Police release CCTV image of the four London bombers

[bassman79]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4689739.stm




Image of bombers' deadly journey
The four were pictured at Luton station
Police have released a CCTV image of the four London bombers as they set out from Luton on their bombing mission.

They have also confirmed the name of all four men for the first time.

Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, Germaine Lindsay, 19, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Shahzad Tanweer, 22, were pictured in Luton at 0720 BST on Thursday 7 July.

Three bombs exploded on the London underground at 0850 BST, and one on a bus at 0947. Fifty-five people died, including the four bombers.

The picture was released in an attempt to find out more about their final movements.

[0007]

1. "What was 11 September 2001 the reprisal for?"

Where does one start?

[bribri16]

29. Try starting with stationing US military in Saudia Arabia during

Desert Storm. Osama said early on that the presence of US military in Islam's holy land and the Palestinian situation with Israel were the reasons for 9/11. That's what he said so why not start there?

[stickdog]

2. So which guy is which in the picture and/or video?

Just curious.

[Stella_Artois]

3. Ahh

You were the one claiming they never knew each other.

Still think that ?

[stickdog]

4. I never made such a claim and you know it.

I said that I've yet to see/read any evidence/claims that all four knew each other.

I still haven't.

Have you?

[Stella_Artois]

10. Yet to see any evidence ?

Its a picture of them entering a train station together, after three of them drove 150 miles in the same car from Leeds to Luton, and met the fourth there before entering the train station *together*

If we were talking about some republicans being caught breaking into a DNC meeting room in some hotel then you'd accept this as evidence in a hearbeat.

Why not this ? Do you think that all terrorist incidents are government setups ?

Do you think that the Islamic radicals are on our side, because a republican is in office right now ?

[MattSWin]

13. They worked together and went to the same mosque...

But never met I guess?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/international/europe/14leeds.html?pagewanted=all

[stickdog]

20. Who worked together with whom where?

Hussain knew Tanweer. They were neighbors. Hussain and Tanweer may or may not have known Khan. Only anonymous sources make that claim, and they always make that claim using anonymous, unsourced hearsay, as in "I was shocked to later hear that they were friends."

Furthermore, the article you linked makes no mention whatsoever of Lindsay, who lived 160 miles away from the others in Luton!

But, of course, you're ready to convict based on iron clad evidence like anonymous sources relating stuff they "heard" and other inescapably damning evidence like this:





Right?

[stickdog]

18. It's a photo that shows 4 blurry black and/or brown folks with backpacks

who may or may not be traveling together.

But I assume you are able to make a positive ID based on this:



and this:



Right?

[allemand]

11. Hanif Malik said that three of them were using the sports facilites at the

Hamara centre:

Hanif Malik, chairman of the Hamara centre, said none of the three bombers were regular staff at the centre but had used it for sports facilities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1529021,00.html

You happen to have quoted this passage yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1626812&mesg_id=1632660

Of course, there is plenty of evidence from people who want to remain anonymous (but whose names are known to the police).

[stickdog]

19. But still no named sources who say that Khan had any actual relationships

with either Hussain or Tanweer. Furthermore, even the anonymous sources who make these claims say they "heard it" without specifying where or from whom.

In addition, there are no sources whatsoever -- anonymous or otherwise -- who've explained how Lindsay, who lived over three hours away from the others in Luton, came to know ANY of the other three!

[allemand]

23. Khan and Tanweer even traveled together to Pakistan:

Three UK bombers visited Pakistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4693001.stm

[stickdog]

24. More accurately stated, Pakistan officials report that they both took the

same flights to and from Pakistan.

I must admit that this is the best evidence I've seen so far that makes me think these two had a relationship, although it's still very circumstantial.

Thanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/4693243.stm

Education Leeds, the body which runs the city's schools, said Khan was employed at the primary school in Hunslet between March 2001 and December 2004.

Weird how Khan was working at Hillside Primary School and in Pakistan at the same time, though.

[allemand]

25. Bashir Ahmed (Tanweer's uncle) about Khan's and Shahzad's relationship:

Bashir Ahmed, Shahzad Tanweer's uncle, said Khan "groomed" his nephew in a gymnasium below the Hardy Street mosque near the family's home in Beeston, Leeds. "It was below the mosque and the only adult inside was Khan. At the time, no one had a problem because he was a respected teacher," he said.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article299871.ece

[stickdog]

26. Bashir Ahmed's strange 4 day conversion into a radical jihadist.

Here's what Bashir Ahmed said on July 13th:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/13/london.suspects.relatives/

"What drove him to it, who pushed him to it, I don't know. I wish I could find out. Our lives are shattered. It's impossible to describe it.

...

"We've had a pleasant time here, but I don't think we can survive here much longer like this. We were respected by the community. How is the community going to treat us now?"

"It's unbelievable," he said, saying Tanweer had "everything to look forward to. He had no reason to do something like that. He had everything to live for. He was in our life; his parents are loving and supporting. They had no financial difficulties. So I can't see how could he do that."


"It wasn't him; it must have been some forces behind him. He was born here," Ahmed said. "He didn't do anything other than British culture."


What Bashir Ahmed told the Murdoch owned The News of the World yesterday:

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=44870&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20

"These suicide bombers are desperate people. They are not getting their rights. They can see that their brothers are not getting their rights, so they take extreme action. This lad has made a name for himself in the world. Muslims call it a sacrifice, the Europeans call him a terrorist."

Tanweer’s uncle laid the blame for the rush-hour attacks on London’s transport network at the feet of Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush, warning, "There will be more."

Citing US policy in Iraq and the Middle East, as well as its treatment of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba, Ahmed told the paper that Western disregard for the rights of Muslims was driving young men to violence.

"Britain and America are saying that they will defeat terrorism. I am saying that terrorism can be finished in one second. Why can’t Blair and Bush apologise for the way they have abused the human rights of Muslims. They should apologise. They should stop these injustices."


Any comments on the same guy who couldn't believe his nephew had done such a thing and lamenting that his family's life was shattered and that they would never again be respected in the commmunity just a few days ago, now granting an interview to Rupert Murdoch's right-wing London tabloid to announce that suicide bombers are practicing Muslim self-sacrifice?


More on the first named source to claim that Khan had a relationship with Tanweer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4133083&mesg_id=4133083

[JackieO]

27. that's really weird

wtf

[daleo]

28. It is an interesting juxtaposition of articles

A good reminder of how subjective newspaper reports are, and reason to be suspicious of anything less than trial quality evidence (including cross examination) in these matters.

[Tom Bombadil]

34. Irrelevant.

You were disputing whether or not Khan and Tanweer were connected. Bashir Ahmed says they were, so we now have a named source. We also know that Hussain knew Tanweer, they were neighbours. Do you accept that Khan, Tanweer and Hussain knew each other?

[stickdog]

36. Absolutely not. There is no evidence that Khan had any kind of

relationship with Hussain, and no legitimate evidence that Khan had a relationship with Tanweer. Bashir Ahmed has proven to be less than reliable, as I have shown. Ahmed's contradictory testimony is directly relevant to his believability.

Finally, NO ONE has even so much as convincingly suggested how Germaine Lindsay, who lived 160 miles away from Leeds in Luton, came to know any of the other three accused bombers.

[allemand]

39. Sorry, you have not shown that Bashir Ahmed is not reliable.

There is no contradiction in what Tanweer's uncle said. You just witness the transformation of shock and grief into anger.

There is absolutely no reason to doubt his testimony about Khan's and Tanweer's relationship.

And the Pisces photographs from Karachi airport are also legitimate evidence. They arrived together, they left together, and you really want to tell me that they had no relationship at all?

You must be kidding.

[stickdog]

42. Let's see the Pisces photographs showing the same time & flight number

Let's have a look at Turkish Air's seating charts for those flights, shall we? Let's determine if Khan in fact moved from this mother-in-law's house to his own home during middle of the time he was supposed to be in Pakistan with Tanweer, as was widely reported.

Bashir Ahmed has never even claimed to have any knowledge of that Khan had any sort of actual relationship of with his nephew, just that they shared the same proximity. Does this proximity actually suggest anything more than proximity? Do you have an actual relationship with every other person at the YMCA where you exercise?

Furthermore, why should we believe a jihadist sympathizer's testimony about anything? Where did he suddenly gain his newfound knowledge of Khan & Tanweer's proximity?

[allemand]

56. Why do you keep bringing up stories which I have already debunked?

You: "Bashir Ahmed has never even claimed to have any knowledge of that Khan had any sort of actual relationship of with his nephew".

This is BS. There can be no doubt that "grooming" somebody implies a relationship:

Bashir Ahmed, Shahzad Tanweer's uncle, said Khan "groomed" his nephew in a gymnasium below the Hardy Street mosque near the family's home in Beeston, Leeds. "It was below the mosque and the only adult inside was Khan. At the time, no one had a problem because he was a respected teacher," he said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1632628&mesg_id=1636986

You: "Let's determine if Khan in fact moved from this mother-in-law's house to his own home during middle of the time he was supposed to be in Pakistan with Tanweer, as was widely reported."

Well, "widely reported"... The source of this report seems to be The Mirror, a British tabloid, normally not known to be very reliable in its reporting. And the neighbor who is quoted in The Mirror practically says that he doesn't know Khan whom he calls "a mystery". He doesn't state that Khan was there when the family moved in.

Khan and his wife had already separated at that time:

According to reports, Sadique had separated from Hasina late last year when she became pregnant with their second child as they had many disagreements about his “approach to life”. A critical factor in the separation of Khan and his wife was his growing religious fervour.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050717/asp/foreign/story_5000174.asp

Khan visited his estranged wife and 14-month-old daughter Maryam just a couple of times a month.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article299460.ece
(article already in the archive, but you can google that phrase)

The Independent is a much better source than The Mirror...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1635827&mesg_id=1637877

You are surprisingly quick to call Tanweer's uncle a "jihadist sympathizer", given your reluctance to admit that Khan and Tanweer indeed were not only sympathizers, but jihadist fighters. Isn't this a little bit inconsistent...? :D

I agree with you that it would be nice to see all the Pisces photographs and also the seating charts.

According to the New York Times, some footage was shown on Pakistani television:

A private Pakistani television station broadcast images of two of the men, Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammad Sidique Khan, arriving at the Karachi airport in November 2004, and leaving in February 2005. The third, Hasib Mir Hussain, arrived in July 2004. Two Pakistani officials confirmed that the television images were accurate, but refused to be identified because the investigation was still under way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/19/international/europe/19bombings.html?

Also, Khan's and Tanweer's families have not questioned the travel dates published by Pakistani media. And they should certainly know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. From left to right

Hussain, Lindsey, Khan (in white cap) and Tanweer.

[stickdog]

6. So this is the guy on the far right?

What makes you think that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It's the BBC commentary

and it makes sense: the guy on the left looks like the other CCTV image released of him, the next guy looks black (Jamaican born). That leaves Khan and Tanweer; remember that the pisture from King's Cross hasn't been released, so the police have other picture showing which is dressed in what, and the picture shown on the BBC website may not be as clear as the original, so it may be obvious in that.

How old do you think Tanweer is in the picture you found? I'd said less than 22 - so it's quite an old picture.

[stickdog]

8. It makes sense if you want it to make sense. But what it actually SHOWS

is four blurry brown and black folks who may or may not be traveling together.

Nothing more and nothing less.

[daleo]

9. You might recognize the first guy if you knew him

Maybe the second guy too, although it isn't very definitive. The two at the back don't show any distinguishing features, as far as I can tell, especially the trailing person. Also, it would be more convincing if they showed a CCTV screen capture of them at the London station, near the crime scene at the appropriate time, rather than Luton, 90 minutes earlier.

[1932]

12. I'm sure this isn't the only picture from the camera, and the two in the..

...back eventually reach the door where they got a better picture of them.

The police probably released this still from the video because it shows all four together.

[daleo]

14. It wouldn't have been more trouble to release a few more photos then.

Granted, some people could never be convinced, but I just want to see a reasonable amount of evidence that is more than circumstantial. With my own eyes I mean, not "sources say" quotes in newspaper articles.

Leaving aside the notion of conspiracies, there is such a thing in police work as tunnel vision. Consciously and unconsciously police can develop a theory of a case quite early on, and focus only on evidence that fits the theory and ignore anything to the contrary. I can't rule this out yet.

I will give a hypothetical. Recall that the times of the subway explosions were separated by nearly half an hour in the first day of the investigation (Thursday). Then, by Saturday they were said to be simultaneous, with very little explanation for the change.

Suppose that these CCTV captures were actually from fairly early in the investigation. The picture fit a reasonable profile of the bombers (i.e. a group of Muslims with backpacks, apparently), but at that time they didn't fit the timing of the explosions. Solution - change the times of the explosions. This wouldn't necessarily require a political/police conspiracy, just a desire on the part of the authorities to solve a high profile case with dispatch and look good to the public.

I have seen this happen in murder cases with no political implications at all in my city, so I could imagine it happening here as well.

That is why I would like to see a trial, and if there is nobody left to try, at least a very thorough inquest with cross examination and presentation of detailed evidence.

[stickdog]

17. Exactly. As any Perry Mason watcher knows, you don't need a conspiracy

to investigate, indict and even convict somebody innocent.

[stickdog]

16. And the first guy told his folks that he was going to London.

As for the 2nd, 3rd & 4 guys, I report, you decide:





Enough evidence to convict these bloody monsters or not?

[daleo]

22. Your contrasting images demonstrate well how grainy CCTV captures are

Certainly, no jury would convict someone of anything using these resemblances. These might be somewhat corroborative if they were consistent with a lot of other pictorial, circumstantial or forensic evidence, but they hardly mean anything on their own.

[Don1]

53. Ummm...

WTF?

This last guy looks like a white guy in his forties with a beer belly and a beard.

That's nothing like the young athletic kid.

People cannot use a "grainy quality" picture reason to excuse this discrepancy.

There is simply no way that a grainy pic can make a 19 year old, thin soccer player into a forty, year old white guy with a beard and beer belly.

[bassman79]

15. Photo raises more questions about Gov'ts story

They look rather nonchalant for being on their way to commit suicide. The two guys in the back do not look like any of the suspects, at all.

This investigation is a joke.
First its military explosives and timers, suicide bombers ruled out.
Then its suicide bombers with homemade explosives?

The suspects completely do not fit the profile of suicide bombers, not to mention the fact that whenever suicide bombings are carried out its always necessary tactically, but not in this case. Apparently, they just committed suicide in the attack because....?

[stickdog]

21. Why for the greater glory of Allah, of course!

It all makes perfect sense when finally you come to understand, (like our anti-terror law crusading leaders and corporate media obviously already do) that, unlike us, they are unencumbered by even the most basic rational thought processes.

Yep. Those wacky evil doers -- even "regular Joe" homegrown ones, of course -- are always blowing themselves up for the darnedest reasons!

[bribri16]

30. I'm with you on this one. How do we know these four weren't

innocently killed like the other people. What about this picture proves that they were "suicide bombers?" Has any part of their bodies been found? How do we know they were not going to some Islamic affair together? Are they even together? When we of the Brits can't explain something do we just grab names and faces out of the thin air? Remember, at least six of the so-called 9/11 attackers were shown to have stolen identities and we still don't know who the 9/11 attackers were today. Especially since we have identified at least 3 20th highjackers.

[sleipnir]

31. 1 Hour and 30 minutes later from this photo, bombing WTF?

Why did it take so long and then it's almost 2 1/2 hours before he bus blows up. Why does it take that long for them to agree to bomb the trains? And why does the second guy have a small plastic shopping sack?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. This picture is at Luton station

They caught a train from there to King's Cross Thameslink, where they were also photographed together at about 8:30. They then split up and ended up on the 3 separate tube trains.

There are still questions about what the bus bomber did in the hour delay. One suggestion is that he was meant to get on a northern-bound tube train (the claim that was posted on the Internet shortly afterwards said "Britain burning in fear, terror and fright in the north, south, east and west"), but the Northern line wasn't running at that time from King's Cross (it's a notoroiusly unreliable line). So he then revised his plan, and got on a bus. This seems a fairly thin claim to me, and I don't think anyone is placing much importance on it (though I'm sure they'd love to know if he contacted anyone in that hour to ask advice).

[stickdog]

37. Supposedly.

They caught a train from there to King's Cross Thameslink, where they were also photographed together at about 8:30.

Let's see this photo, then, please.

[allemand]

40. It's mentioned in the official statement by Scotland Yard:

We have also taken more than 800 witness statements and have received 3,500 calls from the public through the anti-terrorist hotline. We are analysing more than 6,000 CCTV tapes and this number is still growing dramatically. Together with the material being gathered from examination of the explosion scenes and the other searches being conducted this is providing us with a large amount of information. Further detailed analysis will take many months of intensive and detailed investigation.

After continued forensic work we now believe we have identified the four men who travelled from Luton and were later seen on CCTV at King's Cross shortly before 8:30am on Thursday 7th July.
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major_operational_announcements/terrorist_attacks/police_investigation_continues_into_the_7_7_bombings

So you think that Scotland Yard makes an official statement about evidence they don't have?

Again, you must be kidding.

[stickdog]

43. Where are those WMDs again, allemand?

You must be kidding.

[allemand]

55. Scotland Yard, WMDs?

What???

[mallard]

33. yes, nonchalant - strolling right along into .... a suicide mission ??

They are being widely painted as 'monsters' based on the fixture of their names and faces with these Kings Cross photos, carrying the backpacks and having been killed on location and by identification scraps.

Everything about their appearance and travel style suggests they were set up.

Why would they have return tickets to the north?

They hardly fit the suicide bomber profile and even seem clean enough to get drafted into participating in the day's anti-terrorism drill reported going on at the same locations as the bombings but vaguely mentioned in the press.

We have the 'definitely guilty chorus doing the conviction work in the court of public opinion exactly as happened with 9/11, amid some very unlikely and misunderstood facts.

Off-route London bus at Tavistock House (?) - right.

If they weren't set up and left so poorly disposed to explain themselves, why wouldn't they have left formal statement of their cause and intentions - knowing they would be so easily identified?

Must be stupid, too!

Nice boys who WENT TO PAKISTAN and came back to bomb there way into condemnation by suicide MUST BE GUILTY. Icing on the cake for people who want to be convinced the trend toward a crusade war is appropriate.

Why suicide with timers? Why devastate your own?

Even the papers are now saying they were likely set up.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. "Why would they have return tickets to the north?"

Probably because it's the only way you get a Tube pass included on your rail ticket.

They hardly fit the suicide bomber profile and even seem clean enough to get drafted into participating in the day's anti-terrorism drill reported going on at the same locations as the bombings but vaguely mentioned in the press.

No one has EVER suggested that drills were occuring at the same places. The only thing that's ever been suggested is that a private company was doing a disaster preparedness simulation involving theoretical attacks at those stations. It was never described as a drill, which is a whole different thing altogether.

They hardly fit the suicide bomber profile

You could say the same thing about the 9/11 hijackers, who mostly came from middle-class backgrounds. They don't fit the profile of palestiniain suicide bombers.

[stickdog]

44. Er.

Probably because it's the only way you get a Tube pass included on your rail ticket.


Umm, no.


The only thing that's ever been suggested is that a private company was doing a disaster preparedness simulation involving theoretical attacks at those stations. It was never described as a drill, which is a whole different thing altogether.


Yes, a different thing altogether ...


You could say the same thing about the 9/11 hijackers, who mostly came from middle-class backgrounds. They don't fit the profile of palestiniain suicide bombers.


Yes, 7.7 has a lot in common with 9/11.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. Oh, then I take it you're familiar with the National Rail pass system.

It would be very interesting if National Rail allowed you to add a tube pass to non-return tickets. You should suggest this to them, given that I'm sure you're a frequent rail passenger to London.

[mallard]

47. Re: Confusion Over London Bomb Drill

"No one has EVER suggested that drills were occuring at the same places. The only thing that's ever been suggested is that a private company was doing a disaster preparedness simulation involving theoretical attacks at those stations. It was never described as a drill, which is a whole different thing altogether."


Some people might dare to that a drill. It had to have had some municipal backing. The private nature of the company involved doesn't over-ride concern of some kind of monkey business going on

Al Jazeera, for example, was not restrained in reporting that the 'exercises' which you say no-one EVER described as "drills" were occuring simultaneously and in designated locations which happened to be where the bombings actually occured. That seems worth a second thought, not INSTANT DISMISSAL.

Re: Al Jazeera - 7/10/05 - Confusion Over London Bomb Drill

<http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9160>

Some people are in a real hurry to blame these guys before too much else gets found out!

Similar 'exercises were apparently going on for soft tagerts in Manhattan on the morning of Tuesday September 11th, 2001. The official version of events is highly suspicious and considered sacred turf for people who lied to make a war.

What's your certainty based on? Seems like some form of loyalty is a factor.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. It had to have had some municipal backing.

No it doesn't. Companies in large cities hold disaster preparedness simulations all the time.

If you're so interested in it, why don't you call up the network that originally reported this and ask them about it? Why all this speculation? It should be easy for you to find out, if you're interested.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. That al Jazeera is NOT the TV station

it is a website that reprints stories from other sources - see the Demopedia entry. In this case, it reprinted the web page of Prison Planet here. Prison Planet is not a reputable news source - it makes things up, spreads baseless rumours, etc.

Peter Power has a standard email reply (seen in this DU thread) to correct the misinformation that Prison Planet spread about the exercise. There was no municipal backing (why do you you say there had to be?), The 'drill' happened in one room, and was a series of paper exercises, one of which was very close to what actually happened.

[mallard]

52. So, you're convinced this is all misinfo ...

regarding the reported 1000-person exercise, held by a company with strong government and police connections? Should the miscue be attributed to conspiracy freaks intentionally misunderstanding a former terror prevention officer who says one thing in the afternoon and perhaps another to water it down the following day?

The justification for killing over 100,000 in Iraq seems a lot harder to swallow than does making it all seem worthwhile again at the expense of a few more Muslims.

Where does this convincing begin? Certainly not from the success story in Baghdad. The truth seems to be getting bulldozed without tollerance for debate.

Reading through the thread, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty as to how this news simply disolves into a trivial 'coincidence'. It seems totally within the limits of reason - in a time of ugly and unpopular WAR - that these boys were invited to take part in that DRILL which seems to have gone on outside the referred to office and taken place at said locations.

What makes you tick to so ardently to deny this possibility?

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. The spin that Prison Planet put on the story is obvious

and you are still falling for it. It wasn't a "1000-person exercise" - it was an exercise for the crisis managers of a company that employs 1000 people in London. The audio clips of Peter Power made that clear, right from the start; but Prison Planet said it was a 1000-person strong exercise. That was wrong - and, given they have had loads of opportunity to correct it, basically a lie.

Similarly, their characterisation of Visor Consultants as 'a PR firm' is incorrect. They consult on crisis management - which means that running disaster exercises for private companies is a typical thing they do. What are the "strong government and police connections"? Well, Power is an ex-policeman. That's it, as far as I can tell. Power did not say one thing one day, and another the next - his story has been consistent. The problem was, as you say, that conspiracy freaks (Alex Jones) intentionally misunderstood him.

Show me one single piece of evidence that the 'drill' took place anywhere outside the office room. No-one has shown it on DU so far.

Am I ardent? Well, I don't want the reputation of DU to become "those people who believe the first thing that Alex Jones says". And knowledge is useful to us - for instance, you said that Al Jazeera had reported the story; hopefully, you'll now know that aljazeera.com is not the TV channel, but just a place that repeats others' stories - so that if you see something there, you should always find out where the original is. And you'll now know that the TV station is at english.aljazeera.net .

[daleo]

57. How close is close?

Do you have any other details. If the events and the drill were similar enough, that would certainly imply something important. It needn't imply some big conspiracy, but it could mean someone involved in the bombings breached security.

"It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting."

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. No, I don't have any details that Power didn't tell us

And it needn't mean anything important at all. The places in the Underground that were bombed weren't particularly vulnerable, just busy - and everyone knew that. For people coming from Leeds and catching an overground train into London, when meeting someone who lives in Aylesbury, you'd go into King's Cross (or St. Pancras, which shares the same Underground station). From there, they seem to have gone in 3 directions, all on busy lines (they're all busy in the rush hour in central London). Whether the bomb on the bus was meant to end up there is a good question.

I believe one of the Power interviews said the offices of the company are in central London - and a scenario for the office to run would quite likely include King's Cross and Liverpool St., near which 2 of the real bombs exploded - they are busy overground stations on the edge of the financial City district, so it would be quite likely that some employees would use them (I also think that somewhere on the net, someone thought that Power's scenario included bombs on overground trains, which would show that the exercise wasn't incredibly close - but I couldn't see that there was a decent basis for that claim).

The thing is, what a private company does as an exercise doesn't make anything easier, or more effective, for a real bomber.

[daleo]

59. Perhaps this is a McGuffin, perhaps not.

One hopes a proper inquest will address the issue, since it has created some curiosity.

[StrafingMoose]

35. Hmm, OK.

They have clean mugshots of them, but the 'live' picture could be anyone on that.

I guess they have better quality pic with a zoom on the right spot, that matters. Right?

[stickdog]

46. Could be. TBD. (nt)

[MattSWin]

41. stickdog...

Are you their defense attorney or something?

Secondly why would police in Britain lie about having evidence that these guys were the bombers?

Why frame dead people?

[stickdog]

45. Ask Oswald when you see him. (nt)

[Matilda]

48. There are a number of websites that dispute the identities

of the 9/11 Hijackers. I can't vouch for the integrity of these
sites, but they certainly have some interesting information.

We should also remember the Birmingham Six.

Would our governments lie to us for their own purposes? You bet!