Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

New bombs 1350 21 jul

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)

"We have suspended three lines; the Hammersmith & City, Victoria and Northern." that's from TFL 1355 Adidas 13:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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) (See Wikinews London Underground evacuation after 'Incidents')

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)

see 21 July 2005 London explosions -- Jeronim 13:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A new article has been created here. --Brendanfox 13:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Archival

Previous talk has been archived, except for current discussions. See Archive 7. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we use this link?

This link [1] takes you to the Transport for London image gallery, where there are interesting pictures from their TrackerNet service, showing the movements of the Circle Line trains just before and when they were bombed. I realise the Terms and Conditions you get when you click on the above link means we can't use their images, but can we even link to this page? I want to put this link in the External Links section, with a brief sentence explaining what it links to, but am not entirely sure if this is OK or not. Carcharoth 21:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You're linking to the site, not copying the images. It's fine. - Wgsimon 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If we do not make use of our 'fair use' / 'fair dealing' rights then they will be taken away. Copyright has limits and one of those limits is that portions of works maybe used in other works (quotes for example). As far as the terms and conditions go, I am not sure if you can legally (in America since that is were Wikipedia is based so it follows that duristiction's rules) wave your fair use rights in such a manner.

Personally I'd use them as fair use and wait for them to lodge a complaint and their justification as to why it wouldn't be fair use. Wikipedia is a monument to how classical copyright is too far reaching and copy left (in the form of the GNU GPL) restores the balance, so anything to further individual's freedom to information is in the spirit of Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 04:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you are saying that we should use the Trackernet images like any other media source would. They say "The TfL News Centre image gallery contains a selection of images which are available for press use only" and "Images held in the TfL News Centre image library may be used by members of the media for press use only provided such use is accompanied by the words "(c) Transport for London 2005". Images may not be used for any other purpose and must not be altered or passed to third parties without the written permission of the TfL Press Office.". I'm leaving the links in, but leaving it to others to decide about the actual images. Carcharoth 08:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The images can be used on WP providing the condition is met. On the other hand I couldn't find anything of interest on the page. It wasn't clear to me what I was supposed to be looking for. --Lee Hunter 13:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

See my reply to Catherine below. Once you click past the Terms and Conditions, it should be the first 6 images you see. You need to download them and flick through them in order to see what they are showing (2x 3-image sequences): the movements of the Circle Line trains just before the bombs went off. Carcharoth 21:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right per se -- so the concept of a waiver of rights doesn't enter in to consideration. Certainly one can enter into agreements not to publish or pass on information, the most obvious of which are Non-disclosure agreements. --Tabor 17:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Their license is NOT compatible with ours. Even if we counted as media, which we don't for their purposes, by uploading them here we'd be (at least perceived as) putting them under the GFDL and making them available for others to use under the GFDL, which is not Trackernet's intent. It's fine and very desirable to link there, and point out the important nature of the pictures, but we cannot upload and use the pictures here. — Catherine\^talk 18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course we can since one can use images that are copyrighted under fair use so their 'license' has nothing to do with it. More than a few images are used on Wikipedia underfair use, as is quotes and other portions of copyrighted material. Reread my statements above and hopefully we can dispell ignorance on how we can use fairuse rights to the fullest extent (so they are not taken away). --ShaunMacPherson 21:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read up on Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Fair use to verify (very useful sources) enough that I believe these images can be used since by reading the 17 U.S.C. § 107 section of the United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976 since: This topic is very newsworthy and Wikipedia is educational and nonprofit. Since the images are not designed for mass consumption (like a promotional poster) I'd use a smaller resolution then the ones provided there, if they are used at all - of course giving full credit to them as the copyright holder and a link as well. Anyone else have any thoughts? --ShaunMacPherson 21:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. And thanks for agreeing that the pictures are desirable to link to. The sequence of train movements around Edgware Road is fairly clear, but I can't make out what is going on for the Liverpool Street / Aldgate train. In the final TrackerNet image for that train, there seem to be several other trains nearby, but I can't be certain. Also, unlike the Edgware Road incident, I can't find any eyewitness reports of people on other trains hearing the bombs explode. Anyone know of such reports? Carcharoth 21:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Visor Consultants self-promotion/conspiracy theorising

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 [2], 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)

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)

The story was aired on BBC radio and is relevant. It was documented. Why do you want to censor it? If you disagree with the story, add a sentence which outlines the alternative view. DELETING CONTENT BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT IS PATHETIC. It also negatively impacts on peoples' confidence in wikipedia as an "unbiased" encyclopedia. -- anon, 14 Jul 2005.

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)

Peter Power's interviewed statement on BBC Radio 5 at 15.01, 07/07/2005. The widespread transcript of this interview, published on the web, has some inaccuracies which lead to semantic misinterpretation. To get a clear idea of what Power actually said and more importantly his intonation, please listen to the recording which has also been distributed widely across the web in mp3 format. While Power does use this opportunity for self promotional purposes, he also implies that this was a full simulation involving real life interaction of people on the ground, at or near the location of the explosions and at the time the explosions occurred. He further confirms this statement in a defensive and hostile standardized email response to enquiries. His original statement on Radio 5 that Visor's simulated exercise took place at the precise stations which the attacks then occurred and that his simulation involved multiple simultaneous explosions, was expressed partly out of shock (he admits to a fear induced "fight or flight" physical response of his neck hair standing on end) as well as a marketing tool to imply that his company can accurately predict and deal with realistic scenarios. As time passed and he appeared in further public interviews he seems to be distancing himself from this statement, possibly because he realized, or was advised that the proven statistical probability of what he claimed on Radio 5 is so mathematically improbable so as to only be interpreted as evidence of foreknowledge or culpable involvement by any independent observer or investigation. In a later ITN news interview, 20.11, 07/07/2005 Power states that Visor's client was instrumental in selecting the scenario and locations involved. This can be interpreted as further distancing himself and his company from investigation. In his email response he contradicts his original Radio 5 statement further, by claiming that only one of the scenario aspects bore a "very similar" relation to the actual events of 07/07/2005. One independent investigator has released a statistical analysis, which asserts that the probability of the Visor simulation coinciding with one of the real events at the correct location, within a time-scale of one hour (averaged by a 5 year mean) is 18,949,840 to 1. Therefore this highly unlikely simultaneous occurrence of Visor's artificial terrorism simulation and the actual bombings in London should be fully, transparently and publicly investigated to disprove related conspiracy theories and to broaden human understanding of statistical probability, quantum/chaos physics and their relation to real world events and coincidences.

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)

The probability was arrived at by using all 19 hours a day on days which the underground is open in a year and all 274 stations. If, as you suggest, we use a model of 3 hrs a working day (rush hour) then select 10 - 15 most likely target stations in the centre and also research an average yearly figure for professionally run, well pre-planned crisis management exercises involving actual walkthrough rehearsals taking place on the underground (post Madrid 3/11) I'm not sure the probability increases so much as to make this a non-issue. Perhaps someone could do the math for us all. If you want to travel down the road of Bayesian probability even further you could rationalise that a terror event was highly probable while the G8 was in the country, it was probable that major London underground station/s would be targeted and it was probable that 'suicide/remote bombers' would perpetrate the crime. You could argue that the probability was less than 20 to 1 if you rationalise far enough and surmise that it was only natural that Visor consultants should take this opportunity to test their system with a London client. In which case how was the bombing allowed to occur? Surely Power could have warned his friends in Scotland Yard about Visor's calculations? Surely they would have worked it out for themselves already? Unfortunately neither frequency probability derived from calculations alone nor Bayesian probability which takes other factors into account are entirely accurate systems. Even with the changes you have suggested I suspect that the statistical probabilty in question is still over a million to one and I would be happy if someone could calculate the figure for us. These coincidences occur too frequently and a full investigation into this case would reveal to us all whether they are the result of limited perception and pattern recognition, unavoidable synchronicities within the physics of the universe or of course evidence of a sinister worldwide bogey man conspiracy.

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)

Lee may well be correct. However what he is saying is vague supposition, exactly what conspiracy theorists feed on and contrary to the point of an encyclopædia. The conspiracy minded types out there have gathered empirical evidence which can be shown as proof to their theories and many of them can take this model of reality which they have built and explain it very succinctly to reinforce and spread their own beliefs. Peter Power should not have stated so confidently what he did so publicly. He has caused problems and he has not publicly offered proof that what he said was inaccurate. He has not tried directly to prove the conspiracy allegations wrong. This will only add weight to those allegations as will removing them from a public encylopædia. Now we have a chance to prove absolutely that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. With a full investigation which has conclusive findings and proven detailed scientific data. We may even learn to use statistical probability, synchronicity and coincidence to our advantage in order to predict and prevent terrorist attacks.

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)

That is your POV. The wikipedia pov is to report relevant facts. That is relvant. Why? Its was improbable. If it wherent, they would have warned for it. They did not. --Striver 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Here's an relevant link: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372 --Knut Arne Vedaa 12:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request

(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)

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)

Annon user: 81.86.80.55 deleted much of the above wif the comment
blah blah blah move along. nothing to see here.I don't believe that wikipedia should allow somebodies opinions.
Wikipedia does not POV in the main article but the talk page is were issules are hashed out so don't delete the conversations please.--JK the unwise 13:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Suicide Bombers?

(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)

Dear Dhartung: I agree that you are correct in using the 'official' version as encyclopedic for the time being, i.e.'suicide bombers'.

SNIP...Non-encyclopedic personal opinion removed from here by self (ChrisR)

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)

Wikipedia frontpage's "In the news" says "After a series of raids, British police announce their suspicion that the 7 July London bombings were suicide bombings carried out by four British citizens, three from the Leeds area and one from Aylesbury." which contradicts what is said in the "Possible suicide bombers" section and the therein reference article. ("Police have carefully refrained throughout the investigation from publicly using the term "suicide bomber," describing the four men only as bombing suspects. "We've never used the phrase 'suicide bombers'. We've always been aware that among the things we need to clarify is the notion these people intended to die as well as letting off a bomb," the spokesman said.") Which is correct? --Knut Arne Vedaa 12:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where this should go, but the following website has been investigating the matter of train timtables on 7/7: 7/7 IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE 'SUPPOSED' LONDON BOMBERS TO BE FILMED AT 7.22 AM AT LUTON STATION AND ALSO CATCH A TRAIN WHICH ARRIVED AT KINGS CROSS PRIOR TO BEING FILMED AT 8.26 AM [3]

Any comments?

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)

Not if I'm wearing my tinfoil hat. :) --Lee Hunter 12:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it better to to check the arguments for facts and flaws than to evade the burden of proof with ad hominem?
I have read the timetable anomaly too and didn't find any flaws. Perhaps there should be a section called 'Contradictions' as this seems to be a charachteristic feature of the topic.
Bruce Laits reports of explosives under the carriage belong there too. His statement is also corroborated by interviews done by Guardians Mark Honigsbaum as claimed by the website http://www.team8plus.org. The interview apparently later disappeared from Guardians site but a copy was saved and can be found here: http://www.officialconfusion.com/Audio/honigsbaum7705.mp3

"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)

Still searching?

Is this bit from the opening still true "emergency services are at the scene of the Underground blast in Kings Cross, searching for bodies." Surely they've recovered all the bodies by now, haven't they? --Lee Hunter 20:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

They have recovered a lot of the bodies from the Kings Cross/Russell Square location. The last I heard (a few days ago) they were still carefully searching the bombed carriage (and the one next to it) for clues and body parts. Especially under the carriages. They identified someone else a few days ago, and those two carriages are still in the tunnel as far as I know, though you would need to check up to date media sources (I did read that they have removed the bombed bus from Tavistock Square). Maybe change that sentence you pointed out, and put the emphasis on police searching for clues, rather than emergency services searching for bodies. There will be just police there now. --Carcharoth

Neo-Nazi connections

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)

Conspiracy

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)

http://www.edstrong.blog-city.com/london_bombings_conspiracy_theory.htm

--Striver 01:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Look att this and notice the part he admits they where there prepared for a exercie identical to what happend.

prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/120705exercises.html

Man, when i found out the same thing happened in 9/11, i was upplifted by my finding, but this time... its just sad...

And you know what the sadest part is? Not even wikipedia cares about it.

lets just tell ourselves that it one giant coincidans that in both event they where running exercises for exactly what happened. At the same day. And hour. And lets tell ourself that it not even worth reporting.

prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/160705web_of_deceit.html

--Motters 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think it's sad that this hasn't been reported, even on Wikipedia. Even if it is purely coincidental it does seem to me to be worthy of mention than a simulation exercise of the same nature was going on at the same time as the attacks.

--Striver 01:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, please see prior Talk on this topic as to why it wasn't included. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There always has to be a conspiracy, doesn't there? Any crackpot theory, especially one which blames a western government or company for every bad thing that happens in the world, is always preferable to the truth for some people. Adam 05:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, please don't keep inserting this material against consensus. It doesn't appear as if you've read the material above under "Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request". You should be carefull of the 3 revert rule-gadfium 06:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

While not particularly eloquently said, I feel he does have a point. The 'conspiracy theorists' as many like to call them (putting them all under the same umbrealla so you can singlehandedly dismiss all said on grounds of personality...), merely represent a movement of people who distrust official interpretations of events and evidence due to past examples of corruption, and attempt to draw their own conclusions instead, usually focusing on contradictory/ missing/altered evidence and testimony. It is not the job of wikipedia users to collectively silence them as if they were an insidious movement and bend over backwards to accept the official line. That's one of the main reasons a wiki is superior to a politicised major media news source, and should be kept that way. Of course this means you may get inflammatory statements from the far right and left, but as long as their statements represent relevant encyclopaedic information and/or valid POV, then it is up to the reader, not the authors, to decide which interpretation of events is correct and what can be ignored. The Visor consultants claim, for example, was sourced on 07/07 by BBC radio 5 and ITV news. The fact that you don't like 'conspiracy theorists' or dont personally believe what he says is not grounds to remove the links from the article. If you can source evidence to suggest he is lying/the claim is misleading then that should go into the article as well. Authors should be educators, not censors. (By the way the article currently sources 'CBS' news, when infact it was ITV and BBC radio 5, but the 'edit' link takes you to the wrong section so it can't be altered).

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. [4]. --Lee Hunter 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Somebody added:

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)

Why do you people keep censuring that factual info? Its clear pov to censure that fact!

--Striver 00:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is it normal for so many conspiracy theories to shoot up instantly following an event of this kind? the web response has been massive, centred around sites such as www.infowars.com and www.rense.com, also flooding the www.indymedia.org sites. Is there a precedent for this? Is it worth comment in 'media response' or are we only allowed to talk about corporate media on wiki these days?

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)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I am a conspiracy theorist so I look at these events from that viewpoint. If you're not looking for these things its easy not to see them as by definiton, conspiracies are designed to be secret. 1st question - why didn't this professional - contrast it with the July 21 bombings done by amateurs and ineffective - operation take place a week or 2 before the elections when they would have had the most impact? refer to the Madrid bombings and the success they had with their aim. Spain withdrew its troops. 2nd - Why are there no CCTV of the bus? There are 4 cameras on each double decker. 3rd Can you find a more unlikely selection of suicide bombers? Their behavior is much more believable as patsies who were hired to be a part of an exercise to carry these backbacks to various locactions. Can't one much more easily imagine a teachers aide of small children, married with an 8 mo old baby doing an odd job for extra cash than blowing himself up. Lindsay was also an expectant father. Of the 4 only Husain is barely believable. 4th What exactly is the evidence that connects these 4 to the apartment in Leeds? Where is the forensic evidence from the explosion sites that says what kind of explosives were used? Without the Egyptian Phd who had the knowledge to make bombs? Why are they now saying that Richard Reid the 'shoe bomber used TATP when all the reports at the time said he had c4 in his shoe? As to why would the British governmnt do this to their own people - besides th eheat from the Downing Street memo there is this:

08/22/05 "AP" -- -- LONDON - Almost three quarters of Britons are willing to give up some civil liberties in return for better security, according to a poll conducted since the deadly bombings on London’s transit system.

The ICM poll published on Monday in the Guardian newspaper showed that 73 percent of respondents backed the trade off, with only 17 percent rejecting it outright. The results suggest the British public largely backs a range of anti-terror measures proposed by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government, including a new offense of inciting terrorism and deporting radical clerics who glorify acts of violence. Conspiracy theory factoid - It is just a coincidence that the head of London Transport – the British government body that runs the Tube is Commisioner Robert Kiley. Here is some of his resume Robert Kiley has consulted with corporations and public agencies at the Management Analysis Center (now Cap Gemini) then headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the 1970s he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston and served as Deputy Mayor of the City of Boston.

Early in his career, he was with the CIA, where he served as Manager of Intelligence Operations and then as Executive Assistant to the Director.

Robert Kiley is a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Board Member of the Salzburg International Seminar, the American Repertory Theater, MONY Group Inc, the Princeton Review Inc and Edison Schools, Inc. He is also on the Advisory Board of the Harvard University Center for State and Local Government.

Article name

In the midst of all the chaos on the 7th the article name got changed several times. At one point I moved it to its current name and said that we should leave it here for the time being until the dust starts to settle. At that point we can have a discussion about where it will be best located.

As its fair to say that the dust has at least started to settle, and the news isn't pouring in so fast as to prohibit reflection, now seems like as good a time as any to have the discussion. For my part, I'm happy with the current name as "London bombings" appears to be the name everyone I've spoken to irl and from the websites I've seen, is using to refer to the attacks. The date makes it clear which bombings we're talking about as the IRA made a good job of ensuring these were not the first, and although I hope I'm wrong, I would not be suprised if these were not the last. Thryduulf 13:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The name's fine as it is, in my opinion. -- Arwel 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've noted previously, the name is fine. There's a trend on Wikipedia toward this type of naming for terrorist attacks. It has the advantages of being concise, precise, factual, and unambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine, too, especially since there is now a second London bombing just two weeks after this. -- shou 21 July 2005

POV-a-gogo

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)

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)

Who cares about Kings Cross St. Pancras?

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)

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)

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)

Ref and Note templates

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

The bolded header: "Bomb attacks"

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)

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)

Suicide bombings

User:Jeronim amended the article to say that police are not claiming these as suicide bombings. From a recent statement by the Metropolitan Police Service:

"After continued forensic work we now believe we have identified the four men who travelled from Luton and were later seen on CCTV at King's Cross shortly before 8:30am on Thursday 7th July.

"We can now confirm the identity of a third man who travelled from West Yorkshire and who died in the explosion at Edgware Road. He was Mohammed Sidique Khan, aged 30. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

"We can also now confirm the identity of a fourth man who arrived in London with the three men from West Yorkshire and then died in the explosion between King's Cross and Russell Square underground stations. He was Germaine Lindsay, aged 19. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

"We have previously named Hasib Hussain, aged 18, who died in the explosion on the bus in Tavistock Square, and Shahzad Tanweer, aged 22, who died in the explosion at Aldgate. We believe that they were responsible for carrying out these respective attacks."

I think that is pretty clear that the police believe that these were all deliberate explosions (not accidents happening to bomb-carriers) and that the protagonists died in their own attacks. Whether they expected to die is ultimately unknowable, but it is very hard to believe that somebody would explode a bomb in a 12ft diameter tunnel 100ft underground and expect to live. Whilst it may be technically correct that the police have not used the words suicide bomber, I think the change is more misleading than helpful. I have therefore reverted it. -- Chris j wood 12:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is it misleading to point out that the police have not claimed something? As for expecting to die, yes, they would have expected to die if they believed that they would be close enough to the bombs when they detonated. It's not for Wikipedia to decide whether they believed this or not. Accordingly, I will amend the article to report the known facts and leave the reader to decide what the bombers believed. -- Jeronim 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the way it now reads, it sounds as if we (ie. wikipedia) are alleging that the world's media is incompetent, and that the police think this may have been some quite different sort of attack (eg. timers on abandoned parcels, like Madrid). And that is to completely mistate the case. As you will see from my quote above, the police clearly do believe that this was an attack by what are, in normal conversation, called suicide bombers. The police themselves will, of course, never use that term in formal communications, because it does not meet their style and usage of language, which is conditioned by the need to be very precise and pedantic and not to prejudice any future court cases.

It is arguable that wikipedia also needs to be precise and pedantic, but not to the extent that we let that very preciseness confuse the average reader, which I contend is what the current wording in the intro paragraph does. You will note that I did not change your assertion on what the police have stated in the substantive investigation section, where it is in context and appropriate.

I'm not entirely sure what to do next. I still believe the intro para wording as it stands makes wikipedia look silly, by appearing to assert something that the whole world now knows not to be true. But I don't want to get into a reversion war. Any other editors out there have an opinion?. -- Chris j wood 16:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had another look at the intro para. I've reworked so as to essentially keep Jeronim's wording, but put it into context by moving it to after the existing statement about the bombers being identified and killed. I hope this resolves the issue. -- Chris j wood 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from the quotation you gave, I see no clear belief on the part of the police that it's a suicide bombing, i.e. that the bombers expected to die. It would seem that you are making some assumption that I am not. It's entirely possible that the bombers expected to have time to escape before detonation, and nothing the police said rules this out. For the article to suggest otherwise is misleading. -- Jeronim 06:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Simulation Exercise conspiracy

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)

Perhaps this is conspiracy too: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

"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.

I don't know how things work here in Wikipedia, but i think it is an important history that needs a lot of clarification. I believe that until the British Goverment makes an official statement regarding what exactly was that terror exercice, the information should be kept somewhere in this article. More so, i believe that the comment "aggregator of anti-globalist opinion on bombings", regarding Prison Planet is highly discriminatory. There is no "anti-globalist" opinion about the bombs over that website. There is just information that the main stream media won't give much attention.

Historical comparison

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. [5] -- Arwel 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removed para from intro section

I have removed the following para from the intro section:

The bombings resulted in a questioning of the policies of the United Kingdom, traditionally tolerant and protective of radical Islam figures, up to the point that some had nickamed London "Londonistan".

I have done this because:

• The intro section is supposed to provide an intro and summary of the article following, yet I can see no reference to this questioning elsewhere in the article.

• There are no references cited for this questioning

• As someone living only 30 miles from the bomb sites, I've seen no sign of any significant change in attitude.

-- Chris j wood 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well. Major newspapers (NYTimes etc.) called these policies into question, whereas in the past this was only the case of that of countries to which extradition of terror suspects living in London was denied. As far as I understand it, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced a series of anti-terrorist measures that would enable, for instance, to prosecute or expel priests that advocated violence. Etc. To me, this indicate a change of attitude at the level of politicians and the international press. David.Monniaux 17:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

These messures are all in a similar vain to stuff Blair was trying to do before (I.D cards, religious hatrid bill, varrious terrorism acts) so I don't think there was any real change of thinking from Blair. As for crisim of UK libreal freedoms from the press I think this is correct to an extent as many American and UK and other papers have gone with this but it is not the case that this 'questioning' has been universal for example The Gaurdian has had articles saying we should not give up our freedoms in face of terrorrist atrocities (kind of thing). As for the public at large I'm not sure, I think its split. One thing to note is that 3/4 of the UK public link the attacks on London with the attacks on Iraq so prehaps it would be aprropreate to say that the attacks have lead to questioning of UK forien policy. --JK the unwise 17:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we cannot reduce that to a question of civil liberties. Let us take for instance the question of the extradition of Rachid Ramda: independently of the legal challenges before British courts (alleging that the suspect risks torture in France, or whatever), many saw in the various delays some unwillingness of the British executive to extradite suspects.

There are thus several questions: whether or not some more "intrusive" measures are desirable; whether granting visas (which is an arbitrary power) to priests preaching hatred is wise; and whether the executive should try to speed things up with respect to extraditions.

Of course, some of these questions may not have yet reached the British public. Still, I noted, when I was in Edinburgh just after the attacks, that the British press titled that the British government asked France to "hand over" (I supposed they meant "extradite promptly") some suspects of the attack. Undoubtedly, if such extraditions are requested, there will be a debate why it takes more than 10 years for the UK to extradite one person for bombings in the country next door, while the UK requests fast extradition. Already, there are major newspapers publishing opinion pages accusing the British government of "cynicism" on that issue.

So, yes, I think that this is worth mentioning, for it will probably have a lot of impact on the collaboration that the UK can expect from other countries. David.Monniaux 17:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem with you mentioning it in the article, so long as it is backed up by reasonable references. I don't think it merits a para in the intro section unless you can first work it up into a reasonable (say 4 to 5 para section) in the body of the article, and then summarise that. -- Chris j wood 17:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur that there has not been any great change in attitudes Re: Muslims in the UK. There has only perhaps been a slight reinforcement of existing attitudes. Those who thought of them as 'The Enemy Within' and were wary of them, now are saying 'We told you so', but those with a more optimistic attitude are perhaps hoping that the indigenous Brits and Muslims can 'sieze the moment' and draw a little closer at the expense of people with extreme views from both ends of the spectrum. The indigenous Brits are generally finding the mass Muslim outrage and condemnation of the bombings (their slogan seems to be 'Not in MY Name') impressive, given that the extremists know where they all live, and hopefully the Muslims are encouraged by the fact that the Brit's reaction seems to have been very muted. We have not unleashed a 'Kristalnacht' against them - but seem to be taking the line 'Let's wait and see what they come up with'. The only hardening of attitudes seems to be the desire to increase the efficiency with which we remove identified extremists from the UK, but it seems that the vast majority of the UK's Muslim population would be very glad to see the back of them too. Do, let's wait and see..... ChrisR

ChrisR, could you use the standard signature style, please? It's four tildes, or just use the second-from-the-right icon, assuming you have a recent browser. Indents would be helpful as well.

Anyway, the "questioning" of British policy that I see is coming from the neo-con right in the US, which has long criticized that anyway, so there isn't any "new" questioning -- just a better excuse for the questioning they were already doing. Attributed so banally it's a weasel-word addition and we don't need more of that. If there are specific analyses mentioning this issue, they can go in the Response article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

De Chris R: OK Dear Dhartung, sorry for not using correct protocol. Nothing 'sinister' intended...I'm not a 'computer person'...just a layman commentator. I'll try the tildes next time. Genuine thanks for the guidance. ChrisR (chris.redding@g4pdj.freeserve.co.uk)

TOC

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)

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)

Pictures of bombers

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)

You are looking at the wrong article. See 21 July 2005 London bombings. Cheers, smoddy 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Emergency numbers

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)

Recovery work & current tag

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)

President of Pakistan

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)

Bomb was underneath a train?

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)

Similarities and Differences

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)

Google

Perhaps there could be a chart of Redirects like is used for the Madrid Bombing to help get Google users to the right place a bit more efficiently. AlMac|^(talk) 23:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, it'll be a bit of a task but I don't see why not. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Police admit that it was a suicide bombing

On "Sunday with Adam Boulton" on Sky News, Sir Ian Blair confirmed that "we have terrorists using suicide as a weapon". See the [transcript] for more information. Should/could the page be updated appropriately?

Yes. I have done so. -- Chris j wood 11:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As the original 'raiser of doubt', I now feel that my suspicions about whether the attacks were 'intentional' suicide bombings were probably wrong. The July 21st bombers were quite happy to stand there as the detonators exploded, and seemed more 'disappointed' than anything else when the main charges didn't detonate. I am still puzzled as to why the July 7th bombers bought return tickets, and why they didn't die with the words 'Allah is Great' on their lips as required by the tradition of Muslim martyrdom, but this is England and not Israel/Palestine. Maybe things are different here. ChrisR (28JUL05) p.s. We need more Muslims to contribute to this forum, in the interests of understanding and impartiality. As an British/Irish catholic (small 'c' intentional), I know that understanding something is not the same as condoning it. For example, I know a Jewish amateur historian, who understands - and can describe in chilling, lucid, almost convincing logic - the motives behind the holocaust.

While I agree that the 7th bombers were almost definitely intentional suicide, I'm not sure it's actually been confirmed by the police. The quote above could be in reference to the failed bombers of the 21st, who were obviously suicide bombers. Additionally, the recent release of photos of the bombs found in the car in Luton cast further confusion - why did they make all these bombs when they knew they weren't going to use them? It's extremely strange, but the simplist explanation is still that they intentionally suicided.

possibly affiliated with al-Qaeda.

possibly affiliated with al-Qaeda. No one knows that for sure. If you're going to list possible affiliations you'll have to start a new article. Someone please remove this ridicilous statement. --Uncle Bungle 22:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely a ridiculous and baseless statement. And for whatever reason my edits balancing these 'official' nonsensical statements of the British government, are being removed, despite the fact that they are agreed upon by several journalists from the BBC and the London Independent, as well as the Guardian, and dozens of others. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Al Qaeda was involved, except for extremely vague and empty speculation.

In the immediate aftermath of any incident, especially where multiple differnt groups claiming responsibility, or none so claiming, the authorities tend to make some assumptions who may be responsible, to help give direction to investigative resources. We now know the Oklahoma City bombing was by a domestic group in the USA, who held it on the anniversary of Waco Texas, deliberately, not by accident. But in the early days, the initial reaction of US authorities were that this must be Islamist terrorists, because they had been responsible for all other recent attacks on US property and people. AlMac|^(talk) 05:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

- How exactly is adding extra information, valid information, which represents a rather large portion of the opinions of the population and journalists, is 'vandalism'. If it is merely that it disagrees with your viewpoint, that is extremely POV, and not called for on wikipedia.

abakharev 04:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Would it be all right, if we will create an article 7 July 2005 London bombings: Alternative and conspiracy theories, urban legends and put all this staff there?

No, because these ideas are not 'conspiracy theories', nor are they some kind of fringe information. They are held by a very large percentage of the populations of Britan and America, as polls show. Shouldn't a separate article be created, in this case, regarding the conspiracy theory that 'al Qaeda was involved', based on nothing but an internet posting.

In the beginning of the main article we could put something like "The material of the article is based on official investigation recognised by British government. For alternative theories see 7 July 2005 London bombings: Alternative and conspiracy theories, urban legends?

There is nothing 'urban legend' about it, though. The British government has been caught doing this before, and they are merely doing it again. Why don't you investigate it for yourself. Your argument that this is a 'conspiracy theory' makes no sense and is based on a reaction, and not on any evidence. This is not acceptable journalism. Sorry.

The external link that 24.224.207.234 (talk · contribs) continues to add (www.prisonplanet.com/archives/london/index.htm]) is hardly a reliable source. If people want to add alternative theories, then please clearly label them as such. Theories masquerading as fact will be removed from the article until reliable sources can be provided. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, theories masquerading as fact, such as the absurd al qaeda conspiracy theories of the British government, should certainly be removed from the article. Did you even click on a single link on the prisonplanet archive? It is a collection of a few key mainstream articles that point out inconsistencies in the official story. What, exactly, is your perception of 'reliability', and why should it be a standard which we should all follow? Do you seriously find Tony Blair to be a 'reliable source'? You have got to be kidding me. Get your sources correct. This article is full of conspiracy theories told on television that are not very well-evidenced, and are merely here because the British Labour government pretends that they are 'true'.

Verifiability and the neutral point of view are central policies of Wikipedia. The site that you linked to consists of articles written by the people who operate the site, and they do not provide any actual, real evidence to support their theories. They may be popular theories, or interesting theories, but they are still theories. I suggest you read these policies and then find some sources before you add those theories again.

Reversion is not an endorsement of all content in the previous version. --bainer (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Response Legislation Requested

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)

July 2005 London bombings article

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)

Police shot bombers in Canary Wharf ?

'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)

Okay, I don't know. "and despite a clear denial from the Met deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick at 3 pm that afternoon" Please, a link demonstrate this fact.

I saw him deny it, live, in a tv press conference. -- Arwel 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

On Sky TV ?

BBC News 24, but I expect all the UK news networks were showing it. -- Arwel 22:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

New report on the use of mobile phones as timers

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)

Currency fell 6% in 10 days before London terror attacks

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)

But before, yes: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/currency/11/12/three_month.stm 213.36.3.71 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theorist has added "the CIA funded" to a sentence about Al Qaeda. I don't know the correct edit protocol for defacement, so I'll leave it to someone else. Tom 128.232.235.32 20:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Luton cell

in the luton cell part of this article it says that US secretary of homeland security tom ridge let it slip about the luton cell, however tom ridge had not been the us secretary of homeland security since january 2005?

Piccadilly Line trains

This page is not up to date with the latest information. See the BBC report:

GARY STEVENS, DUTY MANAGER AT RUSSELL SQUARE TUBE STATION

I was meant to start work at 0900 that morning. I woke up early, I couldn't sleep, so I decided to start work early. If I'd have gone in at the normal time I'd have been on the affected train, train 3/11, and I would have been in the first car. I use that carriage every day to exit the station...

I was in my office at work, and at 0854 all the lights flickered in the office... we went down to the platform, couldn't see anything at all, when we noticed there was a light in the tunnel.

We hung on to see what it was and it was the driver of train 3/11 with about 30 or 40 injured customers, who had managed to get out and he led them down the tunnel. Some of them had quite serious head injuries, clothes blown off, things like that...

It will be a very emotional day, but I think that it's a good thing that everybody's attending, to pay our respects to the unfortunate who were lost in that day, also the ones that were injured, and basically to draw a line under it and try and move on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4395456.stm

Please base reversions on knowledge, not ignorance.