A charlatane called Rachel North (Rachel McFadyen) who runs a suspicious blog called "Rachel From North London" has made a lot of money and publicity out of claiming to have been on the carriage bombed on the 7th July 2005. BUT why has she always been so fit and well? How has she heartlessly made so much money and created so much publicity when no one else has wanted to? Why does she specialise in false accusations? Who can back up her claims? What is the TRUTH? Is her story a SCAM?

Friday, 4 July 2008

An experiment conducted.


Two of our contributors have conducted an experiment. We conferred with them by mobile throughout except while they were on tube trains.

We have made a number of discoveries.

During the course of this experiment condcuted yesterday our contributors boarded the Piccadilly line tube and other tubes a total of eleven times, to establish facts.

A timer was used.

We find that most of the tunnel between Kings Cross and Russel Square is narrow. There are five short breaks where the tunnel is wide enough to for people to pass through the tunnel past a whole train, or exit down a ladder from a train. These short breaks occur around the central point of the tunnel to the best of our understanding.

We find that the train carriages on the Piccadilly lines are significantly longer and larger than the tube trains on the Circle or Victoria lines. They are twice as long. There is ample room to move about at most times and some room at rush hour. (There is no guarantee that these trains were around in 2005. We have not looked at this point yet.)

We observed and tested the emergency doors at each end of the carriages. All of the doors are easily opened and contain a long window that is easily smashed. Both acts permit the passenger to pass through to the next carriage with ease. It is not necessary to smash the door windows in order to use the emergency doors. They are very simple to use. They open as easily as a toilet or buffet door in an overground train.


We conclude that:

Rachel will not have had time while the train was resting at Finsbury Park to try and mount the middle carriage, give up, then try the other carriages and then end up mounting carrige 1. For the Piccadilly line tube train carriages to have been full to bursting to the point that Rachel North found that it was impossible to squeeze onto the middle train carriage or even any other train carriage except carriage 1, the station at Finsbury Park must have been very full. A great crowd of commuters. In our opinion such a huge gathering will have prevented Rachel from concluding that there was no room on the middle tube carriage before making her way up to carriage 1 while the train was resting at the station. Doing so would have taken her around ten minutes in the crowd.

It is possible that the train stopped at a narrow juncture because most of the tunnel is narrow. Some of it is not. We estimate that the accused terrorist Lindsay would probably (possibly) have calculated on a narrow juncture before setting off his bomb.

The tunnel walls are visible at all times.

We believe that after the bomb went off and the train ground to a halt, that it is very probable that passengers in the carriages behind carriage 1. opened the emergency doors at the end of their carriages and tried to make their way through the other carriages towards carriage 1. Their carriage doors were not bombed and they will have achieved this with ease.

We estimate that if the windows of the carriages were smashed that the train was either at one of the brief wider junctures, so that passengers thought that they could get out, or windows were smashed for ventilation, or smashed in panic. Panic and breaking out is the least likely explanation if the part of the tunnel was narrow. Ventilation is a less likely explanation for smashed windows nearer the back.

There can be no doubt that many passengers made their way to the top of the train and passed through carriage 1, the bombed carriage, then made their way to Russel Square. We refer to the barrister who is witness to this and repeat the quote from our previous posting:

" But I survived, as did everyone else, and finally, after about thirty minutes or so, people started to leave the carriage, and to their credit, in a very controlled manner. But as I exited, I saw people’s belongings scattered all over the place. People were physically injured, and the carriage windows were all smashed. "

Angelo exited the train and saw that people from the carriages all the way up to carriage 1. had been smashing their way out and leaving their belongings in their rush to escape. He is observing this on his way up towards the bombed carriage, carriage 1. It is unclear whether he walked up through the train towards carriage 1. or whether he walked along the tracks.
He says:

"ANGELO POWER: The others I saw, physical injuries, some had marks to the face. The carriage windows had punctured their skin. Others were physically lying on the floor, because they basically suffered smoke inhalation. Others in the main carriage, as I understand, are severely injured, if not dead. So, but at the end of the day, I honestly thought I was going to die. I’m just grateful to be alive."

We conclude that it is likely that passengers from carriages behind carriage 1 made their way up the train like Angelo Power and that some of them passed through carriage 1 and the surrounding area. We believe that many understandably did this including Rachel North.

We do not know why the barrister waited before moving off himself. He says he did. He was at the back of the train which will have made it slow for him. He knows about the law and police practice and may have been waiting for police to come first. He might have thought that it was his job to stay and calm people.

Angelo Power who said he was sitting at the back of the train when the bomb went off would seem to have seen the bombed carriage at the front of the train, or a carriage very near it. He says:

The others I saw, physical injuries, some had marks to the face. The carriage windows had punctured their skin. Others were physically lying on the floor, because they basically suffered smoke inhalation.

There is a lot that has not yet been explained to the public.

We find it very sad that so many people left the suffering in carriage 1 where they were, on their own.

A reader has just sent us a link showing that the long large tube train carriages were in use in 2001 on the Piccaddily line. From then on, presumably. We provide the link which has been sent us.

This is a picture showing half the length of the long tube carriages on the Piccadilly line. Rachel could have said that she was right at one end, as far away from the bomber Lindsay as possible, and we might have believed her. But she continues to state that he was "seven or eight feet behind her " when he detonated the bomb which everyone knows smashed the whole of carriage 1. apart causing terrible injury and death the whole length of the carriage. "Seven feet", that's 2.13 metres. We provide the metric calculation via this link.


Were any pictures of the detonated Piccadilly line train carriage ever shown to the public? If not, why not?

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another embarrassment for the police

socky wocky said...

A very interesting link for your perusal.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/7/london_subway_and_bus_explosions_kill

never in that carriage said...

Thankyou for your interesting link. We will put all comments through except obviously nutty ones. Please don't sign yourself 'socky wocky' as it implies that are commenters are sock puppets rather than interested readers. Check the timing of the comments and you will see that there are no sock puppets here. Our posts make our points well and comments are not essential but they are helpful.

Anonymous said...

Why did you delete my comment? I said that Rachel's dad was making a show and collapsing in front of other clergy to get sympathy for himself when really he should be glad his daughter escaped a bomb. He looks like a religious extremist to me!

Who are the nutty comments?

never in that carriage said...

We have received comments from Rachel's Internet people. We will not be publishing these because they persistently impersonate survivors of various disasters. They have been sending comments containing links that refer to mail order catalogues where they claim they've been buying make up which they claim that they use to cover their scars.

We have explained that it is July 7 we are interested in not their stories about falling off motorbikes and down montainsides. Also, there is no evidence that Rachel is wearing make up to cover significant scars which she visibly does not have.

commenter x said...

anon 2 said

I said that Rachel's dad was making a show and collapsing in front of other clergy to get sympathy for himself when really he should be glad his daughter escaped a bomb.

Did Canon M collapse with dismay when his daughter turned up at the catherdral door and said ' Daddy! I've just survived a bomb!'

There are always alternative explanations.....!

never in that carriage said...

Can people take that discussion to the Richard and Judy post comments box please.

Anonymous said...

The tube trains with the long carriages were around in 2001

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/london2001/september2001/15sep2001a/index.html

Well done

Anonymous said...

Neat!

Anonymous said...

The barrister is suggesting that there was a bang and smoke.

never in that carriage said...

If the bomb blew the engines there will have been both of these but the bang will not have been significant as in the case of other bomb types. The chemical bomb itself is noiseless. The driver's escape appears to have been tremendous luck in context.

never in that carriage said...

Smoke will have come from the engines and as for 'noiseless', 'noiseless' comparatively speaking is inferred.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe anyone would do anything so wicked. On the other hand I just don't believe she can have been so close to a bomb and been unaffected.

Her scam is the worst I've ever heard of.

It's incredible.

Anonymous said...

ONE CORRECTION TO YOUR SMART ARSE SELVES

How can the bang have been the engines being blown because of the bomb because the driver said to the passengers that he was going to move the train on a bit before he came to get the passengers so how could he do that if the engines had blown

????????????

never in that carriage said...

Interesting observation.

It is this part of Rachel's story that we find very incredible also. Can anyone else confirm it? Why would an experienced professional say after his train had been bombed, that he was going to try to move the train on and use the engines? That's a bit like an ambulance team telling you to roll over for good measure if you've been hit by a car or a fire fighter telling you to stay in the house and use anything to hand to put out the fire.

Get back in his cab and try and start moving the train?

What?

No we don't think he did that. Why would he if the tunnel was narrow? To move it to a wider part?

Anonymous said...

so you think Rachel never really heard the driver because she was never in that carriage?

???????

Anonymous said...

Fascinating.

Anonymous said...

Marvellous!

never in that carriage said...

One of our contributors said:

If the bomb blew the engines there will have been both of these but the bang will not have been significant as in the case of other bomb types. The chemical bomb itself is noiseless. The driver's escape appears to have been tremendous luck in context.

Smoke will have come from the engines and as for 'noiseless', 'noiseless' comparatively speaking is inferred.

We believe that

The bomb was a chemical bomb and its effects were relatively 'noiseless' in comparison with other bombs of different components.

The bomb damaged the engines badly but is unlikely to have destroyed them because the driver survived well and did the best job he knew . They didn't blow significantly. If the engines had blown full out the damage would have been far more significant and this was probably intended. Which is why the accused Lindsay went into carriage 1.

The smoke from the engines went under the train and gradually crawled into the carriages, causing alarm.

A chemical bomb is less likely to blow the show.

We do not believe that the driver ever suggested that he would "move the train along" after a noise and a crash like the one he heard and the dreadful smell that was coming from behind him. It is extraordinary that Rachel has been selling milk to her grandmother with that story for so long and teaching her to suck eggs at the same time. Are there no limits to the dull shape of her readers brains we ask.

The synergy between the no release of the Piccadilly line train picture and North's ripping yarn is interesting.

Anonymous said...

How badly did it 'blow the show' then?

Anonymous said...

The explosion would have triggered 'extended destruction' if the trains didn't run on electric..

Anonymous said...

That chemical bomb was good enough to blow the show pretty bad. The electric gave a loud bang- miracle that the driver escaped. So how did Rachel escape without injury of any form?

And she was two metres away from Lindsay! Noo-o-oo-ot.

Looks like Rachel is using the fact that the driver escaped to give herself a reason for being without injuries. But that the effect of that bomb had to be very strong if the electricity was harmed like that.

Get a weapons expert, that would be great.

Anonymous said...

If the electricity made that kind of bang why would the driver start the train? that's madness.

rachel north london said...

Quite. Well, quintessentially. Quid pro quo. Is anyone here listening to one thing I have to say?

never in that carriage said...

There is no doubt that the carriage Rachel North says she boarded was completely blown apart. Twenty six poor people died and there were many others with terrible injuries. Rachel's claim to have been two metres away from Lindsay is utterly absurd.

The weapons expert is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

This blog will get a lot of hits on Monday....

Anonymous said...

Rachael asked: 'Is anyone here listening to one thing I have to say?'

Rachael has had a free hand to state her case for exactly three years. What more could she possibly have to say?

never in that carriage said...

response to commenter 21:

It looks that way. That 'bang' was related to the electric we think. it blew, but to a limited extent. The driver was fine. The bomb detonated by accused bomber Lindsay went off in the centre of the train carriage or there would have been more damage to the driver's cab. The man damage will have been at the centre of the train carriage.

Rachel says that she was at the top, near the driver, and she also stated that she was two metres away from Lindsay which seems to be her most important lie. Lindsay can't have been at the top of the carriage or the driver would have bought it and there would have been more damage and fire. he had to have been in the middle there.

The bang was the electric reaction though we're pretty sure of that. The bomb was a chemical bomb, it had to be.

Anonymous said...

Some little smoke possibly. The bomb blew electricity rather than petrol, maybe she was a little 'confused' about that..... she calls herself a 'techno-bimbo'.