Reasonable Doubt: What if the four London bombers didnâ??t know they were bombers?

Reasonable Doubt
What if the four London bombers didnâ??t know they were bombers?

By James K. Galbraith
Web Exclusive: 07.27.05

Print Friendly | Email Article

Anywhere else, the police killing of the young Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in the London Underground on July 22 would be called a gangland-style murder. Yet the authorities are unmoved. Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of Scotland Yard, stiffly warned that more shootings might follow. Home Secretary Charles Clarke stated â??full supportâ?� for the police. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw gave the reason: Police must â??have effective discretion to deal with what could be terrorist suicide outrages about to take place.â?�

But this raises a question. Have any â??terrorist suicide outragesâ?� actually taken place? Outrages, certainly. But were the bombs of July 7 suicide bombs, as every commentator has accepted?

In judging this question, we can rely only on information that has come from the police. So letâ??s do that. Letâ??s assume that every fact asserted by British security forces with respect to the July 7 bombings is true. We may have to relax that assumption later, as economists say. But letâ??s accept them all to begin with. And that includes some statements that were later retracted, but which are arguably more credible than the revised versions. What do we have?

We have three bombs that detonated on subway cars, in deep tunnels, at 8:50 a.m. on July 7. One, at Russell Square, killed 25 people. The two others killed 16 people between them. A fourth bomb detonated some 57 minutes later, in the rear of the upper deck of the No. 30 bus, in Tavistock Square. This bomb killed 13 people. Total deaths so far: 55, including one not yet attributed to a site.

The fact that three bombs went off together establishes that detonation was by timers. No other hypothesis can account reasonably for the fact that less than a minute separated the explosions. (Also, on July 8, CNN reported that remains of timers had been found in the tunnel bombs.) The reasonable inference is that three alarms functioned, and that one failed.

The bombs contained military explosives, according to a front-page report in The New York Times. Military explosives are powerful. Their use implies that the bombs were small. The joint hypothesis that the bombs were small, made from military explosives, and detonated by timers implies that experts assembled them. This, too, has been stated by the authorities, and letâ??s accept it.

Itâ??s true that these statements were later retracted, and the expertly assembled, timer-detonated military devices replaced by clumsy, homemade, volatile, hand-detonated bombs of the type found in the second round of bombings. But this is hard to believe. Detecting the chemical signature of explosives is reliable science, on which multiple sources based early statements to the press. The fact that other substances were later found elsewhere, in itself, proves nothing about what the bombs of July 7 were made of.

The bombs created havoc, especially underground. The tunnels in which the bodies lay were hot, dark, and â??vermin-infested.â?� One week after the bombings, only 22 bodies had been identified. Without doubt, recovery operations were grim. Secretary Clarke called it â??total carnage.â?�

Yet, the identity documents of four British Muslim men were found in the debris close to the site of the bombs in each of the locations. The young men were seen together, wearing backpacks, on CCTV at Kingâ??s Cross. Their faces were matched to the IDs, from among tens of thousands of images recovered from the tube on that morning. According to reports, the young men on the videotape looked relaxed, as though they were going hiking. All this, we are officially told.

What do these â??factsâ?� establish? Do they show that the young men were guilt y of the charge against them, that they committed the crime of mass murder, of which they have now been convicted, postmortem, in the press? Do they establish suicide bombing? No, they do not.

The method doesnâ??t fit. Suicide bombers use buttons. If timed bombs are possible, it makes no sense to sacrifice the bomber. He can dump the bag, hop off the train, and live to bomb another day.

The effect doesnâ??t fit. The point of a suicide bombing is to kill many people. With military explosives, a suicide bomber on a packed train could have killed many more than actually died. But with the small charges and the late hour, two bombs averaged only eight deaths each (one report, possibly dated, puts the number at six each) including the â??bomber.â?� This suggests that at least two young men, with their large packs, did not seek out the most crowded cars on the tube. Instead, they looked for space to sit, just as you or I would have done.

The behavior doesnâ??t fit. If the young men meant to be anonymous, why carry identification? If they wanted to be known, why not leave a letter or a videotape, declaring their reasons? Why buy round-trip tickets from Luton? Why pay, diligently, for the parking of a rented car? These young men left no sign that they were preparing to die, and the most probable reason for that is that they werenâ??t.

Finally, the background doesnâ??t fit. None of the young men was political. None was religiously extreme. One was, according to Reuters, â??fanatical about sport.â?� One had a 15-month-old child and a partner who is eight months pregnant; he recently spent several hundred pounds on perfume. Another was, by the accounts of shocked and bereaved parents and colleagues, a â??brilliantâ?� teacher at a preschool, where he specialized for years in teaching small children with special needs. Now thatâ??s great cover for a â??sleeper.â?� Either that or that man, too, was a victim.

Two of the young dead men featured on the front page of the Guardian on July 19 entering Pakistan in photographs from 2003. But the fact that young men of Pakistani origin should travel to Pakistan is not evidence of links to terrorism. The Israeli suggestion that one of these men helped to bomb a Tel Aviv nightclub is also not credible. If the Israelis had this information before July 7, why didnâ??t they tell the British? He would have been easy to arrest.

Later innuendo was even more absurd. On July 24, The Mail on Sunday ran a photo of two of the young men, together with others, on a whitewater raft. The article alongside suggested that the excursion was cover for â??Al Qaeda military training.â?� Well, possibly. But isnâ??t it odd that terrorists would go to play and bond where photographers stand on the riverbank taking pictures? Hereâ??s an alternative thought. Maybe they went rafting for fun.

All in all, the reasonable inference is that the young men did not know that they were carrying bombs. It follows that they were duped into carrying them. This is a possibility that The New York Times finally got around to discussing on July 27. The Times account notes that official statements, by police and politicians alike, have so far not explicitly stated that the bombings were suicides. But this fact had, until now, completely escaped the British press, and if you look again at that comment of Jack Strawâ??s, itâ??s easy to see why. Official statements have obviously been calculated to foster the impression that suicides were involved. Moreover, the response, including the actions leading to the killing of de Menezes, was clearly predicated on the assumption that suicide bombers are about.

Simultaneity of the bombs would have ensured that the young men could never report on who duped them. In this, it appears that the dupers got lucky. Had he been a bit quicker to catch on, the young man on the bus might have got away.

Who did it? So far, nobody knows. No credible claim of responsibility has been made. And once the premise of suicide is dropped, no link to Islamic terrorism has been established. So far, no credible suspects have been named -- including the young biochemist arrested in Cairo. Hosni Mubarakâ??s police are no friends of Islamic terrorists. If they will not deliver that young man to the British, they must have good reasons to believe that he wasnâ??t involved. Their conduct is, at least, creditable so far.

The credit of British officials, on the other hand, is deeply damaged. In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, we now know that he was tracked, over a mile, on and off a bus, and allowed to enter the Stockwell Underground station before being challenged, chased, cornered, and shot eight times in the head and shoulder. All this although he was, supposedly, a suspected suicide bomber! What is going on here? The case cries out for an independent inquiry. Meanwhile, The Independent on July 26 ran a small section headlined â??How the Story Has Changed,â?� listing how various details in the official tale have unraveled. That alone shows clearly that nothing stated officially in these matters can be taken on faith.

And that goes also for the four young men of July 7. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle of common law. One cannot convict in the presence of reasonable doubt. There is no reason why this should not also apply to the dead. They had friends and families, after all, and in several cases small children who deserve a just accounting of whether their fathers were, or were not, suicide bombers. We cannot offer the four young dead men a fair trial. But we can apply the principle that we would use, if we could. Itâ??s actually one of those things, called values, that weâ??re supposed to be fighting for in the global clash of civilizations. And in this case, doubt as to the actual guilt of Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Haseeb Hussain, and Germaine Lindsay isnâ??t just reasonable. Itâ??s overwhelming. James K. Galbraith teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. He has been watching events unfold in London from elsewhere in Europe.

© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.

they are supposed to have went to mcdonalds just before thats never alquia or remotely musslem fanatics ,one of the bombers supposedly spent £2000 on kiting his car out with a new stereo system the previous week, they parked their car paying for a weeks parking, the athourities had emergeny personel at the exact stations that were bombed, witnesses said the bombs went of under the train and left massive holes in the floor,other witnesses say the bomber on the bus was trying to search through his bag whenthe bomb went of so we have to be asking some questions as it just doesnt fit but hey what can you do the will do what they do . and i just want to say people give alex jones a hard time but if you dont here the other stuff then you would never know whats going on as our goverments wont tell us i just wanted to say that.lol

The author definately has no perception of the mentallity of these people or gangs! I rode with the clubs and understand it doesn't matter what the fuck you have going on in your personal life...when your number is called you respond. If not, they just may visit you AND your family!

lol what happened to flight 93

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scobbie

lol what happened to flight 93

---

Here's some info for ya! :thumbsup:

On September 11, 2001 the world witnessed one of the most horrific criminal acts in human history.

We lost many great people that day, and many people exhibited great heroism. Other important memorials honor these heroes. This memorial is devoted specifically to the heroes of United Flight 93 who courageously took control of their destiny and stopped the terrorists from using their plane as another weapon.
http://www.unitedheroes.com/

very good at this psyco lol, very, very good, hahaha,peice brother :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

but the question is if lets roll guy forced that plane into the ground as we are expected to beleave then why is there not much reckage i just wanted your opinion on it here are some photos of other crash sites i tried to find one that resembled flight 93 but had no joy i am only intrested in what happened and why no one else seems to want to ask these questions not even the fellow americans of those who died that fatefull day(god bless them) could it be that it was shot down as there is no eveidince to sugest it was flowen into the grownd as was said and if people cant see anything wrong with this then they just dont want to know as if it was shot down because it was thought they were heading for washington then fair enough but why lie you must see some discrepincies here .any one else like to help out here, the first 2 are flight 93 the others are planes that crashed in similar circumstances does any one know were it went because evey other plane that has crash sraight into the grown leaves wreckage at the scene as you can see

and some more im not saying that i know i dont thats why im asking because it never happened as they say it did so any opinion welcome we need the truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scobbie

but the question is if lets roll guy forced that plane into the ground as we are expected to beleave then why is there not much reckage i just wanted your opinion on it here are some photos of other crash sites i tried to find one that resembled flight 93 but had no joy i am only intrested in what happened and why no one else seems to want to ask these questions not even the fellow americans of those who died that fatefull day(god bless them) could it be that it was shot down as there is no eveidince to sugest it was flowen into the grownd as was said and if people cant see anything wrong with this then they just dont want to know as if it was shot down because it was thought they were heading for washington then fair enough but why lie you must see some discrepincies here .any one else like to help out here, the first 2 are flight 93 the others are planes that crashed in similar circumstances does any one know were it went because evey other plane that has crash sraight into the grown leaves wreckage at the scene as you can see

---

Near Shanksville, Betty Rhoads thought her furnace had exploded when latched windows in her house blasted open. Eric Peterson watched the jetliner tumble to the earth, already burning, he thought, as it hit the ground. Mark Stahl grabbed his camera, following plumes of smoke until he reached the crash site to take the first photographs of the scene.

The aircraft scorched a crater into the ground, scattering debris and human remains over nearby trees and fields.

Too late by four minutes -- at 10:07 a.m. -- the FAA reported a possible bomb aboard the plane apparently headed for Washington, D.C. Military jets flying at 660 mph circled over the capital, ready to intercept.

Cleveland Center controllers asked the pilot of American Airlines Flight 1060 whether he'd seen Flight 93 on his right.

"Negative, we're searching," he replied. Two seconds later, his report changed.

"Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, er, oh, probably 2 o'clock. There appears to be just a spire up like a puff of black smoke."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_154491.html

Hitting the ground...unside down according to reports...at that speed....makes sense that shit would be scattered for quite the distance! Wonder how much wasn't found in the woods right adjacent to the crash?

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on-GWB

The Story Begins Here
"Eight miles away in New Baltimore, Melanie Hankinson said she found singed papers and other light debris from the crash, including pages from Hemispheres Magazine, United's in-flight magazine. Stoe said authorities initially insisted crash debris could not have traveled over a mountain ridge more than eight miles from the crash.
Comment: Secondary Debris floated miles away on this breeze? At the time of the crash? But it did not do that at the Pentagon Crash? Or other similar crashes?

The NTSB says it is not only plausible, but probable," said [FBI Agent] Crowley.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Dan Rather mention this?
"If you were here to see it, you'd have no doubt," Decker said. "It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I'd find out who was driving that plane. " Late Thursday afternoon, federal agents who spoke to reporters at the crash site said "there was no evidence as of yet" that a second plane was nearby when Flight 93 plunged into a strip mine. Entire Story


Why I put this site up:
To give and solicit information about what really happened over Pennsylvania regarding Flight 93 on 9-11-01? (much of this website was created in the few months following the crash. Some news links are no longer working, and new information keeps coming out. Always check the discussion board for the latest information and unmoderated free flow of ideas.)

Background:
I didn't even give this crash a second thought until I got a couple phone calls from friends on the 11th saying friends of theirs with inside information "knew" it was shot down. Whatever - friend of a friend info isn't worth much. (I never say Flight 93 was shot down on this website. Just take it easy.)

But that did pique my curiosity enough to follow the story and begin collecting what little news I could find. I have linked to local reports that have never been reported by the mainstream media. A one ton engine part survives a near vertical impact and is found far from the crash. Burning debris falling from the sky, clothing, books and human remains found miles away. An air traffic controller reports an F-16 "must have seen the whole thing". You can verify it by reading the original stories yourself. 95% of the accounts I've linked to have full witness names and reporters names.

Looking at all the details so far - nothing really adds up neatly for me, except that Flight 93 had a midair crisis that caused debris to fall before it crashed. I remain skeptical of all the theories... except one. We are not being told what happened - and the Government knows exactly what happened.

Important news...
The FBI finally allowed family members to hear the Cockpit Voice Recorder. Unfortunately, no conclusive evidence was heard by anyone. There simply is no evidence at this time that heros ever got in the cockpit. The story hasn't changed much since the Newsweek article below outlined what the reporters did and didn't read in the transcripts.

The Fact remains that the FBI has never stated heroes were ever in the cockpit. No official ever has. If you find such a statement please email me a link.

I have to ask: Why not release the Flight Data Recorder info? There is nothing horrific on it. There is nothing there that will aid and abed terrorists. There is nothing that will jeopardize a trial. And it's data that usually get's released at some point.

It's simply data about the aircraft as it flew and crashed.

There's only one reason not to release it. Because it shows the plane depressurizing, losing an engine, flipping upside down and crashing in a way that they don't care to explain.

November 27th - The FBI recently provided a partial Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript to 3 Newsweek reporters. It appears to verify things I've been saying for 2 months, like"The Investigators are looking into the possibility that the heroes came very close to the cockpit, it is unclear that they actually reached the cockpit door." Here is what I think about that Newsweek report.



I have some basic questions reporters aren't asking. Why?


1) We had somewhere between 30 and 55 minutes after Flight 93 was "suspect" to intercept it. The current official story is that 3 F-16 fighters had been scrambled at 9:24AM and were airborne over Washington D.C. by 9:40AM. AWACS and a Tanker were scrambled also. These pilots saw the Pentagon on fire, the President had OK'd a shootdown, the Secret Service had advised the pilots to protect the White House at all costs, and Flight 93 was the only aircraft off course - heading toward D.C. - with it's transponder off. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06AM only 125 miles from D.C. (10 minutes away at 750mph for an F-16) and 3 nuclear power plants were in between Flight 93 and D.C. Fighter pilots have weighed in and told me likely speeds might be 600+ for the F-16's and 300+ for the 757 converging at 1000 mph.

What did those 3 fighters do from 9:40AM until 9:55AM when they finally turned towards Flight 93 and were 60 miles out at 10:06am?

Remember, at 8:45 we scrambled 2 F-15's and they reached the WTC 15 minutes later. Why were the FIRST jets so quick to react by comparison?

2) Why did Air Traffic Controllers in a Nashua Telegraph article report an F-16 was circling Flight 93 and was in visual range at the time of crash - and why does the Government currently DENY that?

Comment: Of these two, who is more likely to be accurate? And why has the FBI told Air Traffic Controllers not to talk with the press under threat of prosecution?
Answer: As a condition of employment Contollers are required to have a "secret" security clearance rating. As a civilian air traffic controller you are bound to know military flight information that should remain secret. This makes perfect sense due to the fact that the FBI is conducting a Criminal Investigation into the crash. Witnesses may also be prohibited from talking to the press regarding the incident.

The white mystery jet was witnessed by dozens - was that what this controller saw on his screen? Clearly, no controllers are talking to the media about that white jet - but a lot of civilians were.

3) What caused an entire engine and human remains to be found a considerable distance from the main crash site?

4) How did metal scraps, clothing and garbage bags full other debris gathered by residents and turned over to the FBI float on the breeze from a 35 foot deep muddy hole through wet, muddy fields for between 2.5 and 8 miles in 9 knot(10.4 mph) winds as the NTSB has declared? Why hasn't this happened in any other airline crashes that did not have mid-air traumas?

5) How easy is it to grab the controls and override the autopilot?
Answer: Easy. You can disconnect the autopilot by bumping the control yoke, there is also a switch on the yoke for autopilot disconnect as well as switches on the autopilot control panel in the center of instrument panel. Once the autopilot is disengaged the plane will fly according to the inputs the pilot puts on the yoke and rudder transmitted via rods and pulleys throughout the plane. This would include the capability to fly the plane beyond its designed.flight envelope. The Flight Control Computers ARE the autopilot computers.

5.1) How easy is it to grab the controls, and overstress a 757 to the point its engine and bags of debris falls from the sky? Would that debris look like confetti raining down?
Answer: Simulators do not simulate overstress. It's difficult to know what would happen.

6) What was the explosion and white smoke that the first cell phone caller reported? And the explosion a 911 dispatcher heard shortly after talking to a passenger right before the line went dead? Ground witnesses report hearing several explosions.

7) If a bomb went off on board, would the first cell phone caller sealed in the lavatory be able to report it?
Answer: It's reasonable. The lav is sealed, a bomb could have been small.

8) What was the mysterious white jet trailing Flight 93 before the crash, and witnessed by so many just after the crash?

9) From an email: Everything seems to focus on the possibility of interception by fighters from the DC area - there are AT LEAST two and probably three guard and reserve fighter squadrons equipped with F-16s that were within less than 100 miles of the route of Flight 93. The Ohio guard has F-16s at Springfield and Toledo and I am almost positive there is also a fighter squadron at Greater Pitt. The Vermont guard maintains strip alert with F-16s at Burlington, and has for years. There are also active duty and reserve/guard fighter bases in Indiana.


Another email: I have a inside source that can verify the National Guard F-16's at Hancock field in Syracuse NY were in the air early that morning before 9am.

"Otis Air National Guard Base is the only active air defense base on the East Coast between our Canadian border and the Washington, D.C., area," said a statement released by the 102nd Fighter Wing on Tuesday. (9-11-01)
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes...capezxsf16.htm

Comment: Is it possible an F-16 from somewhere other than Langley or Andrews was in the air and moved towards Flight 93? It's a good point, all other airbases seem to be ignored by the press.

Partial Answer: Federal military officials recently confirmed that the 180th Fighter Wing - an Ohio Air National Guard unit based at Toledo Express Airport - was the first unit outside the East Coast to answer the Air Forceâ??s plea for immediate help.

"They had the fuel. They had guns. Thatâ??s what was needed," said retired Lt. Col. Alan Scott, who has been analyzing the air responses for the Air Force.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...2090036&Ref=AR

Comment: This report has the Toledo F-16's not in the air until after all 4 hijacked aircraft crashed, and Syracuse based fighters joining them 1/2 hour later at 10:45am. I've had eyewitnesses email me saying Syracuse based F-16's were in the air before 9am.

A 44 year old lieutenant colonel in the Ohio Air National Guard and an F-16 pilot passed away due to a heartattack Dec 2, 2001. Mr. Raffa was the full-time commander of operations for the 180th and was deployed in Iraq last year.

Another email: No, it's Langley AFB, VA - keep your eyes on the alert shelters along the main runway. They held 2 National Guard F-16s. One came back missing something it left with. Trust me, the guards there know what really happened.

10) C'mon - wouldn't an aircraft that was shot down be blown away in a huge ball of fire? Answer: Have you ever seen a 757 shot with cannons or an air to air missile? Maybe. Let's think about it.

Will any reporter ask these things?
Got better questions? Email me and I'll put them here. A lot of you guys need to run a virus checker.

"Not only do we have a right to know, we have a duty to know what our Government is doing in our name... If there's a criticsm to be made today, it's that the press isn't doing enough to put the pressure on the government to provide information."
Walter Cronkite - On the 3-28-02 Media Matters Show on PBS.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Ben Franklin





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLIGHT 587
Here are 2 Flight 587 Crash eyewitnesses you guys need to hear. I heard this the morning of that crash. Witness 1 | Witness 2
Another 587 link: http://twa800.com/news/bjnews-11-15-01.htm

I really want to believe the NTSB about 587 but then I read this NYPOST story - "For the NTSB to seriously speculate that the bloody tail fell off in the face of so much evidence that it didn't happen is arrogant and treating us all like a bunch of morons."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12022001...tary/35535.htm



NOW AFTER READING UP ON THIS SUBJECT MY ONLY CONCLUSION IS THAT PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT THIS AND STILL BELEIVE THE GOVERMENTS VERSION OF EVENTSCAN ONLY BE IN DENIAL BECAUSE THERE IS DEFINATLY NO EVIDENCE THAT FLIGHT 93 CRASHED VERTICALY INTO THE GROUND AND IT IS MORE LIKELY IT WAS SHOT DOWN AS IF IT CRASHED VERTICALY INTO THE GROUND THEN WERE ARE THE ENGINES BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE ENGINES COULD HAVE HIT THE GROUND AND DISAPEARED AND FOR DEBRIS TO BE FOUND MILES FROM THE CRAH SCENE IT MUST HAVE EXPLODED IN MID AIR AS IT IS A BIT FAR FETCHED TO BELEIVE THAT IT HIT THE GROUND AND EXPLODED SENDING THE DEBRIS MILES FROM THE CRASH SCENE COME ON YOUR AN INTELAGENT GUY OPEN YOUR EYES IT WAS SHOT DOWN AND IF THEY ARE LYING ABOUT FLIGHT 93 THEN WHAT ELSE ARE THE LYING ABOUT


CMON A 757 FLEW STRAINT INTO THE GROWN SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT IT DID