Questions about Hussain and Kings Cross.

[GazeboflossUK]

I've been passing around info about 7/7 for the past year but I could do with a bit of help clearing up a matter here, I would appreciate it if anyone can offer some thoughts on this.

I during a lengthy blogg discussion with someone not really known to me, he pointed out something which I have become slightly confused about.

I quoted an extract from julyseventh.co.uk about the Hasib Hussain CCTV picture outside Boots at King's Cross Station.
This one:

And this is the text I quoted..
"On October 2nd, just under three months after the London bombings, another still image was released of Hasib Hussain on his own. He is apparently exiting the Boots store at Kings Cross mainline station. Like the earlier image of him alone, there is no date or timestamp on the image shown to the public. On this basis, the photo could have been taken at any time. The media stated that the image was captured at 9am on July 7th, but by this time, Kings Cross station was being evacuated, and there are reports of "pandemonium", of which there is no sign in the picture.

There has been no explanation as to why this image was released so long after the others. According to the reports that accompanied the image, the police were hoping that it would jog the memories of potential witnesses. Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Met said, "It is possible that he bought items in Boots or other shops, or that he spoke to people. We would urge anyone with any information to come forward."

If the public's memories are to be jogged, especially three months after the event, it would surely make more sense to release as many images as possible, not just of Hussain at Boots, but all the other locations in which he would have been captured on camera. The image of Hussain at Boots only places him within that context and may not prompt the memory of a person who saw him, or any of the other accused men, somewhere else in the area that morning.

Remember, quite apart from the journey from Luton to King's Cross, the Official Report has Hasib Hussain wandering around Central London for nearly an hour after the incidents underground. There are hundreds of CCTV cameras in and around King's Cross station and on the section of road between King's Cross and Euston and along which Hasib Hussain is alleged to have walked before boarding a diverted number 30 bus."

This was his reply:

You still haven't explained the significance (unless of course the significance is in fact so insignificant that I've missed it), nor why the government would state something (Hussain being in Boots at 9am) in their official report, if it is only going to implicate them in some sort of wrong doing. Please do so.

Furthermore, that Observer article doesn't state that at 9am, there were "reports of pandemonium", it states there were "the first signs of pandemonium". The same article also states that the decision to evacuate the Undergroud came at 9.15am - the *decision*, not the actual evacuation.. and that's the Underground which presumably would have been the first priority, not Kings Cross, so your claim that it was being evacuated at 9am is clearly false.

And yes, Hussain was walking down a route with a number of CCTV cameras - but how many thousands of other people would have been at the same time? I don't know if you remember what it was like, the streets were rammed, vehicles everywhere etc. It's perfectly possible that one man might not be distinguishable amongst such carnage.

But conspiracy theorists aren't interested in reasonable answers to questions they ask, obviously.

If anyone can provide me with some info that can either back up his or my argument then I would be grateful. Just I am gathering information and creating my own document pack so I can try and make sense of everything.......and this matter is causing me some head scratching.

[numeral]

Here is what TfL say:

Our ref: 1649703

07/Sep/2006

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your request for information dated 3 August 2006 which was received by Transport for London on the same date. You asked for the following information:

"On the morning of July 7th 2005 various incidents on the underground network were reported of which I can find little or no information.

These were:

A fire at Caledonian Road was reported and caused delays at approx 8 am.

Angel station was reported closed.

A high tension power cable was lost at Moorgate at approx 8.45am.

Closures along the southern end of the Northern Line at approx 7.15 am with emergency service vehicles seen outside Balham.

What were the causes and outcomes of each of these incidents and is there an official report or publication that I can access regarding them."

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am pleased to enclose the information you have requested.

On 7 July 2005 Caledonian Road station was closed at around 07.57am due to a fire alert caused by a report of a strong burning smell coming from a defective eastbound train. The passengers were detrained (evacuated on to the platform) and Piccadilly line services were suspended between King's Cross and Arnos Grove until 08.28am.

At 08.51 six stations were closed because of a local power failure. The stations closed were Angel, Bank, Camden Town, Kentish Town, King's Cross and Old Street. This resulted in the suspension of the City branch of the Northern line. Following this all stations and train services were suspended after a general security alert across the network.

We have no record of any incident regarding a power cable at Moorgate station on that date.

At 06.25am a defective northbound train at Balham resulted in suspension of the Northern line in both directions between Stockwell and Morden. The problem with the train meant that there was a strong burning smell and smoke. The passengers were detrained, the defective train was checked and removed and the northbound service resumed at 09.05am. The London Fire Brigade was on site as a precaution in this instance, due to the nature of the defect however no passengers were reported injured.

There is no official report or publication where this information can be obtained, the information here is taken from an internal report.

I hope you find this information useful. If I can be of further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact me again.

If you are dissatisfied with the way TfL has handled your request, you may ask us to conduct an internal review of our decision. The internal review will be conducted by someone other than the person who made the original decision, in accordance with the FOIA complaints procedure published on our website at www.tfl.gov.uk/foi. Requests for internal review should be addressed to: Head of Information Access and Compliance, 6th Floor Windsor House, 42 - 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL.

If, following the internal review, you remain dissatisfied with the way TfL has handled your request, then you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Alan Roffey
Customer Service Advisor
Customer Service Centre

The evacuation of King's Cross Underground station was due to a local power failure, possibly caused by one or other of the explosions.

[Kier]

Hello

There was more than one report of King's Cross being evacuated at 9am.

"Des Kelly, 52, from Cottenham, arrived at King's Cross at around 9am, just after the first explosion.

He said: "It was awful, people were walking through with blackened faces, and when I got to my office in Holborn I found the bus had blown up just around the corner. I feel very lucky - I normally catch that Piccadilly tube and I'm aware now I could have been blown up if things had been slightly different."

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/re ... 9ac516.lpf

It is rather pedantic to distinguish the 'first signs' of pandemonium from 'pandemonium' . That very word suggests complete uproar. The first signs of 'evacuation', or the first signs that there had been an 'incident' may well have been less dramatic, but a newspaper article stating that there was 'pandemonium' in the station just as Hussain was entering it via Boots, where he allegedly spent a further 6 minutes going to WHSmith to buy a battery before leaving again, while the 'first signs of pandemonium' would have become ever increasing is still worthy of a mention.

The suggestion that the station was being evacuated before 9.15 is not 'clearly false'; it is made by a witness who was there, and also by TFL in the letter posted by Numeral above.

Your correspondant is inaccurate in calling the team at J7 'conspiracy theorists' since we push no theory. We ask questions about anomalies which we feel deserve clarification. As a side note, the Observer article mentioned received a thorough analysis here. This is not saying the entire article is false, but certain sections of it are clearly questionable. It used the word 'pandemonium', which was giving a clear impression of a certain scenario occurring at KX. Your correspondant is correct to say that 'pandemonium' may not have spread to all areas of the station but is incorrect to attempt to speculate on where exactly the 'pandemonium' would have occurred first and how the station was evacuated - none of which is clear.

The main point being made about that picture, which your correspondant seems to have ignored, is that its release was so much later than all other images, a single image designed to jog the memories of witnesses, when the authorities would have been in possession of the image months ago. If it was the case that no witnesses had come forward in the intervening three months and there was no other clear CCTV image of Hussain, as your correspondant suggests, then how could the authorities have been so confident about his exact movements?

The Met. Assistant Commissioner, Andy Hayman, pointed out how many images there should be of the men as they made their way into and through London; this point was also made in the section you have taken the extract from. Consider the difference with the CCTV released from June 28th outside Luton station. There are 14 frames from outisde the station alone, showing them from all angles. On the day of the London bombings, when it is much more important that people see what the men were wearing, how they looked etc in order to categorically be able to say they saw them, only 1 image is released, where three of the four faces are obscured. The police stated on the day it was released that they wanted people to come forward on the basis of the image, so it was not as if the physical details of the men were irrelevant. On the footage from June 28th there is imagery of them inside the station, on the Thameslink platform etc. Even though at the time of day they were allegedly in London on July 7th, the station would have been busier, there would still have been the opportunity for them to have been captured on CCTV. Let's not forget that Lindsay would have been hanging around King's Cross for almost 20 minutes since the men were alleged to have arrived at 8.30 and the train he is said to have taken left the station at 8.48.

We have not suggested at any point that our motivation is to 'implicate the government in wrong doing' and your correspondant is once again mistaken to believe this to be that case. Their first question to you regarding the significance of raising the issue at all is not addressing our motivation, which is to highlight the various inconsistencies and anomalous details of the official account and allow them to demonstrate the urgent need for an inquiry which does not invoke the IA2005. We are also demonstrating that there is a need to release the evidence which backs up the official reports, since at the moment there is precious little, which would eradicate the need, as your correspondant illustrates, to fill in the gaps themselves with 'reasonable answers', which are basically nothing more than speculation, when concrete responses from the authorities are what's actually needed. Were we content to sit mired in 'conspiracy theory' we would not be asking the questions and risking having our 'theories' proven false. This was shown by our raising of the issue of the cancelled train twice in one week in a mainstream newspaper. Within days, the Home secretary stood in front of Parliament and admitted the official report was erroneous. We were not trying to 'prove' the men could not have got to London by flagging up the cancelled train; we were showing that they could not have taken that train, allowing the authorities the opportunity to correct the train time, which they did.

GazeboflossUK, you are welcome to join our forum at J7, where there is plenty of detailed anaylsis and discussion of all areas of July 7th, which may help make things clearer for you.

Thanks,

Kier.

[GazeboflossUK]

Thanks guys.

I'm pretty clued up on pretty much everything that happened but I appreciate the help with this.....Thanks.

I had also point out to him that I'm not the only conspiracy theorist here. He is one too.....by the very nature of our discussions.
It's always fun for non-believers to call someone a conspiracy theorist isn't it. Those words have been used so many times in attempts to discredit anything said by any given person who asks questions of the government about big events like this. I said that "Why do you think when governments are "investigating" (and I use that term loosely) these events that they are never labelled conspiracy theorists?" When essencially that is what they are.....they don't know what was exactly going on and therefore theoretically reaching conclusions about a plot where multiple people are alleged to have conspired to commit a crime.

It's because the conspiracy theorist term has now been put aside for anyone wanting to reassure themselves that everything is ok by calling us "crazy nut jobs" - because that is what it now has really become to mean across to the general public.

[Muncher]

A better image of Hussein outside Boot at King's Cross could be found in a Met Police PDF document "Communities Together Information Bulletin Number 51" dated 5th October 2005. It appears to no longer be on the Met Police web site.

In the image there is a time stamp: 09:00:13 07/07/05

[numeral]

Anybody fancy putting in a FOIA request to the Met asking if they possess CCTV records inside W.H. Smith at King's Cross between 9 and 9.15 that day?

[suspecta]

just as Hussain was entering it via Boots, where he allegedly spent a further 6 minutes going to WHSmith to buy a battery before leaving again

Why on earth would somebody about to blow themselves up want to go and buy a battery? Why would a suicide bomber need a battery on a trip to London anyway, unless it was something to do with his bomb?

Now let me see, what do I buy batteries for when I'm away from home? My camera? My MP3 player? If you were going to blow yourself up you wouldn't be about to take any pictures, and you'd be hardly likely to feel the need to keep your MP3 player going if you were about to do yourself in. Unless you'd bought a return ticket and were fully expecting to go home again, in which case yes, music might be a good idea.

Also, something slightly strange - the picture released to the press on October 2nd had no date stamp visible as the whole picture wasn't shown, yet the picture dated Oct 5th at the police website contains an (odd-looking) date stamp. Why would the picture on the police records be dated later than the one released to the public?

Suspecta