London Bombings: Conspiracies

[Bigfoot73]

You might have a point there BRF - the way I read it was that there was something of the pelvis left attached around the spine. The lower half of both legs were almost completely missing but the upper halves are not listed as completely missing. If the explosion came from the floor then the upper legs could have been left attached. the left knee is still there and it must have been attached to something.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Something went bang and killed lots of people at Russell Square. Given the known evidence, it would seem likely it was the same stuff that exploded at the other three sites.

Which is more or less what DC Reynolds argued. We are talking nanograms here.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Which is more or less what DC Reynolds argued. We are talking nanograms here.

The way I read your comments indicated to me you thought the lack of explosive residue was evidence of something suspicious. Apologies if I was wrong.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

You might have a point there BRF - the way I read it was that there was something of the pelvis left attached around the spine. The lower half of both legs were almost completely missing but the upper halves are not listed as completely missing. If the explosion came from the floor then the upper legs could have been left attached. the left knee is still there and it must have been attached to something.

It states the left knee is almost entirely missing. And after such an explosion, I'm not sure what was left of it would necessarily be attached to anything. Likewise the upper legs may have survived the blast but not be attached to anything.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I do indeed find the lack of any trace of explosives, and detonator, suspicious, especially when such minute amounts can be found nowadays. The Russell Square explosion was supposed to be Germaine Lindsay, who had fallen asleep in his car at Luton station while waiting for the other three, who had urgently wanted to speak to a duty manager at the ticket barrier, and I still maintain this is not the behaviour of a suicide bomber.
It doesn't help matters that there is no specific mention of the upper legs, but how they could have survived the blast at all, attached or not , when there was a 5-10 kilo bomb sat on them defeats me.
The point is they should not have been if the bomb was in the rucksack on Khan's lap - which is where the official story has it.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I do indeed find the lack of any trace of explosives, and detonator, suspicious, especially when such minute amounts can be found nowadays. The Russell Square explosion was supposed to be Germaine Lindsay, who had fallen asleep in his car at Luton station while waiting for the other three, who had urgently wanted to speak to a duty manager at the ticket barrier, and I still maintain this is not the behaviour of a suicide bomber.

I think the extract you posted is pretty clear; these type of explosives generally leave traceable amounts, but not always.

It doesn't help matters that there is no specific mention of the upper legs, but how they could have survived the blast at all, attached or not , when there was a 5-10 kilo bomb sat on them defeats me.

The fact that it defeats you is neither here nor there, unless you happen to be an expert in such matters. I'm no expert either but, as far as I'm aware, explosives like this can be unpredictable in their results. Depending how they are packed, the force of the explosion can be directed quite randomly. Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did, but there you have it.

The point is they should not have been if the bomb was in the rucksack on Khan's lap - which is where the official story has it.

But that isn't the official story, is it? Is it not one eye-witness's testimony, a testimony that has proved inconsistent (unsurprisingly, after suffering such a traumatic event)?

 

[Bigfoot73]

There wasn't just absolutely no trace of the explosives, but no detonator either, and surely nanograms of that would be detectable too.

I'm no expert either but, as far as I'm aware, explosives like this can be unpredictable in their results.

So unpredictable that they don't damage what they are sat on?

Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did,

Me too.

But that isn't the official story, is it? Is it not one eye-witness's testimony, a testimony that has proved inconsistent (unsurprisingly, after suffering such a traumatic event)?

Danny Biddle's testimony was very detailed. What was inconsistent about it?
This is important, because his is the only detailed, confident unambiguous identification of any of the four at any of the bomb scenes.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

There wasn't just absolutely no trace of the explosives, but no detonator either, and surely nanograms of that would be detectable too.

I don't know, do you?

So unpredictable that they don't damage what they are sat on?

Is there any evidence that his upper legs remained intact and undamaged? Nothing I've read would lead me to that conclusion.

Personally, I'm surprised that they managed to recover as much of his body as they did,

Me too.

This is probably because neither of us are skilled or experienced in forensic investigation.

Danny Biddle's testimony was very detailed. What was inconsistent about it?
This is important, because his is the only detailed, confident unambiguous identification of any of the four at any of the bomb scenes.

I believe his story (at least as quoted) has changed a number of times re. where and whether he was standing and where or whether Khan was standing and how or whether he was wearing his rucksack. In fact, I don't even know if we can be sure it was Khan he identified as the bomber.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Is there any evidence that his upper legs remained intact and undamaged? Nothing I've read would lead me to that conclusion.

The definition of 'almost entirely missing' in this context seems to mean a bit of bone was left and that was it. The upper legs may not have been 'almost entirely missing' but I don;t think that necessarily implies there was a great deal left of them.

This may just say more about the robustness of the bones in the upper leg than anything else, that the bones failed at the pelvis and knee joints rather than along their length.

This is a very cheerful conversation we're having :!:

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

As pointed out Biddle's testimony is inconsistent (in fact some conspiracy theorists have noted this). Why is it even considered relevant?

In any case there was a detonation and there was an explosion. What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?

 

[Bigfoot73]

I don't know, do you?

Well ,they didn't have to look for sub-microscopic fragments of the detonators at any of the other sites. DC Reynolds offers no explanation as to how there could be no trace of explosives or detonator, nor does he say there is one but he wants to withhold it from open court lest it provide potential bombers with useful information.

80.18, the list of body parts completely missing, which does not include the upper legs. It would greatly assist anyone wanting to scrutinize the evidence if they released a catalogue of every last item logged.

where or whether Khan was standing and how or whether he was wearing his rucksack.

I've seen pre-inquest statements he made where he said Khan was wearing the rucksack on his back, and had another "main" bag on his lap.

I don't even know if we can be sure it was Khan he identified as the bomber.

Indeed not, he refers to Khan as a young looking Asian man, although Khan was 4 years older than him -30, and only seems to become sure it was him after watching a TV report naming him. His was the only witness account identifying any of the bombers with any degree of certainty, and now even that now looks dubious.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Why is it even considered relevant?

Because it seemed reliable, except of course that it may not be.

What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?

That whatever Lindsay was carrying in his rucksack may not have been the source of the explosion.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well ,they didn't have to look for sub-microscopic fragments of the detonators at any of the other sites. DC Reynolds offers no explanation as to how there could be no trace of explosives or detonator, nor does he say there is one but he wants to withhold it from open court lest it provide potential bombers with useful information.

If they could find no trace of any explosive whatsoever then this can mean a few things:

There was an explosion and the forensic teams were unable to locate the materials responsible;

There was an explosion and the forensic teams were able to locate the materials responsible but have lied about it;

There was no explosion.

Which of those three options would you propose most likely? If it's the second of those two possibilities then why would they not fabricate the evidence that you claim is absent. Are there any other scenarios you can foresee?

80.18, the list of body parts completely missing, which does not include the upper legs. It would greatly assist anyone wanting to scrutinize the evidence if they released a catalogue of every last item logged.

I've seen pre-inquest statements he made where he said Khan was wearing the rucksack on his back, and had another "main" bag on his lap.

........................

Indeed not, he refers to Khan as a young looking Asian man, although Khan was 4 years older than him -30, and only seems to become sure it was him after watching a TV report naming him. His was the only witness account identifying any of the bombers with any degree of certainty, and now even that now looks dubious.

With regard to the issue of identifying age - I read that exact point being made on one of the same sites which point out why his testimony is not particularly useful (as evidence presumably of a conspiracy). I thought it was a rather weak point then and I think it is now.

Biddle's age is hardly relevant to how he describes anyone else - following your logic (or rather whoever raised the point initially) an 18 year old couldn't describe a 19 year old as young looking. That's aside from the fact that people can look younger than they actually are not to mention others simply being a bad judge of age (a colleague recently estimated my age to be 12 years younger than I actually am and reckoned another colleague 16 years younger).

I'm quite sure if Biddle had describe Khan as being old or middle aged then his testimony would be seized upon as even less reliable and perhaps more sinister in its inaccuracy. In any case Biddle's testimony is hardly put forward as the official version.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

What is being posited by citing the lack of evidence for specific detonators and explosives?

That whatever Lindsay was carrying in his rucksack may not have been the source of the explosion.

I presume you mean Khan.

It's difficult to know what to make of this. If the explosives were not in their possession then where did they come from? One would have to remark that it's an extraordinary coincidence that 4 young men who set off together on a journey which took them in 4 different directions all perished in the only 4 lethal bombings associated with a cause they espoused and were known to have connections with.

Peter Power's spooky coincidence seems somewhat less than spooky by comparison.

 

[Bigfoot73]

This number of possible outcomes method you have employed - that's one of David Ray Griffin's favourite ploys. Does this mean, surely not, really Ted, you haven't have you ?
How about, there was an explosion but the forensic team did not test for the substances involved?

Let's not forget they didn't find trace of a detonator either. Which could mean that Germaine Lindsay was not responsible for the explosion.
Perhaps Danny Biddle was a bad judge of age, perhaps he was a bad judge of identity too. Which wouldn't bode well for the notion that the four men were responsible for the explosions (which perhaps I should not refer to as the official version) because there would then be no remotely positive witness identifications of any of the four at the four scenes left.

(a colleague recently estimated my age to be 12 years younger than I actually am and reckoned another colleague 16 years younger).

Maybe you've just got a brown-noser on board.

I presume you mean Khan.

Lindsay, Russell Square.

I was only suggesting doubts as to Lindsay's bomb - he wanted to speak to the duty manager at the ticket barrier, fell asleep in the car waiting for the others and doesn't seem to have been anything like as closely involved.
I still find it odd that they left no claims of responsibility, or indeed felt it necessary to die in the explosions when they only had to leave the bombs and could have escaped. Suicide bombers usually have to make sure the bombs get to their intended targets , and that would not have been a problem here.

Peter Power's spooky coincidence seems somewhat less than spooky by comparison.

Peter Powers' spooky coincidence looks spooky no matter what else does or does not.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

How about, there was an explosion but the forensic team did not test for the substances involved?

But they did:

13 Q. Turning then to the chemistry, that is to say the
14 physical aspects of the explosive devices with which
15 we're concerned, tests were carried out at all the
16 sites, were they not, to see whether or not there were
17 traces of HMTD, the initiating device of which you've
18 spoken, or of TATP, another form of primary high
19 explosive, triacetone triperoxide?
20 A. Yes, that's correct

Unless, of course, you accept that whilst traces of HMTD were found at the other sites you do not accept that it was used in the Russell Square bombing. In which case in would be interesting to know what is the function of using separate types of explosive/detonators (not to mention why it would be suggestive of a conspiracy involving those in positions of influence and authority given that they could simply fabricate evidence to remove the inconsistency).

Let's not forget they didn't find trace of a detonator either. Which could mean that Germaine Lindsay was not responsible for the explosion.
Perhaps Danny Biddle was a bad judge of age, perhaps he was a bad judge of identity too. Which wouldn't bode well for the notion that the four men were responsible for the explosions (which perhaps I should not refer to as the official version) because there would then be no remotely positive witness identifications of any of the four at the four scenes left.

The notion that they were responsible has never rested upon or even been given siginificant credibility by Biddle's testimony, though, has it? Again, four men set off together and all die in separate bombings after going their separate ways (and you would seem to indicate that you accept Khan's death at the scene of the explosion). A large body of circumstantial evidence links them with extremists and the manufacture of explosives .

The idea that Biddle's testimony (originally cited in order to debunk an official account therefore creating the impression of credibility) is somehow an important timber in the foundation of the case against the four is simply misguided.

I was only suggesting doubts as to Lindsay's bomb - he wanted to speak to the duty manager at the ticket barrier, fell asleep in the car waiting for the others and doesn't seem to have been anything like as closely involved.

I still find it odd that they left no claims of responsibility, or indeed felt it necessary to die in the explosions when they only had to leave the bombs and could have escaped. Suicide bombers usually have to make sure the bombs get to their intended targets , and that would not have been a problem here.

Why do you find it odd? There has been much said over the last decade in relation to suicide bombing and its functions (as an individual sacrifice, as an expression of faith, as an act of psychololgical warfare and so on). You might find it strange but then you're possibly not that fanatical about killing in the name of God or as convinced of the rewards for doing so.

 

[Bigfoot73]

I could have put that more clearly - the explosion could have been caused by something other than HMTD or TATP, something for which no tests were conducted.

In which case in would be interesting to know what is the function of using separate types of explosive/detonators

It would be interesting to know why no further investigation into the source of the explosion was undertaken given that there is no evidence it was the same as the other three explosions. Coupled with Lindsay's strange behaviour there seems to me to be something which distinguishes his case from the others.

(not to mention why it would be suggestive of a conspiracy involving those in positions of influence and authority given that they could simply fabricate evidence to remove the inconsistency).

Well perhaps any conspirators didn't have enough influence or authority to do that. Perhaps this flaw in the plot only came to light once it was beyond their reach to do so. Perhaps there was no plot, all the same there are differences in Lindsay's case which I would have thought warranted further investigation. A pistol was found in his car, the model of which has never been released:- there were only 6 rounds, some of which were of a different calibre from the gun and 6 rounds doesn't sound like a full magazine's worth. At the very least he might just possibly have come up with his own bomb too. I would have thought there was enough indication of a different trail to follow, but the police seem to have let it go cold.

Posted: 05-02-2011 02:26 Post subject:
Bigfoot73 wrote:
How about, there was an explosion but the forensic team did not test for the substances involved?



But they did:

Quote:
13 Q. Turning then to the chemistry, that is to say the
14 physical aspects of the explosive devices with which
15 we're concerned, tests were carried out at all the
16 sites, were they not, to see whether or not there were
17 traces of HMTD, the initiating device of which you've
18 spoken, or of TATP, another form of primary high
19 explosive, triacetone triperoxide?
20 A. Yes, that's correct


Unless, of course, you accept that whilst traces of HMTD were found at the other sites you do not accept that it was used in the Russell Square bombing. In which case in would be interesting to know what is the function of using separate types of explosive/detonators (not to mention why it would be suggestive of a conspiracy involving those in positions of influence and authority given that they could simply fabricate evidence to remove the inconsistency).



Bigfoot73 wrote:

Let's not forget they didn't find trace of a detonator either. Which could mean that Germaine Lindsay was not responsible for the explosion.
Perhaps Danny Biddle was a bad judge of age, perhaps he was a bad judge of identity too. Which wouldn't bode well for the notion that the four men were responsible for the explosions (which perhaps I should not refer to as the official version) because there would then be no remotely positive witness identifications of any of the four at the four scenes left.

The notion that they were responsible has never rested upon or even been given siginificant credibility by Biddle's testimony, though, has it?

Well, no, it hasn't. If his account is eliminated then we have the people Lindsay spoke to at the ticket barrier as the only witnesses to incontrovertibly identify any of them , and even then not at a bomb scene. so we now have no witnesses to any of them at any bomb scene, which strikes me as odd, although I'm sure to doesn't seem that way to you.

It's not just the psychological aspects, which still don't seem right, but the tactical aspects too. they did nothing to maximise the propaganda value of their actions, and could have done much more for the cause had they left the rucksacks and done no more than use the other bombs somewhere else. Why not take the nail bombs too - bigger bangs means more dead infidels?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I could have put that more clearly - the explosion could have been caused by something other than HMTD or TATP, something for which no tests were conducted.

It would appear that other explosives were searched for or at least expected to turn up if they were there:

21 Q. At Russell Square, what were the findings?
22 A. At Russell Square, none was found, no traces of HMTD or
23 TATP or, indeed, any other explosive was found.

One might assume that these individuals would be competent enough at their job to at least consider the possibilty of other explosives or to run tests which might uncover them. And yet no such evidence appears to have emerged. Unless we enter the realms of pure speculation, of course, and posit an as yet unconfirmed substance (maybe it was super-thermite).

It would be interesting to know why no further investigation into the source of the explosion was undertaken given that there is no evidence it was the same as the other three explosions. Coupled with Lindsay's strange behaviour there seems to me to be something which distinguishes his case from the others.

Perhaps they felt (and perhaps with some justification) that their investigation had been as thorough as possible and that the evidence they were looking for was potentially impossible to find. Bearing in mind it hasn't been presented in a legal case they have perhaps reasonably assumed that the vast weight of circumstantial evidence coupled with evidence of its use elsewhere is comprehensive enough.

Well perhaps any conspirators didn't have enough influence or authority to do that. Perhaps this flaw in the plot only came to light once it was beyond their reach to do so.

Given that the other three bombs were detonated to devastating effect one would have to wonder why Lindsay would be supplied with another kind of bomb. There doesn't appear to be any logical explanation for this and I'd be very interested to hear some sort of coherent suggestion (hopefully so I can find something 'odd' about any details which might emerge from it).
Or are the forensic people involved here simply incompetent or lying.

Perhaps there was no plot, all the same there are differences in Lindsay's case which I would have thought warranted further investigation. A pistol was found in his car, the model of which has never been released:- there were only 6 rounds, some of which were of a different calibre from the gun and 6 rounds doesn't sound like a full magazine's worth. At the very least he might just possibly have come up with his own bomb too. I would have thought there was enough indication of a different trail to follow, but the police seem to have let it go cold.

Seem being the operative word. How do you know that they didn't pursue this avenue? And how do you know they didn't test his car for the relevant materials? There doesn't appear to be any record of any explosives commensurate with the kind required to cause the devastation on the underground. It's purely speculation to say that it wasn't looked for or that there was something to find in the first place.

Let's not forget they didn't find trace of a detonator either. Which could mean that Germaine Lindsay was not responsible for the explosion.

It could but again this line of inquiry has so far turned up no explanation more plausible than the lack of evidence being due to the difficulty in locating it.

I would really be genuinely interested to hear some explanation as to how Lindsay's bomb was detonated and why his had to be different from the rest. Of course, it would be speculative but that doesn't mean it can't be plausible.

Well, no, it hasn't. If his account is eliminated then we have the people Lindsay spoke to at the ticket barrier as the only witnesses to incontrovertibly identify any of them , and even then not at a bomb scene. so we now have no witnesses to any of them at any bomb scene, which strikes me as odd, although I'm sure to doesn't seem that way to you.

It doesn't seem especially odd to me or to most others, I suspect. On the contrary I'd be surprised if there were many witnesses in a position to identify with any degree of certainty what were perfectly ordinary looking individuals on a packed tube train - it's not like they'd have a sign saying 'bomber' over their head and many of the closest potential witnesses wouldn't neccessarily be in any functioning state to the extent that they could identify them after the massive explosion.

Either way we do still have their four bodies, now dead, although without question alive on the train before the explosions. This can't just be explained away or ignored in favour of inference or nebulous pondering. Even if they weren't the bombers there would still be witnesses who could identify them as being on the train. They certainly had rucksacks.

It's not just the psychological aspects, which still don't seem right, but the tactical aspects too. they did nothing to maximise the propaganda value of their actions, and could have done much more for the cause had they left the rucksacks and done no more than use the other bombs somewhere else. Why not take the nail bombs too - bigger bangs means more dead infidels?

Well, we could speculate on the logistics or the chemistry involved here but I'm not sure how effective a plan to explode two suicide bombs apiece would be but that's by the by. You're trying to get into a mindset which is entirely alien to you (and hopefully everybody reading this). It's not purely about numbers killed, it's about strategic targets (and they most definitely chose them for propaganda purposes even letting alone the speculation that they had originally intended to bomb London on the day it was named Olympic host).

If it was just about numbers then there are probably more soft targets which could yield a greater death toll (look at Omagh, for example). More often than not their actions seem to be influenced by the need to propagandise to their potential followers. A bomb in an Argos in Sunderland city centre will produce less dramatic symbolism for a group of people who think in terms of myth and apocalyptic visions than a bomb in the heart of London's iconic transport network.

You could still kill as many people, though, and I'd argue terrify a far greater percentage of the British population. London is a place apart and is understood in those terms. When bombed it frightens Londoners. Bomb a couple of provincial towns and everybody in the country has reason to be concerned.

 

[Bigfoot73]

It would appear that other explosives were searched for or at least expected to turn up if they were there:

I stand corrected. What I was getting at was the possibility that Lindsay, who seemed resourceful enough to find a gun for himself, might just have come up with some explosives for himself too, possibly something obscure, exotic or even home made - it's a line of inquiry the police may have liked to pursue, and they really could have said whether they did or not. After all the gun could have been given to him by undetected jihadists. I'm only entering into speculation here because it is another avenue of inquiry the police left open.

And how do you know they didn't test his car for the relevant materials?

I don't , it would be odd (sorry) if they didn't, and it would help if they said so one way or the other.

It could but again this line of inquiry has so far turned up no explanation more plausible than the lack of evidence being due to the difficulty in locating it.

They didn't have any trouble finding traces at the other two train scenes.

Even if they weren't the bombers there would still be witnesses who could identify them as being on the train.

That's just it - there aren't. I have cited Danny Biddle's testimony as it is just about the only good account of a bomber at any of the four scenes. The inquest seems happy enough to accept it, and in doing so accepts that the rucksack was on Khan's lap at the exact moment of the explosion. The explosion which did not come from that rucksack.

but I'm not sure how effective a plan to explode two suicide bombs apiece would be but that's by the by.

Are you implying I think they could kill themselves twice? They could have left the bombs on the trains, used the other bombs somewhere else, maybe not even choosing to go out with a bang then either.

If it was just about numbers then there are probably more soft targets which could yield a greater death toll

They did not do much to maximise the potential lethality available to them, wherever they chose to target, and nothing to propagandize what they did . [/quote]

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/jihadi-train-7-7-bomber-freed

Jihadi who helped train 7/7 bomber freed by US after just five years

Exclusive: Families of victims compare lenient treatment of Mohammed Junaid Babar to that of Lockerbie bomber

guardian.co.uk, Shiv Malik. Sunday 13 February 2011

An American jihadist who set up the terrorist training camp where the leader of the 2005 London suicide bombers learned how to manufacture explosives, has been quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence, a Guardian investigation has learned.

The unreported sentencing of Mohammed Junaid Babar to "time served" because of what a New York judge described as "exceptional co-operation" that began even before his arrest has raised questions over whether Babar was a US informer at the time he was helping to train the ringleader of the 7 July tube and bus bombings.

Lawyers representing the families of victims and survivors of the attacks have compared the lenient treatment of Babar to the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Babar was imprisoned in 2004 – although final sentencing was deferred – after pleading guilty in a New York court to five counts of terrorism. He set up the training camp in Pakistan where Mohammad Sidique Khan and several other British terrorists learned about bomb-making and how to use combat weapons.

Babar admitted to being a dangerous terrorist who consorted with some of the highest-ranking members of al-Qaida, providing senior members with money and equipment, running weapons, and planning two attempts to assassinate the former president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf.

But in a deal with prosecutors for the US attorney's office, Babar agreed to plead guilty and become a government supergrass in return for a drastically reduced sentence.

The Guardian has obtained a court document which shows that on 10 December last year – six years after his initial arrest and subsequent guilty plea – he was sentenced to "time served" and charged $500 (£310) by the court in a "special assessment" fee. The document also reveals that Babar had by then spent just over four years in some form of prison and more than two years free on bail.

Graham Foulkes, a magistrate whose 22-year-old son David was killed by Khan at Edgware Road underground station in 2005, said: "People get four and a half years for burglary. They can get more for some road traffic offences. So for an international terrorist who's directly linked to the death of my son and dozens and dozens of people to get that sentence is just outrageous."

Fifty-two people were killed and 784 injured on 7 July 2005 when four suicide bombers detonated rucksacks filled with explosives and nails on London's transport system in the morning rush hour.

The lawyer representing the families of the dead and survivors, Clifford Tibber of the law firm Anthony Gold, said they would be devastated to learn that Babar had served only a small proportion of his possible sentence.

"Babar admitted setting up and funding training camps attended by the 7/7 bombers," Tibber said. "When the British government released Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber who received a life sentence, on compassionate grounds after eight years the Americans were furious. Imagine how the bereaved and the survivors will feel about [Babar's] paltry sentence."

A remark from the sentencing judge that Babar "began co-operating even before his arrest", has raised the possibility, supported by other circumstantial evidence obtained by the Guardian, that he may have been an informant for the US government before his detention by the FBI in April 2004.

...

Emphasis mine. More at the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/jihadi-train-7-7-bomber-freed

 

[Bigfoot73]

Khan's visit to this training camp is the only occasion I know of where any of the 4 alleged bombers had any assistance from an outside organisation.
They never claimed to be acting on behalf of a larger jihadist group, and no such group has ever claimed them as members. They don't seem to have had any funding, and they even had to make their own bombs . Terrorist bomb makers are usually specialists who provide the devices for those who plant or detonate them - too valuable to allowed to go up in smoke.
Now the only outside help they had starts smelling of the CIA.
Besides which, has it ever been established what Khan learned there? How to make bombs from hydrogen peroxide and pepper ?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Given how, to some, the official accounts are apparently unconvincing despite the vast amounts of evidence which support them I'm not sure to what extent the faint odour of CIA should turn heads or stomachs.

It can hardly be disputed that Babar was involved in violent extremism. His actions before his arrest are testimony to this. His arrest took place in 2004 and was publicised world-wide. Khan could hardly have missed this news. In what way can you connect the actions of Babar the CIA supergrass and Khan the mass-murderer in a way that should make us suspect a plot not covered by the official accounts?

 

[Bigfoot73]

In what way can you connect the actions of Babar the CIA supergrass and Khan the mass-murderer in a way that should make us suspect a plot not covered by the official accounts?

There need be no direct connection, any possible 7.7 plot might not extend that far. The training camp could have been conjured into existence, at some remove, by the CIA. Khan's attendance there could have been arranged, very indirectly and possibly with no further orchestration or manipulation.
Perhaps Khan was only one of a number of potential candidates for the plot at this stage. If he learned anything at all about bomb making, he seems to have forgotten it rather quickly.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

So it doesn't really smell of anything other than a series of imagined, unsubstantiated and implausible scenarios?

 

[Bigfoot73]

No of course it doesn't - if it was real, substantiated and plausible then it just wouldn't be a plot would it ?

 

[escargot]

Did anyone see Conspiracy Road Trip on (I think) BBC 3 last night?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Suspecting that it was unlikely to bring anything new to the debate I only caught the last 15 minutes, where they were intent on proving that the pepper/bleach/chappatti flour mixture could wreck a bus. Apparently it could, although as I recall the explosives expert didn't say whether the exact strength of the hydrogen peroxide matched that found in any alleged explosive device or residue and the traces of pepper found in the bus could have been explained by the fact that one of the passengers had been shopping and bought pepper.
They ignored all the other issues about the bus that conspiracists have raised, and the believers in the programme seemed woefully ill-informed.
No more convincing than the earlier 9.11 effort.

 

[balding13]

Just watched it and it was well made and enjoyable. Totally pointless though, because those who insist it can only be a conspiracy will never be convinced.

 

[Cherrybomb]

I found it interesting, but rather fluffy. No real in depth details were looked into. I guess the Beeb has to be careful with what it says...

 

[Jonfairway]

i thought the guys face was a picture when they blew up that bus !!!