Evidence Bombs were planted beneath trains on 7/7

7/7 London Bombings: Morgue Prepared In Advance – No Post Mortems Had Been Performed On The Dead

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/02/28/77-london-bombings-morgue-prepared-in-advance-no-post-mortems-had-been-performed-on-the-dead/

It is quite startling to realise that a special room had been set up to receive the dead of the July 7th bombings in a temporary morgue built on army land, the contract for which (see [1] below) arrived on the contractor’s desk on July 6th, the day before the massacres.

All the bodies of the dead were taken and cryogenically stored here.

Not until the Inquest, five years later, did startled lawyers acting on behalf of the victim-families get to hear, that NO POST MORTEMS had been performed on the dead.

Let us repeat this astonishing statement, the better to realise our own astounded bafflement:

NO POST MORTEMS HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON THE DEAD.

Let’s listen to the bewildered comment from pathologist Dr. Awani Choudhary, one of the first doctors on the scene from the BMA at Tavistock Square, who testified to the Inquest about his attempts to save the life of Gladys Wundowa:

‘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 surprised…

Q. 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 –

A. I… 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.

Q. Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.

A. Sorry.

Q. … we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter. (Jan 20 am, 63:22- 65:6)

No, of course not. 52 dead and no post-mortems, nothing to worry about.

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN THE ASTONISHING DECISION NOT TO CARRY OUT POST MORTEMS? THE GREATEST MODERN ACT OF MASS-MURDER ON BRITISH SOIL AND NO ONE WAS INTERESTED IN COLLECTING PRECISE EVIDENCE OF CAUSE OF DEATH.

SO MUCH COULD HAVE BEEN LEARNED ABOUT THE EXPLOSIONS AND THE EXPLOSIVES FROM SUCH MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.

IS IT UNFAIR TO SUSPECT THAT THE FAILURE TO COLLECT THIS BASIC INFORMATION WAS CAUSED BY FEAR (OR WORSE) THAT POST MORTEMS WOULD THROW UP SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT A PREORDAINED NARRATIVE OF SUICIDE-BOMBER TERRORIST ATTACKS?

MIGHT THE INJURIES HAVE INDICATED THE USE OF MILITARY-GRADE EXPLOSIVES TO WHICH THE ‘TERRORISTS’ COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HAD ACCESS?

The lawyer acting for the families expressed shock and outrage at the fact that ‘cause of death’ had not been definitely confirmed. Would their clients have to put up with ‘brief, neutral and factual’ statements over this most basic of issues? The Telegraph reported from the Inquest:

‘But the bereaved families said the coroner should be allowed to go into much greater detail about how the deaths came about. They do not want a ‘’sterile” conclusion that their loved ones were unlawfully killed that fails to rule on whether the security agencies could have prevented the atrocities or whether the emergency services could have saved more lives, their lawyers said.

‘Patrick O’Connor QC, for the relatives, told the inquest in a legal argument hearing: ”Of course the bereaved interested persons would be very disappointed. But the public may well be quite astonished if that were the position and we were literally kept to the kind of one, one-and-a-half, two sentence verdict in the inquisition that is suggested by some.”

‘He added: ”The statue of Justice is very often depicted blindfolded, but never gagged.” (18 Feb., 2011)

An Inquest without any post-mortems? By way of to trying to remedy this situation, the Inquest turned to the MOD. Why should it be their business?

They had to construct a model to show the probable fatal injuries and likely causes of death for those with no obviously fatal external injuries. Colonel Mahoney, Defence Professor of Anaesthesia and Critical Care at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, spent a couple of days at the Inquest explaining the situation, whereby ‘virtual Underground carriages’ had been constructed as models, but it all seemed rather vague:

Q. But your approach must, overall, be read subject to a number of caveats?

A. Yes.

Q. Firstly, as you mentioned, there was no invasive post-mortem in any case.

A. Yes.

Q. Secondly, the X-ray examination was limited, as you’ve just said, to fluoroscopy?*

A. Yes.

Q. Thirdly, although you have photographic evidence, in some cases the photographs were difficult to interpret, for reasons I won’t explore with you?

A. Yes. [Jan 31 pm 5:3-17]

Still Clueless about the Explosions

Colonel Mahoney was faced with not only an absence of post-mortems, but also with a weird absence of a coherent theory about the explosive that had been used … We saw how earlier in February the Government’s explosives experts at the Inquest had to tiptoe around the fact that none of them would endorse the government’s peroxide-and-black pepper story. Asked to prepare a report for the Inquest, Colonel Mahoney did so. We note a couple of remarks he made there, from comments he had heard from Clifford Todd, the forensic expert.

His report alluded to ‘Mr Todd’s opinion that the devices were consistent with the use of high explosives.’ In no way can peroxide and black pepper be called a high explosive. Secondly, he found ‘There is little evidence from Mr Todd’s evidence to suggest that the devices produced a significant heat output.’ (‘Blast waves and their effect on the Human Body’, pp.18 & 19) Any peroxide bomb with back pepper as a base is a thermal bomb, because the heat comes from the rapid oxidation of the pepper. The more home-made the bomb the more it is going to be ‘thermal’ ie produce heat. Only the high-blast expertly made explosives of the military will yield a pure blast without heat.

Thus Colonel Mahoney’s report nullifies the Inquest’s silly joke about peroxide and black pepper – it points back to the first theories about the 7/7 blast, which emerged in the week after the event, when the real experts were averring that a military explosive had been used. Colonel Mahoney is the author of several books on this topic: Lady Justice Hallett alluded to ‘the area in which you are most expert: namely, the effects of explosive devices.’ (Jan 31 am, 66:3-4)

What happened to the Bodies?

Why did the families have to wait for a week or sometimes even more, before they learned of the fate of their lost ones? A study by Jenny Edkins (University of Wales, Aberystwyth, author of ‘Trauma and the Memory of Politics’) about the way 7/7 victims were treated explained, ‘This paper is motivated by a concern, an anger even, at the way in which people were treated by the authorities in the aftermath of the London bombings of July 2005. In particular, communication with those searching for missing relatives or friends was one-way or nonexistent. This treatment, it seems to me, provides an example of what Michael Dillon has called “governing terror…”’

‘Families were plunged into a world of Disaster Victim Identification Forms, Police Liaison Officers, and stonewalling by officials…. In the aftermath of the explosions on the London underground and in Tavistock Square in Bloomsbury on Thursday 7 July 2005, relatives of the missing were kept waiting for up to or over a week for information about where their sons and daughters, friends and family members might be.’

We cite five examples:

* Marie Fatayi-Williams was only allowed to see her son Anthony’s body on July 14th a week later . A police officer was standing around. She had to make a great deal of fuss to obtain this, and she kept being advised against it. She tells this in her book, For the love of Anthony. She is never given the body, she cannot bury her own son.

* A film by Benedetta Ciaccia’s former boyfriend, Raj Babbra, called ‘7/7 – Life Without Benedetta’, has her father and mother, speaking in Italian (in Part 3 at 3:58, with only a bit of it subtitled), say: ‘It’s an awful thing to lose your child … let alone not being able to see her dead … they didn’t show her to me … I was advised not to see her … we were told it was better to remember her the way she used to be.’ They never even got to see her body.

* John Taylor, 60, whose 24-year-old daughter Carrie died in the Aldgate blast, described how it took 10 days for he and his wife to discover that their child had died.

* In A Song for Jenny by Julie Nicholson (2010), the Reverend Julie Nicholson asks a policeman why it was taking so very long before she heard about her daughter Jenny (p287), her book gives the wierd reply: ‘He confirmed four hundred body parts had been recovered and sent to a specialised laboratory in Bosnia for ID, which could take several weeks.’ – no comment! She was dissuaded from wanting to see her daughter’s body, but she insisted. She knew it was her daughter Jenny (she wrote) because of the hands.

* Relatives of Samantha and Lee, a couple who both died as a result of the bombings, did not get a formal identification of Samantha until 16 July, nine days after she gave her full name to her rescuer at Russell Square. The parents complained, ‘We were never asked if we could or would like to see her or be with her. We do not know where her body was kept.’ Asked Jenny Edkins, ‘Why was it not possible for this family to be with the body? Why was the information that she was dead withheld from them?’

The default position may have been, that families did not see the bodies of the deceased. Whatever was going on, the protocol seems quite macabre. Alison Anderson and Robert McNeil were the experts in body identification who organised the mortuary after the July 2005 London bombings, and they had worked for the United Nations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why did the families need to wait for so long? Why was there a military company coping with the bodies? We can only wonder what was written on the death certificates, as next to nothing seems to have been ascertained about how they died.

J7 have written what is arguably their most brilliant piece yet on this topic, and let’s quote here from it:

So, assumptions are piled upon presumptions and houses of cards are built on shifting sands. These are the openly-stated unknown unknowns from which the bereaved families are meant to learn how they lost their loved ones.

[1] Military site for the Bodies

It is also quite startling to realise that a special room had been set up to receive the dead – starting work on July 6th, the day before the 7/7 massacres.

Here is a statement about what happened on that day, and where the bodies went:

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.’ (source, ‘London’s Response to 7/7’ David Donegan Office of the Strategic Health Authorities at NHS, in http://www.crisisresponsejournal.com no longer online, held in J7 archives: and quoted here)

Good timing or what? Thus an ‘emergency mortuary’ was established on a Military site in the City of London – the day before the catastrophe. Not only did this military site receive all of the bodies, 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.’

The De Boer company managed it so well that, in recognition, its project manager was invited to meet Tony Blair at Downing Street. It was felt that, at such very short notice – after all, they only got the job on July 6th – they had done a fine job. Concerning the swift freezing of the bus bomb victim bodies: while researching ‘Terror On The Tube’ . I could only see two or three corpses lying around in all of the photographs of that bus wreck, so I guess the De Boer team must have removed them swiftly.

We are also reminded of the big FEMA vans that arrived to clear up the damage in New York at Ground Zero on 9/11 (Federal Emergency Management Agency): they were proud of how quickly they arrived, in fact they arrived (by a similar sinister precognition) on Monday evening, the day before the very surprising 9/11 event.

…………………………………………………………………..

* The ‘fluoroscopy’ method was described as ‘a limited form of X-ray,’ which showed embedded bits of metal etc. Thus, ‘Primary surveys of whole bodies in unopened body-bags were undertaken using fluoroscopy by teams of two radiographers and a pathologist. The aim of the primary survey was to establish the nature of the contents of the bag,..’ (Forensic Radiography: Response to the London Suicide Bombings on 7th July 2005, Mark D. Viner)

February 26, 2011

Source: Terror On The Tube

Maybe because there was not much remaining of the dead body and this was a diplomatic and sensitive way of explaining things.

Sadly in some explosions there is very little left of the body.

Excuse me, did you misread that passage from the "Inquest", please? We are talking about 56 bodies in total. And no full post-mortems carried out on any of them.

Just seen Rob's post (thank-you Rob). He quotes context surrounding that passage, which makes it evident that a doctor expressed his surprise that an internal wasn't carried out on Ms. Wundowa's body (he had seen her body, after the explosion outside the BMA, prior to it being transferred to the HAC). So even in that single case, your guess about why there was no full post-mortem does not hold true.

Very interesting how he was immediately told not to say anything else about it, and that it would be a "red herring".

Just like a public inquiry would be a "ludicrous diversion" according to Phoney Bliar (Tony Blair), who had foreknowledge of the 7/7 attacks and who would be blamed for them. http://mtrial.org/ripple#download

 

Just like a public inquiry would be a "ludicrous diversion" according to Phoney Bliar (Tony Blair), who had foreknowledge of the 7/7 attacks and who would be blamed for them. http://mtrial.org/ripple#download

Please remind us again of the qualifications of the author of the "Ripple Effect".

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

Please remind us again of the qualifications of the author of the "Ripple Effect".

 

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

No need. The film speaks for itself. 5 months of the so-called "inquest" and nothing has been produced to counter the evidence provided in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

For anyone who hasn't seen the "7/7 Ripple Effect" yet, it can be downloaded for free at:

http://mtrial.org/ripple

No need. The film speaks for itself. 5 months of the so-called "inquest" and nothing has been produced to counter the evidence provided in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

 

For anyone who hasn't seen the "7/7 Ripple Effect" yet, it can be downloaded for free at:

http://mtrial.org/ripple

Mmmmmm - lets see what the J7 Truth Movement says shall we;

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html

"We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors, nor has J7 provided any assistance with locating relatives of the deceased."

Mmmmmm - lets see what the J7 Truth Movement says shall we;

Looks like J7 agrees with most of the information in the "7/7 Ripple Effect", including the 'impossible' train journey that the 4 alleged suicide bombers could never have made that morning from Luton to Thameslink King Cross,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html#train

that Peter Power admitted during his television and radio interviews on the day of the bombings, 7/7/2005 that he was "…actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning",

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#interviews ,

that the government CCTV "evidence" appears to have been faked,

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

and let's not forget that the photo evidence that suggests the bombs were planted underneath the carriages (along with eyewitness accounts that there were no backpacks nor were there any Muslims carrying backpacks were the bombs went off (oops, getting back on the thread topic).

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html#images

So while the J7 group may have a difficult time making up their minds what all of this means, the evidence presented on their site supports and agrees with the majority of the basic information found in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

Looks like J7 agrees with most of the information in the "7/7 Ripple Effect", including the 'impossible' train journey that the 4 alleged suicide bombers could never have made that morning from Luton to Thameslink King Cross,

 

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html#train

 

that Peter Power admitted during his television and radio interviews on the day of the bombings, 7/7/2005 that he was "…actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning",

 

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#interviews ,

 

that the government CCTV "evidence" appears to have been faked,

 

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

 

and let's not forget that the photo evidence that suggests the bombs were planted underneath the carriages (along with eyewitness accounts that there were no backpacks nor were there any Muslims carrying backpacks were the bombs went off (oops, getting back on the thread topic).

 

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-edgware-road-paddington.html#images

 

So while the J7 group may have a difficult time making up their minds what all of this means, the evidence presented on their site supports and agrees with the majority of the basic information found in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

No it doesn't.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html

Let's see what they say about the 4 being recruited by Power.

According to the Ripple Effect.

"Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.

Who were their Muslim recruits?

These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise”.

J7

"No evidence is produced to support this conclusion and no matter how neat and appealing this alternative scenario might be, it remains totally hypothetical and without supporting evidence."

What do J7 say about the claims in the Ripple Effect that 3 of them were shot at Canary Wharf?

"On 7th July 2005 there were reports that 'suicide-bombers' had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”. Once again, there is no tangible evidence to prove or disprove the reports, or the subsequent denial of these reports by Brian Paddick. However, 7/7 Ripple Effect makes the claim that Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay were all shot at Canary Wharf, with a further stretch that perhaps they were attempting to find sanctuary in the offices of a newspaper"

Where do they claim bombs where planted under the trains?

Where do they agree with the reason stated in the Ripple Effect (a lost by election if I recall) for the reason the Government did it?

About the only thing they agree on is the train times - because the Ripple Effect used the evidence that had been gathered by J7!

And J7 say it could be feasible for them to catch the train that left at 7:25.

"Was any train feasible? Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance (day-returns at 22 pounds each), to make this feasible."

We've since seen Lindsay did arrive early and enter the station. Luton isn't that big a station to get from the entrance to the platform in three minutes.

Why do the say that the Ripple Effect is "unsubstantiated conjecture"? Well their forum makes very interesting reading as well;

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=2374

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. And maybe J7 will eventually uncover enough additional evidence in their own way and in their own time so that they can see the truth depicted in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

J7 has the facts. They just need the story to understand what most likely really did happen that day. That is what the "7/7 Ripple Effect" provides.

About the only thing they agree on is the train times - because the Ripple Effect used the evidence that had been gathered by J7!

Nick Kollerstrom was the one who uncovered the train times and reported that information to Muad'Dib and to J7. J7 did their own follow-up, but Nick was the one who originally made the discovery.

Nick Kollerstrom was the one who uncovered the train times and reported that information to Muad'Dib and to J7. J7 did their own follow-up, but Nick was the one who originally made the discovery.

Evidence please.

The only thing I've seen linking Kollerstrom to Luton was the ridiculous video he did with the other wannabee Messiah, Shayler.

Sure it does. And maybe J7 will eventually uncover enough additional evidence in their own way and in their own time so that they can see the truth depicted in the "7/7 Ripple Effect".

 

J7 has the facts. They just need the story to understand what most likely really did happen that day. That is what the "7/7 Ripple Effect" provides.

Truth and the Ripple Effect in the same sentence?

The Ripple Effect gives us a good insight into a recruiting campaign for people who believe this.

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

If they believe that they'll swallow anything.

Not many though are there.

http://bornagainfreeman.ning.com/