July 7 – The Truth At Last

Nick Kollerstrom – Terror on the Tube November 17, 2010

THE PERFECT CRIME had been planned. It would make history, and be the British answer to 9/11. After years of planning, it was ready to go! No-one would ever guess…

It was part of the main sequence of terror-events which have arced across our world in the New Millenium, extinguishing the hope which we had for the new century: 9/11 in New York, the Bali bomb of 2002, the Istanbul bomb of 2003, Madrid railway station in 2004 and then London in 2005: followed by the Mumbai train blasts of 2006. They have served to define the new Enemy  – the phantom menace – and ratify Empire.

But, two things went badly wrong, for the July 7th event. Both of these simply came out of the blue, and were totally unexpected – almost, one could say, acts of God. Firstly, the train selected (Luton to London) was cancelled, for 7.40 am, and the other trains that morning were severely delayed – so that the Four just could not get to London in time. Secondly, Mohammed Khan’s beloved young wife suddenly started having pregnancy complications, and by July 5th it was clear that Khan had to pull out.

The ‘handler’ of the Four faced a tricky moment, of having to persuade the other three – the two young men in Leeds, Tanweer and Hussein,  plus Lindsay in Aylesbury – to carry on with their agreed participation in the terror- drill without Khan. Normally Khan was the boss amongst them, almost their leader one could say. He was older. My book found no evidence that Khan had participated in the events of 7/7: no-one ever saw him after he took his wife to the hospital for that checkup on the 5th. But, I could never figure out how to square this with the ‘Ripple Effect’ story whereby the Four arrived in London on that morning, to participate in Peter Power’s terror drill.

People in what is loosely called the ‘truth movement’ had been puzzled by the absence of any credible CCTV – or human witnesses – testifying that the Four had been in London on that morning. The police kept announcing that they had lots of CCTV, but in that case why could they not show it? Why were all the bits of CCTV they released suspicious and clearly tampered-with? If the problem was that the four had arrived too late, surely the police could have adjusted the timestamps?

I was ridiculed on the BBC’s Conspiracy Files 7/7 film (June 2009), for being sceptical that the Four had arrived in London on that morning. No doubt I deserved it – because I was wrong! Much CCTV of Hasib Hussain pottering around King’s Cross station was shown at the Inquest on October 13th and fortunately I was there. The public will never be shown that untampered-with CCTV. At last, I was finally convinced, of two things: firstly, that he really had been there, wandering around in a rather lost manner for 25  minutes; and secondly, that the police had no CCTV of him there before 5 or 6 minutes to nine, after the bombs had gone off: he then abruptly appears on their CCTV screens.

Maybe we will never know what happened to the 18-year old Hasib Hussein: all we can say is that the three places we are told he went – the MacDonald’s over the road, the 91 bus, the 30 bus – all mysteriously had their CCTV switched off, or the film went missing.

The Inquest heard what I (and fellow-researcher Kevin Boyle) felt was a quite credible testimony, from a guard at King’s Cross, who had seen Germaine Lindsey and spoken to him– and I noticed how careful the Inquest was to avoid defining the time when this happened: it was sometime before the bombs went off at ten to nine.

A confirmation of the Canary Wharf story posted on this site has received a flock of contributors endorsing it. This story involved two ‘suicide bombers’ being shot by the police at Canary Wharf at 10.30 am, and it was reported on at least two UK news broadcasts at 11 am that morning before being officially denied. That event now appears as an unmistakeable clue to what happened that morning. Indeed, when the British philosopher Professor Rory Ridley-Duff (at Sheffield University) compared the BBC’s Conspiracy Files account with that of the Ripple Effect, concluding that the latter had a higher ‘truth value,’ he evaluated the Canary Wharf story as totally central. He dug up 17 news reports about it! We need to apprehend the significance, of the fact that those accounts were of two young men being shot dead, not three.

The police could never show all of their reams of CCTV, which it had intended would be shown. Why not? The Ripple Effect narrative could never explain this. Only three lads were ever in those photos, whereas a fourfold story had to be imposed upon the British public, with four explosions. In the crush of rush-hour, lots of others were milling around in the background: timestamps of the too-late Three could not ever be adjusted, because of the unpredictable way in which other commuters in the pictures would be liable to come forward. That’s why the only CCTV we have been shown is of dubious origin, with the 4 on that morning artfully contrived to have no-one else around.

I once asked Muad’Dib (composer of the Ripple Effect), why did he believe Khan was travelling down with Hasib Hussein and Tanweer that morning? He alluded to photos released at the Woodall Service Station on the M1, just before 5 o’clock in the morning. Could one not see a glimpse of Khan in the car, he replied? I never managed to see this: there was one other person visible in the front of the car, identifiable as Hasib Hussein.  The forecourt manager of the Service Station testified at the Inquest, after taking a solemn oath, that he had only seen one other person in the car, besides Tanweer (Oct 13th pm 55:5-6).

That Woodall forecourt scene is important, I suggest, as being possibly the only CCTV sequence for that day which does not appear to have been tampered with, apart from the sequence at King’s Cross of Hasib Hussein solo.  Even though it was only released three years later, it seems genuine enough to me. We see a breezy, smartly-dressed Tanweer filling up with petrol,  and the Inquest duly produced the bill: twenty pounds for petrol (and ten pounds for crisps and munchy sweets – just thought I’d add that Oct 13th pm, 54:12-15).

The Australian ex-policeman Andrew  MacGregor has kindly contributed his definitive article The Fate of Khan to the present website. He has managed to see through the architecture of deception woven by those who designed the London bombings. The enigma of 7/7 has now been solved – Down Under. Surely it is now time for the British people to start to demand that the media print a more credible version of events.

Here are a couple of quotes from Andrew MacGregor’s article:

Mohammed Khan and his ‘co-conspirators’ had been hired to take part in a drill by Visor Consultants.  They had no idea that they were being set up to be ‘suicide-bombers’. When Mohammed Khan informed his ‘minder’ that he was pulling out because of his wife’s condition, Mohammed Khan sealed his own death warrant. Suicide bombers never survive, even if they change their minds.

So Mohammed Khan disappears on the 5th July 2005, only to be next seen on a slab in the mortuary on the 7th July 2005.

Thus ended the life of the gentleman ‘Sid’ Khan, the Anglicised Muslim – aide to deprived children in a special school, known for assisting local police in peacemaking between teenage gangs. We recall that, when his wife saw him on the ‘suicide bomber’ video, her immediate words were, “That’s not my husband”.

Message from the perps?

For five years we’d been told that I.D. of Khan was found at three different locations: the Edgware Road, Tavistock Square and Aldgate Station blast scenes. This, I suggested in my book, was a sign more of his absence from London that morning, than his presence. It seemed comparable in its meaning to the Khan image shown at Luton at 7.22. It is inadequate merely to describe this as a bad or blurred image:  it is so bad – with two lots or railings passing

in front of him that should be behind – that it looks like a message from the perps: indicating his absence from Luton, rather than his presence.

But, if so, people did not get the message, and so now the Inquest has added a fourth location where Khan’s ID was located: Russell Square, the Piccadilly line blast. His mobile phone was located there by the blasted carriage – complete with the (faked) text-message sent from it that morning!

So we have Her Majesty’s Inquest gravely listening to the four different sites where ID of Khan was located. All four of the blast sites. Nobody laughs, nor does a single newspaper journalist express doubt.

I suggest that we have reached a decisive new stage, where the main outline of the story can now be told.

Source

Nick Kollerstrom academic, researcher and author of such varied titles as 'Gardening and Planting by the Moon 2007: Higher Yields in Vegetables and Flowers' and 'Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7, an Investigation'.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.