Monday, May 29, 2006

Lost His Nerve?

A story published by timesonline on August 25 2005 claims that the reason Hasib Hussain bombed a bus and not a tube train like the others was that he had LOST HIS NERVE and decided against bombing the train. I went through this story and have picked it apart accordingly and have tried to determine feeble guesswork from down right lies.

First, I will leave a link to this story so that it can be accessed easily and at your leisure. Source: Timesonline.

I have split this story into 4 (five if you count my first paragraph as two) points so that it is obvious what the faults are with it.

My first point is the "missing hour" described in this article, which was to be pieced together by detectives. This article was published on 25 August 2005, (as stated above) and we still haven't heard a thing about what really happened. This could well be another oppurtunity for the police to look like they are doing something helpful (when they aren't) and then in a couple of months time hope that by now everybody has forgotten about the "missing hour" and nobody will worry. It doesn't matter we know who did it. The police motto for their investigation. It if it really is so blindingly obvious then why haven't we seen one little bit of concrete evidence in the whole case? A whole hour just sitting in McDonalds. How likely is that for someone who is about to create havoc not only in London but across the world. In the article it states that he left three messages with his already dead friends "begging for help". Surely he would already know that they were dead? It would be pretty reasonable to assume that it was meant to be in tandem because all of the other three bombs were detonated at 8:50 am within seconds.
How do we know these telephone calls are real? Again, we have absolutely nothing to help us with this investigation apart from the pack of lies fed to us by the Government and the Police. There has been no evidence to suggest that he even went into McDonalds. There has been no STRONG evidence to show that, even if he did go to into McDonalds, that Hasib Hussein had anything had anything to do with these attacks, and that he could well have been an innocent victim who was (conveniently enough for the Government and Mr. Blair who were incidentally losing national confidence over the war against Iraq (and any other Muslims)) just an ordinary, every-day Muslim.

OK then, so for one minute lets go along with the Government's theory (what there is of it) and say that yes, he did make these phone calls even when he knew his friends were dead and that it would be impossible to contact them. Where exactly did he make these calls? In the "police source" mentioned in the article, it is claimed that Mr. Hussein is out of breath while making these calls and is very likely to be either running or walking fast while he is talking. However, in the beginning of the article, it states that Mr. Hussein took refuge at McDonalds and only then attempted to contact his partners in crime. I do not know many details about this particular McDonalds but I am quite sure that you can't walk fast around the place in an agitated manner without people becoming concerned about you and even perhaps approaching you. Another point which (quote The Antagonist) defies my sense of reason.

And then the point of the article itself. Did Hussein really lose his nerve, and, even when he knew his fellow bombers to be dead, turn once more and did indeed carry out his attack? Why would he? If he had already decided that he couldn't bring himself to commit such a terrible crime, why would he turn again and find courage to do it? And wouldn't he be put off even further by knowing that his comrades were dead, and that he was sure to suffer the same fate? His sudden turn, without any obvious emotional or physical stimulant, is pretty odd, and is made even more so by the way he allegedly thought out and kind of toyed with death.

However, there is another theory which is connected to him turning away from his "duty". It is said that the bombers were planning to make some kind of "burning cross" across London, which was agreed in their alleged "suicide pact". This could well be possible, but is slightly contradicted by the idea that the bombers staged a "dry run" just nine days before the actual attacks. In this dry run, only the three Tube bombers were involved (as far as we know) and as of yet there is no explanation of why Mr. Hussein did not complete his planned attack. It is just one of my ideas that Hussein may have been actually meant to bomb the bus and that is why he is not found on CCTV that day planning the attacks with the others. It is my theory that he was actually there staging the test run, but on that bus instead of on the Underground.

This artcle actually has more faults then it does facts.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

The Government Trying to Keep Psaradakis Quiet

It is just so annoying. Every two seconds, the government tells us that George Psaradakis is a "pillar of strength" for the community. Don't you think they're making it a bit too obvious that the only reason for them praising him is so that he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't leak anything to the press?
Try these examples to name a few.

And it works, too. Everyone else is complaining but then helpful Mr. Psaradakis pops up and conveniently says the government couldn't have done anything.

How much do you reckon they're paying him?

Hit the Kerb

In another article that someone has found for me, George Psaradakis claims that when the bomb went off he thought that he had just hit the kerb. His bus had just been blown to pieces and he thought he had hit the kerb!
Yet again more proof that something isn't right here.
Read this article at hit-the-kerb

George Psaradakis (The Bus Driver in 7/7)

I have put this post up because I think this is a key line of investigation which yet again the government has ignored.

George Psaradakis was the bus driver in the sad bus bombing. He is seen by many to be a pillar of strength through all this sadness but I think there is a lot more to him than the public are told. There are lots of odd circumstances surrounding him and the bombings.

In his version of events, he says that, instead of staying on the scene to give the police a statement, or let the paramedics see to him, he walked 10 miles across London in just under 1 hour, at an extremely unlikely speed. This could of been made harder (although this is not fact) by the injuries he might have sustained in the bomb.

There are other things which seem odd, too.

George Psaradakis' bus was the only bus to be diverted that day, in nearly the whole of London. He claims that he was told to go a different way because of the bombs in the Tube. Why, then, was no other bus (even the ones on the same route as him) diverted as well? It doesn't make sense. Also, George Psaradakis a substitute driver. What was wrong with the driver who was meant to be driving and why was Psaradakis chosen?

Another point. (This isn't entirely connected to Psaradakis but it involves the bus). In the Met. Police report, it states that 120 people were injured and 13 killed. However, there were only 80 people on board. Surely, there weren't enough people in the vicinity, not just on the bus to add up to 133. Not every single one of the passengers was injured either, so I reckon that an absolute maximum of peope injured could add up to is about 100. Nowhere near 130.

There is one other thing about his story that doesn't add up. At the memorial service for those who were killed in the bombs, it is reported by most papers that George Psaradakis couldn't attend because of a heart condition. However, Paul Dadge (the man who was on the front of the papers the next day helping the lady with a gas mask), states, in his blog, that he was sitting next to Psaradakis and his wife. (read this article at paul-dadge-blog)

Mr. Psaradakis may well be an innocent civilian who is just caught in the cross-fire of a terrorist attack, but there are several points against him that don't add up. He hasn't really done anything wrong, making it very hard to build a case against him, but some questions must be answered in his case.

Friday, May 19, 2006

My Letter To John Reid

Heya this is my first ever post on this blog. It includes my letter that I wrote to John Reid about the extremely unhelpful official report which frankly got us nowhere.

Dear Mr. Reid,

Recently, I have been researching the 7/7 London bombings, because it intrigues me to find out just what happened and what drove these people to do it (if they did commit these terrible crimes). I have been reading the official report and first of all I must say I am definitely not satisfied, and there are several points which you, or whoever wrote this report, have not taken into account.
First of all, there is a matter that I am certain that you are already aware of, thanks to the people who, like me have contacted you and informed you, or your predecessor to this job, Mr. Clarke about it. The fact is that the 7/7 bombers couldn't have left on the 7:40 from Luton (due to the fact that on this day this particular train was cancelled. The bombers also can't have left on the 7:48 train, either, because they wouldn't have made it on time for the trains that left from Kings Cross (that were bombed). That leaves anything before the 7:40 train. Unfortunately, that is impossible too. Anything that was before the picture of them on CCTV (at 7:22) at Luton station, is also wiped out (for obvious reasons). That leaves 2 other trains that were scheduled to depart from Luton, and to go on to Kings Cross. It leaves the 7:24, and the 7:30. The 7:24 actually left at 7:25, and this would have been near impossible for the bombers to catch. As your CCTV picture can tell you, the picture was taken at nearly 7:23, which means the bombers had around 2 minutes to get from one side of Luton train station to the other, a distance which is estimated to take about 3 or 4 minutes normally. This journey would have been made even harder for these men to make, because (as described in your report) they would have been carrying heavy rucksacks too. This leaves the 7:30, which (like many trains these days) left 12 minutes late (7:42). Also, the 7:30 only arrived at 8:39, by which time the trains bombed had left the station. Surely, Mr. Reid, you can understand how improbable your explanation is at this point, though not many politicians actually accept it when they are wrong nowadays.
I have a couple other points that I would like to make.
Secondly, why, after entering through the ticket barriers at 7:15, did they decide to leave the station? They must have left it at some point because they were photographed outside the station on the CCTV picture in the report at 7:22. I find this very unlikely and I think there is either something here that the government is with-holding or that there is something that the government doesn't know.
Next I have included something a little distant from the actual bombings but something I think needs to be investigated. The bus driver on the bus that was bombed by Hasib Hussain was called George Psaradakis. He was of Greek nationality. There are several odd things about his story and how he came to be connected to the bombings. For instance, in an interview he gave for The Times, he claimed that instead of allowing the ambulance men/women who were on the scene of the crime, he walked all of ten miles to Acton Hospital, when there were hospitals that were in fact closer to the scene of crime. He also claimed that he made this distance in one hour or even slightly less, at a highly unlikely speed of 10 miles per hour. Also, why was he a substitute driver on the day, and why couldn't the man/woman who was meant to be driving drive? Why was his bus the only bus in London (on this day) that was diverted from its normal route? I find these facts very interesting and would be interested to investigate his background and day-to-day life for any previous links to either terrorism in general or these men who are suspected of these crimes.
I have one more question about your highly unsatisfactory report. On the seventh page of your report (the section on the response to the attacks), it mentions that by 13th July, police had strong evidence that the accused were responsible for these attacks. Exactly what evidence was this and why can't it be shown to the general public? Or are we not considered worthy to know the truth?
Please realize, Mr. Reid, that I am not attacking you in person and I am sure that you are perfectly capable of doing your job, but this report makes absolutely no sense and all I want to know is the truth of what really happened.
I look forward to reading your reply,which I hope will answer all of my queries about your report.