Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 8

message: about 10 minutes ago I started getting calls from londoner saying rumor has it bombs have exploded in the tube again 
bbc just picked it up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm 
Adidas 12:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "We have suspended three lines; the Hammersmith & City, Victoria and Northern." that's from TFL 1355 Adidas 13:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Some thing has happened. But it would need new artcle as hasn't happened on the 7th July.--JK the unwise 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JK, i'm sorry i don't know how to create a new page. How can one go about doing that? Adidas 13:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: see 21 July 2005 London explosions -- Jeronim 13:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: A new article has been created here. --Brendanfox 13:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bombs 1350 21 jul 

message: Previous talk has been archived, except for current discussions. See Archive 7. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Some anon (or anons) keep adding references to a PR firm called Visor Consultants which supposedly predicted the bombings. This is self-promotional rubbish which seems to be being forwarded by conspiracy theorists and fringe websites , and it doesn't belong in this article. Could people please keep an eye out for this and delete it if it pops up again? -- ChrisO 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See below - apparently publicity the company does not want and an activity that was merely coincidental. Since people have heard about it, it may be prudent to explain it in the article to avoid people putting incorrect information in there. --Habap 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think it was deleted because anyone disagrees that it happened. But it was clearly just this guy trying to fluff himself up by feeding on tragedy. The fact that someone in a metropolitan area of about 10 million people (one that has regular bomb threats) was having an emergency planning meeting at the time of a bombing is a chilling bit of synchronicity for those involved but entirely non-notable for the rest of the world. --Lee Hunter 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I am a long way from being a statistician (I'm not sure I can even spell the word) but the 19 million to 1 figure seems a bit improbable, given that the likely time for such an event is during rush hour from Monday to Friday, the likely location would be somewhere central and the bombs went off at four different locations (which increases the possibility that one would coincide). One would also have to know how frequently it happens that a mid to large company in London conducts an emergency planning exercise involving the transportation system (probably an impossible figure to determine). I'd be interested to know how this independent investigator came up with his figures. --Lee Hunter 14:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I also read somewhere that this guy Power specializes in emergency planning and that he had a particular interest in bomb attacks in the Underground after he himself was caught in an attack a while back. That suggests to me that he's probably talking about this sort of thing at least every week, if not every day. I'm sure there were any number of people in the police, fire dept, emergency planners, hr who came home that night and told their spouse "Why just five minutes/one hour/one day earlier we were talking about this very thing!"--Lee Hunter 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The whole Visor Consultants thing is non-notable conspiracy theorising and POV rubbish; it absolutely does not belong in this article. It's received minimal media coverage - the only reason why it's being cited at all is because some of the wackier fringe elements of the blogosphere are pushing a particularly lame conspiracy theory, i.e. that the bombings were actually a plot by the British Government. See  www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm for an example. I shouldn't need to point out that we're not in the business of documenting every lame-brained blogosphere conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO 22:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Not so. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not as well as Wikipedia:No original research. We had a similar discussion with the September 11, 2001 attacks article as well, as I recall. -- ChrisO 23:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Visor Consultants self-promotion/conspiracy theorising

message: (You will receive this message if you request information using the contact e-mail shown on the www.visorconsultants.com website)
Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7
July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed
prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several
websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant /
hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as
follows:  It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios
planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in
London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two
scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones
that actually detonated with such tragic results.   One scenario in
particular, was very similar to real time events.
However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital
city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced
several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system
(also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC
broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse
consequences.  It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible
scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little
disconcerting.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers
actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper,
1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning
responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary
number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be
given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g.
accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power  Visor Consultants Limited
: That will teach those cocky PR people a good lesson. They conducted a little paper exercise between them on paper, then when the bombing occured decided it would be great publicity to milk a tragedy. It didn't take long to backfire. Now their name is dragged in the mud by all the conspiracy lunatics. Thank you Karma police.... Adidas 15:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst part is that they probably were ignoring their own advice and never sat down to consider what to do if this ever happened. That is, a disaster which they considered actually occurred. Their 8 Key Thoughts on Disasters --Habap 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request 

message: (Note:  In the light of subsequent events, I have since had serious second thoughts about my following comment:  please scroll down to "Police Admit That It Was a Suicide Bombing" header below for expanation. (ChrisR))
Should we be using the phrase 'Suicide Bombers' yet?.
So far the usual jihad pre-mission video has not surfaced, no 'testament' of any kind has been found, nobody from even their closest circle seems to have had any clue of what was intended, and the bombers were carrying personal effects and documents on them.
Is it possible that they only discovered that they were 'suicide bombers' in the split-second after they pulled what was supposed to be the arming device, intending to leave the train/bus at the next stop?.
ChrisR
:It's not clear that all suicide bombers (e.g. in the middle east) do so knowingly. It certainly doesn't fit known patterns, but then, the Luton cell arrests last year were said to have disrupted plans. 
:In any case, the police are using the phrase suicide bomber, which means it's encyclopedic for us to report their version of events. Changing it because we think it doesn't fit a known pattern is POV. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tightened up the wording on the Possible suicide bombers section. I approve of the additions of police reluctance to use the term and documentation of the state of the Leeds factory; these are factual. I removed the speculative claim that suicide bombings are used against "hard targets in high-security situations", as this is not supported by even a cursory review of the evidence (and see this  comprehensive Atlantic article). Busses (Israel), recruiting lines (Iraq), and checkpoints (both) are by definition soft targets. The primary reasons for the tactic seem to be a) maximizing casualties (a suicide bomber can pick the best time and place) and b) creating horror and suspicion. High-security hard targets in Israel and Iraq are attacked with mortars and IEDs. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The same site provides "evidence" that 9/11, Madrid and (this is my favorite) the Asian Tsunami were all false flag operations.  Does this not say "mental illness" to you?  --noösfractal 07:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if I'm wearing my tinfoil hat. :)  --Lee Hunter 12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "an explosion this morning under the carriage of the train (…) some passengers described how the tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up".
This makes two independent sources indicating bombs under the carriage. Either the suicide bombers somehow made their way down under the carriage (which needs a plausible explanation of how and why) OR there simply were no suicide bombers and this section should be renamed something else. 
 
Yeslove 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Bombers? 

message: Many senior members of the so called Al Qaeda network are in reality graduates of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation with a racist agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt during WWII by Al Banna, an admirer of Adolf Hitler, and 
soon became a branch of the Nazi Intelligence network. It also aimed to create a Islamic Fundamentalist form of Nazism to govern the Middle East and Africa for the Axis Powers.
After the war MI6 rounded up the Nazi handlers but recruited the organisation to attack the emerging State of Israel, with which it was then engaged in a terror war with. When this failed the Muslim Brotherhood was sold to the American OSS and inherited by the CIA. It was then used in anti-communist plans, much in the same way as Gladio was in the West. It was heavily relied on to recruit the Mujahadeen in the 80s (with assistance of the Pakistani ISI).
Relocated to Saudi Arabia in the late 1950s it took control of many of the local 'Islamic schools' and taught a Nazified form of Wahhabbism (now practised by much of the Saudi ruling class). This religion has been denounced by every Islamic authority ever since as non-Islamic (media take note). The only other supporters of it being the Taliban. The Muslim Brotherhood adopted many other names to hide its origins and spread through out the Islamic World. One of its most active bases today are the Islamic schools of Pakistan, where at least one of the 'suicide' bombers was indoctrinated. The alleged mastermind of the Madrid bomb was also a 'former' Muslim Brotherhood member. 
The Muslim Brotherhood also still maintains connections with the far right of Europe via Croatia, the original contact point between the German Nazis, via the Ustashi, and the fascistic distortions of Islam based in Bosnia. Its current relationship with its past paymasters (the so called 'Dulles-Bush' faction of the CIA) is unknown.
Full details can be found in hundreds of webpages containing information from once classified files now available on line. Type Bana and Nazi into a Goggle search.
:Sounds rather far-fetched, to say the least. The European "far Right" is anti-immigration, and by implication somewhat anti-Muslim/anti-Arab. Neo-Nazis hate Jews, which is something they share with some Muslims. But neo-Nazis also hate Muslims. Are you really claiming that white European Christian right-wingers are hooking up with Islamic fundamentalists? That would certainly be newsworthy, but I don't recall reading about it. Mirror Vax 09:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Nazi connections

message: http://gnn.tv/blogs/7360/london_bombings_conspiracy
Commnets?
Why is there no conspiracy section? I mean, where not main stream media...
--Striver 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have these crackpot conspiracy theories ever been documented or reported in the mainstream news media? (like the 9/11 ones had, and many other conspiracy theories) -- Joolz 01:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: WP has several 9/11 conspiracy articles, so perhaps someone could start a separate article for 7/7 conspiracy theories to which we can link from the main page. As a side note, apparently there are now about 700,000 websites featuring 9/11 conspiracy theories blaming it on everyone from Saddam Hussein, to the US government to (I'm not making this up) the psychiatric profession . Some of those sites make great reading, but one should remember to also visit at least one or two of the sites where those conspiracy theories have been rigorously debunked. . --Lee Hunter 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thing is, i didnt even claim it to be a conspiracy, i just claimed it happend, whicth is factual, without adding any view to it.
--Striver 16:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: However, no great significance should be placed on this coincidence as a terrorist attack on the London Underground had been widely expected, particularly after the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, and indeed a very large-scale exercise was conducted by the Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London Ambulance Service and the Army in 2003 which was predicated on an attack on Bank Station in the morning rush hour; the success of the rescue and first-aid activities on July 7th was attributed to the experience learned from this exercise. Visor Consultants themselves, in replies to email queries, said that theirs was only a paper exercise for a small number of managers at their client firm.
That is most assurdely POV!
I did not do any original research. I simply added a fact that manny belive its relevent.
Its not harder than that. The truth is: You want to get ridd of it, not since it unrelevant, but since it makes you angry. Only the fact that it makes people angy makes it relevant.
--Striver 23:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: What are you actually referring to Striver?  (PS I accidentally reverted your comment then reverted it back straight away - I pressed the wrong button...) -- Francs2000 | Talk  00:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver is referring to his repeated efforts to insert conspiracy theories - see #Visor Consultants self-promotion/conspiracy theorising and #Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request above. It's a non-encyclopedic POV being pushed primarily by some of the wackier conspiracy theorist blogs/websites. Needless to say, it's totally inappropriate for the article and has been removed several times already, but keeps being sneaked back in by Striver and some anon IPs. -- ChrisO 00:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: due to munged comments I moved this part of the discussion to this section. We already have mroe than one "talk" going on about this one issue. Striver, the reason I don't want it included is that it's irrelevant. It was self-promotion on the part of Powers ("see how smart my company is! we knew where it was going to happen!") that backfired on him. The interpretation of his comments on an "exercise" depends on the misunderstanding by the public that an exercise would involve the actual, physical Underground -- e.g. fake bombs, sniffing dogs, volunteers pretending to be terrorists who get "arrested". This "exercise" was no such thing. It was entirely on paper. There is no evidence that it had any physical connection with the Underground. More to the point, the only source for this information has contradicted his own statements, calling into question the reliability of his original claim. If people are hanging their hat on this as evidence of a conspiracy, it's a pretty thin hatrack. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, in the wake of any disaster, we are flooded with conspiracy theories and scams and new viruses named after the tragenies, extremely rapidly.  Debunking this stuff can be a full time job, and there are Urban Legends places that already tackle that assignment, such as http://www.snopes.com/ AlMac|(talk) 21:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing
--Striver 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment 

message: It is really refreshing to see the humane concern that this issue is dealt with fairly and with and eye to the facts.
I fear that almost everything that is contained here is pov of one form or another. theoreticaly the only people who have full possesion of the facts are the London Metropolitan Police - and they have actually said very little on the subject, what they do say is all phrased in terms such as "thought to be" that  Jtkiefer has taken the scalpel to above under suspects section.
therefore 99% of the psuedo facts here are actually reiterations of the press responses to the terrible events - which as we all know are nothing but opinion.
Sadly even the lack of bias of the Met is called into question when they issue statements like "we will find the link to Al-Qaeda" as they did on national television shortly after the bombings. from this we can assume that it is not so much an investigation as a critical path analysis with an agenda (curious that the statement was made as the pound began to fall against the dollar).
But if we were left only with verifiable facts this page would be a stub... so IMHO I think that there is a place for all of this conjecture provided that it is clearly identified as conjecture. also there is nothing wrong with portraying extreme views from either side of the political or religious spectra provided that they are clearly identified and balanced with an opposing view. after all, as it says at the top of the page "This article documents a current event". By far the majority of the event is its aftermath, including the turmoil that it has produced both physicaly and socially.
In short we should either be honest about this wiki article being a vehicle of opinion and make it as transparent as possible, or strike all opinion from it.
The london bombing wiki page and its archive is a unique document in that it is one of the first open access histories to have been written by people from all over the world as it happened. it is perhaps the first oportunity for the whole gamut of reactions to be caught and fixed as an antidote to the inevitable revisionism that will has already begun to obscure the bare detail.
Makes me wonder wether a pov only wiki, something like wiki-rant might be a good thing to develop. --DavidP 13:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a difference between POV and incomplete (or even 'later to be proved incorrect') information. In the real world, the state of knowledge on more or less any subject is incomplete, subject to revision and, sometimes, radical change. The only difference between this article and, say, particle physics, is that this one moves rather faster. There is absolutely nothing Wikipedia can do about that, and the best we can strive for is an honestly impartial view of the best information currently available. Inevitably some of that will prove to be unfounded, but so long as we deal with that when it does, I don't think we have any reason to apologise. -- Chris j wood 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-a-gogo 

message: Regarding the section "Attacks on the Underground"
Does anyone know why the description of the first bomb mentions Kings Cross St. Pancras? The train was pretty far away from there when the bomb went off. If there is some reason this is relevant (like maybe that it's the only precise time from a previous location that we know), I ask that anyone who knows it tell the rest of us.
If the section remains unmodified in a week, I think I'll delete the reference to Kings Cross. As it stands, it's only confusing matters.
:The reference is appropriate because all three bomb carriers boarded their trains there. It's as appopriate as noting that two planes on 9/11 departed from Logan International Airport. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, the rear end of the Piccadilly line train was within 100 m of Kings' Cross. -- Arwel 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

text: All three descriptions of the tube bombs mention the fact that the trains went through King's Cross, not just the first one. I think this is relevant. - Wgsimon 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who cares about Kings Cross St. Pancras? 

message: Now that this is not being edited quite so much, can we start implementing  and  before the links from the media organisations are archived/expire? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref and Note templates 

message: I edited the bolded header that said 'a series of bomb attacks' to 'a series of suicide bomb attacks.'. It was reverted and someone claimed that it was only the media who identified them as suicide bombers, not the police.
Now, I think at this point it's fairly obvious that these were suicide bombings. The police have said that all four men are believed to have died in the blasts. Has the police ever used to term 'suicide bomber'? Should we revert articles on 9-11 and other notorious suicide attacks because the police never use the phrase? I mean, has the FBI formally used the word "suicide" to describe 9-11?
It's pretty obvious from any encyclopedic point of view that these were suicide bombings. There are now pictures of the terrorists entering the train station together, all of them wearing huge backpacks. And if Scotland Yard denies these are suicide bombings, why? Are police honestly investigating some kind of possibility that the men only intended to leave their backpacks unattended on the trains and then detonate them? ---Wikologist---
:I think it's faintly ridiculous. Wikipedia isn't solely limited to reporting what the police say -- otherwise this article would be about 7 paragraphs long. Every media source, outside the fringe political press, thinks these were suicide bombings. The public thinks they were suicide bombings. The police probably think so too, but for professional reasons they don't use that language; they've clearly outlined forensic scenarios that can't be anything but suicide bombing. 
:It's importnat to remember that there will be no formal charges against the bombers -- if somebody's waiting for that, they'll wait a long time, because these guys are dead dead dead. --68.73.106.79 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting to hear how the evidence allows us to discount the possibility that the bombers expected to have time to escape before detonation.  Can you provide some evidence for this?  No, I don't mean assertions that it's obvious or everybody thinks or clearly they were suicide bombers, which is all that anybody has come up with so far on this talk page. -- Jeronim 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bolded header: "Bomb attacks" 

message: I've just removed an assertion that emergency drills were taking place in the same *trains*. I know the "same stations, same time" conspiracy theory is going round like wildfire, but a more recent interview with the person whose interview on 5 live is being circulated suggested that "in the same stations" actually meant "on the same underground network".  For now any "facts" on this are surely just speculation, and to assert that the drills were on the same *trains* is false. (unsigned)
:The link from that removed section also has this to say about 9/11:
::This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001. The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning.
:Keep that fiction off this page and in a conspiracy page where it belongs. - Tεxτurε 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulation Exercise conspiracy 

message: They constitute the deadliest incident in the history of the London Underground, with considerably more casualties than either the Moorgate tube crash of February 1975 (43 dead) or the Kings Cross fire of November 1987 (31 dead).
Err, no they don't. Apart from the fact that it was four separate incidents. only three under gtound, and the gravest incident, at KX, is less than either of the examples at 26 dead, there have been far deadlier single incidents in the Underground's history - 64-68 dead in a single bombing incident at Balham station on 14/10/1940, 56 dead at Bank station on 11/01/1941. Bad as the 7th July attack was, please don't overhype it.  -- Arwel 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The deadliest peacetime incident, then. The Underground has been remarkably disaster-free, but you can't really cite mass aerial bombardment in the same breath as a terrorist bombing. -- ChrisO 23:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't just aerial bombardment, the Bethnal Green Disaster was caused by "irrational crowd behaviour" - mass panic. Thryduulf 00:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical comparison

message: In the early days of this article, the TOC was often right-aligned, and it looked really good. With the addition of the template, the TOC had to move left again. But I see tonight that somebody has found ways to shrink that template quite a bit. Now the TOC is hanging out (on my laptop display at least) all by itself on the left, with nothing whatsover to its right -- just white space. We should think about ways of moving it right again: perhaps the template could be shrunk still further, or put on the left (sacrilege!!), or some such work-around. Thoughts? Doops |  talk 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thing is to trim the TOC down considerably.  For example, the "Response from public figures" section is simply "There were many responses to the attacks from within Great Britain and from around the world."  It will look a lot better after that.  violet/riga (t) 09:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: I've just seen the pictures of bombing suspects and claims that they are asian men. But having looked at the four pictures, the first guy wearing new york shirt looks white, the second guy looks like Indian and NOT Pakistani, the third guy looks black, and the fourth guy's ethnicity is indeterminate. This makes me wonder, is the London Police just releasing bullshit? How on God's green earth can they call these people asians and especially Pakistani origin asians? 202.165.255.18 15:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are looking at the wrong article.  See 21 July 2005 London bombings.  Cheers, smoddy 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm curious as to how you can tell the difference between Indian and Pakistani people given that much of Pakistan's population came from all over India and especially from the Punjab region (shared with India). --Lee Hunter 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of bombers

message: An anonymous editor changed the emergency numbers.  I reverted it, but I'm still not entirely sure whether the change was a valid edit or not.  Probably not, but it might be that they've changed their numbers.  Can anybody confirm or deny?  Mr. Billion 19:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency numbers 

message: I have changed the article to read that recovery work is still ongoing only at Kings Cross, as I know that Aldagate is due to open on Monday and Edgware Road in the first week of August. However I'm not certain what the state of Tavistock Sqaure is?
Also, is this still a current event? Things are not settled, certainly, but the pace of editing has slowed right down. I haven't removed as to my mind its borderline, but I wouldn't object to anyone else removing it if they felt justified. Thryduulf 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recovery work & current tag

message: I watched part of his speech Thurs July 21 on C-Span, which is an American TV channel that specializes in what is stated by national leaders, with a minimum of editorial filtering.  Perhaps there should be a link to the speech here.  It seemed very critical of Britain, as if the problem is much more of British own making than Pakinstan's responsibility.  He quoted Brit sources blaming Pakistan, then asked how the bomber of Jamaican origin, who had never been to Pakistan, was their responsibility.  He also talked about the politically correct problem of Britain that does nothing about clerics that promote this kind of behavior.  AlMac|(talk) 20:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of Pakistan 

message: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf
This small newspaper has a story about a survivor of the bombings.
The relevent text is as follows:
""The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said."
Is there any evidence to back this up? Having not participated in this article I did not want to simply edit the article for this, it may have already been brought up. Should be looked at though. Harley peters 19:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb was underneath a train? 

message: Would it be informative to include, as another "main article" what was similar and what was different, relative to other major terrorist events both in recent history, and big in the news, such as 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks in Egypt on July 23? AlMac|(talk) 23:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities and Differences

message: Should there be a section on legislation proposed, what various critical groups are requesting, major groups positions pro and con proposed new laws, and what actually gets passed?
:[https://thei3p.org/pipermail/security-news-html 
Security in the News] reports, sourcing 
The Register that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has requested legislation giving them "powers to attack identified websites". and make it an offence to "use the internet to prepare, encourage, facilitate acts of terrorism" . This "cyberwarfare capability" request is not just against stictly websites promoting terrorism, but also "other police priorities" such as "domestic extremism and paedophilia/child pornography."  Since British law enforcement already can address websites originating in the UK, the proposals are aimed at websites based in other countries.  AlMac|(talk) 13:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response Legislation Requested

message: The July 2005 London bombings article contains a brief outline of both bombings.  It is very short at the moment, and should be an overview of what happened on both occasions and the overall effect of the attacks.  This should hopefully avoid some duplication between this and the 21 July 2005 London bombings article. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2005 London bombings article 

message: 'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander and 
'A massive rush of policemen'
:Oh, not this nonsense again. Note that those articles are dated 9th and 7th July. IT NEVER HAPPENED.  From Private Eye No. 1137, 22 July - 4 August, p.8 "Conspiracy Corner":
Soon after the first three bombs exploded across London's Underground network at 8:50 on the morning of 7 July, the conspiracy theorists swung into action.
One rumour which circulated widely during the day - and despite a clear denial from the Met deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick at 3 pm that afternoon, continues to do soon the internet, helped along by credulous reports in the New Zealand Herald and Canada's Globe and Mail - was that a fifth suicide bomber had been shot by police snipers in Canary Wharf at 10:30 am.
This seems to have sprung from an intercontinental game of Chinese whispers started by one office worker calling friends in New Zealand with a second-hand story after noticing the increased police presence on the ground following the earlier bombs and being instructed to move away from the windows - a standard security procedure at times of increased threat since the IRA bombed the building in 1996.
The theory appears to be that the police agreed to "hush up" the incident because of a massive Asian investment in the Canary Wharf area - though no-one has yet managed to explain why a) this would be more of a deterrent to potential investors than the four other suicide bombings they freely admit ocurred in the capital that day; b) why the police would agree not to tell anyone about an attack they did successfully manage to prevent; and c) how the entire incident went unnoticed by any of the 8,000 people in the tower at the time, many of them journalists in the offices of four national newspapers which overlook the area in which it supposedly happened.
:So there you are. Please don't spread this nonsense anywhere else on the net. -- Arwel 14:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw him deny it, live, in a tv press conference. -- Arwel 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: BBC News 24, but I expect all the UK news networks were showing it. -- Arwel 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Police shot bombers in Canary Wharf ?

message: I think I heard a report on BBC Radio 5 this morning that the police had said that the July 7 bombs were detonated using mobile phones as timers, and raising again the possibility that the bombers may have been more mules than suicide bombers. However I wasn't paying full attention at the time, and I cannot find any reference on the BBC website or by searching Google News. Anybody else hear this/see this?. -- Chris j wood 13:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New report on the use of mobile phones as timers 

message: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45312
:I sure hope it was Bin Laden who was shorting the pound. He would have lost a bundle because the pound didn't drop after the bombing. So far it has gone UP more than 6%. :) --Lee Hunter 15:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency fell 6% in 10 days before London terror attacks