Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

This is the equivalent of Barack Obama sending the White House spokesman to court, to defend Obama from serious accusations made against him. THIS, is how "seriously" MI5 treats the 7/7 "inquest".

7/7 families' anger at MI5 'substitute' witness

 

 

Families of 7/7 victims today expressed anger at MI5 for choosing an officer who was not involved in the investigation to give evidence at the inquests.

 

They demanded to know why the agency failed to put up officers involved in tracking the ringleader of the bombers and attacked it for sending a 'substitute'.

 

The spy, referred to only as witness G, will appear at the Royal Courts of Justice today, and will be asked about whether the atrocities could have been prevented.

 

It is the first time anyone from MI5 has been publicly questioned about the 2005 attacks.

 

But Graham Foulkes, whose son David, 22, died in the Edgware Road blast, said the officer will not be able to give bereaved relatives the answers they need.

 

He said: "The person who was running anti-terrorism from 2004, the person who is an expert in Islamic terrorism, that person should be the one giving evidence today. Instead they are putting up somebody else who has nothing to do with any of it. I just fail to understand it. The person we want to hear from is still alive and well and working for MI5, so why send a substitute? None of the families are happy about it."

 

Witness G, who is chief of staff to MI5 director general Jonathan Evans, will defend MI5's failure to launch a full investigation into 7/7 ringleader Mohammed Sidique Khan and his number two Shehzad Tanweer after they were seen meeting known terror suspects.

 

...

 

Mr Foulkes, 58, from Saddleworth, north of Manchester, added: "I would like MI5 to admit their mistakes. I want an explanation as to why they said Mohammed Sidique Khan was a clean skin just after the bombings when they knew full well at that point that he was not. They have failed, they have lied and they are not being held to account."

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23925274-77-families-anger-at-mi5-substitute-witness.do

And this man Foulkes is one of the most pro-official conspiracy theory of 7/7 bereaved family members, and one of the few they allow on TV and whose statements are printed by newspapers.

The answers to his questions, which MI5 refuse to provide him with, can be found in 7/7 Ripple Effect. And the maker of that film is in prison on ludicrous trumped-up charges, as the establishment does all it can to cover-up the truth and to scare others from speaking up by making an example of John Hill. http://mtrial.org

MI5 are answering questions at an inquest. They are not there to make a defence of anything or anybody, they are just there to answer questions.

By the way, nobody has yet been able to tell us why The Messiah Muabdib John Anthony Hill supposedly didn't attend his court hearing.

Has he been sectioned or did he refuse to go?

 

The answers to his questions, which MI5 refuse to provide him with, can be found in 7/7 Ripple Effect. And the maker of that film is in prison on ludicrous trumped-up charges, as the establishment does all it can to cover-up the truth and to scare others from speaking up by making an example of John Hill. http://mtrial.org

I thought that was a comedy website.

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

when is this pro jihadist thread getting shut down?

when is this pro jihadist thread getting shut down?

Pro jihadist :loopy:

Nah - some conspiracy theorists who think this bloke is the Messiah.

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

Trying to either;

a) Recruit some gullible people to their cult.

or;

b) Trying out some "new" theories for the Ripple Effect version two.

How do they explain away finding military grade plastic explosives at all 4 blast locations (which actually would be capable of doing the damage witnessed)?

There weren't any military grade explosives found at the site of these explosions.

We dealt with that weeks ago. Have you uncovered some new evidence?

Let's see it then.

There weren't any military grade explosives found at the site of these explosions.

 

We dealt with that weeks ago. Have you uncovered some new evidence?

Let's see it then.

From: 7/7 Inquest: Analysis of New CCTV and Phone Evidence

http://wideshut.co.uk/77-inquest-analysis-of-new-cctv-and-phone-evidence/

However immediately after the attacks when forensics had taken samples, explosives experts, forensic scientists, police and intelligence officials all went on record to the media testifying that high grade (possibly military) explosives were used. As Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police commissioner said at the time: the bombs “certainly were not homemade”.[2]

On July 12th leading British explosives expert Prof Hans Michels said, “the perpetrators acquired either military or high-quality commercial explosives, possibly from eastern Europe…the power of the explosions pointed to the use of high-level explosive material.” [3]

Forensic Scientists informed The Times that – “Traces of military plastic explosive, more deadly and efficient than commercial varieties are understood to have been found in the debris”…according to one scientist homemade explosives can be made, “but not of the design and sophistication of these devices…the bomb maker has highly developed skill”.

And according to French Anti-Terrorism chief Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, who was assisting Scotland Yard, the bombs were of “military origin” and they were obtained “Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside…of the military establishment.” [3]

It’s possible that both homemade and high-grade explosives were used, but the government seem to only want to address the homemade theory.

Wonder why there were no internal post-mortem examinations performed on ANY of the casualties from the 7/7/2005 London bombings?

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/02/colonel-mahoney-in-porton-down-with.html

Forensic Scientists informed...

Who? Citation please.

Wonder why there were no internal post-mortem examinations performed on ANY of the casualties from the 7/7/2005 London bombings?

 

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/02/colonel-mahoney-in-porton-down-with.html

So, basically, the authorities have finally admitted they didn't perform any internal post-mortem examinations in the temporary morgue at the HAC's headquarters (Honourable Artillery Company) in Armoury Road that was set up by De Boers, who were only awarded the contract for such an eventuality the day before the mass murder took place, on the 6th July 2005?

Did they offer any explanation as to why? Or are they not bothering with any explanation for that as well?

Who? Citation please.

He doesn't know - it's merely hearsay, but hey, what do you know - hearsay's really good when you have nothing else.

So, basically, the authorities have finally admitted they didn't perform any internal post-mortem examinations in the temporary morgue at the HAC's headquarters (Honourable Artillery Company) in Armoury Road that was set up by De Boers, who were only awarded the contract for such an eventuality the day before the mass murder took place, on the 6th July 2005?

 

Did they offer any explanation as to why? Or are they not bothering with any explanation for that as well?

Post mortems will have been carried out at a proper medico legal centre and not at a temporary mortuary. Temporary mortuaries are set up close to an incident as a place to hold bodies until they can be transferred to the proper buildings for post mortem exminations to take place.