Are We Boiling Frogs?

by Home home

  grade explosives and technologically advanced devices, it

  was Clarke’s resistance to Sarkozy’s assessment that was

  bewildering.[36]

  The official narrative changed completely (though not for the

  last time) with the discovery of the supposed bomb factory

  on the 12th. The flat contained a large amount of suggested

  bomb making equipment.[34] This predominantly consisted

  237

  A Dangerous Ideology

  of normal household items such as tape, wire, gloves, hand

  tools and so forth. These could have been innocuous.

  There was also a number of plastic tubs, containing either a

  light or dark brown mixture. At first, this was said to be

  TATP (Triacetonetriperoxide).[128]

  So all the initial reports, from international forensic

  explosives experts and senior investigators, on the ground at

  the scenes of the bombings, stating the detection of military

  grade explosives technology at all four bomb sites, simply

  disappeared. TATP was next reported as the explosive used.

  This story stood for a couple of years or so. Then, like

  C4/RDX before it, it just vanished from the tale, to be

  replaced with a home-made explosive no chemist or

  explosives expert could identify.

  At the inquest this ‘brown sludge’ mixture of Hydrogen

  Peroxide and Piperine was finally established to be the

  explosive used. Though, as we are about to discover, you

  might ask why.

  Investigators claimed to have found DNA and fingerprints

  from the bombers all over the Leeds flat. Suggesting the

  suicide bombers had little interest in hiding their activities. If

  they intended to kill themselves, why would they? This

  physical evidence was only discovered on the normal,

  everyday, household items.

  Unfortunately, despite finding hundreds of prints and

  samples, none of the alleged terrorist fingerprints or DNA

  were found on any of the explosive filled containers. Hasib

  Hussain’s prints were said to have been found on a small

  container of the suspected initiator charge, HMDT, but not

  on any of the tubs. The evidence proves their use of cutlery,

  but not the alleged explosive mixture.

  Other items, such as duct tape, several large batteries, an

  additional ruck sack, freezer blocks, tools, fuses and wiring,

  were found in the purple car. Officially this indicated the

  three men, their large explosive packed rucksacks, the

  additional bomb making equipment and spare explosive

  devices, were all rammed into the tiny Nissan Micra.

  238

  A Dangerous Ideology

  Why they chose to hire one of the smallest cars in Britain to

  transport themselves, and all this kit, is puzzling.

  Presumably saving money wasn't high on their agenda,

  although Tanweer's argument over his change at Woodall

  Services possibly indicated otherwise. Why not hire a van,

  negating the need to fiddle with bombs, in broad view of

  commuters and CCTV cameras, in a public car park, on

  busy weekday morning?

  While the 2006 government report stated that nothing was

  known about their tickets, it later emerged the 'suicide

  bombers' bought 'day returns.' So perhaps saving money

  wasn't important to them after all.[78]

  The only man forensically linked to the car was Mohammad

  Sidique Khan. However, like the flat, no evidence was found

  that he touched any of the bomb making equipment found in

  the Nissan. Again, it only showed he had handled everyday

  items, such as sweet wrappers and a water bottle.

  Another unresolved problem is that the nameless home-

  made explosive found in the car was a pure white powder.

  [129] The mysterious substance found in the flat was brown.

  No trace of the white material was found in the flat.

  No DNA or fingerprints were found linking any of the

  suspects to either the tubs of explosives or the bomb related

  items found in the Nissan Micra. Given that they were keen

  to be identified, it remains unexplained why this would have

  been the case. All four must have been perfectly fastidious,

  using gloves 100% of the time, because they had no known

  reason to wipe them clean.

  Tavistock Square revealed a 9v battery that showed

  'superficial' signs of bomb damage. If it was used to initiate

  an explosion, it survived remarkably intact. Some wiring was

  found at two of the bomb sites. This was damaged by close

  proximity to an explosion but was also the same wiring

  commonly used in headphones.

  A halogen bulb initiator, attached to a small charge of the

  explosive HMTD, was supposedly found at the Alexandra

  Grove address in Leeds. Explosives expert Dr Clifford Todd

  expressed his opinion that this was the firing mechanism

  239

  A Dangerous Ideology

  used for all four bombs, and the bomb makers would have

  required “guidance and instruction from elsewhere.” [42]

  He was involved with the investigation of the Piccadilly Line

  explosion. At the inquest he confirmed that he had found no

  trace of the alleged halogen bulb initiator, similar connecting

  wiring or HMDT at the site.

  In fact, unlike the initial identification of military grade

  explosives at every single bomb scene, no trace of the

  suggested 'improvised explosive' was found at any of the

  bomb locations. The residue of the supposed initiating

  charge, HMTD, was found at 3 of the sites, but in such

  insignificant quantities its origins couldn't be determined.

  In addition to the absence of any DNA or finger print

  evidence, linking the four to the handling of the home-made

  explosive, there was no chemical evidence which

  demonstrated the suggested explosive compound was even

  used in any of the bombings. Consequently, proof of the

  four's involvement in the crime was reliant upon forensic

  evidence which was consistent with their bodies being

  closest to the blasts.

  Following 9/11, the British Government devised its ‘Mass

  Fatality Plan’ (MFP.) This envisaged rapidly constructing

  temporary medical facilities in response to incidents

  involving large scale loss of life.

  On July 6th 2005, the day before the 7/7 terrorist attacks,

  Losberger De Boer[131] finalised their MFP construction

  contract with the UK government. By sheer coincidence, the

  very next day, they were tasked with erecting the ‘Resilience

  Mortuary’ in the grounds of the British Military’s Honourable

  Artillery Company (HAC)[133] to receive the 7/7 victims. It is

  not known why this was considered necessary for 56

  corpses. The MFP wasn’t set to be triggered unless more

  than 500 bodies required storage and local mortuaries had

  sufficient capacity.

  The main purpose, and a legal requirement of a coroner's

  inquest, is to ascertain who the deceased were, where and

  when they died, and the causes of their deaths. Remarkably,

  Lady Justice Hallett ruled out any consideration of the way

&nb
sp; 240

  A Dangerous Ideology

  death was determined at the scenes. She decided it was

  'outside of the scope' of the proceedings. That only 15

  victims were pronounced ‘life extinct’ at the scenes, was left

  unchallenged. Despite it being apparent that at least 18, who

  died, survived for some time after the explosions.

  Identification was also hindered by the fact that none of the

  56 deceased people underwent internal post-mortems at the

  newly constructed Resilience Mortuary. This is normally a

  vital step in the forensic analysis of such attacks, and a

  standard method for establishing cause of death. The

  mapping of the injuries can assist investigators in locating

  the epicentre of the blast. Furthermore, the explosive used

  could possibly have been identified by examining the

  remains. Yet, in each and every case, this essential

  investigatory procedure was overlooked.

  Instead, at great expense, Colonel Mahoney, defence

  professor of anaesthesia and critical care at the Royal Centre

  for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, had to construct

  medical ‘models’ of the deceased who initially survived the

  blasts. This unfathomable Ministry of Defence process threw

  up some stark anomalies.

  To reconstruct the potential blast force of the bombs, Colonel

  Mahoney had to assume the explosive used was TNT. This

  was because the explosive supposedly used in the attacks

  was unknown to science. No one had any idea what kind of

  energetic forces it could exert, or even if it would reliably

  explode. Having made several attempts to blow it up,

  investigators were only successful on one occasion. So the

  alleged terrorists 100% detonation success rate was

  surprising, even extraordinary.

  Furthermore, not only were their no autopsies, no X-rays

  were provided for Colonel Mahoney to model bone damage.

  Nor did he know where the victims were, within the

  carriages, when the bombs detonated. This strongly

  indicated that he hadn’t seen any footage from the trains’

  internal CCTV. If footage showing the suicide bombers in the

  trains existed, why wasn’t it shown to the team tasked with

  ‘modelling’ the injuries? Or the inquest for that matter.

  At the inquest, pathologist Dr Awani Choudhary was asked

  241

  A Dangerous Ideology

  to testify about his recollection of the Tavistock Square

  bombing, where he tried to save the life of Gladys Wundowa.

  Dr Choudhary stated he would need to see the autopsy

  results in order to confirm his own assessment of her

  injuries at the scene.

  He was then informed that there were no internal post-

  mortems. Clearly shocked Dr Choudhary said:

  “I’m absolutely sure that she 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.”

  In reply, Andrew O'Connor, junior council to the inquests,

  said:

  “Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn't a matter to

  concern you.....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.”

  Post-mortem examinations aren't normally considered 'red

  herrings' at coroner's inquests.

  In the unexplained, dumbfounding absence of this basic

  procedure, the police were forced to rely upon a combination

  of survivor accounts and other physical evidence. This led to

  total confusion.

  The evidence relating to the underground bomb damage was

  baffling. Many of the survivors were asked to draw sketches

  of their recollections of seating positions and the damage

  caused to the carriages. From these statements and

  sketches, combined with physical evidence, the police

  produced CGI diagrams of the carriages and the bus at the

  inquest. These diagrams raised a number of issues.

  Let's consider just a few.

  Tanweer was said to be standing by the rear doors of the

  carriage with the rucksack on the floor, at his feet, before

  detonating his bomb at Liverpool Street. The police diagram

  showed the bomb placed in a standing area. Eyewitness

  242

  A Dangerous Ideology

  Bruce Lait gave a press statement which partly confirmed

  the police account but also raised further questions:

  “ The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's

  where the bomb was'. The metal was

  pushed upwards as if the bomb was

  underneath the train. They seem to think the

  bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember

  anybody being where the bomb was, or any

  bag.”

  Lait was called to give evidence to the inquest but wasn't

  asked if he saw Tanweer or his bomb, which he didn't.

  Another survivor Michael Henning was called to confirm his

  alleged sighting of Tanweer. In the CCTV footage taken at

  Luton and Kings Cross, Tanweer was wearing dark

  tracksuits bottoms, a white sports top and a dark Jacket,

  apparently having changed his trousers. Henning described

  Tanweer as follows:

  “An Asian man wearing some sort of white

  or cream light coloured clothing.”

  Adding:

  “I couldn't say with great detail his features

  etc. It's more those soft focus of the people

  you normally see on the tube and haven't

  paid attention to.”

  This didn't in any way constitute a positive identification of

  Tanweer.

  An off duty police woman, Elizabeth Kenworthy was in the

  next carriage. Following the blast, in one of the many acts of

  incredible bravery that day, she crawled into the devastation

  to try to save people’s lives. The sketch she drew showed a

  large hole in the floor in front of Tanweer's suggested

  position but it also showed a second hole, in keeping with

  Bruce Lait's account. She also stated the damaged metal

  around the hole was “twisted upwards,” suggesting a bomb

  beneath the carriage. As a trained police officer, her

  eyewitness testimony can perhaps be considered among the

  most reliable.

  243

  A Dangerous Ideology

  The official account stated that each and every bomber

  removed their rucksacks and placed them on the floor. The

  injuries inflicted, predominantly to lower limbs, were

  consistent with detonations at ground level. The injuries

  were also consistent with bombs placed underneath the

  carriages, or possibly on the tracks. As was the damage to

  the carriages, which also indicated the use of more than just

  the four identified devices.

  Ray Whitehurst, the driver of the Edgware Road train, was

  among the many witnesses who stated he experienced the

  carriage being 'lifted' into the air. Again suggesting possible

  bombs beneath rather than inside the carriages. He told the

  inquest:

  ''I felt the front of the carriage raise and it was

  as if I had hit a brick wall,"
/>
  In order to maximise the carnage, suicide bombers usually

  keep the explosives on their bodies and stand when they

  detonate. Had the 7/7 'terrorists' done so the explosions

  would have undoubtedly killed many more than they did. No

  account was offered to explain why all four mass murderers

  apparently took steps to minimise the death count. No

  manual trigger mechanisms were found, so the necessity for

  them to place their bombs on the floor wasn't established.

  On the Piccadilly Line, it was claimed that Jermaine

  Lindsay's was 'unlikely' to have been seated. He was in a

  packed carriage of 127 commuters. Yet he too removed his

  rucksack and placed it on the floor of the carriage in the

  standing area between the second and third set of seats.

  Russell Square's Station Supervisor described another hole

  in the floor, and the roof, towards the rear of the carriage.

  Inconsistent with a single, ground level bomb.

  Probably compounded by the lack of internal autopsies, the

  police said it was 'difficult' to determine where everyone was

  situated when the blasts occurred. Though the main police

  diagram showed the location of the bomb as described, no

  locations for the deceased were initially given.

  A separate police diagram did give these locations and

  recorded Lindsay's body as being at the back of the carriage,

  244

  A Dangerous Ideology

  some distance away from the bomb. This was corroborated

  by D.I Brunsden who stated he found Lindsay, and a

  number of identifying documents, in the spot near the rear

  of the carriage. This seems odd given where the bomb was

  supposedly detonated.

  If the official account is correct, Jermaine Lindsay got on to

  the crowded train, scattered his document on the floor,

  fought his way through the packed carriage, while wearing a

  large rucksack, placed his rucksack on the floor then blew

  himself up, killing 26 other people. This single blast caused

  multiple craters both in the floor and the roof of the carriage

  in at least two different locations, some distance apart.

  Despite the carriage being packed solid, his body was

  somehow blown through the crowd of survivors to the rear of

  the carriage. Coincidentally it landed in the same place he

  had previously scattered his documents (consisting of his

  driving licence, passport, and a certificate of phone

  insurance with his name on it.)

  Unfortunately, not a single surviving witness remembered