7/7
Witness: Bus Was Diverted To Tavistock Sq. By Two Unmarked Cars Soon to be published account will detail
the plot and cover up of the number 30 bus bombing
Steve Watson Infowars.net
Monday, December 11, 2006
A soon to be published narrative of the number 30
bus bombing on 7/7 in London claims that the Hackney bus was diverted
to Tavistock Square by two unmarked cars which then left the scene
at high speed after the drivers had conversed with police in the
area.
The witness, named "Daniel", has a blog
here and a website here.
He states:
I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that
was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report
the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards
Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement
what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment.
My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th
Bomb (as yet unpublished)
The number 30 bus was diverted away from its usual
route along Euston road on the morning of 7/7, reportedly because
of road closures in the Kings Cross area (due to the earlier tube
bombings). We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at
Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus usually travels
down that road. This footage can be seen in Alex Jones' latest
film Terrorstorm.
"Daniel" goes on to comment:
Standing by the doors I see a blue BMW 5 series and black
Mercedes squeal to a halt in front of the bus, halting its progress
along Euston Road. 4 minutes passed then a police motorcyclist
arrived at the blockage. The BMW driver said something to the
cyclist who soon sped off. 90 seconds later the BMW suddenly
drives off. The Mercedes waits till the bus diverts east into
Upper Woburn Place towards Tavistock Square before it speeds
away.
After very slow progress the driver suddenly opens the
buses central exit doors while keeping the front doors shut,
right on the corner of Upper Woburn Place some 80 meters away
from the only bus stop in Tavistock Square (seen here). Many
passengers got off at this point because of the delay and it
was heading in the wrong direction.
Were these cars unmarked police vehicles? If so
what were they doing diverting traffic? Surely that would have
been the job of the traffic police.
Daniel then states:
A deep boom resounded. Shattered glass flew
everywhere. It was followed by an eery silence. I scrambled up
off the bus floor and leapt out going along the pavement at full
pelt. But over the following days and weeks the relief I felt
turned to exasperation at the increasingly menacing tactics the
operatives' trailing and observing me employed, confirming my
worst suspicions, for some reason I was embroiled in the largest
criminal investigation in UK history.
He suggests that he can be seen in video footage
of the aftermath, which he has posted on his website, and also
claims that in the immediate seconds after the blast, a man dressed
all in black was filming him with a hand held camera.
Daniel also still has the shirt that he was wearing
on the day, which was splattered with the blood of victims. He
says the police have never requested it for forensics investigation,
despite having questioned him.
He also states that there was never any Asian looking
male on the lower deck after he bus left Euston terminal. Reports
attributed to 61 year-old Richard Jones claimed there was. Investigators
conveniently relocated his sighting to the upper deck in their
official May 2006 report.
Daniel says "It was just me, the driver plus
four females on the lower deck as it edged down Tavistock Square."
After attempting to report what he saw, Daniel was
asked to call an emergency hotline, which he did. instead of asking
him to go to the police station to make a statement he claims
he was subjected to a program of surveillance and harassment by
the police:
By September 2005 I had began receiving a string of strange
phone calls which became increasingly sinister. Friends advised
me to record them where possible as evidence in case I needed
to bring an IPCC complaint.
After the blast I was alert enough to be out of there in
seconds. Yet investigators chose to rely on 4 female witnesses,
one who was out cold for 15 minutes and was extracted from the
wreck onto a trolley by medics (taking care not to move her
neck) another one upstairs who woke up in a daze and two others
who told a nurse treating them at UCH they thought I had been
the bomber!"
6 months and 3 weeks after July 7th I'm asked
to attend a police station in North London to provide a statement.
Police questioned Daniel for 4 hours, a clip of
the interview is on his website. they asked him to him mark points
where he thought people were on a diagram of the bus layout that
was totally wrong, which he believed would render his statement
inadmissible.
He claims he was then followed around by the same
three operatives from Enfield Town Police Station, North London,
for the following six months, saying that the surveillance was
more overt than covert, they were letting him know that he was
being watched 24-7.
He also received calls from police apparently attempting
to tie him to vehicles and a business in the Leeds area, the same
place the alleged bomber originated from. One of these phone calls
is posted on his site and can be heard by clicking here.
He goes on to comment:
I realised the magnitude of what I'd seen
almost instantly. The operative's menacing tactics only made it
undeniable. Over the months of surveillance and harassment they
seemed intent on messing up my life, keeping me looking behind
my back. I awaited the release of the 'official version' with
some interest especially with regards to the 4th bomb in Tavistock
Square. The report was generally vague, devoid of any facts consisting
of speculation based upon what I knew to be blatant falsehoods.
Of course the presence of unmarked cars and the
claims that they stopped the bus cannot be verified because the
vehicle's CCTV cameras were conveniently not
working that day.
One week after the attack we put out a report, after
receiving an email from an
employee of Stagecoach, the company that owns the
London Buses, stating that he believed the bus bombing to be very
suspicious.
Our contact works a route roughly one mile from
the site of the bus bombing, he stated:
CCTV gets maintained at least 2 or 3 times a week and can
digitally store up to 2 whole weeks worth of footage. this is
done by a private contractor....So when I heard that the CCTV
wasn't working on a vehicle that's no more than 2 years old
since last June.....I'm sorry that's rubbish, I work for the
company I know different.
Last saturday a contractor came to inspect the CCTV on
the buses at the depot, According to my supervisor the person
spent more than 20 hours over that weekend, 20 hours to see
if the CCTV is working? Also that person who came was not a
regular contractor, for security reasons the same few people
always come to the depot to carry out work, this time it was
different.
Drivers in the depot already think the so
called bombers had inside help because it was to organised. Some
even think it had help from the company.
Exactly why the bus would be re-routed to Tavistock Square purposefully
is up for debate. Some have suggested that the location is convenient
given that the British Medical Association is located there, whilst
others have attempted to connect the company Fortress
GB, railway security management specialists who are
often contracted for security projects for London Transport.
In the upcoming book, entitled The 4th Bomb,
the witness Daniel also suggests that the follow up "failed
bombings" may have been a cover operation to distract police
and special investigators:
The logic for the ‘failed suicide attacks’
and the authorities seemingly haphazard yet iron-fisted response
didn’t become apparent to me until late January 2006, some
time after my interrogation with an Anti-Terrorist branch detective.
It was something he alluded to in passing, that the attacks on
21:7 had thrown awry a carefully laid ‘operational response’
to 7:7.
He led me to realise that although the attacks were devoid
of explosions, they achieved their primary objective, which
was to upset the Anti-Terror investigation, mess-up MI5 and
put more pressure on the unsustainable 'symbolic' levels of
policing in the period of 'vigilance' following 7:7.
.....the intelligence services were totally UN-aware of
those responsible for the ‘failed suicide attacks’.
A term that would more accurately describe them is ‘successful
dummy attacks', but a dummy attack on whom exactly… London’s
already terrified public?
No, this was an attack aimed squarely at Military
Intelligence themselves.
Executed by an ad-hoc bunch of sympathisers.
Daniel then suggests that his research and experience have led
him to believe that the execution of Jean Charles De Menezes the
day after the dummy attacks was carried out by KRATOS
trained operatives in order to send a strong signal to would be
copy cats.
We will continue to track this story, the publication of the
book and report any further updates.
Email
