Sunday, January 01, 2006

Conspiracy theorists.

I really hate them. Here's an example of someone twisting my original account to claim that there were no bombs, but instead a 'power surge' on 7th July.

They claim 7/7 was a 'black ops' by the Government. They make up drivel about 7th July and anything else that makes them feel that they are Neo-like truth seekers in the Matrix of lies that we poor dupes and saps believe. They post rubbish on internet message boards and enjoy themselves making up exciting theories and chasing after irrelevant details in a trainspotter-ish way. Only they know the truth, the rest of us are idiots. Even if we were on the train when it blew up, we are to be pitied or mstrusted. When challenged by me, futilely, they even claim, some of them that I am manipulating the media for a government agenda or some such nonsense. It really is enough to drive you mad. As mad as them.

One of the reasons I would like an enquiry into 7th July and the aftermath is to shut up these fantasists. I shouldn't even bother to engage with them. It does me no good at all, it makes me furious and tearful. But to be accused of lying, to have my words twisted, and then to be insulted and smeared and told that I, not they, dishonour the dead by not refusing to pander to their delusions and supporting their 'enquiries' - laughably, they claim that they are 'independent' - and 'concerned only with the truth' - sickens me, and I denounce it.

The truth - that young men hated so much that they wanted to kill themselves and others - is shocking enough. I can deal with it, hard though it is. Why the hell can't the conspiracy theorists deal with it too? What is wrong with them?



Blogger Zhoen said...

Conspiracists want the world to make sense, even if it is a hostile and dangerous sense- preferable to chaotic danger. Once a story has legs, no reason will ever completely cut it down. Let them have their myth. But I too, would be happier if there were a real inquiry.

January 01, 2006 4:06 pm  
Blogger Spirit of 1976 said...

makes them feel that they are Neo-like truth seekers in the Matrix of lies

Did you notice that one of the contributors on that Team8plus website actually had the username "Trinity"?

Maybe we should buy them each a black leather trenchcoat and a pair of shades so they can go even deeper into their ridiculous little fantasies.

January 01, 2006 8:53 pm  
Blogger Bridget said...

Those of us that do not trust the official narrative when based on such a paucity of verifiable facts, those of us that require evidence before we make up our own minds about the events of that day, are neither mad nor conspiracy theorists.
Rachel, you seem content with what the public has been told were the events on that day. That is your choice.
I for one have seen nothing as yet to convince me that what we are being told happened is actually what did happen. That is my choice.
That you find this choice sickening and choose to denounce it is rather sad.
Those of us whose voices are never heard in the main stream media have only the internet to voice our concerns over the lack of verifiable facts, to communicate these concerns to others and to try to find answers to the questions that concern us.
That makes people like me neither 'fantasists' nor 'delusional'. In fact, I would have thought the complete opposite, given that we require verifiable facts and put in a great deal of time, effort and trouble in attempting to access these facts.
Where is the evidence Rachel? Where are the CCTV images? Where is the verifiable timeline that shows the journey these 4 young men are alleged to have taken that morning? Why did the story change from power-surges at 8.50, 8.56 and 9.17 to simultaneous suicide bombs at 8.50? Why was there an exercise taking place at these exact locations that morning? How did documents survive the explosions at all 4 sites that led to the identity of each of these men? What happened on the Northern Line that morning? What was the story of a fire at Caledonian Road at 8.30 that morning? Why was the Piccadilly Line train given as number 331 and later changed to 311?
These are just a few of the unanswered questions that some of us ask. Does that make us conspiracy theorists?

January 01, 2006 9:08 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Yes, it does make you a conspiracy bullshit artist, especially when you post rubbish like this on another blog

'That some of us are suspicious that the story later changed to alleged suicide bombers, when the original information from the drivers and London Underground was power surges, makes me wonder who the 'liars' actually are. Those who question the State, or the State that is well practiced in the art of lying? That people die based on lies requires us to look no further than the big lie of WMD, which TRULY fills me with revulsion.'

Power surges? That the control centre thought they might be at first, because THEY WEREN'T ON THE DAMN TRAIN WHEN IT EXPLODED, and that this fact took time to filter though on a confusing day - is not surprising. That you are still maintaining - insultingly - that it was power surges - when 26 people died - 6 months later - is vile.

Power surges do not tear off limbs and smash through trains and throw bodies onto tracks, they do not kill and maim. What went off was a bomb. Detonated by a man. Why the bloody hell can you not accept this? What the hell is wrong with you people?

'Where is the evidence Rachel? 'Erm - the video made by the suicide bomber for a start. Yeah yeah, I know, you believe that was a fake.

'Where are the CCTV images?' You have seen them, except - drum roll - you think they are faked as well.

'Where is the verifiable timeline that shows the journey these 4 young men are alleged to have taken that morning?'. You're obsessed with this, I've seen your silly blog. You haven't established which train they took, nor whether it was a Thameslink, or when it arrived. So ARE YOU INFERRING THAT THE MEN DID NOT GET ON THE TRAINS? OR NOT? Have the balls to come out with it. Go on, I dare you. Instead of this trainspottery crap, just come out with your so-called alternative theory. Whether it's Mossad, or Lizards, or psy-oops, or CIA, or Jews, or Cheney, or Haliburton, or the Bohemian Grove posse, or aliens, or whatever the hell it is you believe. You won't though. You'd rather prance around asking questions, and giving yourselves a thrill, but you won't be called on what you think really happened. Why not? Because it is a lot of delusional rubbish and if you exposed your beliefs we'd all just stop being angry AND HAVE A GOOD LAUGH INSTEAD?

'Why did the story change from power-surges at 8.50, 8.56 and 9.17 to simultaneous suicide bombs at 8.50?' Because information was pieced together over days - that is how investigations and fact-finding works, dur. Look, why don't you, at how some of your mates' conspiraluncies over at team8 plus have changed even their nonsense ideas over time.

'How did documents survive the explosions at all 4 sites that led to the identity of each of these men?' Credit cards and DNA remianed after the blasts, dur again.

'What happened on the Northern Line that morning? What was the story of a fire at Caledonian Road at 8.30 that morning? ' The tube was shagged that day, as is woefully common. Have you ever used the tube? Ever? Stuff like this happens all the bloody time. Note the total lack of surprise of London's commuters when told the service was delayed, running late, suspected fire, blah blah.

'Why was the Piccadilly Line train given as number 331 and later changed to 311? ' Who cares? Not all of us give a stuff about trainspottery details. And guess what? Journalist make small - or even large- factual errors in reporting quite regularly.

I could go on, but I have a hangover, and I am fed up with you people twisting whatever I say to fit your fantasies. I could introduce you to the people on the train, the police the driver, but I never would, because you would just infuriate them, as you infuriate me with your conspiracy theories. That's dignifying them. They're just delusional lies.

And an insult to the dead. And the injured. And those of us who were there and who tell the truth about what happened, only to have our accounts ignored.

Yes, you are conspiracy theorists. Now piss off.

January 01, 2006 10:40 pm  
Blogger Holly Finch said...

HEAR HEAR Rach! I am also too tired to go on but I am with you 100%!

We were there, we know....don't let these people get you down. They don't matter!

January 01, 2006 11:32 pm  
Blogger Holly Finch said...

and to you 'bridget dunno'

you are a sad and pitiful person. as you readily admit you know no one involved or affected by these BOMBINGS. We are living with it every day, we were there, we know. Who the hell are you to comment? What business do you have? This is our story, our experience and our life. We have to live with it, pick up the pieces and struggle through every bloody day. people risked their lived to rescue us, people DIED. Who the fuck are you?

And for your train spotter mind, I was on the last carriage, there were emergency lights that came on in that carriage and emergency lights in the tunnel. There was no fire, it was a BOMB not a fire. Human flesh does not ignite. Put that in your bloody pipe and smoke it.

January 01, 2006 11:47 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Yeah, yeah.Emily had been sent a link to prison planet, which had interested her when she said that, and nonetheless I faithfully reported what she said. (Unlike you people, I don't twist what survivors say or ignore it, survivors are entitled to question the events, though Emily had been passed a link which she took in good faith at the time. Hell, she's angry, many of us are, at the lack of the public enquiry. We all have questions that we want answering. The difference is, we don't have some wierd agenda to make out that it was a 'black ops ' or a 'power surge'. Because we are not bonkers like you lot.

Prison Planet is a conspiracy website, and after she commented other members of KCU showed her this

debunking the Visor/Power 'it was all staged' conspiracy theory.

Well done to C4 for taking the time to deconstruct one of the more popular conspiracy theories.

And piss off, conspiraloons, I've had enough crap from you for one day. You, 'antagonist' have already had the temerity to insukt me by saying I am disrespectful to the dead on your blog when I dared to question your pathetic drivel about power surges. Pathetic.

My finger hovers over the 'delete comment ' button...

January 02, 2006 12:04 am  
Blogger Bridget said...

Before I "piss off" as you so graciously suggest, I just want to clear up a couple of misconceptions.
Holly Finch said..."and to you 'bridget dunno' you are a sad and pitiful person. as you readily admit you know no one involved or affected by these BOMBINGS."
I am unsure where this information has comes from as I have never said this. Never mind.
Rachel said: "Power surges? That the control centre thought they might be at first, because THEY WEREN'T ON THE DAMN TRAIN WHEN IT EXPLODED, and that this fact took time to filter though on a confusing day - is not surprising".
As the reply from London Underground said in the comment you are quoting from: "Such a surge can be accompanied by explosions. In other words, all the evidence we had at the time (including the information from the drivers) and our experience pointed to a power surge, so that's what we said it was. This information was given in good faith."
I assume the drivers were on the trains?
Rachel, I was deeply affected by the events of that morning. That I ask questions is not for any sort of 'thrill' but out of concern for the truth, for justice and out of compassion for all the victims of 7th July (including these 4 young men). I have no 'theory', conspiracy or otherwise, other than a deep suspicion of the official narrative of which I have yet to see incontrovertible evidence.

January 02, 2006 12:25 am  
Blogger Rachel said...


January 02, 2006 12:32 am  
Blogger Dave said...

Amazing that we had explosive power surges on a bus too. Now fuck off and go watch X-Files re-runs.

January 02, 2006 1:21 am  
Blogger Numeral said...


I am probably the autistic trainspotting wiedo anorak referred to above.
Flattery will get you nowhere.

I am interested to hear that you were in the last carriage. I know it's a lot to ask but, if you want to do so, I would like to hear your story. Details of how the people in the carriage organised themselves, how they controlled the panic and communicated with people in other carriages. Also how you got out - through a window, a side door, a cab door. Did you get out through Kings Cross or Russell Square. Did you notice anything on the tunnel walls, distances?

I am trying to get a clear picture of what happened down there. And it is hard. I would be immensely grateful for any information at all.

January 02, 2006 3:27 am  
Blogger The Antagonist said...

That wasn't a power surge on the bus, that was a carefully synchronised 0850 suicide bomb running approximately 57 minutes late.

Threaten to delete my comments, delete my comments and click the 'report objectionable content' button all you like, Rachel, it merely fuels the fire surrounding the question of quite why someone so closely and so publicly involved in the events of July 7th would be so keen that nobody ask any questions until that nice Mr Clarke at the Home Office sits us down for a nice government-friendly narrative about the nasty brown guys that want to kill us all.

The KCU survivors YOU quote on YOUR blog don't buy it and neither should the British public.

Why do you?

January 02, 2006 3:29 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Right. I have called for an enquiry, I have set up a petition demanding one, I have written why we need one in the newspapers, I have posted a great deal on this blog about why we need and independent transparent and honest enquiry. How dare you therefore accuse me of being 'so keen that nobody ask any questions until that nice Mr Clarke at the Home Office sits us down for a nice government-friendly narrative'?

I can only conclude that you have not read anything I have written on the subject, in which case why the bloody hell are you commenting on my blog? You'll only look ignorant or deranged, since ity is blindingly obvious what I have said over pages and pages, and it is click away. Just. Have. A. Read.

Unlike you, I would rather have the official one first and then look at what is said/unsaid. Then its over to the investigative journalists. I will wait to see if there is a white wash before I conspire that there is one. Or rather, that is what I would do IF we were having an enquiry, which we are not, and AS YOU WILL SEE IF YOU HAVE A READ I am angry about that and so are others.

Oddly, I don't think an independent enquiry should be run by the likes of YOU and your fellow conspiraloons. Because, unlike a public enquiry, you don't have access to facts and data. And unlike a proper investigative journalist, you are not neutral. At all.

YOU start from the position that there is a conspiracy going on at the highest level and that nothing is what it seems and that is the realm of paranioa, not serious investigation.

Now, we've seen a few public enquiries end in whitewash, we've also seen them uncover much that is useful. Who knows what this one would have turned up? We haven't had one. so we don't know. As I have said, we need to start somewhere, so rather than calling for a conspiracist's enquiry which is worse than useless,since no-one takes you people seriously, let us call for a public one and then see where we are.

Who benefits?

You keep raising this. I think you are trying to infer that either I am some kind of government misinformation plant? Or perhaos that I am beign paid a fortune for coming out with Blair-friendly propoganda? In which case, why the hell do I repeatedly sound off against Blair, Clarke et al? Why do I protest outside Parliament, why did I wrote an open letter complaining about the attack on civil liberties encapsulated in the 90 day rule, that was republished widely on the net?

Why am I one of the more prominent ( anon) voices of 7th July. Well, that is no mystery either. I started writing my account on the day and have continued to do so. The media are interested in survivors, and here is a a survivor diary avialable for anyone to read. Out of this came a group, Kings Cross United, who then decided to do a media strategy to reach more fellow passengers before the Nov 1st service. It was agreed by the group that the media needed a front person and so that person was me, as my day job means I had some experience. Similarly, when the group gave interviews, in some cases they wanted to talk to someone who was already on the train, not a journalist. We agreed on this as a group, what IO wrote is approved by the group. It is not all about me. I just front this. Behind the scenes, other survivors do other stuff. And some, like Kristina and Amy, did BBC London, Patrick spoke to the News of the World, Ian talked to Frank Gardner on Radio 4, Yvonne and Brian spoke to the Sunday Times, to Ann McPherson I think was the journo name. All medi arequests are shared with the group and we decide who is goign to do what. I am not the only voice, nor do I censor other voices and it is outrageous to insinuate what you have been trying to insinuate on this and other websites about me,frankly, since you know nothing about us as a group.

So I have written some stuff. And my blog. Editors then read what I had written and they like the way I write, they wanted me to write more. Good. I like writing. The Sunday Times commissioned a piece on forgiveness, theologically and philosophically responding to the events of 7th July. This I did as 'Rachel's Story'; this story defines who I am and why I am as I am. Why I care about justice and truth and whhy I care about compassion and forgiveness and love.

'Who benefits?' you keep asking. I think many of us did. Fellow passengers got to tell their story,through me, or though the media with group support, more passengers were able to hear about us and find the group, newspapers and TV and the public heard an interetsing story. Actually, the person who probably benefitted least was me: this was like doing 2 jobs and was exhausting, and to a certain extent interfered with my own recovery. I'm not doing any more media, we have done enough. Other members of the group have done media too, and we are all a bit sick of it. We 've had over 300 requests. We have said yes to fewer than 10. I still pass incoming requests onto the group, though, I will never stop anyone saying what they want to say. Even if they have just read prison planet.

I am no friend of this Blair Government. I have actively campaigned against war for years, 5 times in public since Iraq, and am an active campaigner against the destruction of civil liberties. I welcome a public enquiry, in the first instance because I want the facts, if it is a white wash, THEN I will call for further action, and call upon investigative journalists. BUT NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS because you are not independent, you are not neutral, you focus on tiny unimportant details and ignore everything that doesn't fit your theories, you COME AT THIS WITH AN AGENDA.

And that is why I am never, ever going to support your calls for your conspiracy theories to be taken seriously, and for you to be treated as investigative journalists. Ok? And by the way, what of the Channel 4 rebuff of your stupid Visor conspiracy? By a proper investigative journalist?

I note you have nothing to say on that.

I hope that I have made myself clear but do of course feel free to paint me as a mossad agent or a lizard or a psy-ops figment of the public's imagination, feel free to quote what I say out of context, feel free to carry on as you always do, because that will prive to people reading this who are not lunatics like you - just exactly what you are like. This is a public platform, I give you enough rope to hang yourselves. Off you flipping well go.

January 02, 2006 11:04 am  
Blogger Dave said...

So, a big part of your idea is that in order for the 12-ft lizards to carry off their plan to make everyone think there had been bombs, they had to use a bomb. You fundamentalist cretin.

January 02, 2006 12:46 pm  
Blogger Martin said...

Rachel, I don't know you, but I'll say to note the name: 'The Antagonist'. That'll be resistance with hostility, deliberate contentiousness. I realise it's hurtful for you, but please, please, please don't engage with it. All publicity is good publicity for the antagonistic.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism as regards a public inquiry shutting conspiracy theorists up, as I imagine it'll just be perceived as another example of government cover-up/whitewash/you get the idea.

January 02, 2006 1:43 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...


thanks for your comment, and thanks so much everyone else for your support.

I was angry yesterday, but I am now feeling much better.

What I realised was that it was important for survivor calls for answered nit to become tarred with the conspiracy theorist brush.

So the best thing to do was to answer them and clearly show that I think they are liars and delusional.

Theu come on this blog anyway, they follow what I write ( only looking for stuff to support their ideas ) and they were trying to talk to me on urban 75, a London forum I frequent recently.

I realised it would be a disaster if they took over the petition and the calls for the enquiry, and if we were tarred with the same brush.

I decided they were irritating, but also dangerous, for it would be dreadful if people thought I was one of them and dismissed calls for an enquiry as the ravings of a paranoid damaged person

So I decided to take them on. Hell, I'm off work, J is playing on the X box and shooting aliens, I'm shooting down alien-worshipping loons too.*wink*

Now, peopel can read this blog, and no-one can accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, and this unpleasant little ruck has been conducted in the open, on my blog, not theirs, so not surrounded by a cheering panel of internet conspiraloons, but in front of people who are interested in what survivors say.

So I think that it will ultimately help our cause for an enquiry and hopefully damage theirs - there are REAL reasons why I'd like a public enquiry, but it ain't because I think the lizards or the aliens or the Global Elite Zionist Conspiracy was behind the explosion on my train.

The Sunday Times article I wrote and linked on the blog roll has my reasons for wanting one, as do many of the posts on November and December on this blog.

January 02, 2006 2:07 pm  
Blogger Martin said...

"it was important for survivor calls for answered nit to become tarred with the conspiracy theorist brush... the best thing to do was to answer them and clearly show that I think they are liars and delusional."

Appreciated, and I didn't mean to patronise. It's just that I've got into fairly protracted debates with this character, and it's pointless. Particularly given that you have a great deal better to say.

January 02, 2006 4:37 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Cheers everyone,( and Martin, you weren't patronising at all. )

I note, still no answers to the questions I have asked from the conspiraloons, which is awfully odd, since they claim to love unanswered questions and battling away on behalf of survivors to get at 'the truth'. Yet when asked questions by a real survivor in front of a non-partisan audience they mysteriously scarper.

Not one question I asked them have they managed to answer, though I ave faithfully answered many of theirs, here, on their boards and on urban 75.

You'd have thought since I was so close to the bomb and am friends with many other survivors, plus first responders, police, LU staff and in regular contact with private survivor boards for the other explosions, from other and can thus answer many questions they'd be gagging to get on the right side of me.

But no, since I tiresomely disagree with their theories, being a boring old eye witness, and knowing dozens more eye witnesses, as opposed to a fearless internet truth seeker, they'll insinuate , abuse and then finally flee, leaving unanswered questiosn of their own flapping behind them

Heh heh heh.

January 02, 2006 6:17 pm  
Blogger Rob said...


The worst thing you can do with people like these morons is keep on responding to them. They're like creationists, or people who contend (in the face of all the evidence) that the Israeli Defence Force in the Occupied Territories has never deliberately targeted civilians, or people who refuse to believe that AIDS is caused by HIV. They don't respond to facts, or argument. They just keep banging out their own patent theories, occasionally changing what they claim to make it look as though you've been wrongly accusing them.

Don't bother deleting their comments - we all need a laugh - simply ignore them. Eventually they'll get bored playing their games of wind-up and find something else to occupy themselves with. Treat their posts and their comments as though they were spammers promoting Viagra, or Nigerians offering a share in a ten million pound fortune. Heck, maybe that is what they do when they're not hassling bomb survivors.

January 06, 2006 4:23 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rachel are you human? because saying that you were 7ft away from the bomb means you would be dead i have no knowledge of explosives but i logically know that you should be dead so explain that to me please

January 10, 2006 3:00 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Very sensitive. You may want to engage your brain before posting.

I am being nice to you here, as I don't bother to answer anonymous troll-ish questions. And I certainly don't have to explain what happened to you as it is) all in this blog b) was widely reported on the international and national media, so do keep up.

January 10, 2006 4:02 pm  
Blogger steve said...

I recently took to arguing with such conspiracy theorists as what they were stating simply annoyed me. Foolish I know, I shouldn't have even acknowledged them and have seen the error in my ways. I will add that I swiftly got bored as it was all too easy to silence them, considering they have their "theories" worked out it just takes a bit of common knowledge to silence them. Fish.............barrel.

January 16, 2006 10:06 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate the time and effort you have taken to construct your blog Rachel.

I didn't enjoy the very high level of vitriol directed at those who do not agree with your interpretation of events, or who do not share your worldview in general though, but it's your blog, and you can say anything you damn well please!!

Good luck with that. (More power to you and your right to do so) :))

There IS a great deal of BS being peddled as coherent analysis in this area, which is hardly surprising given the various agendas (both overt and covert) at play. I think however, that a people who DO NOT question the actions and agendas of those who (profess to) rule them, will quickly find themselves sliding into tyranny.

EVERYBODY is in some way a victim of the 'war on terror.' Because these events affect us all, and they have transformed the entire paradigm of our contemporary worldview. The fundamental reshaping of our societies, and the endless rafts of freedom suppressing legislation put forth in the name of this 'war' (in the UK/US and elsewhere), impinge very directly upon all of us, and are causing some very serious damage to long held notions of personal freedom. The expansion of the 'war' is also quite possibly driving us into a major economic recession.

Everything that is happening in this regard, is legitimised BY the war on terror. Therefore I personally believe it is all the MORE important that the public DO question the official version of events, and not just 7/7. Otherwise we abandon the notion of accountability, and replace it with rule by diktat. Something incidentally the current government seem very keen on!

If many people are distrustful and suspicious of the 'official version' it is simply because the spokesmen and formulators of the official doctrine (In our case the last 5 or 10 terms of Con/Lab govt.) have done so very much to discredit their trustworthiness in the eyes of the people they govern, and they have done so consistently, over a fairly sustained period of time. Given the number of times that they have been caught lying, spinning, cheating and plain old fashioned bullshitting, and the incredibly draconian tone of virtually all recent policy, is it any wonder people are having a hard time accepting what their leaders are saying?

Take for example one Sir Ian Blair, I mean is this a man who we can reasonably be expected to place our trust in.? Or perhaps we can be expected to trust a government who took us to war based on fabricated evidence, who are currently sneaking through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, and seem rather unworried at the current state of death in Lebabnon?

Hmm I think not.

I'm not characterising YOUR viewpoint, merely attempting to show that bad governance and corrupt officialdom do not predispose themselves towards governments receiving the trust of the people

I think it is unfair to dismiss the questions being asked though, and whilst it's your right to hurl textual invective at those who you do not agree with, I don't agree with your characterisation that someone who holds a conspiratorial view of history is therefore a "loon." But as I said it's your right to think what you wish.

I wonder if your anger has to do with the amount of BS posted as factual analysis in relation to the events of 7/7, or is based upon a considered examination of the historical evidence which can support such a worldview.

Whilst you may not agree with that worldview, and many of it's proponents may be themselves a mixture of the good the bad and the very ugly (!) that does not invalidate the very strong points that support such a theory of history, or the many examples of evidence its proponents cite to support it.

Apologies if this was all rather long winded, good luck, and all the best

August 04, 2006 1:07 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've joined this thread seriously late, so I don't know if anyone is still reading it, but I've got a few things to say, given that I was working in the London Underground Network Control Centre when the bombs went off. As a result, I saw the whole thing unfold, and was one of the people who helped to work out what actually happened.

Why did the story change from power-surges at 8.50, 8.56 and 9.17 to simultaneous suicide bombs at 8.50?

The story took some time to work out, that's why. It also took a lot of time for information to get through. Initially we thought more incidents had occurred, because the King's Cross bomb was reported as incidents at both King's Cross and Russell Square. The whole "power surge" thing came about because the first indication we had of anything going wrong was a spate of power failures across the system at multiple locations unconnected with the bombings, and this is a typical power surge symptom. It was only later found that cable damage caused by one of the bombs was to blame for this.

Also, many staff, much to their credit, were far too busy trying to rescue people than to spend ages on the phone to us.

Why was there an exercise taking place at these exact locations that morning?

Where did you get this? As a security-cleared Underground manager who knew pretty much everything happening on the system (planned stuff anyway), I was not aware of this.

How did documents survive the explosions at all 4 sites that led to the identity of each of these men?

A lot of things survived the blast. And forensics experts are very clever.

What happened on the Northern Line that morning?

A signal failure, if I recall correctly. Even before the bombs went off, there was widespread service disruption on the Tube that morning. I know this fuels conspiracy theorist's views that something suspect was going on, but it was just a bad example of trying to cope with crumbling, old equipment massively under strain. It was just bad luck that a lot of things happened all at once.

It's very likely that if the Northern line had been running properly, all 4 bombs would have gone off on the tube. The bus bomber apparently couldn't reach his intended target, and the plan appeared to be bombs north, south, east and west of King's Cross.

What was the story of a fire at Caledonian Road at 8.30 that morning?

Fire alerts on the Tube are very common. After the King's Cross fire of 1987, very strict fire safety regulations were introduced, and all Underground stations have automatic fire detection systems. If these are activated, the station is closed and evacuated as a matter of course. Nothing unusual there at all.

Why was the Piccadilly Line train given as number 331 and later changed to 311?

Simple human error, I would imagine.

I'm not a government stooge. I just happened to be doing my job, like everyone else that day, and I can tell you - there is no conspiracy.

May 19, 2008 9:29 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home