Thursday, July 21, 2005

Was Bus Bomber Really Hasib Hussain?

Eyewitness accounts of a bomber aboard the London bus which was blasted on 7/7/'05 are strangely at variance with each other and with CCTV evidence.

First the question of the description of the man:
BUS blast survivor Richard Jones yesterday revealed how he came face-to-face with one of the London bombers. The Scots IT expert got off the doomed double-decker just seconds before it was torn apart in an explosion that killed 13 passengers.

He said the bomber was around 6ft tall, in his mid-twenties, clean-shaven and smartly dressed. The man was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear, and a matching jersey-style top.

'The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top... He was standing with his back to me downstairs at the driver's side, which is exactly where the explosion was... The noise was unbelievable. I served an apprenticeship in an explosives factory in Ayrshire so I knew what it was.' [Source]
Does that sound like the blue-jeaned, unshaven, rather drably-dressed Hasib Hussain?

How about this description -again by Jones:
"He described the man as being about 6-feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing tight, light brown trousers and a light brown top." [Source]
Not really compatible with the CCTV evidence, is it?

As the Scotsman newspaper reported:
"CCTV pictures show him at Luton station at 7:20am. Casually dressed in jeans and a jacket, like any ordinary teenager, he was unlikely to attract attention from busy commuters on the Thameslink train..." [Source]
Then there's the issue of the bag/haversack:
CHARLES GIBSON ABC News: "Could you tell what he was doing with the bag, Mr. Jones?

RICHARD JONES: "Not really. It was a - obviously, a small bag. It didn't go beyond the width of his ankles." [Source]
A "small bag"?

Hussain has a hulking great haversack in the CCTV image.

Finally, the question of exactly where on the bus the bomber was:
Terence Mutasa, 27, a staff nurse at University College hospital, said: "I treated two girls in their 20s who were involved in the bus bomb. They were saying some guy came and sat down and that he exploded. The girls received minor injuries and were in shock and distressed. They said the guy just sat down and the explosion happened. They thought it was a suicide bomber." [Source]
Which seems at variance with Richard Jones' account above.

This bus bombing may well be a vital key to unlocking the real events.

Enlarge

See Also:

London Bombers-
Did They Board at Luton?



[Via Team8+]

8 Comments:

Blogger Sangroncito said...

I love the little cartoon in the corner!

5:39 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Richard Jones really see the bomber? He was downstairs. No standing is allowed upstairs on doubledeckers. The driver will stop the bus if anyone stands up there. The location of the bomb is said to be upstairs at the back.

5:44 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asquith had always been expecting an odd day. The quietly spoken, fair-haired 34-year-old is based at South Norwood police station, in a leafy corner of Croydon - the kind of place where an officer, if he arrests someone in possession of a gun, is liable to face joking accusations in the canteen that he planted it himself, to make his work seem more exciting. But on the day the bombers struck, 1,500 central London officers were in Scotland, policing the G8. So just before 9am, Asquith and six of his colleagues found themselves in a police minibus, heading for the centre to help make up the difference. That was when the call came through. The instruction was simple: get to King's Cross.

"At this point, we weren't aware that there had been any bombs whatsoever," says Rob Spry, Asquith's sergeant that day. They arrived at the station to find people streaming across the flagstones, blank-faced and blackened with soot. Spry tried to get his officers to fan out and form a filter cordon, a standard crowd-control tactic that he hoped to use to channel the injured towards the ambulances that were starting to arrive. But the emerging passengers kept approaching him and his men and women, gesturing back down the stairs. "There's more people down there!" Spry remembers them saying, again and again. "There's more people down there!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1532951,00.html

Just before 9am orders to go to King's Cross!
And from Croydon? Croydon is a long way south.

7:33 am  
Blogger nascarblue said...

I believe your right about the 'bus being key.' I have a feeling that the state-sponsored bombing hit a wrinkle with the bus. The timing(40 mins after the timer bombs), the location(Tavistock Institute), etc. If you remember, the initial reports from the scene said there were two bus bombs.

11:18 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that the chap who was fiddling with his knapsack and getting more and more frustrated was a guy who realized that he'd been set up and was heroically trying to disarm the bomb he'd been saddled with. Most of us would've peeled it off and run for our lives without a thought for the innocent victims that were going to die on the crowded bus (anyone reading this who's been in a life or death situation like this will realize how true this is), but this fellow was trying to disarm it and it cost him his life. How ironic (and tragic) that he's being depicted as a "terrorist", when the bad guys are likely some of the most "respectable' people in our society!

9:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'The Guardian' article is severely flawed. I know the area South Norwood. It is one of the most densely populated working-class areas in Europe: 'leafy suburb' my fat English arse! I suspect the cops there are very busy with real crime, including guns. The journalist doesn't know what he's writing about.

To get to King's Cross from South Norwood needs an hour by trains, in normal conditions. Trains would be the fastest transport. By road, King's Cross is over 15 miles of driving through London in a city where you can barely get 10 miles in an hour starting at 9am. The article is another proof of the proposition that whenever you read an article about a place, person or topic you know well, it always contains egregious, lazy, gratuitous errors.

'The Guardian', by the way, is a complete disgrace. It trades on a reputation for liberalism and fools my friends into thinking it is in some way different to the conservative rags. In fact, it is just part of the free press and democracy illusion. I believe it enjoys excellent relations with the Blair gang.

11:16 am  
Blogger nascarblue said...

I agree. I've been pretty disappointed in the Guardian lately. The Independant surprises me some times.

8:52 am  
Blogger irishdrifter said...

nascar try independEnt!

6:59 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home