TERROR ON THE TUBE

The London 7/7 Bombings: A Murder Investigation

Browsing Posts in 7/7 Inquest

 Five years after the event, we have a judgement from Britain’s High Court:

  • The 7/7 killings were ‘unlawful.’  Uh-huh.
  • Nobody was to blame, except the wicked Four who are dead.
  • A public enquiry into 7/7 would not be a good idea.
  • There is no need for an Inquest into the Four alleged perpetrators.
  • No ‘conspiracy’ would have been possible

We should here remind ourselves, as to the proper purpose of an inquest.

An inquest is meant to come to a judgement concerning cause of death.

In the very strange circumstances of the 7/7 Inquest, Lady Justice Hallett could not do this because no post-portems had been performed upon the 52 dead bodies. continue reading…

Share

                    The Inquest heard about three simultaneous underground bomb attacks that were rehearsed in a police terror drill –  one week before the three simultaneous underground bomb attacks actually took place, on July 7th, 2005. Was that just a coincidence? Here’s what they said:

The Inquest hears about the Met’s terror drill called, ‘Hanover’ (July 1-2, 2005)

Q. We know from the documents which have been disclosed to us in these proceedings, and indeed which are in the public domain, that on 1 and 2 July 2005, Metropolitan Police officers from your Anti-terrorist Branch conducted a table-top training exercise which had at its core an attack on the London Underground. continue reading…

Share

The Inquest Begins

12 comments

Lady Justice Hallett

On 6th October, the ‘July 7th Truth Campaign’ submitted a weighty, twelve-part contribution to the forthcoming Inquest. On its first day – October 11th, at the Royal Courts of Justice – this was acknowledged. Before Lady Justice Hallett, the barrister Mr Keith said:

One particular campaigning group has  submitted voluminous submissions to the Inquest team, and the submissions reflect long-held views expressed on the website, that website, to the effect that there are a large number of anomalies that merit detailed attention. We consider it important that such claims are identified and addressed.

Five years after the event, a no-jury pre-fixed Inquest finally begins. An Inquest is supposed to answer basic questions about the deaths: who, how, when and where? But, in this case no legal representatives from the families of the four accused will be allowed. But, they died too did they not? Their absence from this trial, means that it will only be concerned to ascertain the causes of death of the 52 who died on that morning in a pre-ordained manner. continue reading…

Share
Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2017 TERROR ON THE TUBE Design by SRS Solutions