Rachel from N.London on Alex Cox's Forum

[ian neal]

I know more than you.....

Rachel knows more about certain specific aspects of 7/7. Rachel's first hand experience plus subsequent contact with other survivors gives her insights and knowledge of the events on the King Cross train and possibly the other bomb sites that those of us who weren't there can't have. However, what it does not give her is any special insight into the wider context that surround the London bombings or even the ability to answer ceratin questions about the bombs themselves.

In the absence of a full and independent inquiry where the evidence can be tested and scrutinised, we all need to keep asking the questions and drawing attention to the gaps in the knowledge and the discrepancies in the evidence.

Let's just suppose that the authorities release the evidence that proves the current official narrative of the events on the day is correct: namely that the bombings were carried out by the 4 named bombers, that the bombs were home made, rucksack bombs and the bombers triggered the bombs themselves, etc..... and that this narrative is entirely consistent with the testimony of Rachel and other survivors. Would this close the possibility that the UK government was in any way involved?

No, it wouldn't.

Even if all of the above were proven (and I certainly don't accept that it is proven yet), there would still be the possibility of a connection between the bombers and elements of UK intelligence or between the bombers and the intelligence agents of another country. It is this wider context that Rachel has no specialist knowledge of.

It is these wider connections that people like Michael Meacher (background) and John Loftus (background) draw our attention to.

[numeral]

I know more than you, am closer to the truth than you will ever be, have more evidence, more sources and more support, thankfully than you will ever have, and you can't bear it.

Do you, for example, know the position of the Piccadilly line train? The BBC has said it was 457m from Russell Square, Wikipedia says 363m, Joe Orr, a passenger who works for Tubelines, says 380m, Reuters say 650m and no doubt other figures can be found.

Also, the time of the explosion seems to have changed again.

Richard Barnes (Chair): Thank you all very much indeed. We will move into questions now. The timelines have indicated that the bombs went off at 8.50am at Liverpool Street, 8.51am at Edgware Road, and 8.53am at King’s Cross.
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/resil ... 3trans.pdf

Did you know that? It seems your watch was not as fast as you said it was.

[Justin]

Rachel wants and is calling for a public enquiry into 7/7 - I believe we should forget our differences with her and support her on this. But I would also echo what Neil has just said about her not being able to grasp the greater picture.

I've just found we have two more MPs also calling for a public enquiry:


Published: 24th February 2006

7/7 - has the Blair something to hide?

TWO north west MP have demanded an inquiry into the 7/7 London underground terror attacks.

Liberal Democrat Euro-MP Sajjad Karim said that the Government's reluctance to respond to widespread demand for a public enquiry into London's July bombings was likely to raise more serious questions about its approach to the 'War on Terror'.

"This Government has been all too keen to underline the importance of 'leaving no stone unturned' in the so-called 'War on Terror' when justifying the intolerable suspension of civil liberties it has sanctioned in the name of national security," said Mr Karim.

"Whole communities, especially ethnic minorities and, in particular, Muslim Communities, have been subject to unrelenting scrutiny as a result of the Government approach to combating terrorism. However, when it is the systems of state and public services which are under examination, the Government seems reluctant to live by its own rules."

Mr Karim's statement followed the announcement by Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that the Labour Government would oppose a public enquiry in favour of a report generated by parliamentary committees.

Mr Karim added: "The British public would be right to ask, once again, what it is the Labour Government themselves have to hide about the state response to July 7th?"

His call was backed by Liberal Democrat MP for Rochdale, Paul Rowen.
He quizzed Tony Blair at Prime Minister's Question Time over his refusal to hold a public inquiry into the bombings.

Speaking after the debate Mr Rowan said: "We need to know what happened, what went wrong with the intelligence gathering, and what our security services are doing to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

“The Prime Minister has said that he would not call a public inquiry because it would be a waste of resources. It is never a waste of resources to allow those affected and those who have lost loved ones the chance to question those responsible for out safety and security. Ducking and diving on this and other issues by the Prime Minister is not acceptable."



First published by the Asian News

[brian]

Seems some members of the security services might want an inquiry.

The Sunday Times February 26, 2006


MI5 rebels expose Tube bomb cover-up
David Leppard



MI5 is facing an internal revolt by officers alarmed about intelligence failures and the lack of resources to fight Islamic terrorism.
To illustrate their concern, agents have leaked more topsecret documents to The Sunday Times because they want a public inquiry into the “missed intelligence” leading up to the July attacks in London.



They believe ministers have withheld information from the public about what the security services knew about the suspects before the bombing of July 7 and the abortive attacks of July 21 ---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 46,00.html

[ian neal]

Rachel wants and is calling for a public enquiry into 7/7 - I believe we should forget our differences with her and support her on this.

Up to a point

Yes we are together in calling for an enquiry although it is safe to presume we would probably have differences when it comes to agreeing a common response to the terms of reference and the independence of any enquiry.

In particular, I believe I am right in saying that Rachel wishes for the inquiry to focus on the response of the authorities and emergency services to 7/7. This would be akin to the 9/11 inquiry looking at the 'intelligence failures' safe in its basic assumption that it was al qaeda can wot done it

[alkmyst]

On Monday 27th Feb, Rachel North blogged:

This week I am pissed off about...
Even M15 are after a 7/7 Public Enquiry, FFS. What are you hiding. Tony?
Tessa Jowell's husband's ALLEGEDLY taking bribes and money laundering - how much did she know? Is this why she's been so off the ball with victims of terrorism's care? What with the police raiding her house and all?
The Legislative Reform Bill- yeah, yeah, let's just ignore Parliament completely, crack on Glorifying Terrorism - Just watch it all right? We know what you are thinking.
ID cards. And we know who you are and where you live.
My PM telling me he is a protector of liberty - there's only a certain amount to go round, you know.
Guantanamo being an ''anomaly'' but let's just not talk about it, hmmmm? Or torture. Or rendition. Quick, mention 9/11, terror victims, dead people, there you go, aren't you ashamed of yourself?

............yet she still doesn't 'smell a rat' with the events of 7/7!

Join the dots, Rachel.

Although it is good to note that Rachel acknowledges that Tessa Jowell's husband has 'allegedly' taken bribes .......... Rachel's makes the following comment (in this thread) about the four alleged perpetrators of 7/7:

......... excuse me whilst I point out that they are dead and b) suicide bombers so it is rather hard to give a stuff about their characters since it was threir own actions that defined them as mass murderers. Whether they did well at school or not is of * all concern to me, frankly.

The Judge & Jury appear to have made their decision!


Also, I noted that following link was posted verbatim on Rachel's blog:

http://100777.com/node/1547

It didn't last long!!

Rachel, just for the record; Al K Myst does not post comments on your Blog and does not post anonymously ......... anywhere.

I look forward to your next Blog entry.

Al K Myst

[sonic]

As Alkymst said, "...join the dots".

In this regard then, for those who haven't watched it I recommend that you have a look at Ian Crane's excellent DVD "9/11 - 7/7 Connection" and pay particular attention to Peter Power and his 1000 staff running a "security exercise" simutaneously. This needs more exposure and discussion.

Ian makes a good case for asking questions such as "Who comissioned Peter Power's to undertake such an "EXERCISE" that day and indeed why was such an exercise put in place.

These are deep issues, right at the heart of the event and need to be doggedly pursued to the point of public disclosure of what exactly was going on.

Peace,

Sonic.

[Sinclair]

The Peter Power video can be downloaded here:
http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/lon ... .games.wmv

[alkmyst]

Rachel,

some weeks ago, I suggested that you might be interested in watching a DVD called 'The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection'. Earlier today, I learned that Ian Crane, the person responsible for putting this DVD together, will be speaking at The Sols Arms, Hampstead Road, London on Thursday 9th of March.

Ian has posted the following synopsis:

Ian R. Crane has a deep interest in spiritual, esoteric and mythical matters and considers much of what is occurring in the Geopolitical arena to be rooted in the depths of mankind's collective psyche. With particular emphasis on the events of 9/11 - 7/7 and the ensuing 'War on Terror', Ian will present his thoughts as to why we are fast approaching one of the most significant junctures of our evolutionary process. Exploring man's journey from the peak of ancient wisdom, through the dark ages of the past fifteen hundred years and on to the subsequent return of ancient knowledge; the thoughts and desires of each individual may well be more significant in determining the outcome of our global predicament, than has yet to be fully realised.

If you have any real interest in considering the possibility of an alternative scenario to the events of 7/7, than an act of 'Islamofascism' , perpetrated by four 'angry young men', you might find that Ian Crane presents a holistic picture that is worth reflecting upon.

Alternatively, it might be way over your head!

Al K Myst

[Rachel]

Oh, I can't be arsed to continue to waste nail polish hitting keyboards in anger.

but here, c/o donna ferrentes/justin on urban 75 is some food for thought. Enjoy....

Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[alkmyst]

Rachel, I would like ask a question. There has been a lot of debate over the train that the four alleged perpetrators actually took from Luton, on their way to Kings Cross. Now, I know you 'don't care' how they made this particular leg of the journey but there does seem to be a great deal of confusion over this particular aspect of the Official Version.

Initially it was reported that they caught the 7.40 but when it is established (by independent researchers) that the 7.40 didn't run that morning, it is reported that they caught the 7.48. However, it is subsequently confirmed (by independent researchers) that the 7.48 did not arrive at Kings Cross in time for the alleged perpetrators to have got onto their respective Tube Trains and detonated their devices at 8.50.

So it is now left to conjecture that the four alleged perpetrators must have caught the 7.20, which was apparently running a few minutes late. This would perhaps explain how the alleged perpetrators were caught, entering the station, on camera just before 7.22.

Apart from the lack of any other CCTV evidence being made available, where are the eye-witnesses? Apparently, none of the station staff have been able to confirm seeing the alleged perpetrators walking (or running!) through the station, let alone taking a particular train. Even more surprisingly, apparently there are no 'positive I.D's' from passengers on any of the supposed trains.

Let's reflect on that for a moment. Four Asian looking lads carrying back-packs and neither station staff or commuters can confirm a positive I.D.!

Let's speculate that they separated, in an attempt to be less conspicuous, but then surely it is, in theory, four times more likely that a combination of station/train staff and/or commuters would recall seeing one or all of the alleged perpetrators, at some point between entering Luton station and disembarking at Kings Cross?

After all, Ian Blair announced in the immediate aftermath that the Police were launching, "...... the biggest manhunt in UK criminal history."

Of course, it could be that our information is inaccurate and we readily accept that the Police have far greater resources at their disposal but such inconsistencies, coupled with apparent lack of supporting evidence does raise questions with regard to the integrity of the official version of events.

In the absence of corroborating evidence, would you agree that this is exactly the type of issue that should be addressed by an Independent Inquiry?

On behalf of you, the 52 victims who were killed, the 700 who were injured, Jean-Charles de Menezes and all the respective families , we ask for no more than the truth.

Al K Myst

[numeral]

Initially it was reported that they caught the 7.40 but when it is established (by independent researchers) that the 7.40 didn't run that morning, it is reported that they caught the 7.48. However, it is subsequently confirmed (by independent researchers) that the 7.48 did not arrive at Kings Cross in time for the alleged perpetrators to have got onto their respective Tube Trains and detonated their devices at 8.50.

So it is now left to conjecture that the four alleged perpetrators must have caught the 7.20, which was apparently running a few minutes late. This would perhaps explain how the alleged perpetrators were caught, entering the station, on camera just before 7.22.

The 7.20 left Luton on time and arrived at Kings Cross Thameslink at 8.15, 7 minutes late. Does Rachel have a source for this?

The 7.24 left at 7.25 and arrived at 8.23, 23 minutes late. There is also the 7.16 which left at 7.21 and arrived at 8.19, 31 minutes late.

http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005_ ... chive.html

No official source will now say which train the Photoshop Four caught.

[numeral]

Oh, I can't be arsed to continue to waste nail polish hitting keyboards in anger.

but here, c/o donna ferrentes/justin on urban 75 is some food for thought. Enjoy....

Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
....
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

The Bologna station bombing is a mere scandal, is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio

[ian neal]

Oh, I can't be arsed to continue to waste nail polish hitting keyboards in anger.

but here, c/o donna ferrentes/justin on urban 75 is some food for thought. Enjoy....

Hmmmm. An entirely unhelpful post Rachel. If you can't be arsed to engage properly, don't bother posting. If I enjoyed the mindless circular debates based on polarised positions and personal insults of u75, I would go and post there

[Wokeman]

Gosh, do you really, really think that's the last we shall hear of Rachel? Really?

[Techybloke666]

I have just been catching up on here and reading Rachaels posts.

I would like to just say I believe that Rachael was there and is a survivor from what I've read here.

I would like to ask her one question mind and only one if she is still reading these posts.

Rachael wrote
Those of us closest to the bombs describe the yellow light of the explosion, the bang was so powerful that you didn't hear it if you were close to it, it felt like being punched in the ears

Many others who survived also described the explosion in the same way.

Rachael
If you can think back to that day please, did you smell anything at the time of the explosion or just after ?
Anything at all you can remember would be great.

I'm sorry if this upsets you to think about in any way and would totally understand if you did'nt wish to talk about it at all.

cheers

[numeral]

Rachael wrote
Those of us closest to the bombs describe the yellow light of the explosion, the bang was so powerful that you didn't hear it if you were close to it, it felt like being punched in the ears

Many others who survived also described the explosion in the same way.

Rachael
If you can think back to that day please, did you smell anything at the time of the explosion or just after ?
Anything at all you can remember would be great.

Hi Techy

This is what Rachel wrote in a deleted post to Alex Cox's forum:

I know I was at Russell Square at 9.16am because J my partner has a text from me then. It originally felt like we were trapped underground for about half an hour, but in fact it must have been about 10 minutes before the driver opened the door, communicated with us, set up a ladder, and we were able to leave through the front of his cab. By 'we' I mean myself and about 30 or fewer passengers who had been in the front seats, standing between the front seats and standing in between the first set of double doors. Behind us was where the bomb went off, so the people behind us were mostly dead and blown out of the train, or injured, and behind them were people who were still alive at the back of carriage one but who could not get out apart from going back through the train. The centre of the carriage was almost totally destroyed by the explosion. As I have said, it was extremely disorientating - one minute I was on a crowded train, the next minute, flash, blow to the ears, fall over, total darkness, wet face ( that was blood) , struggling to breathe because the air is no longer air, but thick black noxious smoke with a plastic-y, peroxidey smell mixed with burnt meat and hair and burning rubber. It was a vile smell. The temperature rose quickly. Breathing was difficult because of the density of the smoke for the first 10 minutes or so, there was screaming and confusion and terror. Several passengers including myself began to call for calm and to hold hands and to stand up if you were not injured. The driver opened the door and told us he could get us out through the front of the cab, we tried to pass this message back but we did not know that the centre of the carriage had gone at that stage and that so many were dead. There was more light as I left the carriage; by then the emergency lights were on and the smoke was clearing through the broken windows of the carriage.

[alkmyst]

Rachel wrote:

....... thick black noxious smoke with a plastic-y, peroxidey smell mixed with burnt meat and hair and burning rubber.

Just out of interest, does any survivor (including Rachel) make any reference to a plastic-y, peroxidey smell in any post between 7/7 and Friday July 15th?

I cannot find any such reference. The most common memory seems to have been of the smell of 'burning rubber'.

Al K Myst

[ianrcrane]

The following quote is taken from the London Times, dated July 12.

A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal.

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690391,00.html

Just three days later (July 15) the official story was amended:

EXPLOSIVES found by detectives investigating the London bombings were home-made using ingredients that can be found in high street chemists.

The highly volatile explosive - acetone peroxide - has been discovered in a house in Leeds thought to have been used as a bomb-making factoryThe discovery has raised fears of other British fanatics making their own explosives and following the example of the London suicide bombers.

Instructions for making acetone peroxide are readily available on the internet.

The home-made explosives found in Leeds are similar to those used in other al-Qaida-linked attacks. They were also used by shoe-bomber Richard Reid.

Police are hunting an Egyptian chemistry student who has fled his Leeds home as well as the suspected mastermind behind the suicide attacks.

A security source said: "The explosive that has been recovered at the house in Leeds - some of it is still in there - is in fact acetone peroxide.

Source: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1610072005

This change in the description of the devices used by the alleged suspects on July 7th would appear to be a rather clumsy attempt to shut down down the question as to how four young lads might obtain military grade explosive.

To add 'weight' to the modified official account, it was apparently deemed necessary to instigate the charade of July 21:

LONDON, July 22 (AFP) - Police said the bombs which failed to explode on Underground train stations and a bus the day before were "home-made".

Based on witness accounts of the bombs, explosives experts have said they were probably made of the same acetone peroxide mixture which was used in the July 7 London suicide bombings, which killed 56 people.

Source: http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite ... e-made.txt

The magnitude of the carnage caused by the devices deployed on July 7th , 52 killed and 700 injured, would tend to support the initial reports of military grade explosive. This is further supported by the types of injuries sustained; which were not consistent with the type of device depicted below:



An Independent Public Inquiry is critical if such anomolies are ever going to be resolved satisfactorily.

The events of July 7th were undoubtedly horrendous but it is most likely that any July 7th survivor who subsequently recalls a 'plastic-y, peroxidey smell' has been influenced subliminally by later news reports.

This is a common phenomena, as those caught up in such traumatic events will naturally strive to piece together their comprehension of what actually transpired, they will tend to incorporate aspects of the event that may be gleaned from later sources; i.e. television and/or newspaper reports and even other survivors accounts.

Over time, the experiencer will unwittingly incorporate the later information into their 'first hand' account of the event.

This observation does not in any way cast doubt upon the integrity of the experiencer. It is absolutely natural for the waking consciousness to seek a complete understanding of what has actually occured.

However, this factor would impact upon any eventual public inquiry. Whilst survivors organisations have a role to play in providing mutual emotional support; the validity of an individual witness account is effectively diluted due to the inevitable experiential exchanges that will take place. Over time, the individual recollection of the expeience will inevitably meld into the collective recall. I re-iterate, this is a natural psychological phenomenon and does not imply any intent to deliberately mislead.

The most useful and meaningful survivor accounts are undoubtedly contained within those statements taken (or posted) before any opportunity of incorporating 'shared experience' has occured.

Ian R. Crane

[Prole]

I had some discussion (um perhaps exchanges would be a more suitable description) with Rachel (aka Badger Kitten) on Urban 75 regarding what she says she remembered smelling.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showth ... e=13&pp=25

20-12-2005, 03:11 PM
Badger Kitten

seeing as it is not clear whether it was military grade or homemade

Homemade: stank of peroxide and nail polish remover smell.

20-12-2005, 05:00 PM
Prole

Originally Posted by Badger Kitten
Homemade: stank of peroxide and nail polish remover smell.

This is the first witness report that I have ever read of this kind of smell on the trains from the explosive, and I've read a lot of them during my research.

20-12-2005, 05:20 PM
Badger Kitten

troll

This is the first witness report that I have ever read of this kind of smell on the trains from the explosive, and I've read a lot of them during my research.

What are you implying? What the * are you implying? Come on, out with it

Want to call me a liar?

20-12-2005, 05:33 PM
Prole

I'm not calling anyone a liar, this isn't the school playground.

As for the smell of peroxide and nail polish remover, I just commented that I have never read a witness statement that has mentioned this smell previously.

I must add that I have not read any witness statements since that have mentioned this smell.

As for Ian Crane's observations about recovered memories, Rachel wrote something interesting regarding this point:

"People later asked me what it was like. They said they couldn’t imagine it. For a long time I couldn’t say. It was like a dream you can’t remember, a puzzle you can’t solve. But then I saw a television documentary about the bombings. Immediately I began to have flashbacks."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... _2,00.html

[alkmyst]

The posting on the influence of Collective Recall raises some interesting issues:

Badger Kitten a.k.a. Rachel North
08-07-2005, 04:53 PM

The explosion was so loud I can't tell if it was several carriages behind or the next one behind. It felt like being punched in the ears. All I know is I walked forward, escaped out the drivers hatch, it was unbelievably crowded, we escaped from the front and there was no bomb to my immediate left or right or in front of me. And I was in the middle by the door, and I fell to the left, by the doors. Then I got up and left by going straight head and out front. And the tunnel was intact.

Badger Kitten a.k.a. Rachel North
10-07-2005, 03:50 AM

After detailed anti-terrorism staff interview I found out some stuff I needed to share.

The King X bomb was placed at the END of the first carriage, not the first set of doors on the front carriage as reported on the news.

The tube tunnel was very narrow here, and the train was very crowded, which was why most of the people were killed and hurt at the back of carriage 1/ beginning of carriage 2.

I heard this from the counter-terrorism police who took my statement today: the BBC and ITN were wrong in their first reports.

From being there about 7-10 yards from blast, I can say that there were about 30- 50 behind me therefore who may not have got out alive. About 10 behind me walked to safety.

From Rachel’s Blog:

The bomb went off in my carriage, about 7 feet behind me.

Posted by Rachel on Alex Cox Forum: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:00 pm

"..... I have never said the bomb was several carriages behind me as it was in my carriage, carriage one, and I phoned in this info through to the police on the Saturday after July 7th ......."

To summarise:

1). In the immediate aftermath, Rachel was unsure as to whether the explosion was "....several carriages behind or the next one behind."

2). "After detailed anti-terrorism staff interview ....." , the recall is modified. Now Rachel is apparently, "........about 7-10 yards from blast."

3). After a few more days the recall draws Rachel much closer to the explosion and the received wisdom is that the device exploded, " ....about 7 feet behind me."

4). Seven months after the event, Rachel has no recall of her comments posted on July 8th.

Is this perhaps a further example of recall being influenced by interviews with Police, discussions with other survivors, TV and newspaper reports ........ or something else?

I would also like to flag up the following concern:

In her post on July 10, Rachel makes a point of stating:

"After detailed anti-terrorism staff interview I found out some stuff I needed to share ...... I heard this from the counter-terrorism police"

Exactly who was interviewing whom?

Rachel later posts that she contacted the BBC to get them to update their information, .....as a result of her meeting with the Anti-Terrorist officers.

Compare this observation with the response to an enquiry submitted to the Anti-terrorist Branch by Bridget Dunne:

The witness evidence gathering process is intended to be as neutral and uninfluenced as possible. For example, if a police appeal said 'we are looking for a blue car' when later events showed it to be green, 'preciseness' would have been extremely unhelpful and 'not in the public interest'.

source: http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005_ ... chive.html

Rachel intimates that she has gleaned information from her discussion with Anti-terrorist officers, which she then feels obliged to share.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why Standard Operating Procedure is breached by Anti-Terrorist officers when they meet with Rachel North?

Al K Myst

[Rachel]

Right. I've already said that i know that i am wasting my time here but sod it, once more for those at the back...


As Bridget has yet again ( predictably) seen fit to quote me uncharitably and out of context: as I have already answered her questions before and yet she has seen fit to censor my answer - I shall explain it once more for you people to satisfy your morbid curiosity.

1. July 7th: Bomb goes off behind me, choking black smoke, carriage dark. Explosion so loud it is not possible to tell position of bomb as total sensory deprivation ( too dark to see, ears deafened by blast). It is not possible at this stage to know where bomb was. We are plunged into total darkness and breathing thick smoke and those still alive and able to leave, leave the carriage. Those who look back as the smoke clears and the emergency light comes on see indescribable scenes. But at this stage, I do not know if the corpses and dying I see are in every single carriage or just my own: because I do not know how big the bomb was. For all I know, everyone else on the train is dead bar the people right next to me. For all I know, Kings Cross Station has been bombed and levelled. I get off the train.


2. July 8th: News reports bomb is where I was standing and also the number of casualties. I am relieved that not every single person on the rest of the train is dead. Disturbed by the report that the bomb was by the 1st set of doors where I was, I call the police to report this is wrong. At the time they are still recovering bodies. I worry they may be entering via the end of the train when it would be much easier to recover bodies by front of carriage one, which is still structurally ok, as we escaped from it. This is all quite clearly on my original account BTW

3. Weekend: police come round and take statement. I show them where I think the bomb was in a diagram. I now know it was on car 1 from the news, and thinking about it, the flash, the loudness of the blast are congruent. I give the statement for several hours, sign it and then ask/ 'Was I right about the bomb?'Afterwards they confirm my diagram is correct and tell me I am 'a bloody lucky girl'. I am in deep shock. I continue to my blog, I want to tell people that the bomb was not where they thought it was: I think if any of the survivors are like me and realise that it was wrong they will start to feel that they are losing a grip on reality> It is bad enough that the bomb was in our carriage but to have it where you were standing!...it NEEDS to be made right, it feels horrific. I feel very strongly about this. I type up my account. I make a typo mistake: I type ''yards'' instead of ''feet''. I wish it had been yards, but it was feet.

4. I remain upset about the BBC diagram with the bomb in the wrong place, especially as I am by now blogging for the BBC ( for free) and my blog account contradicts their diagram. I ask the UK editing team to change it. They confirm with the police who say that yes, it is in the wrong place and the early reports were wrong. The diagram is duly changed, I am pleased because it is very distressing to see the bomb placed where you were when you know that it was not there.Later, other survivors bnear me tell me how wierd they felt when they saw it in the wrong place on the diagrams in the news. And by the way, this is an example of how the news can get details wrong, and nothing is sinister about it - it is corrected as more facts come out. Why don't you read some books on news journalism?

No police procedures were broken during my statement -taking process, don't be so paranoid. After the interview, the police confirmed that my diagram was correct: they have done this for other survivors AFTER the interview has been completed and the statement signed.

I am not an M15 professional or a COINTELPRO or a shall or any of the other offensive insinuations you lot like to smear me with.

I have also explained , several times, about the S. Times piece where I explained that the PHYSICAL re-experiencing of the trauma I REPEAT PHYSICAL RE-EXPERIENCING OF THE TRAUMA - THE SMELL OF THE SMOKE THE BANG etc was triggered by watching a TV programme.

Like a soldier watching a war movie who hears the bang and automatically throws himself to the floor, who physically smells explosives or dead bodies when he is only watching a war movie.PHYSICAL RE-EXPERIENCING. You go back there.
Different to memory. Totally different.

It is PTSD symptoms.

Can you grasp that? Can you try and have some basic human empathy? Can you at least try, instead of rushing to your usual overblown conclusions?

Thank you

Finally, I am aware that memories can be influenced by later events, but I would like you to know why i am aware of this. I was raped & left for dead in 2002, as you know from Rachel's Story to which you refer. The trial at the Central Crown Court in January 2004 required me to reprise the memories that I had spoken of and reviewed many times since the attack. I was spot -on: my original statement and my cross examination exactly matched. He went down for 12 years, sentenced to 15 in total

Some things you remember, clearly, for the rest of your life. The experience of being raped and being bombed come into that category. Being almost-murdered, coming close to death. Please think about that. I lived, many others died. It will always be with me.

Finally, I have some questions for you people. I would like to ask you all

1. whether you accept that there is such a thing as Muslim fundementalism in this UK ( yes/no)

2. and the existence of terror cells in the UK? (yes/no)

3. That there is such a thing as young men inspired to bring atrocity attacks to the UK in revenge for the attacks on the umma in Afghanistan, Chechyna, Iraq etc? (yes/no)


4. That there is a theology-lite/action-heavy jihadist philosophy that is entirely different to the more common barelwi Islam in the UK and that some young men are drawn to it, and some go much further into a political jihadi extremist mindset. (yes/no)

5. Do you accept that groups such as this exist? Yes or no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 670007.stm

Because if you cannot accept this basic fact then I know for absolute certain how once more,I wasting my time with you people. I was fed up with the usual spiel and selective misquoting and acting as if I had not already covered the point s some of you raise several times already so what the hell, I've popped in once more. But you might do me the courtesy of replying to my question...

Please can you tell me if you believe what you see in the Al-Muhajiroun
Newsnight report of 2004? Do you accept that extremist cells exist? That UK youths are members of them?

(And BTW I don't want a load of accusations thrown back about me being racist: it is not racist to look at the facts of existing extremist groups. The fact that I correspond with Muslims ( see Hassan on my blog) , post on Muslim talkboards, that I attended the Muslim anti-islamophobia rally etc, that there are Muslim survivors in the KCU group should answer that charge before it is even levied.

.

[ian neal]

Hi Rachel

I will accept the answer to all your questions is a very probable YES. However do you accept the following assertion from Michael Meacher based this article ?

"Meacher charges that British and US intelligence agencies have had longstanding relations with Islamic fundamentalists from the time of the Mujahideen war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan through to the wars in Bosnia in the 1990s. He states not only that British intelligence cannot be trusted to investigate the London bombings, but also that the CIA may be protecting key figures involved in 9/11." YES or NO

(You needn't comment on the possibility that the CIA is protecting key figures involved in 9/11 since you have accepted this is not an area you are familiar with)

What is your opinion of John Loftus comments connecting the '7/7 mastermind' to British intelligence?

Are these connections and questions the type you would like to see an inquiry investigate?

[Rachel]

Meachers got it about 40% right.

He's conflated too many things though. I am not going to put what I think up on this board as to do so may be argued as prejudicing a pending trial that is presently sub judice.

I honestly cannot say any more than that: wait for the crevice trial and the 21/7 trial, after the verdicts have come out I will feel more comfortbale about saying more.

[Rachel]

I should like to hear Alkmyst ,prole and the other posters answers to my question about extremist cells beofre continuing with any firther discussion...

[Ally]

So rachel wasn't in the carriage where the bomb went off. Wonder what else she's lying about. I know for certain there ain't a shred of evidence to support her claims Islamofascists blew up the London Underground.

[Sinclair]

Rachel,

I am cognisant of the opening post of this thread:

I would suggest that the (constant) requests by 'official liners' for answers/explanations that support alternative theories are used to find out just who knows what & to plug gaps.

however, I will provide my answers to your questions, although a YES/NO is not good enough, so I have elaborated where necessary………….

1. whether you accept that there is such a thing as Muslim fundamentalism in this UK ( yes/no)

YES, and the UK Secret services have played a part in the facilitating, encouraging, funding, recruiting members (patsies) etc. of such UK fundamentalist groups.

2. and the existence of terror cells in the UK? (yes/no)

NO - from the Channel 4 Dispatches programme - Spinning Terror, broadcast on Monday 20th February, it was evident that stories such as the 'Ricin Plot' & the 'Old Trafford Bomb Scare' are nothing but Government spun fabrications with ulterior objectives of 'talking up' the 'War on Terror'. If you think the answer is YES, Rachel, please provide evidence of your assertion.

3. That there is such a thing as young men inspired to bring atrocity attacks to the UK in revenge for the attacks on the umma in Afghanistan, Chechyna, Iraq etc? (yes/no)

NO - The only attrocity attack on the UK was on July 7th 2005. We are told by the UK Government that the July 05 events in London were NOT connected to the Iraq War, so if YOU believe the UK Government, then your answer is NO. My answer is NO too, because i think that there is NO EVIDENCE to substantiate that the 4 No. Asian men cited were completely & autonomously behind the events of July 7th. If you believe that they acted alone without any assistance, collusion or connivance from others. please provide your explanation for the wealth of anomalies that exist with the Official Story. Also explain why there are about 15 people who were associated with those cited as responsible for the 7/7 & 21/7 'events' still locked up in custody in Belmarsh, who will not be tried until 2007.

4. That there is a theology-lite/action-heavy jihadist philosophy that is entirely different to the more common barelwi Islam in the UK and that some young men are drawn to it, and some go much further into a political jihadi extremist mindset. (yes/no)

YES- See response to Q1

5. Do you accept that groups such as this exist? Yes or no?

YES- See response to Q1

I look forward to your response.

~Sinclair~

[Rachel]

So rachel wasn't in the carriage where the bomb went off. Wonder what else she's lying about. I know for certain there ain't a shred of evidence to support her claims Islamofascists blew up the London Underground.

I most certainly WAS in the carriage where the bomb went off and I would like the moderators to look at whether they share my opinion that this poster is an offensive troll and should be rebuked for making constant offensive and untruthful and baseless assertions.

And there is a lot of evidence to assert that islamic extremists did it.

[alkmyst]

Rachel wrote:

I would like the moderators to look at whether they share my opinion that this poster is an offensive troll and should be rebuked for making constant offensive and untruthful and baseless assertions.

There are those who might suggest that the above observation is equally applicable to those who persist in claimimg, ad nauseum, that four young islamofascists perpetrated the events of July 7th .......... without a shred of objective evidence to support said assertion!

Al K Myst

[Rachel]

I am at work, so it's quite hard to spend hours trawlign round evidence which is frankly, there for you to fidn if you look.

Look here for a start ...
http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/MEDI ... 050910.htm

Today's Independent has a breakthrough story about the three Leeds bombers, and quite what they were up to before the 7 July plot. Ian Herbert and Kim Sengupta have done sterling work in uncovering the 7/7 bombers' social work/gang activities.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, the oldest of the four bombers, has been seen as the lead bomber. He seems to have worked closely with Shehzad Tanweer in creating a gang devoted to forcibly getting heroin addicts off drugs, outward bound-type adventuring, and, sometimes, fighting white gangs:

'The link between the two men dates back to the 1980s. In recent years their friendship had developed into membership of a 15-strong group of Asian youths known as "The Mullah Crew".'

'The group's meeting points included a local Iqra Islamic bookshop, which was raided by police after the bombings, and a gym beneath Beeston's Hardy Street mosque. Their radicalism was so blatant that the gym became known as the "al-Qa'ida gym", according to Tanweer's associates. But many were prepared to overlook this because the leaders of the Mullah Crew were known for energising many disenchanted Muslim boys whose heroin abuse was giving the Asian community a bad name.'

'Tanweer seems to have been integral to this process. "He and the Mullah Crew cleared up the area," said a source. "Lads would be taken by the group and put through cold turkey by locking them in a room for five days." '

'The Mullah Crew's emphasis was on strengthening the young Asians physically, often through outdoor activities like paintballing, climbing in the North Yorkshire Moors and canoeing in North Wales. Tanweer was more committed than most and he is particularly remembered for a paintballing trip in which he proved superb with the gun. "He was approaching it like a proper soldier," said the source.'

'Islam was also a part of the Mullah Crew's creed of clean living. "To be invited on one of these outings you had to be a part of their religious set," said another source. "They would not take lads who had become too 'Westernised' for their liking." '

'Another Mullah Crew trip saw an ill-equipped group go half-way up Mont Blanc before they were forced to head back. "Going without the proper equipment made it seem as if they were testing their strength for the jihad; testing their faith," said the source.'

'It appears that Tanweer took every aspect of life seriously, from cricket (he batted for Shaan B in the Quaid E Azam Yorkshire league) to snooker (he rejected the usual, smoke-filled clubs in favour of the Northern Club in Leeds, which has its own coach).'

'When it came to guarding what he perceived to be his territory, his independent spirit sometimes led to violence. The windows of his family's chip shop were smashed after fights broke out between white and Asian youths in Beeston. Tanweer seems to have planned to get his own back. "He was part of a group which planned to go to the white part of Beeston and get some revenge," said a source.'

The Independent has built up a 'a different picture' of Shehzad Tanweer, as more of an equal with Khan:

'a highly focussed, motivated and independent jihadist, who spent time - without Khan - at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan run by a group linked to the kidnap and murder of an American journalist...'

'One of Tanweer's former associates said the bomber had received lessons in handling arms and explosives at the camp in Mansehra, a remote area near the Kashmir border, in December and January. This is corroborated by sources in Pakistan, one of whom claims that he had two stints at the camp.'

One family member has now revealed that there were hints of the 7/7 attacks. She told Herbert and Sengupta:

'[The family] were watching a documentary on Muslims in Britain [in May]. Shahzad was convinced there would be a battle between Muslims and the West. [He said] "You'd better get out of here. Everyone's going to hate you".'

While these hints are now being recognised in retrospect, there is still no evidence that any family member of any of the four bombers knew of their plans in advance. The behaviour of many of them is evidence in the opposite direction: Hasib Hussain's parents reporting him missing to investigators on 7 July, in the belief that he might have been a victim is the most noteworthy example. This report was a crucial clue in the early part of the investigation, accelerating the identification of the Leeds bombers.