train was consistent with a detonation of several kilograms, probably in the order of 10 kilograms, of a high explosive substance.”85 Lancaster mentioned that: "[t]races of the improvised primary high explosive HMTD were found on the damaged remains of a grey and black striped wallet contained within item AM/11 and indicated, but not confirmed, on a piece of black-coloured material bearing an Adidas logo” and added that HMTD "is a very sensitive and hazardous primary high explosive which can be detonated by, for example, heat, flame, impact or friction. It is not used or produced commercially as its storage qualities are poor and it is too sensitive for safe use."86 

According to a Homeland Security document, HTMD “maintains its explosive power for between 7-10 days before decomposition becomes noticeable.”87 What implications does this fact have in relation to the alleged preparation of the bomb?

Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor emeritus of Chemistry from the University of Copenhagen, confirmed in an email to me Sarah Lancaster's testimony. He wrote that organic peroxides are highly explosive but that one never knows when or why they detonate because they are unstable. He cites permanent precautionary rules in his laboratory to prevent accidents when handling such materials. According to him, "the unpredictable nature of organic peroxides would have made their use in the London bombings highly unlikely."

Yet, The Scotsman informed the public that according to unnamed detectives from the United States(!), the "four suicide bombers [...] made their deadly backpack bombs using ordinary products such as hair bleach and a food preservative." The details, disclosed by the Scotsman, emerged during a briefing to city business leaders working in the security field by Ray Kelly, New York's police commissioner.88 Mr Kelly said "investigators" believe the bombs were made using a peroxide-based explosive called HMTD.  

Note the following exchange regarding the presumed capabilities of the accused:

I should also perhaps say that these were -- these devices were entirely unique. Certainly the hydrogen peroxide mixed with a fuel such as pepper were entirely unique within the UK for sure and, as far as I know, worldwide as well...

Q. So this supports your overall view that the construction of these devices could only have been undertaken with guidance and instruction from elsewhere -- 

A. Yes, correct.

Q. -- and obviously persons unknown. The process is not, regrettably, hugely complex, but it is quite a sensitive process, is it not, in terms of getting the ratios and the mixtures right?

A. Yes.89


The British authorities claimed to have discovered a flat at Alexandra Grove in Leeds, where the accused had allegedly assembled their improvised bombs. In that "bomb factory", as it was then designated, the alleged bombers reportedly left behind "containers, icepacks, bags, trays funnels, filter paper, fuses, batteries, nails and several kilograms of HMTD as well containers containing mixtures of pepper and hydrogen peroxide."90 They also allegedly left there "respirators, wire, gloves, hotplates and pans used to concentrate the hydrogen peroxide, a bath used to cool the mixtures afterwards and documents containing handwritten equations and references to boiling, liquid oxygen, batteries and icepacks,[and] a broken CD extracts from an anarchist's cookbook, which included sections on how to construct and improvised explosive device."91 According to Michael Sheehan of the New York Police Department, the alleged bombers even left there a “commercial grade refrigerator” to keep the materials cool.92 To eliminate incriminating evidence and prevent anyone from observing the operation, the police two weeks later evacuated 70 houses in the area around Alexandra Grove and burned down the “bomb factory”.93

Mr Clifford Todd, a forensic scientist, deduced from the number of manufacturers' labels found in the flat that at least 34 milk pans had been used to boil and concentrate the hydrogen peroxide. All that remained, he said, were the labels, “because the pans had been presumably destroyed by the harshness of the process.”94 This was not meant as a joke.

Mr. Todd admitted, however, that no trace of HTMD or TATP could be traced to the explosions at the bombing sites. He said that elements of HTMD were found on fragments of clothing, fragments of a rucksack and on a wallet belonging to the bombers. Accordingly they did not wash their hands and change their clothes between their alleged work at the “bomb factory” and their trip to paradise.95

According to Raymond (Ray) Whitehurst, driver of the train bombed at the Edgware Road site, the alleged home-made bomb that took place in the middle of the second carriage was powerful enough to cause the first carriage to lift off the tracks:

I felt the front of the [first] carriage raise and it was as if I'd hit a brick wall. I went -- the train just stopped dead in the air and came down with a thump, and I hit my head on the windscreen, I was then thrown back, hit the back of my head on the back and jarred by back...[T]he next thing I saw was all this dust just go past me very, very fast...from behind the driver’s cab.96

Kim Simpson, senior case officer at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, wrote in a statement read at the Inquest: "In the absence of chemical traces of other high performance military explosives and based on the physical damage done to the bus, it is not unreasonable to reach the conclusion that the main explosive charge consisted of a novel, improvised material previously unseen by this laboratory."97 Indeed, scientists at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Fort Halstead in Kent, specialized in explosives, confirmed that they had never come across a “hydrogen peroxide bomb”.98 The alleged bombers did not bother to test the mixture they allegedly had prepared to find out whether it really explodes or just makes puff. 

Assuming that the explosive charge was indeed a "novel" improvised device that no one had previously seen, as suggested by Kim Simpson, it would have been a reasonable expectation that attempts would be made by the respective police departments to experimentally replicate the construction of such a device in order to examine its effects and deal with future threats. I could not find any evidence for such tests.

We are thus asked to believe that the four accused

had no accomplices;

used ordinary household items to produce powerful bombs capable of lifting a train off the tracks

succeeded, without outside guidance, to discover the right proportions of ingredients, the mixing sequence and the optimal temperature to which the ingredients had to be heated;

invented a novel type of a powerful home-made explosive that could be easily handled and transported without risk of premature detonation

did not bother to destroy incriminating paraphernalia at the “bomb factory”.

In the light of the above accomplishment by fanatic geniuses, one is entitled to wonder why no corporation has yet patented the procedure to fabricate such a powerful, cheap and sturdy device.

If, however, the bombs were military-grade, as initially suggested, it would indicate that the aforementioned evidence left at Alexandra Grove had been deliberately planted by the authorities in order to incriminate the accused. In this connection, it should be noted that a replica of the Leeds “bombing factory” was reportedly constructed in the...United States.99 Or was it perhaps the other way round?

Just for the record: The unidentified experts who initially asserted that the bombs were of commercial or military provenance and definitely not “home-made”, were not invited to testify at the Inquest.

6.  Who were the suspects?

Prior to any investigation, PM Tony Blair attributed the mass-murder to Muslims.100 Those who later doubted this allegation were careful not to express their doubts in public and if they did, were either dismissed as conspiracy loonies or punished. Tony Farrell, an intelligence analyst for the South Yorkshire Police, was, for example, dismissed from the service because he refused to endorse the official account and feed the authorities with junk intelligence.101

It was revealed in April 2010 that government ministers had rejected two legal aid applications by relatives of the accused.102 The High Court in August 2010 confirmed a lower court’s refusal of legal aid to Hasina Patel, the widow of Mohammed Sidique Khan.103 The accused were in effect denied the right to adequate legal representation.

As reported earlier, an inquest is a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a coroner, with or without a jury, to determine the identity of the deceased, their place of death, the time of death and how the deceased came by their death. The inquests conducted by Lady Hallett did not conform with this purpose. It was rather devoted to a hidden and devious agenda, namely to establish the guilt of the alleged bombers in a forum where the accused would not enjoy any defense.  That this was the case, can be easily gauged: The name of Jermaine Lindsay appeared on 23 days of the inquests; that of Shehzad Tanweer on 28 days and that of Hasib Hussain on 32 days. The term “Pakistan”, where Mohammed Sidique Khan allegedly was “radicalised” appeared in 20 days of the inquests and the term “Islam” and its variants in 27 days.  None of these terms bore any direct relation to the legitimate purposes of the inquests, as listed above. 

In the final report from the Inquest, Lady Hallett, Coroner, wrote: "For the purposes of this report I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the four men who detonated the bombs and therefore murdered the fifty two innocent people were Mohammed Siddique Khan ("Khan"), Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain."104  She added, 

It is not generally a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper function of a Coroner to express opinions in the verdicts returned. [...] However, the exceptional circumstances of these Inquest mean that it is appropriate to name the bombers within this Rule 43 report, which is not subject to the same constraints. There are three principal reasons: the bombers are dead. There can be no question of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings against them and I cannot defame them. Further, I cannot consider the issue of preventability, one of the most important of the issues I have set, without stating in positive terms that they were the bombers. Finally, the evidence is utterly overwhelming.105

Obliquely hinting at "conspiracy theories", Lady Justice Hallett added: 

To argue or find to the contrary would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country.[...] Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.106 

These were forceful assertions backed by official authority. But did the facts vindicate Lady Hallett’s verdict? Readers are invited to consider the following section before making up their mind.

7.  What evidence is there, that the suspects died at the crime scenes?

7.1 CCTV evidence

Andy Trotter, deputy chief constable of British Transport Police, said a large-scale operation was under way to search security tapes for images of the suspects, because “[t]he Underground network is a CCTV-rich environment."107 London is indeed famous as the world’s capital regarding the density of security cameras. At the time of the London Bombings, most trains and buses had already CCTV’s installed. According to the Associated Press of July 9, 2005, ”there are more than 6,000 [CCTV’s] watching the Underground subway network [in London].”108 Peter Clarke, head of the anti-terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police told a police conference in London that detectives had seized “more than 5,000 CCTV tapes.”109  According to the Daily Mirror of July 9, 2005 “[f]ilm from every Tube train and station will be examined as well as footage from the 12 main line termini and scores of platform cameras and trains across the British Rail network.”110 Andy Hayman, the Met's Assistant Commissioner and terrorism co-ordinator, said: "The bombers are all certain to have been caught on many cameras during their journey to and on the Underground. They were not masked so we will end up with very good pictures that will identify them.”111 Hayman thereby revealed that he knew in advance that the alleged bombers had not been masked. He added: "They [the bombers] probably walked away and are still at large and may be preparing to strike again.”112

Yet, in spite of London’s world record of installed CCTVs, there exists not a single CCTV showing any of the four alleged bombers boarding the trains and bus they allegedly bombed. In 2010 a representative of the Metropolitan Police Services (MPS) admitted at the inquest that "there was no [CCTV] coverage" of the Underground platforms from where three of the alleged bombers had departed.113 We note that according to the London Assembly report “Met Police Service was first alerted to an incident at King’s Cross at 8.56 am, on the basis of CCTV footage at the station.”114 While discussing at length about CCTV recordings in Luton and Leeds that allegedly captured the alleged bombers at various times prior to the bombings, the inquest administrators did not demonstrate any zeal in determining whether CCTV recordings from inside the bombed trains had survived and if so, whether they captured the alleged bombers. 

The same representative of the MPS also revealed at the inquest, that out of 76 CCTV’s installed at King's Cross train station, only a single device functioned on July 7 between 8.30am and 8.50am.115 It was precisely this single device that allegedly captured a blurred image of four men with large rucksacks, alleged to be the mass-murderers on their way to their creator. This footage was reportedly discovered on the evening of July 11, 2005116 but only one still picture from that footage was released at that time. As emerged years later, when the footage was released to the Inquest in 2010117, it does not permit to identify the depicted persons, let alone to determine what they were intending to do.118

It will be recalled that failing or missing CCTVs also afflicted the investigation of Jean Charles De Menezes’s killing at Stockwell tube station on July 22, 2005. Steve Reynolds, of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) told De Menezes’s inquest that “a workman had stepped on a cable at Stockwell Tube station severing the cameras on platform two from the recorder” and that “cameras on the train did not work because the recording unit had been removed as part of the inquiry into the July 7 attacks.”119 London Underground sources insisted, however, that at least three of the four cameras trained on the Stockwell Tube platform were in full working order.120 

Reams of footage were presented at the inquest of Hasib Hussain, the alleged bomber of bus no. 30, as he was roaming in and around King's Cross station on the morning of 7/7, uncertain what to do. Hugo Keith, lead counsel, declared and Detective Inspector Ewen Kindness confirmed at the Inquest that Hussain purchased a 9 volt battery at W.H. Smith for exactly 4.95 pounds.121 This discovery led to the theory that Hussain needed the battery to detonate his bomb. Hussain then, according to the CCTV footage, entered McDonalds and spent there 8 minutes. What did he do there? Hugo Keith, lead counsel at the Inquest asked rhetorically: “May it be supposed that during that time he puts the battery which he's purchased into the bomb?” to which DI Kindness replied: “Absolutely”.122 McDonalds actually possessed a CCTV. But unfortunately the office manager at McDonalds was shown on the security recording “going to the video machine and switching the ‘stop’ button.”123  So, no one will ever know what Hussain did at McDonalds on the morning of 7/7. Perhaps he went there to drink a coffee. Perhaps...

The authorities claim that Hasib Hussain then boarded bus no. 91 on his way to Euston station in order to catch bus no. 30,124 which would have ordinarily brought him back to King’s Cross station. It remains a mystery why he would have done so. Again, there is no hard evidence that he boarded bus no 91, because that particular bus had no security cameras.125 Yet, according to Anne Sunyer, Customer Services Manager of the London Bus Services Ltd, “96 per cent of the 8,000 buses in London are fitted with CCTV.”126  She added that the “[s]et up of the cameras also means they cannot be accessed or switched off by the vehicle driver.” Was bus no. 91 among those four percent of buses that lacked a CCTV? The inquests’ administrators were not interested to find out.

But surely bus no. 30 had CCTV’s that would have captured Hussain. According to the London Bus Services, the “Route 30 Stagecoach bus did have CCTV equipment fitted and the hard drive was recovered from the vehicle and passed to the Metropolitan Police.”127 On 11 July 2005 The Observer wrote: “Hopes had been raised that [bus no. 30’s] CCTV camera could have recorded the blast.”128 Alas, these hopes were shattered: “Yesterday came the unfortunate news that the camera had not been working since last month.“129 Det. Insp. Ewan Kindness confirmed at the inquest that the camera on bus no. 30 showed only footage “from earlier in the year, nothing of the date in question.”130 Things happen...

A detailed examination of the CCTV evidence (or lack of) is posted on the webpage of the July 7th Truth Campaign (J7). It lists further anomalies relative to the CCTV evidence (or lack of).131

7.2   Eyewitnesses

A strict investigative rule regarding eyewitness identification is to dismiss testimonies of witnesses who have already seen the photographs of the suspect(s). Such testimony is deemed contaminated by foreknowledge.

In the case of 7/7, the only admissible testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the appearance of suspects will have been those made before 12 July 2005, because on that day the names and photographs of the four suspects were publicized in mass media. This does not mean that testimonies made before that date dispose of the question who the perpetrators were, only that such testimonies are the only ones admissible under rules of criminal evidence.

No witness from the three Underground bombing sites, known to have been interviewed by the police or media before 12 July 2005, mentioned having seen any person with a large rucksack or any passenger acting suspiciously in the bombed carriages.132 A handful of witnesses came forward after the names and photographs of the suspected bombers were widely published. But even their testimonies have been contradictory and inconclusive.  One of the most quoted witnesses, Daniel Biddle, a severely injured survivor from the Edgware Road bombing site, consistently claims to have seen Mohamed Sidique Khan in the carriage prior to the explosion. His testimony was made after he lied many weeks in coma. One night, as he couldn’t sleep, said Biddle, he switched on his TV set and saw a program about the London Bombings during which Khan was shown and designated as the bomber. This, he said, reminded him that he had seen the man who caused his injuries and whom he hated. His discovery somehow found the way to mass media. He insisted, however, that the man he saw was a “young man” (Khan was actually five years older than Biddle) who held a small rucksack on his lap. Mr. Biddle may sincerely believe that he had seen Khan in the carriage, but as repeated scientific studies demonstrate, memories of eyewitnesses are extremely fickle, let alone when considering the above circumstances. No other survivor from that site corroborated Biddle’s testimony. 

The only witness who mentioned in media interviews immediately after the events to have observed a suspiciously acting passenger prior to the detonation, was Richard Jones. He was interviewed by numerous newspapers and TV stations. He claimed to have seen on the lower deck of bus no. 30 a man “in his mid-twenties, with ‘olive skin’, acting strangely.” The man “started dipping down into his bag and getting back up. He did it about a dozen times in two or three minutes and looked extremely agitated.”133Jones said he disembarked from the bus only seconds before the explosion and thus survived without injuries. According to the official account, however, the bomb detonated on the upper deck of the bus, as determined by the observed physical destruction. Hussain was not either in his “mid-twenties” but only 18 years old. Richard Jones' testimony was ultimately dismissed by the authorities as inconclusive.

To sum up, there exists not a single credible and admissible testimony by eyewitnesses that place the suspects at the bombing sites.

7.3   Bodily remains 

Mohammed Sidique Khan

On October 29, 2005, The Telegraph reported: “Relatives of [Mohammad Sidique Khan] are seeking a second post-mortem examination on his remains” after being told they can collect his body parts - “which are stored in 50 separate packets.”134  It is not known whether such a second post mortem examination was carried and whether his remains were collected by Khan’s family. 

On November 24, 2010, Detective Constable Malcolm Wilson testified at the Inquest about his role as "forensic scene examiner" for the Edgware Road bombing site where Khan allegedly died.135 The session, led by Inquest counsel Hugo Keith, was characterized by a preponderance of leading questions.  Here is a sample of their exchange:

Q. Dr Costello attended at 1.07 and pronounced life extinct on each of the persons in the tunnel, did he not?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. My Lady has heard evidence from Dr Costello. He gave evidence in the course of the Aldgate evidence. Are you aware, and can you confirm, that he examined each person in turn and formally pronounced life extinct?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. I think he was on the scene for upwards of an hour?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. The scene was then closed overnight?

A. That is correct.

And so on. 

Wilson mostly confirmed what Hugo Keith said and offered little additional evidence. He thus confirmed that in 2005 he was attached to the Anti-terrorist Branch at the Scotland Yard, and confirmed that it was his responsibility “to undertake the forensic examination of the scene as a whole.”136 According to Wilson, he was “on the scene” at Edgware for entire weeks.137 Throughout this whole period, photographs were made from the scene,138 but they were not released.

Wilson confirmed that he entered Edgware Road station at 11:40. He said that “the station and, in particular, the trains, had already been swept by explosive officers with dogs.”139 He confirmed that it was apparent to him at his first walk-through, that "all those persons who had tragically died in the carriage, as well as the person outside the carriage, had been tagged with a label pronouncing them to be deceased."140 He confirmed that he was led round the train by "the explosives officer who had carried out the search of the trains" and who pointed out the location of all fatalities.141 Wilson also confirmed that Dr. Costello, a forensic medical examiner, who came around midnight, “examined each person in turn and formally pronounced life extinct.”142 Dr. Costello told to the Inquest that he counted exactly six fatalities.

Wilson acknowledged that he was given a “find...known as exhibit MW84”, which was a “technical exhibit given to human remains found on the westbound line of the track.”143 He also confirmed that a muscle sample was taken by someone from these remains and dispatched for DNA examination as specimen RW58.144 Is “technical exhibit given to human remains” a conventional formula or an obfuscatory expression?

Wilson was then asked by Hugo Keith whether exhibit no. MW84 was subsequently identified as containing the remains of Mohammed Sidique Khan, to which Wilson answered: “Yes, they were”.145 Wilson was evidently in no position to confirm this proposition because he could not know the precise provenance of the human remains contained in exhibit MW84, nor what became of that exhibit after it left his custody. Wilson’s confirmation had thus no probative value.

In order to further “prove” that the contents of exhibit MW84 belonged to Mohammed Sidique Khan, Hugo Keith had statements by a pathologist and a forensic scientist, read out. 

The first Statement was by Mr. Timothy Clayton, employed by the Home Office Forensic Science Service(!)146. In his Statement, read at the Inquest, Mr. Clayton wrote that he was supplied with copies of DNA profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum, reportedly the biological parents of Mohammed Sidique Khan, as well as a profile obtained from a muscle sample (presumably that mentioned above as specimen RW58). He said that the profiles of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum had been “established” under the instruction of his colleague Mr Chapman of the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to journalist Shiv Malik, who researched the Khan family on assignment with the BBC, Mamida Begum is not Mohammed Khan’s biological mother, but his stepmother. He biological mother reportedly died a few years before 7/7.147  Mr. Clayton was not in a position to confirm the provenance of the profiles he was given. His role was solely to find out whether the DNA of the muscle sample resembled that of the comparison samples he was given.  In his opinion “the results... provide extremely strong support for the view that the unidentified muscle sample originated from a biological son of Tika Khan and Mamida Begum." If Ms. Mamida Begum is not Khan’s biological mother, an identification fraud must have taken place along the line.

On August 18, 2009, the New York Times reported that that it is possible to “fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.”148 According to this report, scientists in Israel “showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.” This report does not prove that such fraud was perpetrated in order to falsely attribute human remains to Khan. It demonstrates, however, that such a fraud was technically feasible.

Hugo Keith also read excerpts from a post-mortem report by Dr. Vesna Djurovic, a pathologist. Her report, dated 4 June 2007, relates to human remains numbered 60021456, alleged to belong to Mohammed Khan. Dr. Djurovic’s task was to describe the nature and conditions of these remains. Her examination was carried out at the London Resilience Mortuary on 10 July 2005 under the authority of the then coroner Dr. Paul Knapman.149  She wrote that a bag marked 60021456 contained another bag marked MW84, the number given to bodily remains by Mr. Wilson (see above).150 That bag (MW84) “contain[ed] severely damaged and fragmented parts of what appeared to be the body of a young adult male appearing well built.”151 She then went on detailing what parts she found therein: “Preserved were large fragments of the skin of the back of the head, neck and torso, parts of base and vault of skull, some neck structures, a large section of the spinal column with the sacrum and parts of the intestine.” Dr. Djurovic did not indicate the total weight of the bodily parts she found in the bag.

On 1 February 2011, Ms Julie Ann Roberts, a forensic scientist,  testified to the Inquest subsequent to her written statement of 29 June 2006.152 She explained the role of the examination she was asked to carry out in the following terms:

The purpose of the examination was to reconcile the fragmented remains, which had been identified as belonging to the four suspects at the time, with the main body parts so that we could look at the entire remains of each individual bomber for the specific purpose of assessing the injury patterns to look at any bones that were missing and, by doing so, to try to make inferences about the relative position of the bomber to the device, to the explosive device.153

Asked by Hugo Keith how long it took her “to complete in each case the reassembly of all the fragments and the bones and the parts so as to reach a view as to which parts of the bombers were missing...”, she answered: “It took three days in total to reassemble the four bombers.”154 Hugo Keith then asked Ms. Roberts to confirm (she did) that in her report she lists those body parts that were completely or almost completely missing. Regarding Khan she said

The body parts that were completely missing from Khan were all the upper and lower dentition, the left  forearm, wrist and hand, the lower half of the pelvis on the right and the left sides, and those parts that were  almost entirely missing were the right and left upper jaw, the right hand, with the exception of one hand bone, the left knee, the lower half of the right and left lower leg, and the left foot, with the exception of one toe.155

Asked to comment on Khan’s injury patterns, Ms. Roberts said:

The lower part of the pelvis, the lower legs, the left side of the body, in particular the left forearm and the face were extensively damaged, suggesting a similar position, that the blast came from ground level and the suspect  was bending over the device at the time.156

On their face, and adding a small dose of trust in the good faith of all those involved, the above findings appear to prove that Khan’s body had been found, albeit severely fragmented, at the Edgware Road bombing site.  The severely fragmented body would explain why Dr. Costello remained oblivious to Khan’s body.  Considering other facts, however, the evidence does not appear conclusive:

1. We note first serious gaps in the chain of custody (or evidence continuity) regarding the bodily remains. Chain of custody refers to the paper trail which documents how physical evidence is transferred from one custodian to another, from the time and place of collection to the time and place of being presented as proof. Such documentation is necessary in order to dispel later suspicions of tampering or misconduct that emerge regularly in criminal cases. Wilson did not indicate when and by whom he was given the remains he designated as exhibit MW84. He did not either indicate who chose to extract a muscle sample from exhibit MW84 and dispatch it for DNA examination as specimen RW58. He did not indicate when this was done and to whom the specimen was sent.  He did not indicate how and by whom he was informed that the specimen belonged to Khan. We note that Wilson was not prompted at the Inquest to provide this information. A robust defense counsel, had he been present, would have demanded to see the chain of custody reports from beginning to end. If, in an ordinary criminal trial, the chain of custody of a relevant item of evidence is broken, the defendant can ask to have the resulting evidence declared inadmissible.

2. PC Geoffrey Potter, who entered the carriage shortly after the explosion, presented to the Inquest a sketch that he drew about the location of the fatalities.157 He saw one body lying on the track in front of the eastbound train and five fatalities within the carriage.158 He found a large hole in the floor of the carriage. On the sketch, he marked that hole near the center of the carriage. In that hole he discovered one fatality, to which he assigned no. 6, and around the hole he found four fatalities that he numbered 1 to 4. He assigned no. 5 to the fatality on the track. He said at the Inquest that the victim in the hole was actually "on the floor underneath the train." Potter believed that this victim was the bomber, because of the location where he was found. Asked to describe the victim, he said he was about 5'10' tall, but didn't have a full body. His torso, head and basic limbs remained, but his legs were severed around the knees. At the time of his testimony, PC Potter was not aware that this person had been identified as Michael Brewster, as revealed during other sessions of the Inquest. The person he saw in the hole in the floor was certainly not Mohamed Sidique Khan.

Sketch by potter.jpg

3.  As mentioned above, Dr. Morgan Costello arrived at the Edgware Road bombing site at around midnight and certified the extinction of life of exactly six persons. Although he admitted that there was "difficulty accessing some of the bodies or even seeing them clearly", he assured that this "did not prevent him in any way from reaching firm conclusions." As he did not know the names of the six victims, these were read by Hugo Keith at the Inquest, as Jennifer Nicholson, David Foulkes, Colin Morely, Laura Webb, Jonathan Downey and Michael Brewster.159 The list did not include Khan. Dr. Costello did not mention having observed anything that would suggest the presence of a seventh fatality. 

4.  DC Reynolds, who testified at the Inquest on 1 February 2011, said a number of items that were linked to Khan had been recovered from the Edgware Road site. These included a Barclays Visa card, allegedly found under the body of Mr. Brewster, who died in the hole caused by the explosion.160 He said the card was “attached to a piece of flesh which was then subject to STR, that’s to say DNA profiling, which was found to belong to Khan.”161 No one explained how Khan’s remains could materialize underneath Mr. Brewster’s body.

Timothy Coulson, an ordinary passenger on the bombed train, testified at the Inquest on 16 November 2010. He said he was asked to help Michael Brewster, who was trapped in the hole.162 He took Brewster’s pulse, which he said had already become very weak. He then went outside the carriage and underneath the train. He said his purpose was to try and push Brewster up from below.  Asked by counsel Hugo Keith whether it was difficult to get underneath the train, he said, “No.”163 He was then asked what he saw when he reached the spot underneath Mr. Brewster.  His answer: 

What’s more is what I felt before I saw it was the remains of the lower half of his body, not all in one piece...There was a leg that was not connected and, also, I was aware the rest of his torso may also not have been connected. That was done by feel, not by sight...He shortly after began to fall through the hole in the floor. I recall actually feeling myself that that was the point at which he had died, due to the fact that, when the brain dies, the muscles relax and he was collapsing through there. I remember lowering him to the floor, to the track  below, and becoming acutely aware that his eyes were open. I reached forward and closed them, and, as I did so, I said a prayer for him, whether he be a religious man or not, because I felt that he'd finished with this world and he shouldn't be staring at it, and I wished  him the very best in this world to take with him into  the next.164

It is inconceivable that Tim Coulson would have remained oblivious of an additional fragmented body beneath Michael Brewster’s body. His first-hand testimony cannot be easily reconciled with the claim that Khan’s bodily remains had been found underneath Michael Brewster’s body. Another passenger who equally went down to the tracks and and tried unsuccessfully to push Mr Brewster out from the hole is Sandip Meisuria.165 He did not either mention having stepped on a body or on bodily remains underneath Mr Brewster.

5.  It is difficult to reconcile the alleged fragmentation of Khan’s body with the fact that no one saw him standing or sitting at the epicentre of the detonation, and the single witness who claims to have actually seen Khan in the carriage prior to the explosion (Daniel Biddle), placed him at some distance from the epicentre. None of the victims, including Michael Brewster, who was found severely mutilated at the epicentre of the detonation, displayed anything remotely resembling a complete body fragmentation. Such fragmentation was not either documented from the other bombing sites. Khan’s family may have felt that something did not add up. According to The Telegraph, his family was told that it could collect the body parts, “which are stored in 50 separate packets” but “instead of arranging a funeral relatives are understood to want Khan's remains to be kept in storage until an independent pathologist can examine them.”166 It is not known whether such independent examination ever took place.

6. DC Wilson said that on July 14, 2005, a Leeds City Council permit and insurance card belonging to Mohammed Sidique Khan were found by someone "inside the bombed carriage". We recall that according to DC Wilson, Khan's remains were found outside the carriage, i.e. "on the track", beneath the body of Michael Brewster. How could Khan’s remains be found fragmented on the track below the body of Michael Brewster while papers belonging to him were found inside the carriage?

The numerous gaps in the chain of custody and a number of implausibilities raise serious doubts about the claim that Khan died at the Edware Road bombing site.

Shehzad Tanweer

Dr. Costello, who had visited the Edgware bombing site around midnight on July 7th, visited the Aldgate bombing site in the morning of July 8th at 8:40.167 His task was to certify life extinct in relation to all fatalities he discovered there.  He first discovered a white female lying at the side of a track. She was covered with a towel.168 Dr. Costello did not know the names of the victims. These were spelled out to him and for the Inquest by counsel Hugo Keith as: Carrie Taylor, Richard Gray, Richard Ellery, Lee Baisden, Benedetta Ciaccia, Fiona Stevenson and Anne Moffat. He confirmed to have certified life extinct of seven people. Shehzad Tanweer was not among them.

Dr. Costello said: “You could tell how many bodies were there, but it was quite difficult to tell exact, you know, body parts from each other due to clothes being on the area, blast matter, and the positioning of the bodies. It was quite easy to assign how many individuals were there, but just picking out exact details was difficult."169

BTP Inspector Robert Munn was the last person to leave this particular site before investigators took over.  Munn also confirmed the total number of dead as seven.170

The only “evidence” of Tanweer’s remains allegedly found at the bombing site, was a piece of spine weighing 1.8 kg. That's how the discovery of this piece of spine was related at the Inquest by DC Andrew Meneely:

Q.[Hugo Keith] [I]t wasn't until, I think, Saturday, 9 July that a significant piece of bone, a piece of a backbone, was discovered in the front of a rear bench seat in carriage 2?

A.[DC Meneely] That's correct. Officers were searching that part of carriage 2 and, about 9.30 at night, I was told that a piece of backbone had been recovered.

Q. Why was that significant?

A. [...] Obviously there was a lot of injuries, but everybody was relatively intact in relation to the upper body.171

We note that DC Meneely did not himself see or find any backbone, but was “told” by someone that it had been recovered. He does not either mention that any other body parts of Tanweer were found at the site, suggesting thereby that the piece of spine was the only remains of Tanweer found at the site. Finally, it should be recalled that a hole was caused in the floor of the carriage – as reported by several survivors – suggesting that the bomb detonated on or below the floor rather than on Tanweer’s body.  In that case, Tanweer’s body – had he been present at the site – might have been severely injured or mutilated, particularly in his lower extremities, but would remain “relatively intact in relation to the upper body”, as the other fatalities. 

In a statement by Dr. Nathaniel Cary, pathologist, issued almost 18 months after the events and read at the Inquest, he wrote: 

This body part was recovered from the Aldgate scene. This is a fragment consisting of the lower part of the thoracic spine and the upper lumbar spine weighing 1.852 kilograms. There are some signs of decomposition and charring. The specimen is contaminated with glass. It is associated with a piece of cloth... I have subsequently seen a copy of a form entitled 'Matched body parts'. This relates to scene 1 Aldgate. Through DNA analysis, this body part, URN 60021972, has been matched to multiple other body parts identified as having come from Shehzad Tanweer. The nature of this body part and the extreme level of disruption implied by the nature of the other matched body parts is typical of a deceased person having been either in direct contact or very close to an explosive device. The level of explosive disruption associated with this deceased, when compared with other bodies, both from this scene and other scenes of explosions also occurring on July 7, is entirely in keeping with this deceased having been in possession of the explosive device at the time it exploded.172 

Dr. Cary reported he had “seen” a copy of a “form” entitled “Matched body parts”. Significantly he did not indicate when and where he saw this “form”, who compiled this “form” and what information the “form” contained. He wrote that the body part designated as URN 60021972 “has been” matched to other body parts identified [by someone] as “having come” from Shehzad Tanweer. This convoluted way to express facts conceals what was omitted: Who did the matching; when the matching was done; from where comparison samples were obtained; and in what circumstances URN 60021972 was found.

A statement by Andrew McDonald, a forensic scientist, dated 30 August 2005, was read at the Inquest to the effect that “[b]etween 13 and 28 July 2005, 80 recovered body part samples associated with the bombings of a London Underground Tube train at Aldgate on 7 July 2005 together with 20 reference control samples from individuals known to have been present at the time of the explosion were received at the laboratory. All items were received in sealed packages.”173 This proposition, too, was couched in passive language, leaving out who provided the samples. McDonald stated he was asked (by whom?) to carry out STR profiling tests to determine whether any of the recovered body part samples received in this case could have originated from Shehzad Tanweer. He stated that in his opinion, “the STR profile results provide extremely strong scientific support for the assertion that all of the recovered body part samples listed above originated from Shehzad Tanweer."174 In his statement Mr. McDonald did not indicate who recovered the body part samples and from whom he obtained these samples.

Ms Julie Ann Roberts, mentioned earlier, declared at the Inquest that Tanweer’s body “was extensively disrupted. There was extreme fragmentation to the front part of the body, to the lower part of the pelvis, to the lower limbs, and to the four arms.”175 She also confirmed that “some significant parts of his body were entirely missing: the cranial vault and facial bones, both wrists and hands, the breast bone and the bottom half of the pelvis on both sides.”176 She conjectured that the explosive device “was probably centrally placed and probably at the feet, on the floor. The force of the blast looked as though it had come upwards.”177 In Section 3.2 we cited three eyewitnesses who mentioned a hole in the floor of that carriage and their belief that the explosion came from below.  

No chain-of-custody reports were produced at the Inquest to link the fragment of spine allegedly found at the site and its attribution to Tanweer.  The provenance of the multiple body fragments mentioned by Mr McDonald and Ms Roberts, was not confirmed by witnesses. It is moreover difficult to believe that Dr. Costello would have been oblivious to an additional fatality, even if “some significant parts of his body were entirely missing.”

Shehzad's family reportedly obtained his remains at an unspecified date and condition. According to two citizen-investigators (A.C. and T.G.) who talked to friends of Shehzad’s family, Shezad’s body was returned to his family “relatively intact”.178 If this is true, it would indicate that Dr. Cary, Mr McDonald and Ms Roberts have either been provided with fraudulent specimen, or that they have lied. 


According to press reports, Shehzad Tanweer was buried in his home village of Chotian, Pakistan, on October 27, 2005. After brief prayers, attended by 200 mourners, no speeches or statements by family members were allowed: "The entire ceremony was very tightly controlled by the security agencies," said a witness.179 “Afterwards nobody was allowed to the family."180 Plain-clothes police reportedly guarded his grave. It was not explained why such security measures were taken for Tanweer's burial, why his family members were prevented from making statements and why nobody was allowed to speak to the family.

Germaine Lindsay

While Dr. Costello certified life extinct of all fatalities at Edgware Road and Aldgate sites, the only evidence of such procedure relative to the King’s Cross/Russell Square site is that of Dr. Santani, who on 8 July 2005 formally certified life extinct in relation to a single victim, Shelley Mather.181 It is not known how and when the number of fatalities of the King’s Cross/Russell Square site was determined.

According to Detective Inspector John Brunsden, who at the time of the London Bombings was a detective sergeant, the body of a person, who was allegedly identified as Lindsay, was moved within the carriage.182 It was not explained how a severely fragmented body can be moved. Below is a diagram produced by the London Metropolitan Police in 2010 displaying the positions of the deceased from the King’s Cross/Russell Square site.  As can be seen, Germaine Lindsay is not placed at the epicenter of the explosion but at significant distance thereof.


A surviving passenger, Jude Obi (now Jude Ugochukwu Onyeze), who stood very near where Lindsay was marked on the above diagram, testified at the Inquest.183 Obi’s position in the carriage was marked for the Inquest as no. 109 on the diagram below.184 He said that at a certain moment there was “a flash of light and a little - I think - it’s not really a loud explosion, but like an explosive kind of sound, so a thud.”185  He did not realize that a bomb exploded: “Being a signalman, I thought maybe the train had derailed.”186 In spite of standing right next to where Lindsay allegedly stood, Obi was not injured.

The following excerpts of a statement by Dr Ian Hill regarding a body, allegedly that of Lindsay, were read to the inquest:

"The external examination reported in summary that  the body was that of a muscularly-built, adult male consisting of the torso and remnants of the limbs. The skin was black in colour. There was an extensive, ragged, charred laceration involving the whole of the  face stretching down from the forehead.(...) The mandible was split in the mid-line and there  were multiple fractures of the maxilla with obliteration of the nose and eyes. (...) The whole of the front of the torso, extending down from the neck to the lower region, showed evidence of burning, some of which was superficial and some of which was deep. (...) The body was that of an adult male. The appearance of the injuries are consistent with him being in close proximity to an explosion. The pattern of injuries suggests that the explosion occurred at foot level,  possibly with the person concerned being seated with the hands down. The principal explosive discharge has passed upwards over the body into the neck and face and  thence into the head, venting through the forehead. The extent of the injuries is such that death would have occurred virtually instantaneously. There is no evidence of natural disease."187

Witness evidence and the diagram below demonstrate that the carriage was packed full.  Lindsay could not have found a seat because when he allegedly boarded the train at King’s Cross, the carriage was already full. Some of the injuries described above do not correspond with the theory of a bomb exploding at the feet of a standing person, let alone someone standing at a significant remove from the detonation. Dr. Hill may have sincerely believed that he was describing the body of Lindsay, but he was not in a position to confirm that the body he described was found at the King’s Cross/Russell Square bombing site.

It is not known whether Lindsay’s family obtained his body (or bodily remains) and if so, how it reacted. As mentioned earlier, no inquest was held regarding the death of Lindsay and the other accused.


Hasib Hussain

On July 8th 2005, Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, was asked by CNN whether a bomber could have blown himself up on the bus. His answer: "We have absolutely nothing to suggest that this was a suicide bombing attack, although nothing at this stage can be ruled out.”188

Yet on 17 July 2005, The Scotsman reported, without citing any sources: 

Amid the bloodstained wreckage of the Stagecoach bus, they recovered one particularly disfigured body in which the force of the explosion had led to decapitation. None of the other victims, it is understood, had met such an end. The injuries were noted: suicide bombers are often decapitated by the force of the explosives they strap to their bodies...The body met Hussain's description, which had been sent out from Hendon189.

Andrew S. MacGregor, a retired police official, pointed out in 2010190: 

The human body is rather resilient. It can withstand enormous forces. To demonstrate this, please consider the human bodies that were confined to positions very close to where we are informed the bombs [on 7/7] were detonated. People died, people lost limbs and survived, and others suffered lesser injuries.

From my limited experience, the human body can be smashed, battered, torn apart and suffer other injuries, but it normally is not ‘exploded into little unidentifiable pieces.

If a body was placed upon an exploding device, then, I would believe, the body would be picked up and tossed by the forces of that exploding device. Parts of the body may be decapitated, but the general mass would simply go with the force of the explosion.

In other words, if the bodies of the supposed four ‘suicide-bombers’ were not located in situ, and identifiable as bodies, then those bodies were not there in the first place.

In other words, the bodies of Khan, Tansweer, Lindsay and Hussain should have been located with the rest of those killed in the explosions, and thus should have figuratively been seen on a mortuary slab.”

According to the Mirror, Hussain's body was buried “amid tight security” in a Muslim cemetery in Leeds on 2 November 2005.191 It was not explained why it took almost four months to deliver the body to his family for burial. 

7.4 Fragmented bodies

According to a scientific study from July 1998, persons who happen to stand or walk over a buried blast mine typically sustain “traumatic amputation of the lower limb and often [injuries to] the other lower limb or genitalia.”192 By handling land-mines, victims typically sustain “severe upper limb injuries with associated face injuries”.193 These findings are confirmed in the medical literature. Body fragmentation is not mentioned as a possible effect of land-mines.

Injuries caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are reportedly similar to those caused by land-mines. Persons accidentally stepping over an IED typically sustain amputations of their lower and sometimes upper limbs, but not total bodily fragmentation.194

The fragmentation of a human body into 50 parts (Khan) or 80 parts (Tanweer) by explosive devices, as reported above, is not a known phenomenon, even from war zones. Such  extensive fragmentation cannot be reconciled with evidence that the explosions occurred at floor level, as reflected in the numerous lower limb injuries sustained by passengers and the holes in the floors of the train carriages that witnesses reported. If the bodies of the Khan and Tanweer were indeed so fragmented as claimed, their bodies must have been subject to special treatment at another location.  

7.5  Planted evidence? 

Honni soit qui mal y pense!

If no CCTV showed the suspects waiting for their trains, boarding the trains, travelling on the trains or on the bombed bus; if no surviving passengers remembered having sighted a passenger with a large rucksack at the bombing site; and if the bodies of the suspects were not noticed by those who counted the fatalities at the bombing sites, how could the suspects be identified? This was apparently very easy. The alleged bombers apparently took with them numerous personal documents in order to be found by investigators in readable condition.

At the Edgware Road site, investigators reportedly found a VISA card, a Halifax card, a Leeds City Council driver pass and a Zurich Insurance card, all in the name of Mohamed Sidique Khan. It was not reported, however, when these items were found and by whom.195 Furthermore, DS Mark Stuart wrote in his statement to the Inquest that a handset and a readable SIM for mobile phone number 07910859826, allegedly belonging to Khan, were recovered from inside the tunnel near Edgware Road station.196 

DC Richard Reynolds stated at the Inquest, that various objects belonging to Shehzad Tanweer were found six days after the events at the Aldgate site.197 He mentioned a VISA card, a Northern Snooker Club card and fragment of a photo ID card. He also mentioned a HSBC card in the name of Sidique Khan, surprisingly found at the Aldgate site, already on July 7th.198 Another document allegedly found at this site was a business card of Dr Greenthumbs hydroponics company based in Wakefield. This finding “confirmed” that it was Tanweer who contacted this company on 30 March 2005 to purchase hydrogen peroxide for assembling the bomb.199

Documents belonging to Lindsay were found at the King’s Cross/Russell Square site ten days (!) after the bombings, including his passport, a certificate of mobile phone insurance and a letter from the Department of Work and Pensions.200 In another zone of the carriage, a Nokia mobile phone was found, “containing text messages consistent with having been used by...Germaine Lindsay.“201 The items belonging to Lindsay were allegedly found on the bombed carriage after an “anti-terror” squad had raided his home on 13 July.202  Two American sisters who sat only 10 feet from the detonation, survived the bombing with severe injuries. Their passports were, however, destroyed in the explosion.203

DC Richard Reynolds testified at the Inquest regarding items belonging to Hussain allegedly found at the bus bombing site. These included a provisional driving licence photo, a sports bar access card, a national insurance card, a NHS card, a Beeston taxi card in his name, a South Leeds Resource Unit minibus hire scheme card, a part of a credit card, a Tradex Personal Premier card and a document dated 13 October 2004, signed by him, that relates to the criminal proceedings by way of caution taken against him in October 2004 for shoplifting.204 He did not, however, leave a Qur’an at the bombing site.205 DC Reynolds did not indicate who found the above items and for most items not either when they were found. According to DS Mark Stuart, a SIM card belonging to Hussain was also recovered from Tavistock Square site, but it was not indicated who found it and when it was found.206

These numerous items were helpfully spared by the fire and the explosions and could be read by investigators. Documents/items belonging to Khan were not only found in the carriage where he allegedly died, but also at the Aldgate site207 and at Tavistock Square.208

Clifford Todd, a principal forensic investigator at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in Sevenoaks, expressed at the Inquest his doubts that the documents found at the sites had been in the rucksacks or on the persons of the alleged bombers. He said: 

“I would still say that it suggests to me that [the documents] had been placed -- that they were neither in the rucksack nor on the person of the perpetrator simply because, in a lot of cases, they weren't as damaged as they should have been, had they been that close. Now, it's always possible that there could be some circumstances where they might survive in a fairly  undamaged state, maybe at one scene, but the fact that these were found at all four scenes, at least to some extent, in this state, does quite strongly suggest to me that somehow or other they weren't actually on the  person or in the rucksack.”209

Todd stopped short of suggesting that the documents had been “planted” there in order to incriminate the accused.

The Mirror revealed on July 28, 2005 that the police found inside a Nissan Micra allegedly rented by Shehzad Tanweer and left at the Luton rail station sixteen devices (explosives, batteries and other equipment). A senior Scotland Yard official said: “There is more than one type of bomb. There was a huge quantity of material which, when the scientists got to work, they realised would make about 16 viable bombs ranging in weights, from about a kilo to three kilos."210 Did Shehzad leave these items to help Scotland Yard solve the crime?

The similarity with the case of 9/11 regarding “lucky findings” cannot be overlooked. It has been demonstrated that the names of the 19 suspect hijackers did not appear on any authenticated passenger list; no one saw them board the aircraft; no CCTV documentation proved that they boarded the doomed aircraft; and their bodies were not identified from the crash sites.211 So how were they identified? Like in London, namely by documents they “left to be found.” Indeed, a huge collection of identifying documents was swiftly “found” in cars left at the airports, in hotel rooms they used and particularly at the crash sites where their owners’ bodies were unfortunately not found.212 Thanks to these documents the U.S. authorities were capable to identify the 19 alleged perpetrators within three days. The most remarkable finding, however, was a huge collection of identifying documents packed in two bags belonging to Mohamed Atta, which by “mistake” were not loaded onto his death flight. The police found in these bags items that fulfilled all elements needed to construct the 9/11 legend, including a Qur’an, an English-Arabic dictionary, flight manuals, a knife, pepper spray, a testament, a letter from his university in Hamburg (Germany) and a practical advice to the other team members (a copy of which was also conveniently found at crash sites).213 

8.  Conclusions to Part I

The mass-murder of 7/7 was described as the first case of a suicide operation in Europe. It was certainly a case of mass-murder. And there is no dispute that it was politically motivated.

States bear a legal obligation to adequately investigate cases of killings. Criteria of an adequate investigation into killings have been developed through the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.  Such investigations must be prompt, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent in order to be considered as adequate. The investigations of the mass killings of 7/7 failed to fulfill these criteria. 

The British authorities first demonstrated a lack of desire for a public inquiry into the bombings. They then issued a superficial and partly defective narrative on the events, authored by anonymous officials, violating thereby the obligation of transparency.  By holding the inquests five years after the events, the authorities violated their obligation of a prompt investigation. The failure to precisely determine the times of the explosions and their locations within the underground carriage, the failure to produce chain-of-custody reports regarding criminal evidence, and the failure to satisfactorily prove that the accused had been present at the scenes of the crime, are significant failures of thoroughness. 

The question whether the accused died at the bombing sites is of crucial importance in the investigation of a mass-murder. While their presence (as bodies) at the site of the bombings does not by itself prove their participation in the crime, such evidence constitutes relevant and weighty circumstantial evidence, which together with other weighty evidence would probably convince a jury that they were guilty of the crime. On the other hand, if evidence of their presence at the site of the crime is flimsy, unreliable, contradictory or absent, they cannot be found guilty of the crime.

Because of the centrality of this question, stringent demands regarding the authenticity of criminal evidence must be made. Even in cases of ordinary crime, foul play by law-enforcement authorities, including the manipulation of criminal evidence, cannot be excluded.    That’s one of the reasons why a trial takes place and evidence produced by the prosecution can be challenged by defense counsel. The present case was no ordinary crime but a political crime with global consequences. As a party to the war on terror since 2001, the British government has a vested interest in demonstrating that the bombings were committed by Islamic fanatics.  The British government cannot, therefore, be regarded as a neutral party regarding the investigation of that particular case. The conduct of the British authorities in the past, including the promotion of lies regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, does not inspire confidence in their integrity when investigating cases of political violence. Citizens are justified in considering with healthy circumspection investigations carried out by state authorities in cases of political violence, such as 7/7. Such suspicion means that the handling of criminal evidence by investigative bodies must be scrutinized with far greater care than would be necessary in a case of ordinary crime.

Considering the flimsy nature of the evidence produced by the British authorities regarding the presence of the four accused at the bombing sites, compounded by the justified suspicion that items belonging to them had been planted at these sites, a rebuttable presumption arises that the four accused did not die at the bombing sites and, accordingly, did not commit the mass-murder.  In the following Part, we will furthermore provide evidence that the accused did not intend to die on 7/7 and had no motive for committing a terrorist operation against random passengers on the Tube.

London Bombings Part II

While Part I focussed on forensic evidence, or its absence, Part II presents circumstantial evidence that complements what was presented in Part I.  

I begin by demonstrating that no real Muslim, regardless of his opposition to British foreign policy, would have perpetrated the mass-murder of 9/11, not so much because such an attack would contradict his religion (it would) as because it would be completely senseless.  The next section presents testimonies from people who knew the accused. Without exception, they were described as decent young men, devoid of extremism of any sort. Follows a short section presenting evidence that shows that the accused did not envisage to die on 7/7.  

A substantial section is devoted to a set of extraordinary coincidences which have not been properly explained and which give rise to serious questions about the official account.  Among these coincidences are a BBC Panorama program broadcast in 2004, which presented a mock scenario of terrorist attacks similar to that of 2005, and a terror exercise conducted on the very morning of 7/7 by Visor Consultants, the scenario of which almost exactly tracked the actual bombings. The penultimate section deals with the mysterious crisis that reportedly occurred at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7, and included the alleged shooting of three “suicide bombers.”  In the last section, I present my conclusions and place them in a wider historical and strategical context that might help explain the nature of the 7/7 events. 


11.  Whose interests did the 7/7 bombings serve?

The 7/7 bombings could have been foreseen to have disastrous consequences for British Muslims. Indeed, these events rendered British Muslims suspicious and prompted police surveillance of Muslim communities. It was also evident that such acts would stiffen the British authorities’ determination to increase their participation in the international “war on terrorism”, initiated after the events of 9/11, including the continued occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The losers, again, would be the Muslim nations around the globe, who had to fear military interventions by the United States and its British allies. These consequences should have been evident to whoever planned the bombings of 7/7. When planning over the period of months a complex operation, it is reasonable to assume that the planners would weigh the cost/benefits of the operation according to their own interest. In the case of four alleged Muslims, it must be assumed that they would have realized early on the harmful consequences of such an operation for Muslims. They could also have realized that they would not be celebrated as martyrs by their families, within their community and in the Muslim world.214 As the four alleged bombers were not regarded as insane, but as rational and intelligent young men, it follows that they would not be oblivious to such rational considerations, particularly if they had planned the operation for a long period. It is thus extremely difficult to discern any motive for their participation in an operation that would be extremely damaging to their personal interests and to their alleged cause.

On the other hand, the bombings provided a number of foreseeable political opportunities to the British government. And the British government did avail itself of these opportunities.

An immediate effect of the bombings were to increase Tony Blair’s popularity which suffered considerably because of his support of the war against Iraq. An opinion poll taken two days after the London bombings showed that his satisfaction rating had shot up from 32 percent to 49 percent.215 “Just as Margaret Thatcher was able to speak as a national leader across party lines at times of does Mr. Blair now in expressing the public mood over the terrorist attacks.”216

British politicians did not publicly link specific policy decisions to the events of 7/7.  However, Efraim Halevi, former head of the Israeli Mossad, disclosed in the Jerusalem Post on the very day of the London bombings his awareness of the opportunities opened by the attacks. He wrote, spilling the beans:

There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting. The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself.

Whether and to what extent the British government heeded Halevi’s advice, is beyond the scope of this study. British global military policy remained, however, firmly coordinated with that the United States, including Britain’s participation in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.  The British government continued after 7/7 to promote the myth of Islamic terrorism as a grave threat to national security.

12.   Did the accused possess a violent or criminal disposition?

So-called terrorism experts agree that there is no such a thing as a typical profile of a suicide bomber. People identified as having committed suicide attacks have come from the most diverse backgrounds, educational levels, religions and ages. In most cases they are highly principled persons committed to a cause. Yet, those who decide to sacrifice their lives for a cause are usually surrounded by a community of supporters. The future suicide bomber draws courage from the admiration of his community and the expectation to be later celebrated in his community as a martyr. Experts designate the existence of such a supportive community as a significant motivational factor for suicide bombers. In the London bombings case, no such supporting community existed. The alleged suicide bombers are said to have kept their plans secret from their friends and families and had no reason to expect to be celebrated as martyrs. As things turned out, no former friend and no family member applauded their deeds. There is no known precedent for such self-destructive and senseless conduct by sane people, let alone by individuals who had a bright future in front of them.

Practically all who knew the four young men, talked well about them and expressed their deep bewilderment regarding their alleged participation in the mass-murder. They could not reconcile the person they knew with such odious acts. Public officials and mainstream commentators attempted to explain this apparent paradox by suggesting that the young men had led a double life and actually deceived their spouses, families, friends and colleagues for a long period. They were thus claimed to have been excellent actors, able to hide their murderous plans from their surroundings and willing to deceive their beloved ones, compounding mass-murder with perfidy. In order to support this view, it has been pointed out that they had not at all times been truthful to their nearest ones.  Yet, there can be many reasons for persons to lie to their spouses, including, as transpired at the inquests, secret loves.217 A completely different reason for lying to one’s nearest ones could also be participation in a covert intelligence operation that they were not allowed to disclose. Those who claim that these four young men deceived their loved ones in order to commit murder and act against their religion bear a heavy burden of proof that this was actually the case.

We will now consider what family members, friends and colleagues told about the four young men. Rumors and insinuations as well as allegations by intelligence agencies will be disregarded.

Mohammed Sidique Khan

Mohammad Sidique Khan was born on 20th October 1974 in Leeds. His father is Tika Khan, a foundry worker. His mother is named Mamida Begum, but it is not settled whether she is his biological mother or his step-mother.218 Sidique was the youngest of six children and grew up in Beeston, attending Matthew Murray High School, now known as South Leeds High School.  He met his wife Hasina, a British Muslim of Indian origin while in university and they married in 2001. They had a daughter in May 2004. While still in university, his interest in helping disadvantaged young people appears to have developed, and he took on part-time youth and community work before graduating in business studies in 1996. After his marriage in 2001, he moved to Batley, and then to Dewsbury, but continued to work as a primary school teaching assistant and youth worker. His role at school was that of “learning mentor”, working with children who were struggling with their work, as well as those with behavioral problems. He was highly regarded by both teachers and parents, showing real talent for encouraging difficult children, many of whom viewed him as a role model.219  

Khan's mother-in-law, Farida Patel, also dedicated herself to education. In 2004 she was a guest at a Buckingham Palace garden party, where she received an award for her work as a teacher specialising in bilingual studies.220

Khan prayed regularly at school and attended the local mosque on Fridays.  Colleagues said there was no suggestion of extremism in the way he talked about his religion - in fact, he had spoken out against the 11 September attacks in his school.221

1. Family members

Khan’s family released one statement on 16th July 2005 and have not spoken publicly since. They said:

The Khan family would like to sincerely express their deepest and heart felt sympathies to all the innocent victims and their families and friends affected by this horrific and evil act. We are devastated that our son may have been brainwashed into carrying out such an atrocity, since we know him as a kind and caring member of our family. We urge people with the tinniest piece of information to come forward in order to expose these terror networks which target and groom our sons to carry out such evils. We have no further comment and do not wish to be approached further by the media.”222

2. Friends

Two of Khan's friends from school were interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, "Biography of a Bomber", part of Radio 4's Koran and Country series.223 The documentary revealed that Khan’s friends were mainly white, that he considered himself Western, that he had returned from a trip to America besotted with all things American, and that he was more commonly known by an anglicised version of his name, 'Sid'.

Ian Barrett, one of Khan’s former friends interviewed by BBC, remembered that Khan had no interest in religion and rarely went to a mosque: "The other Pakistani lads would have to go mosque because their families would say 'You're going to mosque.' But Sid didn't go," said Ian. "He didn't seem interested in Islam and I don't ever remember him mentioning religion... If it wasn't for the colour of his skin, he would have been [seen as exclusively] English," says Ian. "I just thought of him as a Beeston lad - and that's what he was - a Beeston lad, born and bred."224

The other school friend interviewed by the BBC, Rob Cardiss, recalled: “He was very English. Some of the other Pakistani guys used to talk about Muslim suffering around the world but with Sidique you’d never really know what religion he was from.”225

In a profile of the alleged bombers published in The Guardian, we read:

Few men were more popular on the streets of Beeston than the 30-year-old family man. Recognised by his sensible sweaters and neat, coiffeured hairstyle, Khan's respectability peaked nine months ago when he visited Parliament as the guest of a local MP. There he was praised for his teaching work. Even now, those who hang about Cross Flatt's Park describe him as their mentor. He remains the man who coaxed them back into the education system; the bloke who took them on canoeing and camping trips to the nearby Yorkshire Dales; the man who bought them 'loads of extra bullets' when he took them paint-balling. Hussain and Tanweer were among those who idolised Khan from his days as a youth worker in Beeston when he had nurtured their love of cricket and football.226

3. Colleagues

After the London bombings, Sarah Balfour, wife of MP John Trickett and at the time head teacher of the Hillside Primary School, where Khan worked, said of him:

Sidique Khan was a member of staff at Hillside Primary School and he was employed here between March 2001 and December 2004 as a learning mentor. He was great with the children and they all loved him. He did so much for them, helping and supporting them and running extra clubs and activities. Sidique was a real asset to the school and always showed 100% commitment.227

Khan was so respected in his community, that nine months before 7/7 he was given a tour of the Houses of Parliament as a guest of MP Trickett, where “he was praised for his teaching work.”228

Associates of Khan have confirmed his role as an interlocutor between police and youths. Khan also described his interventions in the case of a young heroin addict, his help in getting excluded children back into school and how he arbitrated in a dispute between rival gangs. "I feel patience and understanding comes through experience and maturity," he wrote. "I constantly analyse society and speak to people regarding current issues. I consider my ability to empathise with others and listen to their problems as well as offer viable solutions to be one of my strong assists."229 

Disturbed by the flow of positive reports about Khan, some reporters, such as BBC’s Nasreen Suleaman, attempted to insinuate that Khan’s friends were disingenuous in their testimonies:

We have heard the second-hand stories, the rumours and the speculation. But we have yet to hear the first-hand testimony of those who attended these places to really know if any kind of radical Islamist ideology was being spread by Khan or others...[T]here was another barrier to getting at the truth: the willingness of many people to prefer conspiracy theories to some honest reflection about how three young men in their midst could have carried out these terrible attacks.  I was told frequently that the 7 July bombers (sic) were either duped into it or were innocent victims of somebody else’s bombing campaign.230

The reporter did not mention, however, that many non-Muslim Britons also doubt the official account on 7/7 and suspect the authorities of foul play. This would be, in fact, a highly reasonable view, in particular by those who knew the alleged bombers as decent fellows.   Insinuating that Khan’s former friends had been untruthful verges on slander.

Shehzad Tanweer

Shehzad Tanweer was born in Bradford on December 15th 1982, making him aged 22 at the time of the bombings. He moved to Beeston with his parents, brother and two sisters when he was still a toddler. He was a popular student at Wortley High School and also an outstanding sportsman with a shelf full of trophies. 

A report in the Washington Post states Shehzad's primary passion was playing cricket and that he rarely missed a Wednesday night match at the local park.231

His father, a former Yorkshire Police officer, owned several local businesses, including a chip shop, which Shehzad often worked in, joking with customers as he served them. His red Mercedes, a gift from his father, was a well known sight around Beeston.

The Washington Post quoted part of an interview given by Shehzad’s cousin, Safina Ahmad:

“He felt completely integrated and never showed any signs of disaffection," Ahmad wrote. Tanweer was never interested in foreign policy or politics, said Ahmad, adding that she never once saw him reading a newspaper or watching the news. Nor did she see him attend any protests against Britain's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, or against Israel.” She added: “Nothing could anger him. I cannot recall the last time I heard him even raise his voice.”

An uncle, Bashir Ahmed, 65, said the family was "shattered" by the revelation that he appeared to have been involved in the bombings. "He was proud to be British," he said. "He had everything to live for. His parents were loving and supportive. He was a very kind and calm person. He was respected by everyone."232

Neighbours described the graduate, who studied at Leeds Metropolitan University, as a "good Muslim". Others said he was a "nice lad" who could "get on with anyone".233 

His father told The Telegraph: "As far as I can understand, my son was more British in his orientation than anything else. He has planned his career in sport. Even on the night before he died, he was playing cricket."234

Perhaps most hauntingly, the intelligent young Tanweer spent his last evening before blowing himself up going, as usual, to cricket practice at the Cross Flatts Park in Beeston. Team-mates say he was "laughing and joking" with friends.235

Germaine Lindsay

After spending the first year of his life in Jamaica, where he was born, Lindsay moved to the UK with his mother in 1986.  The family settled in Huddersfield in West Yorkshire. The year 2000 represented a watershed in Lindsay's life - as both he and his mother converted to Islam. He took the name Jamal.  He married Samantha Lewthwaite, a white British convert to Islam he had met on the internet and later at a Stop the War march in London, on 30 October 2002. They lived initially in Huddersfield but moved to Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, where his wife's family lived, in September 2003. Six months later, their first child was born. Following his death, his wife gave an interview, where she said: 

I totally condemn and am horrified by the atrocities which occurred in London on Thursday 7 July. I am the wife of Germaine Lindsay, and never predicted or imagined that he was involved in such horrific activities. He was a loving husband and father. I am trying to come to terms with the recent events. My whole world has fallen apart, and my thoughts are with the families of the victims of this incomprehensible devastation.236

Since his death, Ms Lewthwaite has given birth to Lindsay's second child - a daughter.237

In a separate statement, Ms Lewthwaite's father Andrew, 49, sister Sabrina, 28, brother Allan, 25, and Allan's wife Carly, 21, also said the family had no inkling of Lindsay's plans. The statement offered condolences to the families of the victims, and said the family did not condone what had happened:

Germaine had a kind, caring and calming presence about him. He was a good and loving husband and a brilliant father, who showed absolutely no sign of doing this atrocious crime. We as a family had no idea of his plans and are as horrified as the rest of the world. We are still in shock about the news we have been given and are trying to understand why anyone, never mind Germaine, would do such a thing.238

Hasib Hussain

Hussain, like Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, was a second generation British citizen whose parents were of Pakistani origin. He grew up in a street called Colenso Mount in Holbeck, on the outskirts of Leeds. The youngest of four children, he was still living with his parents when he died.239 

Hussain’s family said in a statement:  

Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in," his family said in a statement on Friday. Our thoughts are with all the bereaved families and we have to live ourselves with the loss of our son in these difficult circumstances. We had no knowledge of his activities and had we done we would have done everything in our power to stop him. We urge anyone with information about these events, or leading up to them, to cooperate fully with the authorities.240

Hasib Hussain’s father, Mohamed, said to the Mirror, that Hasib was a boy who wouldn't harm a fly. He must have been brainwashed. His parents cannot explain how a soft-hearted, unassuming 18-year-old, who was afraid of spiders and refused to kill flies or any insects, turned into a mass murderer. Mohamed, who has worked hard all his life without so much as a parking fine, has found the news impossible to take in. "He was due to start university in September, " he told the Mirror. "He had also agreed to an arranged marriage with a young woman from Pakistan, though no date had been set...I keep thinking that this must be some kind of mistake. That it must have been someone else who did this. I can only imagine that he was brainwashed into doing this.”241

Mr Hussain said that the day after 7/7, the family learned Hasib had scored distinctions in four out of the five National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) exams he sat at Thomas Danby College in Leeds - easily enough to fulfill his apparent dream of taking a business degree at Leeds Metropolitan University. He said his youngest child had “never been in any doubt” that he would pass the NVQ exams.242

13.   Did the accused intend to die?

According to experts who have been briefed by police, as reported in mainstream media, the young men parked a rental car outside the Luton rail station and paid to park for seven days, then purchased roundtrip tickets to London.243 Apart from their other ordinary personal circumstances, as described in the previous section, paying in advance for a week’s parking and buying roundtrip tickets does not suggest that they intended to die on 7/7.

According to the Mirror, Hasib Hussain’s brother Imran played cricket with Tanweer in Beeston Park on the evening of July 6, hours before Tanweer set out with Hussain for London. Imran said: "We played 11-a-side among friends. How could he do that when he knew what he was about to carry out?"244 

Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said on July 12, 2005, that police had discovered  CCTV footage of four men arriving together at Kings Cross station shortly before 8.30am on Thursday. It “shows the four young men, all with identical large rucksacks similar to those carried by infantry soldiers on their backs. The four appeared relaxed.”245 A senior security source, who has viewed the footage, said: "They were chatting. You would think they were going on a hiking holiday." Ben Leech, barrister, said he saw the alleged bombers at King’s Cross station with their large rucksacks. In a statement to the police,246 later confirmed in the inquests,247 he said the men were “sharing a joke, laughing, smiling and generally relaxed”. Another witness, businessman Joseph Martoccia told police in a statement that the men appeared to be “celebrating something” and were “euphoric, such was their happiness and excitement”248 He equally confirmed his impressions to the Inquest.249  If the observed persons had actually been some of the accused, it defies common sense that they would appear happy, relaxed and joking minutes before blowing themselves up. 

Writing shortly after the events, blogger “Wot Is It Good 4” points out that the accused “seem to have been operating on a pretty tight schedule” leaving only 30 minutes between their scheduled arrival at King’s Cross station and the time they were allegedly supposed to detonate their bombs: “These people were able to procure military explosives - but couldn’t organise a hotel in london the previous night? They'd rather rely on London’s notorious transport system down to a few minutes over a 3 hour trip ?”250 Their obvious nonchalance, equally displayed on the aforementioned CCTV footage, further suggests that they were not intending to blow themselves up or engage in a risky operation.    

14.   Controversial items of evidence

14.1 Mohammad Sidique Khan’s “martyr video”

The facts: On September 2, 2005, the BBC251 and other media reported that the al-Jazeera network had broadcast a video allegedly depicting Mohammad Sidique Khan delivering a message that was construed as evidence for his intended martyrdom. In that video he said: 

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation doesn’t come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam – obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad… Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier..252

It was not indicated when, where and by whom the video had been made. Khan’s video, posted on various websites, shows a man who clearly learned his blurb by heart and occasionally glances at a prepared text.  His voice inflections suggest that he was not very familiar with the text and that, accordingly, the text had been drafted by someone else.

All those interviewed by the BBC, condemned the outrageous views voiced in video. After watching the video, a number of Khan’s friends were interviewed by The Guardian.253 A young fellow by the name of Saj was one of the few young men to admit that the video was evidence of a kind. "That is proof I suppose. It just shows you doesn't it?" His friends were less easy to persuade. None would give their names. "It's a fake," said one. "Look at the way his lips were moving; they looked odd, the whole thing is a fake." Older men in the area felt the same. "It's crap," said Mohammed Afsal, a father of five and member of the Hardy Street mosque. "I know people can change in a second, but I can't say he is one of them. He taught my son, he was a very good teacher. He was never hardline - no one could say he was an extremist - he was peaceful and dedicated to the children. They all loved him." Afzal Choudhry, a youth worker who spent six months working with Khan in Beeston, was, however confident that the video was authentic. He said: “It was definitely him, it was his voice and his face, that cannot be denied.”

By citing without reservations the Khan video, Prime Minister Tony Blair presented it as evidence that Khan intended to martyr himself in an operation aimed against the British public. Indeed, if Khan made the above statements, such conclusion would have been warranted. There are, however, three main reasons for treating the video with the greatest circumspection: (a) The origin of the video remains murky; (b) Khan appears to recite a text drafted by someone else; and (c) Virtually all those who knew Khan described him as a good, helpful and compassionate person, who acted for the common good. Their opinion of him clashes therefore head-on with the belief that Khan could conceive planning a mass-murder of ordinary people on the London Underground, knowing that  tourists, Muslims and opponents of British foreign policy would also die. There could be neither moral nor logical sense in such an operation, even from the perspective Khan manifested in his message.

It might be contended that Al-Jazeera did not wish to expose its informants and therefore declined to explain how it obtained the video.  Such reasoning is plausible but to the extent that the video was cited by the British Prime Minister as evidence to implicate Khan, his  failure to declare the origin of this video transforms the Prime Minister and his colleagues into purveyors of politically tainted allegations. The discrepancy between how Khan’s friends perceived him and the message of his video is commonly explained away as manifesting his ability to deceive his surroundings and by leading a double life. Such reasoning is evidently circular in nature, for it presupposes the authenticity of the video.

Khan’s video presents a serious challenge to those who tend to dismiss the view that four Muslims committed the mass-murder of 7/7. If authentic, this video would at least prove the mental element of the crime committed on 7/7, namely a declared intent by Khan to commit a suicide operation in the U.K. This alone would not suffice, however, to incriminate him in the crime. It would also be necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually did what he intended to do. So what are we to make out of the video?  We present two explanations.

14.1.1 Fakery

High-end technology to fake video and audio was presented to the public in the movie Forrest Gump as early as in 1994.254 Using CGI techniques, it was possible to depict Gump meeting deceased personages and shaking their hands. To record the voices of the historical figures, voice doubles were hired and special effects were used to alter the mouth movements for the new dialogue. Archival footage was used as well as such techniques as chroma key, image warping, morphing, and rotoscoping. Further insight into the capabilities of simulating a person’s voice was provided by William Arkin, writing in the Washington Post in 1999.255 He described voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. By using just a 10-minute digital recording sample of a person’s voice, scientist George Papcun was able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile of that voice, permitting person A, using the software, to talk and sound as if he was person B.

In 2002, Associated Press reported that an MIT team “has combined artificial intelligence and videography to make words and song – even in foreign languages – emerge from the lips of people who could never possibly have uttered them.”  The article’s author commented: “Just as digital stills can be manipulated to misrepresent reality, so will advances in digital video technology enable full-motion fakery.”256 

 In 2004 the state-of-art of such technology had certainly developed further.

Assuming that 7/7 was orchestrated by government agencies, they would certainly possess the technical means to fabricate Khan’s martyrdom tape or modify a recording he may have made for other purposes. Without a forensic examination of the tape, it is difficult to determine whether such manipulation had actually taken place. It is, however, known that intelligence agencies do fabricate such documents for various purposes.257 On that basis alone, it cannot be excluded that Khan’s video was a fake. The lack of transparency regarding the source of the tape and the lack of forensic access, does not inspire confidence in the recording’s authenticity.

14.1.2 Was Khan working for British intelligence?

Another explanation is that Khan had been recruited prior to 7/7 by British intelligence for counter-terrorism work. One of his assigned tasks would have been to infiltrate extremist groups or al-Qaeda. In order to successfully infiltrate such groups he had to build his jihadi legend. For that purpose he could have been asked to make a “martyrdom video”. Taking into consideration his reported efforts to reduce violence among Muslim youths and his sense of civic responsibility – known to and appreciated by the authorities – he would be a good candidate for such an operation and probably willing to help in counter-terrorism efforts. To the extent that Khan might have participated in such covert governmental efforts to infiltrate troops as a “jihadi”, he would have had to lead a “double life”. The theory that Khan had been recruited by the “services” appears to be supported by other evidence, as discussed below. It must, therefore, be regarded as a serious working hypothesis.

The nexus between Khan and intelligence services was grudgingly admitted by the authorities, although only to the extent that intelligence services were at numerous occasions “aware” of him prior to 7/7.  They have not yet admitted to have had any direct contact with him.

The Intelligence and Security Committee of the British Parliament issued in May 2009 a report entitled "Could 7/7 have been prevented?” This report reveals a wealth of details about what the police and security services knew about Khan prior to 7/7:

1.  Sidique Khan's name apparently appeared first in police records when he was arrested in 1993 for assault. His photograph was taken by the West Yorkshire Police at the time.

2.  He was caught in a surveillance operation as early as 2001 when a group of 40 men were photographed at a training camp organised by two known extremists.  The men were videoed by officers from West Yorkshire Police but they were allegedly only able to identify nine of the men, not including Sidique Khan. 

3. In April 2003, a West Yorkshire Police surveillance team was following a "known extremist" as part of a joint operation with MI5 when Sidique Khan, driving a car registered in his own name, gave one of the members of the team a short lift. Around the same time, MI5 launched Operation Crevice to investigate a man called Mohammed Quayam Khan, who was described as the "leader of an al-Qaeda facilitation network in the UK." 

4. In July investigations found Quayam Khan had been in contact with a phone registered to Sidique Khan at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston, Leeds, where the July 7 bombers held regular meetings, but MI5 decided there was nothing to suggest he was involved in terrorist activity. 

5. Omar Khyam, thought to be a "courier within the facilitation group," met an "unknown male" in Crawley on February 2, 2004 and MI5 followed the man, Sidique Khan, back to his mother-in-law's address in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.  They found the car was registered to a Hasina Patel, Sidique Khan's wife, but, the report said, there was "no evidence to justify further action."  By early February MI5 had realised that Khyam was planning an attack and when the bomb-maker Momin Khawaja, flew in from Canada for a vital meeting with the Crevice gang in Crawley on February 21, Sidique Khan's car was seen in the area, although the report does not mention this. 

6. Sidique Khan reappeared in Crawley on February 28, 2004 and the Metropolitan Police followed him back to an address in Batley, West Yorkshire, in order to try and "house" him, the report said. MI5 ran more detailed checks this time, resulting in an address where the Honda Civic was insured, but decided Sidique Khan might be using an alias because there were various different spellings of his name. 

7. MI5 considered Sidique Khan a "small time fraudster" and "minor criminal" but he was among 12 individuals that West Yorkshire Police were asked to follow up in January 2005, although they were not told why he was of interest, the report said.  They also launched a full operation to identify a man called "Ibrahim" who had attended an al-Qaeda training camp with Khyam in Pakistan, sending packs of poor quality copies of surveillance pictures to an American supergrass called Mohammed Junaid Babar on August 12, 2004. 

14.2 Alleged trips to Pakistan

According to the Home Office report (p. 23), Sidique Khan traveled to Pakistan on November 19, 2004 and stayed there until February 8, 2005. The report does not provide evidence that Khan traveled to Pakistan on these dates: It merely asserts this as a fact. The report does not present concrete evidence what Khan was supposed to do in Pakistan, only speculation, such as “Other evidence suggests that Khan believed he was going to Pakistan to cross the border and fight in Afghanistan”,  “After arriving in Pakistan, Khan and Tanweer appear to have split up”, “Khan appears to have collected Tanweer”, “It is possible that they went up to the border areas with Afghanistan”, “it seems likely that they had some contact with Al Qaida figures”, “It is possible that Khan made his martyrdom video during this visit”, “Khan is believed to have had some relevant training in a remote part of Pakistan, close to the Afghan border during a two week visit in July 2003”, and “it is also believed that Khan had visited Pakistan, and possibly Afghanistan, on a few other occasions since the late 1990s.”

As for Tanweer’s trip to Pakistan, the Home Office report (p. 23) only offers scant and speculative information, suggesting he traveled there to find a “suitable school to study Islam” and that his family “paid for Tanweer’s ticket and provided him with spending money.” According to Tanweer’s uncle Bashir Ahmad, cited by The Independent, Tanweer stayed in Pakistan for three months and returned to England because he didn't like "the heat, the poverty and the attitude the Pakistanis had towards people from England.”258 Tanweer also reportedly stayed with another uncle, Tahir Pervaiz (also spelled Pervez), who told TIME magazine that Tanweer “stuck close to home, reading books, chatting to his cousins and other locals. He also prayed five times a day, fasted once a week and often led the Friday prayers at the local mosque.” Yet Pervaiz said that neither his religious devotion, his praise for bin Laden nor his support for the attacks on the U.S. of Sept. 11, 2001, hinted at his intentions. Tanweer "embraced life," says his uncle. "He never talked about getting involved himself." Tanweer told his uncle that he had come to Pakistan to learn more about his roots. Pervaiz says that Tanweer left the village to visit madrasahs in Lahore and Faisalabad only occasionally, and that the trips were for just a few days at a time.259  According to his uncle Pervez, cited by The Telegraph (UK) "Shehzad [Tanweer] used to visit me every year with his family.”260 According to his Pakistani cousin Ashfaq Ahmed, cited by the Sydney Morning Herald, Tanweer stayed in his uncle Tahir Pervez’s home, a landowner at Kottan in Punjab (Pakistan), for three months until February 2005, except for two visits to an aunt in a nearby town. The cousin said Tanweer was keen to discuss religious issues and often railed against America and the West: "He said bin Laden was his hero and everything he did was right. He believed that America had made Muslims suffer all over the world." But despite his anti-American views, which are not uncommon in Pakistan, Mr Ahmed said Tanweer could never have knowingly become a suicide bomber. Deferring to news reports, he said: "He was either tricked or brainwashed.”261

The Home Office report acknowledges (p. 24) that “[e]xtended visits to Pakistan by young [British Muslim] men are not unusual. Many go to visit family, attend schools for Islamic studies and sightseeing [...] There were nearly 400,000 visits by UK residents to Pakistan in 2004, of an average length of 41 days. The men’s visits would not have appeared out of the ordinary to their families and friends.” Yet, the authors cannot resist the temptation to suggest that “some associates” now say “there were rumours that Khan and Tanweer had been to Afghanistan for violent jihad.”

In view of the lack of firm evidence in support of the claim that Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer actually blew themselves up on July 7, 2005, the threads linking the deadly events to their visits to Pakistan must be regarded as extremely thin.

14.3 When did the alleged bombers board the train at Luton?

A serious issue arose when it was discovered that the train, which the accused allegedly were supposed to take from Luton to King’s Cross station in London before boarding their respective vehicles of doom, had been canceled. Initially, the official narrative had the four young men board a train in Luton at 7:40 a.m. that was supposed to arrive at King’s Cross Thameslink at 8:23.262 They were then allegedly captured on a CCTV at 8:26 “on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform”.263 

Upon inquiry, Chris Hudson, Communications Manager at Thameslink Rail Limited, sent an email to Nick Kollerstrom on August 25, 2005, informing Nick that the train scheduled to depart from Luton 7:40 had been canceled. He also sent Nick the timings of the other trains, as rendered in the table below.264

On his own website Nick Kollerstrom wrote: “I and James Stuart checked out the actual train times that day, which turned out all to have had massive delays (see the Table below) – the Four would have arrived at King’s Cross far too late to board the relevant trains.”265 Indeed, the Eastbound Circle line train that exploded, left King’s Cross at 8:35, the Westbound Circle line train (216) left King's Cross at 08:42; and the Piccadilly Line train south left King's Cross at 08:48.266

Luton – King’s Cross Thameslink timetable for the morning of July 7th, 7-8 am





Due in at 

King’s Cross

Actual arrival
































John Reid, Home Secretary, admitted before Parliament on July 11, 2006 that the official Home Office report was erroneous regarding the time on which the alleged bombers boarded their train at Luton. He thereby validated the independent research conducted by citizens. He did not explain how such a major error could creep into the official report  In order to maintain the official account intact, the boarding time of the accused was shifted back to the train scheduled to leave Luton at 7:24, bringing them to King’s Cross early enough to be captured on CCTV three minutes later. Yet, no one had until then mentioned the possibility that the accused had traveled on that early train. The authorities did not adduce any evidence that the accused boarded on the train leaving at 7:25.  They simply tried to fit the time to other facts. 

14.3 Extraordinary coincidences

14.1 The Panorama program of the BBC

On May 16, 2004, BBC Panorama broadcast a program called “London under attack”. The BBC presented this program as follows:

This film is a mock exercise of what might happen in London if there was a terror attack now. In a unique fusion of drama, detailed research and expert discussion Panorama puts Britain's emergency plans to the test. The scenario of this program was almost the same as that which occurred on July 7th 2005. One of the participants in this program, Peter Power, then conducted a simulated terrorist attack on the very morning of the attacks with the same scenario as the actual attacks. He later said this was a coincidence. The fictional day of terror unfolds through the immediacy of rolling news bringing the catastrophic attack into our living rooms. As events unfold, Panorama and a team of specialists reveal gaps in our preparations. The eight-strong team includes people with first hand knowledge of intelligence, emergency planning, police, fire, government and media management.267 

The scenario played out on the Panorama program was very similar, though not equivalent, to that of 7/7: Bombs exploded on three underground trains and one surface vehicle (a chemical tanker exploded, releasing lethal chlorine gas vehicle). One of the participants in the mock conference on the program was Peter Power, security expert, whose role in 7/7 will be discussed below. Other participants in the mock conference were David Gilbertson, former Commander of the Metropolitan Police, Crispin Black, former intelligence officer,  Michael Portillo, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and former Secretary of State for Defence, Ian Hoult, Emergency planning officer for Hampshire County Council, Anne Gallop, Deputy Chair, London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, David Bennett, Professor emeritus of Intensive Care and Lance Price, former Deputy Director of Communications at 10 Downing Street.268

As with the events of 7/7, the fictional scenario included an acted statement by the Home Secretary to the effect that the attacks “bear the hallmarks of al-Qaeda”. The expression “bearing the hallmarks of al-Qaeda” will be heard numerous times on and after the events of 7/7.

Lance Price reminded the participants that “[w]e do have reserve powers in effect  to take over the BBC if we were to wish to, and to get them to broadcast whatever we wanted them to  broadcast.  Those powers are there in the Broadcasting Act.  By advice to the Prime Minister would be not to use those but I think we should be talking to the broadcasters about having the Prime Minister on the air very quickly [in the case of a terrorist emergency].” Gilbertson then asked Michael Portillo what he thought about this recommendation, Portillo:  “I entirely agree that the Prime Minister should be out there and we shouldn't be using the powers to bring in the BBC but we should certainly be talking to the broadcasters about the way in which the coverage is going to be organised.”269

Susan O’Keefe, the producer of the program, revealed that she sought the participation of government officials in the program. Government officials, she wrote, considered the above scenario as “irresponsible” because it “would give ideas to the terrorists.”270 Although the government declined to send anyone to participate in the program, the Cabinet Office, “did call to try to find out who was taking part in the programme and if the scenario had changed.” Was the chosen scenario, as described above,  already “booked” to take place in 2005?

(b) The transatlantic Exercise Atlantic Blue

In April 2005 a transatlantic exercise was held “which included 'bombs' being placed on buses and explosives left on the London underground”, wrote The Observer: “The anti-terror drill, codenamed Exercise Atlantic Blue [...] concentrated on testing security weaknesses in the transport system.” It involved 12,500 participants.271 This prompted New York Mayor Giuliani, who was in London on July 7th 2005 to say: “It seems to me that the emergency services here in London were prepared for this. I don't mean prepared for the exact day, but prepared for something like this happening. I think they expected this to happen. Unfortunately, they didn't know the day or the hour, but they expected this to happen.”272 

(c)  Physicians’ emergency meeting scheduled for 7/7 

On the day of the attacks, just as the first bomb went off at 8:51am at Aldgate, no more than a mile away, 32 A&E specialists were meeting to discuss their tactics for major emergencies in the capital. Crews of the helicopter emergency services were there, along with the senior specialists from the Royal London (…) Dr Gareth Davis was at the scene in Aldgate almost immediately, putting into practice his special Physician Response Unit which aims to take Accident and Emergency care straight to patients rather than waiting for them to come into hospital.  Dr Alistair Wilson  chief A&E consultant explained: "At the time the bombs hit, we were all there in the same place ready and waiting to go," he said. "We had enough doctors on duty to have handled four, five or six times the number of injuries."273 What a lucky coincidence!

(d) A film regarding the London Tube

 On July 7th 2005, filmmakers from Mosaic Films were filming the third series of the three times RTS award-winning documentary The Tube, a behind-the-scenes look at the underground. What began as a routine day of filming soon took a dramatic turn, and the crew found themselves in the centre of the chaos. Proximity to events as they unfolded, along with unique access granted by London Underground, convey a powerful account of courage and compassion. For the first time in a TV documentary, The Tube Under Attack tells the stories, in their own words, of how London Underground workers responded with bravery and calm in the biggest crisis to hit the capital in recent years.274 What luck for the filmmakers!

(e) Finishing to set up a mortuary on July 6, 2005

Based in Northamptonshire in the UK, the company [De Boer] had already completed several contracts for the Metropolitan Police …The De Boer team spent months visiting permanent mortuaries and attending meetings with London Resilience to suggest a suitable structure and interior design… Six months later on July 6, 2005, a document arrived at De Boer’s UK headquarters finalising what had been agreed for a future crisis response. Within 24 hours the plan was being realised .and implemented with the creation of a temporary mortuary in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company near Moorgate Underground Station in central London.’275

Was that good timing? An emergency mortuary was established on a Military site in the City of London – its contract for the work received on the day before the catastrophe. Not only did this military site receive all of the bodies (and it claimed to start receiving them on the morning of 8th July), but it set up ancillary sites adjacent to the four blast sites on the morning of July 7th: “Outside of the mortuary De Boer also provided structures and furniture at each of the Underground Stations affected, and refrigeration facilities at the site of the bus bombing.”

(f) Exercise of terror bombs in the Underground conducted on the morning of 7/7

And finally, Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants (and former official of Scotland Yard), conducted on the morning of July 7th 2005 an exercise, which, in his own words, was “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 upright!“276  He added: 

[I]t was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.”277  

He repeated in a similar note this description in an interview with ITV news at 20:20, providing a few more details:

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?

POWER: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair...  

We note that Peter Power’s told on the very day of the attacks that his exercise had been based on the scenario of multiple simultaneous attacks. This was indeed what actually happened in real life. But according to the official account, the near simultaneity of the 7/7 attacks was only revealed two days after the events. Until then, the story was that the attacks had been staggered. Power’s fictional scenario was thus nearer to reality than what the authorities initially told to the public. Another person, who apparently knew that the attacks had been simultaneous was Israel’s Mossad chief, Efraim Halevi, who designated the attacks in the Jerusalem Post on the very day of the events as “simultaneous explosions”.

On July 8, 2005, an interview with Peter Power was published in Manchester Evening News. There he not only reported the above exercise but revealed that he had also organised a series of “mock broadcasts” for the rehearsal operation that were apparently so realistic those participating in the exercise became confused about what was real and what was not.278

His interviews called forth suspicion that Peter Power’s exercise and the actual events were somehow linked. So great was the deluge of letters and queries he received, that he issued a single, standard response to inquirers, in which he

(a) confirmed to have conducted “a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London […] and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events”;

(b) revealed that the exercise was “part of a wider project that remains confidential”;

(c) admitted that “the timing and script [of his script]was nonetheless, a little disconcerting”; 

(d) confirmed that “our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers […] quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events”.279

It should be noted that he did not explicitly deny a connection between the exercise and the actual events. Carefully choosing his words, he wrote:  

Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response.280 


In 2008, Peter Power revealed on the blog site of the J7 Truth Campaign that the company for which he conducted the 2005 exercise was Reed Elsevier, a publishing firm.281

A number of unanswered questions remain regarding Peter Power’s exercise:

Why did the main news media in the U.K. ignore the story about Power’s extraordinary coincidence?

Why wasn’t Peter Power investigated by the authorities for possible links to the plotters and invited to testify at the Inquests?

How did BBC learn about Peter Power’s exercise?

What was the precise script of the exercise?

What did he concretely mean when saying the the participants jumped from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing?

Who, beside him, participated on behalf of Visor Consultants, in the exercise?

How and when did the participants – engrossed in the exercise – learn about the actual events?

Who within Reed Elsevier took part in the exercise?

What was the “wider project” of which the exercise was part of, and to which he alluded above?

It may well be that Peter Power had no inkling of the actual 7/7 plot. It is, on the other hand, possible that the plotters of the real attacks knew about his scheduled exercise and piggy-backed their operation onto it as a fall-back measure.282

14.4 The crisis at Canary Wharf

At 14.48 London time, a CNN breaking news report was filed with a news services providing details of a conversation between a reporter and Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan police:

Reporter: “Can you tell me -- the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf -- do you know anything about that?” Paddick: “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.”

This denial was by no means the end of the story.  What was termed as “rumors” were in fact news reports published in Europa, Canada and Australia and attributed to independent sources. Paddick’s response may have been formally true. He said that the MPS had no reports of any “police sniper” shooting, leaving open the possibility that the shooting was carried out by special forces. Whatever his answer, the multiple, independent, testimonies suggest that this was by no means a wild rumor. Were the alleged Muslim bombers shot by agents of the state? The question remains in suspense. Here is a review of various sources for events reported to have taken place at the Canary Wharf on the morning of July 7, 2005.

1.  On July 7, 2005, Denmark’s TV station TV2 (Nyhederne), broadcast the following report at 15:00 Central European Time: 

TV2 has just talked with Marianne Jörgensen, who is an employee with Access Flooring Company in London. She was advised through employees in her company, that two alleged suicide terrorists had been shot dead at Canary Wharf. She said “They phoned one of our supervisors and told him that they witnessed two men being shot - deliberately - by police or soldiers.”283

2.   On the same day at 16:34 GMT, Kate Rook, filed with Canada’s Globe and Mail the following report:

From the 18th floor of Canary Wharf in London, Canadian Brendan Spinks could see a massive rush of policemen outside the building Thursday after the city was rocked by terrorist attacks. The Internet in his office had just gone down when Mr. Spinks, an investment banker at HSBC, saw a flurry of police cars and yellow-vested men outside. Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers were rife, and in one unconfirmed incident police shot a suicide bomber outside the 42-floor banking tower…

3.  The New Zealand Herald published on July 9 the most detailed report regarding what may have occurred at the Canary Wharf:

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.284

4. According to John Walsh, reporter for The Independent, all cars had been banned at Canary Wharf. Farouz, a business technician in Docklands interviewed by Walsh said he heard “someone at work […] saying a suicide bomber had been shot dead by police just outside the Tower. But the police are denying it.”285

5. According to Ben Ashford of the South London Press of July 8, 2005, police had been probing reports that a man had been “neutralised” outside Canary Wharf. The man was believed to have been “shot dead by police marksmen outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank.”286

6. Steve Nowotty, Huntsville Times (Alabama), July 8, 2005 (“Bombing Turned Thoughts to Mum”)

Nicola's best friend was working in Canary Wharf - London's answer to the World Trade Center. She called in the afternoon, still in the building. Her office had been told not to leave, and rumors were flying. Someone had been shot. Maybe a suicide bomber. No one was sure.

7. The Evening Standard (Palmerston, New Zealand) July 8, 2005:

Felicity Lawlor, formerly from Auckland, emailed her sister in Rongotea this morning to say she arrived at work to hear about an explosion in the Underground…Ms Lawlor said there were ‘lots of crazy rumours flying around’ like a suicide bomber having been shot dead outside Canary Wharf.”

8.   Short, July 10, 2005  6:05 pm

'Suicide Bomber Neutralized' in Canary Wharf, London


On Thursday 7th July, a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead by police marksman outside Canary Wharf, the financial district of London. It is believed he was 'neutralized' outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank. Police are 'probing'.

The 'suicide bomber' is believed to have been part of a co-ordinated team of other suicide bombers. The alleged bomber was killed on the same day of the central London terror attacks. The source article gives little information.287

In addition to these media reports, at least 20 bloggers mentioned that something unusual had taken place at the Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7.288 Some of the bloggers mention having heard on radio or TV that shooting had occurred there. Others refer to what they saw or heard personally.

In an effort to evaluate these reports, Dr. Rory Ridley-Duff of Sheffield Hallam University, approached Mike Rudin, series produced of the BBC Conspiracy Files to clarify why the above press reports were not discussed in the programme on 7/7⁠5. Here is Rudin’s response, as posted by Ridley-Duff:

Our team did look at the rumours of shootings at Canary Wharf. We spoke to a number of  people who had been there on 7th July. No one witnessed any shootings. None of the comments you picked up on the web, nor any of the comments we looked at, named anyone who actually witnessed anything. We checked the story with Reuters, as the New Zealand Herald mentions "a New Zealander working for Reuters". However, Reuters never wrote up this story, nor did the Press Association, Associated Press or AFP. Nor could we find the New Zealander. We are left with nothing more than hearsay and rumour.

Ridley-Duff then offered the following comment to which I fully subscribe:

The BBC response is helpful, but not entirely persuasive. Globe and Mail name Canadian Brendan Spinks as an eye-witness account of extensive police activity. Lucy Hyslop, who filed a report with the Vancouver Sun, describes the situation that day, as well as the lock down that occurred at Canary Wharf where she works. As a ‘senior editor’ at the Daily Telegraph, she is an accessible media source, and her story includes a claim that a friend called her regarding the shootings. James Starnes, a citizen reporter, is his own ‘eye-witness’ to a radio station that was carrying a story about a shooting. All these peoples could be traced to clarify what they witnessed first hand, and establish how the story broke…The blogs and discussion forum contributions are verbatim first hand reports, carrying more credibility than second-hand BBC reports. Their credibility does not depend on endorsement or confirmation by a government or state authority.

It should be noted that no attempt was made at the Inquests of the bombings’ victims to examine the above reports.

A theory originally publicized in the film 7/7 Ripple Effect by Muad’Dib (pseudonym), is that the alleged bombers had been recruited by an intelligence agency to participate in a terrorist exercise and asked to board the underground trains that would be rigged with explosives. Their bodies would then have become evidence proving their guilt. Due to the canceled train from Luton to King’s Cross station, they came too late to London, became aware that they had been framed, and walked for some reason to Canary Wharf, where they were “disposed of.” This theory is linked to the fact that a terrorist exercise took place on the morning of 7/7 under the auspices of Visor Consultants, a security firm managed by Peter Power, as discussed earlier. The secrecy surrounding Peter Power’s role and the crisis at Canary Wharf cannot fail to sustain suspicions about government foul play.

At that point, it might be useful to point out that there had been a government organized media “clamp-down” of some sorts on 7/7.  The truth-organisation J7 compiled a dossier containing multiple examples of media restrictions.289 That evidence suggests that the lack of transparency regarding the episode at the Canary Wharf – and the lack of follow-up of those testimonies made – may be due to such media clamp-down as well as to an ‘esprit de corps’ linking the media to the government.

The Disappearance of the alleged bombers

It is known that Sidique Khan disappeared between July 5th and July 6th,  2005 after he brought his pregnant wife Hasina Patel to hospital, where she later suffered a miscarriage. She said in a Sky News interview on July 27, 2007 that she saw her husband last after coming home from hospital on July 5, 2005. Asked whether he bid her farewell when he left, she answered: “Just a normal goodbye. I’ll see you later, I’ll back in a few hours kind of thing. I didn’t see him after that.”  

The official position is that he traveled into London with his friends from Luton to King’s Cross on the morning of 7/7, boarded the Underground and blew up a bomb as the train left Edgware Road station. Yet, he was not seen in London by anyone on 7/7 and was not captured on any CCTV on the way to London. 

Assuming that he was tasked to participate in a terror drill on the morning of 7/7, but dropped out of the game because of his wife’s medical condition, Khan would have thereby signed, as it were, his death sentence. A strange exchange of SMS messages allegedly took place between by Khan and Germaine Lindsay in the night of 5th to 6th of July, 2005, as disclosed by Metropolitan Police Det Sgt Mark Stuart at the 7/7 bombings inquests.290  These messages suggest that he was dropping out of the ploy.  After this night, he disappeared.

As reported in Part I, there exists no conclusive evidence that the three other alleged bombers died at the explosion sites.  If they did not die there and vanished from this earth, they must have been murdered at the time and some of their bodily remains planted at the bombing sites to be found and identified.  This scenario would fit with indications of a serious crisis, including shootings, at Canary Wharf and numerous other indices presented in this study.

15.   Conclusions

In the present study we demonstrated that the British authorities (a) did not demonstrate zeal in investigating events of 7/7; (b) did not produce conclusive evidence that the four accused died in the bombings and intended to kill themselves or others; (c) failed to prove that the explosions of 7/7 were caused by home-made explosives; (d) failed to carry out autopsies on the bodies of the alleged bombers and on victims; (e) failed to explain why so many security cameras did not work precisely on the morning of 7/7; (f) failed to explain the difficulties in counting the dead; (g) failed to explain why their timeline on the alleged bombers’ movements was initially wrong; (h) failed to investigate the extraordinary coincidence between Peter Power’s terror exercise and the actual events; (i) failed to explain what happened at Canary Wharf on the morning of 7/7.

The conduct of the British authorities regarding the events of 7/7 resembles in many ways that of the U.S. authorities regarding 9/11. The least one can say with confidence is that both governments have engaged and continue to engage in a systematic cover-up of the respective deadly events.  There are, however, solid reasons for suspecting both governments as complicit in the actual mass-murders. Such suspicions will remain pending as long as the governments of the United States and of the United Kingdom continue to thwart attempts by citizens to establish the truth on these events.

The motives of the real perpetrators of 7/7 cannot be explained by domestic British politics. The events of 7/7 should rather be examined in the light of a series of “terrorist attacks” that began in the 1990s and continued unabated worldwide throughout the first decade of the 21st century. It is a reasonable assumption that most major terrorist attacks carried out outside war zones between 1990 and today are somehow connected. It is commonly believed that the connecting thread is embodied by al Qaeda. The British government, initially claiming that the four alleged bombers of 7/7 acted on their own, later suggested that these suspects had links to al Qaeda.  But what is al Qaeda? Is it, as widely believed, an autonomous network or organisation aiming to fight against Western democracies and forcing Islam on the world? Does evidence vindicate this view?  Already at the most superficial level, this theory appears tenuous: Most victims in terrorist attacks attributed to al Qaeda or its associated entities were not Americans or Jews – the desirable targets in Osama bin Laden’s fatwa of 1998 – but Muslims, such as in Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.  

Already one day after the London attacks, various anti-terror measures were announced:  Spiegel Online International reported on July 8, 2005 that Sweden was preparing a new anti-terror law “in response to the attacks in London.”291  The same Spiegel report cited NATO Secretary General Jaap Hoop Scheffer to the effect that “[t]he events [in London] have increased the will of the allies to continue the collective operation against terror” while the NATO Council was set to hold “an extraordinary meeting in Brussels on Friday following the terrorist attacks.” US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was sure “that the determination [to combat terrorism] is only growing” due to the events and German Minister of the Interior Otto Schily “called for stronger measures to protect the domestic security of Germany following the attacks in London.”292 The London events helped restore the legitimacy of the “war on terror” that gave Western powers a pretext for involvement in Asia and Africa.

A discussion about the nature of al Qaeda is beyond the scope of this study. I will only briefly sketch some salient facts about the alleged Islamic threat, to the extent that it helps to understand the events of 7/7.  

I submit that the numerous “terrorists” events that have occurred since 1990 outside war zones are linked to the demise of the Soviet bloc. This historical event deprived the Western Alliance with its most potent unifying factor, the perceived Soviet threat. In order to survive, the Western Alliance had to find or invent a new threat that could maintain the unity of purpose of the Alliance and allow it to extend its power projection globally. There is nothing mysterious about this process. States act according to perceived interests. Absent a perceived threat, Western governments would have been at pain to justify the maintenance of large armies, foreign military bases, the continued existence of NATO and particularly what it labels as its “global responsibility” to intervene wherever it considers its interests at risk.  

I further submit that an enemy was manufactured by Western intelligence agencies in the guise of a global Islamic terrorist network and given the “trademark” Al Qaeda. This network was assembled from the residues of Arabs who fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and became unemployed after Soviet withdrawal. Many could not return to their home countries, because they feared to be arrested as radicals. These mercenaries were looking for opportunities to capitalize on their fighting skills. Western intelligence agencies availed themselves of these mercenaries and facilitated, through Pakistani, Turkish and Saudi proxies, their deployment to various conflict zones, including in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Algeria, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines and elsewhere.293 They were later sent to destabilize the governments of Libya and Syria. Because of the covert nature of these operations, it is evident that the links connecting these militias to Western governments, are kept strictly hidden.

It is nevertheless known today that some of these mercenaries were recruited by U.S. agencies to participate in terrorist operations within the United States. The first bombing attack on the World Trade Center in New York, for example, was covertly facilitated by an FBI informant Emad Salem, with the approval of the agency.294 The second set of false-flag operations were the bombings at the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, facilitated by an CIA/FBI agent named Ali A. Mohamed who liaised between these agencies and al Qaeda.295 Thus began the series of false-flag operations that constitute today a routine – but secret – governance tool.  

A serious examination of 7/7 is, therefore, inconceivable without considering more generally the phenomenon of false-flag terrorism, which is actually not new in Europe. During the Cold War, NATO presided over a series of false-flag terrorist attacks in Italy and Belgium, commonly known today as Operation Gladio.296 The European Parliament acknowledged that these covert operations had taken place and demanded from its members states “to draw up a complete list of organizations active in this field, and at the same time to monitor their links with the respective state intelligence services and their links, if any, with terrorist action groups and/or other illegal practices.”297  This call was heeded only by Belgium, Switzerland and Italy.

Since 2001, numerous fake Islamic terrorist plots have been hatched by the FBI in the United States298 and in other countries too299, in order to maintain the myth of Islamic terrorism and thus justify increased police powers and an aggressive foreign policy.

False-flag terrorism can be presumed when (a) the alleged perpetrators cannot be brought to trial; (b) no bona fide organisation has claimed the attacks; (c) no specific demand was made by the perpetrators; (d) the alleged perpetrators were not celebrated in their community as heroes or martyrs (e) public authorities oppose a public inquiry; (f) a simultaneous terror exercise is carried out by the police or the army.  The events of 7/7 fulfill these conditions.


Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004), p. 14

According to the right of every person to be presumed innocent unless found guilty according to the law, the four accused Muslims are deemed innocent.  Their guilt was not determined by a judicial procedure but by political fiat. 

James Blitz and Jimmy Burns, “Blair rejects calls for probe into bombings”, Financial Times, 10 July 2005, #437

Police 'were consulted' over 7/7 inquiry”, Daily Mail, 15 December 2005, #438


Pre-inquest hearings were conducted in April 2010.

Transcripts of the inquest hearings, last visited April 3, 2014

Regina -v- North Humberside & Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson; CA 27-Apr-1994, #439

The legal team was composed of Mr Hugo Keith QC, Mr Andrew O’Connor and Mr Benjamin Hay.

10  Inquest, 26 April 2010 (morning session), #451, p. 73

11  Ibid.

12  Inquest, 20 January 2011 (morning session), #452, p. 63-65

13  “J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign”, at

14  Michael McCahill and Clive Norris, “CCTV in London: Working Paper No. 6”, June 2002, RTD-Project, 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission, University of Hull, #441; and Andy McCue, “Smart cameras to watch over London Tube”, ZD Net, 30 March 2004, #440

15  Israeli Security to Protect London’s Underground”, Arutz Sheva (Israel National News), September 21, 2004, #442

16  “Live News Ticker: The Latest News from London”,  Spiegel Online International, July 8, 2005, #453

17  Home Office Report of the Official Account on the London Bombings,  May 2006, #445, p. 6

18  Ibid, p. 5

19  Where the bombers struck”, The Guardian, 8 July 2005, #327

20  Ibid.

21  “Bomb Was Under the Train Says Eyewitness Closest To It”, Cambridge Evening News, 25 July 2005, #449

22  Ahmed, p. 39

23  Testimony of Terence Hiscock”, Inquest, 20 October 2010 (morning session), p. 11 

24  Hugh Muir, “Survivors tell of horror on bombed tube trains”, The Guardian, 24 March 2006, #328

25  Inquest, 9 November 2010, p. 140

26  Ibid.

27  Transcript of the Prime Minister The Hon. John Howard MP, Press Conference, Parliament House, Canberra, 8 July 2005, #455; also “Live News Ticker: The Latest News from London”,  Spiegel Online International, July 8, 2005, #453; also “Londra, il giorno dopo la tragedia”, la Repubblica (Italy), July 9, 2005, #454

28  One week’s anniversary’ bombings appeal”, Metropolitan Police, 14 July 2005, #456 

29  Families of London bomb victims shown blast sites”, Reuters, 24 July 2005, #457

30  “Death toll: 55”, The Sun, 18 July 2005

31  Lizette Alvarez, “Photos Plead: Have You Seen This Person?”, The New York Times, 10 July 2005, #458

32  Craig Whitlock, “Trail From London to Leeds Yields Portraits of 3 Bombers”, The Washington Post, 15 July 2005, #459

33  Incident Report, LAS, Document LAS698-3 (p. 2 of Gibson’s report)

34  Becky Barrow and Amy Iggulden, “Families receive the news that destroys all hope”, The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2005, #460

35  Nick Kollerstrom, Terror on the Tube (Progressive Press, California, 2009), p. 288-290

36  Behind the smiling faces, a grim quest for truth”, The Observer, 10 July 2005, #461

37  Leslie Bunder, “Search for Miriam”, Something Jewish [website], 11 July 2005, #462

38  Daniella Peled, “London’s Jews Carry on After Blasts”, The Jewish Journal, 14 July 2005, #463

39  Esther Addley, “7/7 inquests: Families remember their loved ones”, The Guardian, 6 May 2011, #464

40  According to The Independent on Sunday of 10 July 2005, Miriam called her father at 9:30.

41  Leslie Bunder, supra n. 37, #462

42  Esther Addley, supra n. 39, #464

43  Julia Stuart, “Attack on London: ‘The worst bit is the waiting. Whatever you do just doesn’t seem to be enough.”, Independent on Sunday, 10 July 2005, #465

44  Daniella Peled, supra n. 38

45  Ibid.; also Becky Barrow and Amy Iggulden, supra n. 34, #460

46  Haroon Siddique, “‘Terror suspects ‘made London reconnaissance mission”, The Guardian, 10 April 2008, #466; also Dominic Casciani, ”7/7: Three-month trial stalemate”, BBC, 1 August 2008, #467; also Inquest, 2 February 2011, p. 36

47  According to Becky Barrow and Amy Iggulden, supra n. 34, #460, Miriam’s parents were only informed on 13 July.

48  Inquest, 12 October  2010,  p. 138

49  Inquest, 19 January 2011,  p. 121

50  Ibid

51  Ibid, p. 119

52  Inquest, 26 January 2011, p. 22

53  Inquest, 19 January 2011, p. 134

54  Ibid.

55  Ibid., p. 136

56  Ibid., p. 138

57  Becky Barrow and Amy Iggulden, “Families receive the news that destroys all hope”, Telegraph (UK), July 14, 2005, #460

58  Behind the smiling faces, a grim quest for truth”, The Guardian, 10 July 2005,#468

59  Ibid.

60  List of the bomb blast victims”, BBC, 20 July 2005, #469

61  Simon Jeffery, “London death toll rises to 52”, The Guardian, 11 July 2005, #470

62  Julia Stuart, supra note

63  7/7 inquests: pain 'too strong for words' says victim's mother”, The Telegraph, 12 January 2011, #471

64  Bus driver describes carnage of 2005 bomb attack”, Associated Press (Seattle Times), January 14, 2011 [relating the Inquest], #472 

65  Daniel Obachike, The 4th Bomb (Floran Books, UK, 2007), p. 20

66  Fiona Barton, “The real faces of 7/7”, Daily Mail, 7 July 2006, #473

67  Inquest, 14 January 2011, p. 15

68  London Assembly report 1, p. 40 ( Transcript of interview with M, Volume 3, page 210), #276

69  Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005”, HC 1087, 11 May 2006, p. 6

70  Probable positions of passengers on bus at time of explosion”, Metropolitical Police Authority,  September 2010, #474

71  Email from Roger Chapman to Peter Holden, 10 July 2005”, presented at the Inquest on 28 January 2011, #475

72  Ibid.

73  Inquest, 28 January 2011, p. 76

74  Audrey Gillan and Owen Bowcott, “Families feel pain of name delay”, The Guardian, 12 July 2005, #476

75  Paula Dear, “Don’t wait for me tonight, mum”, BBC News, 4 July 2006, #477

76  London blasts: At a glance”, BBC, 7 July 2005, 23:12 GMT, #478

77  The following survivors made testimonies in this direction: Andrew Brown, Cynthia Chetty, Catherine Daniels, Bruce Lait and Crystal Main.

78  Sources Tell ABC News Evidence of Timing Devices Also Found”, ABC News, 8 July 2005, #323

79  Jamie Doward et al, “Attack on London: It was a normal rush hour in the capital”, The Observer, 10 July 2005, #481

80  London bombs exploded seconds apart - British police”, Jamaica Observer, 10 July 2005, #479; also “Underground bombs 'almost simultaneous’”, ABC Online, 9 July 2005, #480

81  Jamie Doward et al, supra n. 79, #481

82  Don van Natta, Jr. and Elaine Sciolino, “Bombs in London Are Now Called Military Quality”, The New York Times, 12 July 2005, #114

83  Ibid.

84  Introduction to explosives”, Public Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, #482

85  Inquest, 2 February 2011, p. 46

86  Ibid.

87  Introduction to explosives, supra n. 84

88  It has not been explained what role New York’s police commissioner played in relation to the events of 7/7 or their investigation.

89  Inquest, 1 February 2011, pp. 193-4

90  Hearings transcripts, Inquest, 11 October 2010, p. 62

91  Ibid.

92  July, 7 bombs used hair dye say NYPD”, The Times, 4 August 2005, #483

93  “'Bomb factory' substances burnt”, BBC, 21 July 2005, #326

94  Inquest, 11 October 2010, p. 65

95  Inquest, 1 February 2011, pp. 175-8

96  Inquest, 16 November 2010, p. 155

97  Inquest, 2 February 2011, p. 57 (emphasis added)

98  Duncan Gardham, “We’ve never seen a bomb like 21/7 devices”, The Telegraph, 11 July 2007, #484

99  The Bedsit Bombers”, Mirror News, 8 January 2007, #325

100  “In full: Blair on bomb blasts”, BBC, 7 July 2005, 18:03 GMT, #485

101  Nick Kollerstrom, “UK Police Intel Expert: Government, Not Islam, Real Terror Threat”, Veterans Today, 10 July 2011, #486 

102  “Suicide-bomber’s widow loses legal aid challenge”, BBC, 27 August 2010, #487

103  Ibid.

104  Inquest, 6 May 2011, para. 7 (emphasis added). Note that this formula goes beyond the standard  required under criminal law (proof “beyond reasonable doubt”) to convict a suspect.

105  Ibid., para. 8

106  Ibid., para. 9

107  Don van Natta Jr. and David Johnston, “London Bombs Seen as Crude”, The New York Times, 9 July 2005, #288 

108  “Bombers may have been on camera”, The New York Times, July 9, 2005, #488

109  “Police release bus bomber images“, BBC, July 14, 2005, #489

110  Jeff Edwards and Chris Hughes, “Exclusive: The Hunt”, Daily Mirror, July 9, 2005, #259

111  Ibid.

112  Ibid.

113  Inquest, 13 October 2010, testimony of Detective Inspector Ewan Kindness , p. 6 

114  Report of the 7 July Review Committee, London Assembly, June 2006, p. 37, item 2.52, #443 

115  Inquest, 14 October 2010,  pp. 186-7

116  Will Knight, “CCTV footage shows London suicide bombers”, New Scientist, 13 July 2005, #490

117  “7 July bombers spotted on CCTV after exhaustive hunt”, BBC, 13 October 2010, #491

118  “7/7-CCTV Kings Cross Thameslink (inquests version)

119  “Jean Charles de Menezes CCTV footage shown at inquest”, The Telegraph (UK),  September 24, 2008, #493

120  Ben Taylor, “Tube CCTV: Was there a cover-up?”, Mail Online, August 23, 2005, #492

121  Inquest, 14 October 2010, p.144

122  Ibid., p. 145

123  Ibid., p. 189

124  Many have wondered what would have been the purpose of him doing so, for bus 30, that he would have caught at Euston Station, would normally have brought him back to Kings’ Cross.  Unless he was specifically ordered by his handlers to look for bus no 30, in which case he would not have determined himself the time and location of the explosion.

125  Inquest, 14 October 2010,  p. 190

126  The email is displayed on the website and cached on #494

127  Ibid.

128  Jamie Doward, supra n. 79, #481

129  Ibid.

130  Ibid.

131  J7 7/7 CCTV 'Evidence' Analysis, #967

132  One person, Karl Sylvester, who testified at the Inquest, claims he sent an email to Scotland Yard on 7 July 2005 around 14:00, in which he reported to have observed two men with large rucksacks traveling from Luton to King’s Cross. He suggested that they acted suspiciously.  His account could not be verified. 

133  Jamie Doward, supra n. 79, #481

134  Joshua Rozenberg, “Relatives of Tube bomber want another post mortem”, The Telegraph, October 29, 2005, #495

135  Inquest, 24 November 2010, p. 68

136  Ibid. p. 69

137  Ibid.  p. 78

138  Ibid. 

139  Ibid.  p. 71

140  Ibid.  p. 72

141  Ibid.  

142  Ibid.  p. 76

143  Ibid., p. 79

144  Ibid.

145  Ibid.  

146  Ibid. p. 59 et seq.

147  Shiv Malik, “My brother the bomber”, Prospect Magazine, Issue 135, June 2007, #496, p. 14

148  Andrew Pollack, “DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show”, The New York Times, 18 August 2009, #497

149  Inquest, 24 November 2010, p. 63

150  Ibid.  p. 64

151  Ibid.  

152  Inquest, 1 February 2011, p. 202

153  Ibid., p. 204

154  Ibid., p. 205

155  Ibid.  pp. 206-7

156  Ibid.  p. 210

157  Sketch plans of Edgware Road trains 216 and 207 by PC 4296 Potter, Document INQ8708-2, #498

158  Ibid.

159  Inquest, 3 November 2010.

160  Ibid., p. 114

161  Ibid.

162  Inquest 16 November 2010, p. 38

163  Ibid.  p. 41

164  Ibid.  pp. 41-42

165  Inquest,  9 November 2011, p. 81

166  Joshua Rozenberg, supra n. 134, #495

167  Inquest, 3 November 2010, p.  91

168  Ibid.

169  Ibid, p. 94

170  Inquest,  27 October 2010, p. 90

171  Inquest, 3 November 2010, p. 73 (emphasis added)

172  "Recovered body fragment: Operation Theseus URN 60021972 (Shehzad Tanweer), read at the Inquest on 3 November 2010, pp. 101-103 (emphasis added)

173  Inquest, 3 November 2010, p. 97 (emphasis added)

174  Inquest, 3 November 2010, pp. 97-99 (emphasis added)

175  Inquest, 1 February 2011, p. 207

176  Ibid., p. 205

177  Ibid.  p. 207

178  Nick Kollerstrom, “Towards a 7/7 Inquest”, Terror on the Tube, 28 March 2010, #499

179  Joshua Rozenberg, supra n. 134

180  Ibid.

181  Inquest, 17 December 2010, p. 132

182  Ibid.  p. 133

183  Inquest, 1 December 2010, p. 186-187

184  Ibid. p. 4

185  Ibid.  p. 6

186  Ibid. p. 7

187  Inquest, 26 January 2011, p. 186

188  “Police Give Update on London Terror Attacks”, CNN, 8 July 2005, #500

189  “Britain’s enemy within”, The Scotsman, 17 July 2005, #279

190  Andrew S. MacGregor, “The Fate of Khan”, Terror on the Tube (Investigation), November 15, 2010. #501

191  Patrick Mulchrone, “Exclusive: 7/7 suicide bus bomb teen buried,” Mirror News, 3 November 2005, #502

192  The International Association for the Study of Pain, PAIN, Volume VI, Issue 2, July 1998

193  Ibid.

194 For example, Lydia Warren, “He has sacrificed more than anyone can imagine for his country”, Mail Online, 16 April 2002, #503

195  Inquest, 1 February 2011, p. 114

196  Exhibit INQ11176-2 to the Inquest

197  Inquest, 1 February 2011, pp. 108-111

198  Ibid., p. 111

199  Ibid., p. 112

200  Inquest, 17 December 2010, pp. 134-136

201  Ibid.  p. 137

202  Michael White, “Blair: Uproot this ideology of evil”, The Guardian, 14 July 2005, #504 

203  “Sisters injured in London bombings give God ‘Full Credit’ for survival”, WRAL.COM (Durham, N.C.), 22 July 2005, #505

204  Inquest, 1 February 2011, p. 118 et seq.

205  The alleged hijackers of 11 September 2001 allegedly left a Qur’an in a bag that somehow was forgotten at the Boston airport and was luckily found by police. See FBI Affidavit lodged in the US District Court of Maine on September 12, 2001, by FBI Agent James K. Lechner,  p. 10

206  “Witness statement, DS Mark Stuart”, INQ11176-2, 2 February 2011, #506

207  Inquest, 1 February 2011, pp. 111-112

208  Ibid., pp. 117-118

209  Inquest, 1 February 2011, p. 184-5

210  “16 more bombs”, The Mirror, July 28, 2005, #969

211  Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11”, 10 January 2008

212  Ibid.

213  Ibid.

214  The attacks were unanimously condemned by Muslim leaders. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad condemned the “sickening attacks.” The President of the Iraqi Parliament Hadshim al-Hassani condemned such “evil acts.”  British Muslim leaders called for prayers for the victims and promised the police full support in the hunt for the attackers.  Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Erdogan condemned the attacks as “an act against mankind and world peace.” Ayatollah Emami Kashani in Iran said: “These barbarians have neither something to do with Islam nor with humanity.” There was no known celebration anywhere for the attacks. Source: Spiegel Online International, July 8, 2005, #453   

215  Cited in Con Coughlin, American Ally: Tony Blair and the War on Terror, Harpers Collins, 2006, p. 340

216   Times, July 14, 2003

217  It was revealed at the inquests that Shehzad Tanweer had a secret relationship with a young woman, whose identity was not revealed (Inquest, 10 January 2011). Germaine Lindsay also had a secret relationship with a young woman, Nicki Blackmore, as revealed at the same Inquest and on 16 February 2011. He allegedly asked her to spend the night of July 6th with him but she declined.

218  Shiv Malik, a journalist who published a detailed profile of Mohamed Sidique Khan, claimed that Khan’s biological mother had died years before 2005. In Shiv Malik, supra n. 146, #496

219  “Profile of Mohammad Sidique Khan”, BBC, April 30, 2007, #508

220  Sandra Laville and Dilpazier Aslam, “Mentor to the young and vulnerable”, The Guardian, July 14, 2005, #509

221 “Profile of Mohammad Sidique Khan”, supra n. 218, #508

222  “Statements from bombers’ families”, BBC, July 17, 2005, #510

223  Nasreen Suleaman, “The mystery of ‘Sid’”, BBC, October 19, 2005, #511

224  Ibid. 

225  Ibid.

226  Jason Burke, et al, “Three cities, four killers”, The Guardian, 17 July 2005, #512 

227  “School 'devastated' to learn teacher was bomber”, The Telegraph, 14 July 2005, #513

228 Jason Burke et al, supra n. 226, #512

229  Ian Herbert, “Revealed: How suicide bomber used to work for the government”, The Independent, March 11, 2006, #514

230 Nasreen Suleaman, supra n. 223, #511

231  Craig Whitlock, “Trail From London to Leeds Yields Portraits of 3 Bombers”, Washington Post, 15 July 2005, #515

232  “Profile: Shehzad Tanweer”, BBC, July 6, 2006, #516

233  Ibid.

234  Massoud Ansari, “My son was more British than anything. God knows why he carried out this act”, The Telegraph, 29 October 2005, #517

235  “Britain’s Enemy Within”, The Scotsman, July 17, 2005, #279

236  “Statements from bombers’ families”, supra n. 222, #510

237  “Profile: Germaine Lindsay”, BBC, May 11, 2006,#518

238 “Statements from bombers’  families”, supra n. 222, #510

239 Profile: Hasib Mir Hussain”, BBC, May 11, 2006, #519

240  “Statements from bombers’ families”, supra n. 222, #510

241  Jeremy Armstrong, “My Hasib must have been brainwashed”, Mirror, August 2, 2005, #332

242  Dennis Rice, “Bus murderer picked his bride from a video”, The Mail on Sunday, July 24, 2005, #333

243 Did July 7 Bombers Mean to Die?”, Fox News (Associated Press), July 27, 2005, #521

244  Jeremy Armstrong, supra n. 241, #333

245  Duncan Campbell and Sandra Laville, “British suicide bombers carried out London attacks, say police”, The Guardian, July 13, 2005, #522

246  July 7 bombers ‘laughed and joked’ on their way to launch suicide attack”, Metro, October 13, 2010, #523

247  Inquests, October 13, 2010, p. 129

248  “July 7 bombers ‘laughed and joked’, supra n. 246

249 Inquests, October 13, 2010, p. 144

250 Lootin’ Terrorists, Wot Is It Good” 4, July 13, 2005, #524

251 London bomber video aired on TV”, BBC, 2 September 2005, #525

252 Cited in the Report into the London Terrorist Attacks of 7 July 2005,  Intelligence and Security Committee, Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister, May 2006, #447, p. 12. An audio version of Khan’s video is available on a BBC program broadcast three months after 7/7

253  Sandra Laville, “Friends claim Khan’s statement was faked”, The Guardian, September 3, 2005, #526

254  Forrest Gump, Wikipedia (Visual effects)

255 William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing”, The Washington Post,  February 1, 1999, #527

256  Theo Emery, “Video Research at MIT Puts Words Into Mouths, with Startling Results”, Associated Press, June 30, 2002, #968

257  A fairly recent publicized example is that of the FBI, which morphed a picture of a Spanish politician with that of Osama bin Laden: “Spanish MP's photo used for Osama Bin Laden poster”, BBC, 16 January 2010, #528

258  Ian Herbert and Arifa Akhbar, “ Shahzad Tanweer: 'I cannot begin to explain this. He was proud to be British' “, The Independent, July 14, 2005, #1592

259  “A search for roots goes bad”, Time Magazine, July 24, 2005, #1595

260  Duncan Gardham, “Life of July 7 bomber Shehzad Tanweer celebrated by family in Pakistan”, July 7, 2008, #1593

261  “Bomber told relatives of his hatred of the West”, The Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, 2005, #1594

262  Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2004”, HC1087, 11 May 2006, #445

263  Ibid.

264  “Confirmation from Communications Manager at Thameslink Rail”, July 7th Truth Campaign, undated. #529

265 Nick Kollerstrom, “7/7 Inquest: Government offers new (still unbelievable) version of train times”, Terror on the Tube, October 20, 2010, #530

266 Facts About the Train Times on July 7th: Official Home Office 7/7 report is wrong!“, J7, The July 7th Truth Campaign, undated, #531

267 London under attack”, BBC, May 6, 2004, #532; also “How the fictional attack unfolded”, BBC, May 16, 2004, #533

268  “Panorama: London under attack - The Panel”, BBC,  May 15, 2004,#534

269  Transcript of the BBC program “Panorama: London under attack” of May 16, 2004, #535.  Was the proposed procedure used on 7/7?

270  Susan O’Keefe, “Wall of silence over terror threat”, BBC News, May 16, 2004, #536

271  Mark Townsend and Gaby Hinsliff, “Anti-terror drill revealed soft targets in London”, The Observer, July 10, 2005, #537

272 Lester Holt, “Q&A with former N.Y. Mayor Rudy Giuliani”, MSNBC, July 7, 2005, 5:15 pm, #538

273 Terror in London”, The Scotsman, July 10, 2005, #258

274  “RTS London Awards for The Tube”, MOSAIC, October 22, 2006, #539

275  “London’s Response to 7/7”, David Donegan, Office of the Strategic Health Authorities at NHS, in, no longer online, held in J7 archives.

276Visor Consultants' 'simultaneous bombs' rehearsal on 7 July 2005”, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, #540

277  A recording of this interview is available here for downloading:

278 King’s Cross man’s crisis course”, Manchester Evening News, July 8, 2005, #541

279 Visor Consultants' 'simultaneous bombs' rehearsal on 7 July 2005”, supra note 176, #540 

280  Ibid.

281 7/7 Ripple Effect - A Rebuttal and Rejection”, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Blog,  October 3, 2008, #542

282 This theory has been hinted by Paul Watson and Alex Jones, “London Underground Bombing ‘Exercises’ Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack”, Prison Planet, July 13, 2005, #543

283  Öjenvidner: To mænd  skudt i London”, Nyhederne (TV 2, Danmark), July 7, 2005, kl. 15:00, #223

284 Police shot bombers’ reports New Zealander, New Zealand Herald, July 9, 2005, #222

285 “The long journey home”, The Independent, July 8, 2005, #224

286 Ben Ashford, “‘Hidden holdall bomb’ causes carnage,” South London Press, July 8, 2005, #301

287  Dr. Rory Ridley-Duff, “Theorising truth: What happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?”

288  Bloggers on unusual events at Canary Wharf on 7/7, #966

289  J7 London Bombings Dossier, Index 28 & 29 Media Restrictions, undated, #545

290  Andrew MacGregor, supra note 190, #501

291  Live News Ticker: The Latest News from London”,  Spiegel Online International, July 8, 2005, #453

292  Ibid.

293  Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War On Truth (Olive Branch Press, Northampton, 2005)

294  Ralph Schoenman, “Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993”, Global Research, 23 April 1994, #546

295  Peter Lance, Triple Cross (HarpersCollins Publishers, New York, 2006). Ali Mohamed is depicted by Western sources as an al Qaeda genius who succeeded to outsmart the CIA, the FBI and the US Army, who knew his links to Osama bin Laden. An examination of his relations with these agencies rather suggests the contrary.

296  Daniele Ganser, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe (Routledge, U.K., 2004)

297  “European Parliament resolution on Gladio”, 1990, Wikipedia

298  David K. Shipler, “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.”, The New York Times, 28 April 2012, #547

299  Fake terrorist plots have been documented in most West European countries during the first decade of the 21th century.  In many cases, petty criminals with a Muslim background are induced or incited by police informants to mount a terrorist operation in return for some benefit. The hapless individuals are then arrested and charged for intending to engage in terrorism before they had actually committed any violent act.  Their sentences are sometimes reduced if they agree to “cooperate” with the authorities and engage, in turn, in recruiting other hapless “terrorists.”  This method ensures a continuous media coverage about the alleged threat of Islamic terrorism.