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?

Thursday, 10 July 2008

Passing through, or making their way through the tracks....

We are still very interested in the question of the Russel Square mystery. How did people ( passengers) cut across to Russel Square? Past the carriage, or through the carriage? There are just a few places in the tunnel where people could have passed through.

The barrister, Mr. Power, tells us that he went up the carriages through to carriage 1. He saw that everyone had smashed the windows of the train and left their belongings behind in a rush. How could he see that in a narrow tunnel if he stayed in the end carriage?

Send us your thoughts.

We received an interesting comment about the different ways in which survivors could have made their way past or through carriage 1. in order to escape to Russel Square. Think of disaster films that you know of. Is it realistic to assume that no one would have tried to make their way through or past the bombed carriage, and instead would have waited inside the other carriages in the train for half an hour in case help came? One possibility is that the tunnel was just wide enough for passengers to make their way along the little ledge of the train and grope their way along past the carriages. It is wide enough in places. In others it is wider, not in many, it is a narrow gauge tunnel. It is not realistic to assume that passengers from the other carriages would not have tried to make their way through the bombed carriage in the circumstances. It obviously provided a clear escape route. Would people have tried to make their way through and go after the driver or would they have just sat there for half an hour trapped like sardines in the other carriages? There is evidence that they did not just sit there. They are said to have left their belongings behind and smashed windows and gone through the emergency doors towards the front of the train. There is also a strong suggestion that they smashed doors and escaped into the tunnel, and could have passed through the tunnel that way. The idea that they fought their way through carriage 1. towards the driver's cab and the door at the front of his cab should not be treated as unheard of. We see that Rachel has written a post about the Titanic. The fight for the life boats on the Titanic is a good analogy. People will have tried any which way to escape, including going through carriage 1. It was passed down the train that it was possible to go through carriage 1. and follow the driver to Russel Square .

Here is a picture of the front of the driver's carriage. We were sent a comment by one of Rachel's supporters claiming to be a survivor of carriage 1. who said he knew that Rachel was on the bomber's carriage because she was able to tell him about a little ladder that was used to get out of the drivers carriage. Then there was a row in the comments box about how the ladder was used, and the same commenter said that because the tunnel was narrow, it was used to go out of the front of the driver's carriage and not the side. (In an attempt to contradict our early suggestion that passengers might have passed beside carriage 1. in order to get to Russel Square if the tunnel was wide enough). There is, obviously, a door at the front of the driver's carriage on the Piccadilly line trains. According to this picture.

We concede that a very little ladder could have been used to get out of the door onto the tracks. What we don't see is why this is thought to be an essential point that proves that Rachel was on carriage 1. Anyone could have known that. You just have to see the carriage driver's cab. The survivor who sent us this comment also told us that in the time he ( or she) was in carriage 1. he did not see or hear Rachel North and he did not see her on the tracks either which makes sense if she was following behind.

There is an interesting revelation from a survivor in the comments box at the end in which he reveals that the survivors of carriage 4 broke their way out of the carriage onto the train racks and escaped. We point out that if carriage 4 was able to do this then other carriages were too and there will have been nothing stopping survivors from the carriages behind carriage 1. making their way past carriage 1. at the front of the train. We remind our readers that there are emergency doors at the ends of all the carriages which passengers could have passed through on their way to carriage 4. could have passed through. (Some commenters are saying that this commenter is Rachel herself. We believe it to be Rachel or a survivor who Rachel has lead along).

We are also interested in the question of whether Rachel North is a covert or 'closet' conspiracy theorist, or what she terms as a 'conspiraloon.' Her blog is full of strange ideas about MI5 and what they are doing, and she makes some very peculiar claims.

We lifted this picture from Rachel's blog.

55 comments:

woody said...

COVERT ??

What is covert about it?

In denial, I suppose you mean.

Truth seeker said...

Then eventually somebody said that someone at the back of the carriage, because I was on the second to the back carriage, had managed to force the door open. But they wouldn’t get out, because they thought they were going to be electrocuted by the live train lines. Then smoke was coming down the tunnels, so nobody would go out that exit, no one would go out the other exit, because as I understand it, there was a bomb in the middle of the carriage.

The barrister says that he went the opposite direction to the bomb and that he was on the second to back carriage.

Anonymous said...

Why the obsession with investigating MI5 and whether they want a public enquiry.

Seems a strange question to ask them.

Is she writing letters to MI5 or is she just writing to everyone else about them......?

I don't get it.

Has she heard back from them yet?

It would be interesting to see her publish some letters.

Her blackberry alerts telling her when she's being talked about on the web go off so much she's probably thwarted several of their counter terrorism investigations.

never in that carriage said...

'Then smoke was coming down the tunnels, so nobody would go out that exit, no one would go out the other exit, because as I understand it, there was a bomb in the middle of the carriage.'

We noticed this.

But we can assume that this was what happened at first only because he is able to describe all the carriages on the way up.

Anonymous said...

Blackberry alerts? Banks of computers? Where are you getting this from? She sounds like some james Bond villain in her Evil lair! LOL


dear me

Anonymous said...

'Her blackberry alerts telling her when she's being talked about on the web go off so much she's probably thwarted several of their counter terrorism investigations.'

LOL

Anonymous said...

Power says 'as I understand it' - he is describing what he has been told, about the bomb.



'no one would go out the other exit, because as I understand it, there was a bomb in the middle of the carriage.'


'Others in the main carriage, as I understand, are severely injured, if not dead.

'As I understand it' is what you say when you have not seen but you have been told by someone else.

'As I understand it, there are two routes to take to get to Felixstowe'

'As I understand it, the police have said they want to arrest a young man about the break-in'.

truthseeker said...

Why the obsession with investigating MI5 and whether they want a public enquiry.

Seems a strange question to ask them.

Is she writing letters to MI5 or is she just writing to everyone else about them......?

I don't get it.

Has she heard back from them yet?

It would be interesting to see her publish some letters.


As I understand it, she is part of a sizable group of survivors and families who are taking legal action to get an inquiry and who have been asking for one for 3 years.

never in that carriage said...

Commenter 6.

It looks like commenter 4. is making a joke.

Anonymous said...

It was a wound that would leave a life long scar minimum- and it did not stop her thrashing at the key board on July 7 and for the next six months.

Her story is BS.

never in that carriage said...

Last warning. Stick to points being made in the posts or get yourselves deleted.

Anonymous said...

I see no reason to delet my post in that abrasive way.

There ARE clearly some serious questions to be had about Rachel's credibility. She makes the case for these everywhere she goes .

Nonetheless her obvious lies about where she was in carriage 1 could be just for EFFECT. It IS very odd that she FOR SURE escaped the carriage without injuries and even more bizarre that she is so obsessed with broadcasting herself!

She COULD have been by the driver by a miracle. She could have told serious lies to keep the story running and get money.

Investigating this Internet obsessed rich media blood hound has come too late so I hope we all get to the heart of it.

Anonymous said...

"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 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."

The barrister passenger headed up the train by the look of these quotes. The blog is right. How did he see all the carriage windows in a confined space?

never in that carriage said...

He also states 'the others I saw....' meaning, the other passengers whom he presumably saw on his way up the train. He describes serious injures and exhaustion from smoke inhalation. He states that he saw these passengers lying on the floor.

He also states that to their credit people behaved in a controlled manner, not an apt description for certain commenters to this blog.

truthseeker said...

I think you may be missing the point about her arm wound; she describes it as 'a nasty gash, not a maiming' on 7/7 and the bone in her arm could well be her wrist bone, visible through a nasty gash in her wrist.

July 7 05 My mouth was so dry. My lungs felt full of choking dirt and I became aware of a bleeding gash full of glass in my wrist and that I could see the bone in my arm, and then I felt sick.
I realised I needed to clean my cut as it was full of grit, and I was bleeding, so I held my arm above my head and breathed in and out hard.
But I also knew I didn't need an ambulance - it was a nasty gash, not a maiming.




'8 July 05 You stitched my wound, x-rayed me, cheered me and calmed me and cared for me. And hundreds of other frightened, hurt people. Big up to you!
Sharing what happened helped.
I am feeling a bit hungover and my arm aches but apart from that I am 90% fine.'

13 July 05 I will go back to work on Monday after I have had my stitches taken out.

19 July 05 Yesterday I had my stitches taken out. I am a good healer; they had got a bit stuck in the healing wound so I looked away whilst they were extracted

Yuck.'


So she is describing one wound which was stitched at hospital on 7/7, and the stitches remained in for 13 days. The wound is on her wrist.

Later she updates on compensation

Sept 30 2005 The day before yesterday, I was contacted by a lady called Deirdre who worked for the Sunday Times.

She said that she had been reading my blog ( 'all 58 pages of it!') and she said that I could write. She asked me to write something for them. Blimey. Wow.

First she suggested I wrote something about compensation. The papers have been discussing the issue of compensation for victims: there has been an outcry over the fact that many very seriously injured people have yet to receive any money. And this is of course a tremendous worry, and too damn hard for people who are already struggling to deal with terrible injuries.

I said that I was sorry but I was not comfortable writing about compensation. I have not applied for it. I am ambiguous about it; maybe I should apply, maybe not.

There are people who have dreadful injuries, people who need medical attention, proper long-term help and care. I want them to have as much money as they can possibly get. They shouldn't have to be worrying about the mortgage when their legs have been blown off.

All I have is a small ugly scar on my wrist from where the glass embedded itself. I don't mind it. It is a battle scar. When it itches, I feel glad that I am alive. Which is an ok trade-off.

October 2 2005 We learned how once the shock of the violence fades, the exultation and guilt of survival ebb away, then the hard slow slog of dealing with the small things begins. The burst eardrums are healing, the stitches taken out.



So you would expect a scar on her wrist, probably on her wristbone which after 2 + years would have faded somewhat.

If you are going to conduct an investigation it is important to seek the truth and be accurate and work with source material and not jump to conclusions. That is an important part of truthseeking and researching. If you are not careful then people will be abusive and say you are only attacking her for personal reasons not conducting an investigation.

Equally if you are making accusations about criminal fraud and causing suffering to bomb victims and making hundreds of thousands in insurance scams, you need to have solid proof or you run the risk of being shut down.

Regards

Truthseeker

never in that carriage said...

She describes a small graze. We are not saying that she didn't take a tumble there. The barrister says he was catapulted from out of his seat on the back carriage.

Rachel ums and ahs about compensation on her blog but we are never told what she and her husband did. We believe that they have made significant profit out of this.

truthseeker said...

If you don't put my comment through - which contains important and genuine research into CICA and injury compensation then I will be concerned that you are not interested in a full and fair enquiry into this matter.

I hope that yo are as you say, interested in the truth

regards

Anonymous said...

Why does the woman keep spreading her nasty self everywhere anyway? She's been firing rounds off at the hip at everyone for three years. Hard words for a hard subject, North NEEDS to be looked at.

never in that carriage said...

truthseeker

We are not going to put your comment through as it makes endless reference to Rachel's allegations about her scars. This blog is not about 'dwelling on scars' ( even though Rachel is always going into that sort of graphic detail) but getting to the bottom of Rachel's lies.

In fairness we have deleted the four or so comments which might be construed as too hard. We have been trying to be liberal with comments.

never in that carriage said...

We refer to the four or so comments on this blog. Please would people keep discussion civil at all times.

Anonymous said...

You should look more at Rachel's tendency to surroud herself with abusive people. They have been annoying this blog since the beginning with their stupid row.

never in that carriage said...

We are not concerned by them. They appear fixated with proving themselves wonderful at any cost.

We wonder why?

never in that carriage said...

We say again that we are not responsable for the constant comments that Rachel's supporters are apparently sending to this blog which outline reporters versions of graphic detail on July 7th.

We are told that these people have been attempting to cause ructions from the beginning.

None of these newspaper articles that these people keep sending us make their point. They are being sent with the aim of making us look terrible for daring to touch the Holy Grail of Rachel's obviously unreliable version of events and challenge its veracity.

We have seen this but we think it's useful to let people expose themselves.

Nonetheless, because we want to have a look at facts and Rachel's lies, rather than inadvertently help these people cause distress, we have deleted some.

In principle we do not wish to censor comments.

Anonymous said...

'Equally if you are making accusations about criminal fraud and causing suffering to bomb victims and making hundreds of thousands in insurance scams, you need to have solid proof or you run the risk of being shut down.'


This blog is not doing that. Just get lost and stop interrupting the conversation.

neverinthatcarriage don't let these idiots through.

never in that carriage said...

We let that comment through because we think it's interesting to see how far these North supporters will go to protect their position. The accusations they make are absurd and we are not concerned about them.

Anonymous said...

The activities of RN's internet supporters are unfortunate examples of misguided 'Celebrity Worship'. The behaviour of these people is summarised effectively by Dr. John Malby (University of Leicester Department of Psychology), when he writes:

'Celebrity worship syndrome suggests that, although following a celebrity can be a positive influence on people’s lives, in some extreme cases people admit they would lie, steal or worse if the object of their admiration asked them.'

Dr. Malby also observes: '... those who follow celebrities for intense-personal reasons are likely to be more depressed and anxious, whilst those who demonstrate high levels of celebrity worship may well be solitary, impulsive, anti-social and troublesome.'

Those who align themselves with Rachael may well have their own suspicions about her claims but their desire to tag on to her '5 minutes of fame' will likely result in the type of behaviour Dr. Maltby describes.

Once the magnitude of the RN scam is realised and exposed, it will make for an interesting case study!

Anonymous said...

About time.
"It was a wound that would leave a life long scar minimum- and it did not stop her thrashing at the key board on July 7 and for the next six months.

Her story is BS."

She CLAIMS to have been seriously wounded but is she? Hard question, but theres no evidence to support her claims.

never in that carriage said...

There is some celebrity worship happening. There is also collective back covering going on, or so it appears.

Hard subject, writes one commenter.

A number of people have said this in fact.

We want to emphasise that we are not intent on causing distress, just horrified at all the lies that Rachel North ( and it seems her supporters) have been telling.

We would appreciate it if people did not try to disrupt the matter of looking at North's lies.

The evididence against North is alarming.

Anonymous said...

I find it appalling that Rachel North is making a celebrity status out of the London bombings. About time there was objection. and about this Public Enquiry; who says the survivors agree with her?
and dont fret about hard questions!! no harder than the ones they hear at the Old Bailey!

AS for Northys supporters on the internet, whose behaviour stinks, its these lunatics who'd be told to stfu by His Honour. ORDER! ORDER!

There is always a big crowd at the Old Bailey.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS NORTHY!

Where were you in that carriage? were you ever in it?

never in that carriage said...

anon you sent us two comments: your last one was extended from your first, and you put your name to the first one. We have deleted the first comment you sent.

Anonymous said...

She says she isn't trying to become a celebrity, merely promote her campaign for a public enquiry. Then she writes

"Richard and Judy, a break at last!"

Anyone see the one that got away?

It's about two metres in length.

Not so her prize blog, which goes on for fifty kilometres.

Anonymous said...

what I´d like to know is who actually carried out the attacks?you say it was Jermaine and CO,,,many would differ on that.If you don´t air this comment we must expose you as a phlog.

Anonymous said...

'She's been firing rounds off at the hip at everyone for three years. Hard words for a hard subject, North NEEDS to be looked at.'

Firing rounds off at the hip?Firing rounds from the hip surely. With her ever changing standpoints, evidence and allegations. Every so often she disappears for ten days to reload.

never in that carriage said...

'we must expose you as a phlog.'

What?

We must conclude that Rachel's amo has ground to a halt and she will now be disappearing for ten days.

Anonymous said...

Over the past three years Rachael has threatened many of those who have dared to cast alleged aspersion upon either her personal account of July 7 or her outrageous support for the official 'conspiracy' theory, as outlined in the Government's evidence-free Narrative.

However, it is worthy of note that although quick to threaten, she is unwilling (or unable) to follow through on her shallow vitriol.

If she does initiate any legal proceedings (unlikely), she must by now be aware that there is a small army of people (including a few genuine survivors) who have quietly logged the contradictions contained within her rants and responses to legitimate questions.

Those who continue to question what occurred on July 7th 2005, have good cause to scutinize the behaviour of this 'media-hungry' self-proclaimed survivor.

Having trawled the web for the past few days, I cannot find a single piece of evidence to support RN's claim to be where she claims to have been on the morning of that fateful morning.

All accounts of her movements seemed to have originated from RN herself. Surely the most surveilled city in the western world would yield some supporting footage? If nothing else, she would have been caught on CCTV fighting her way through the crowd on the platform?

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote: 'what I´d like to know is who actually carried out the attacks?you say it was Jermaine and CO,,,many would differ on that.If you don´t air this comment we must expose you as a phlog.'

Nice try Rachael. However, the purpose of this blog is to question the integrity of your claims. It serves no purpose to extend the 'terms of reference' beyond the core issue ... except to take the focus away from exploring your litany of unsubstantiated claims.

never in that carriage said...

We think that CCTV from Finsbury Park tube, where Rachel claims she boarded carriage 1. ought to be obtainable. It would greatly help resolve the matter.

We have trouble understanding how Rachel could have made her way along such lengthy carriages at rush hour, from the middle train carriage all the way to the top one, in less than ten minutes, in a station that she claims was very crowded ( the trains stop for about two minutes at most) especially while she claims to have been reading a magazine article that she couldn't put down?

( About herself.)

never in that carriage said...

Due to the amount of different readers we will not be expressing any opinion on who carried out the bombings. We will just be examining facts and false claims.

Anonymous said...

She is telling outright lies. First, she tells everyone that she was by the driver and that Lindsay was in the middle of the carriage. Which is what all ccounts suggest. So she was twenty metres away from Lindsay. Then in September she gets on the train and has a good look round it. Again she says that she was by the driver but oddly says that she was 'in the wrong place' on that day.

Then she changes her account and tells everyone that she was two metres away from a bomb


She says she was by the first set of doors on the first carriage and the bomb was by the middle set of doors in the first carriage.

never in that carriage said...

That is twenty metres away from the bomb. So why is she telling Richard and Judy that she was to metres away from the bomber?

Anonymous said...

She said 7-10 feet on the show.

If she was at the back part of the door, near the seats and the bomb took out the centre of the carriage, that's about right

never in that carriage said...

anon at 6.15 no:

The carriages are very long

And seven feet is two metres.

Test our observations on the Piccadilly line trains.

Another reason that Rachel's Richard and Judy claim is outlandish is that she is unharmed.

Of course we are glad that she is unharmed.

Our case is that we don't think she should be telling lies about 7/7.

never in that carriage said...

anon at 6.21

We have deleted your post because it was not so clear as to be helpful. For how we expose Rachel's lies about where she was in the carriage, we advise readers to read the posts on the blog.

never in that carriage said...

anon that was at 5.48

You made some good points but we would be grateful if people would not try and summarise the posts on the blog as it reduces their value.

Apart from that you said, referring to Rachel's claim about the bomber's position:

Insubstantiated claims?

She is telling outright lies. Is she so shocked that she makes that sort of 'mistake'?

Why did she leave it on her blog for years?

She is not suffering shock on Richard and Judy. She is very controlled and careful. Manipulating everyone.

Surely this is unacceptable.

Her evidence is totally unreliable at best.

carriage one survivor said...

re. your updated current post.

People did not make their way through the train into the bombed carriage - because there WAS A BOMB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CARRIAGE and 26 murdered people in it, plus many wounded people lying on the floor.

This is so obvious I am sorry that I have to even say it.

Only the passengers in the front third of the first carriage could go to Russell Sq, the middle third of the carriage was severely damaged by the bomb and full of bodies and seriously injured people on the floor, the back third of the carriage had seriously injured people in it, the back door of the carriage connecting it to carriage two was buckled and impossible to open, the passengers behind the bomb in the back third of carriage one, and carriages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 were trapped until they escaped onto the tracks via the last carriage. A few in carriage 4 smashed the doors, because the tunnel was wide enough here for them to get out, but many stayed inside, fearing the tracks were live and they would be electrocuted.

It was impossible for anyone behind the bomb to go forwards - and even if they had tried to get into carriage one, the door was broken by the blast and jammed, and even if they HAD managed it, they would have had to climb over dead people, injured bodies on the floor, and a crater where the blast had smashed through the floor ( and also the ceiling). The middle doors came off but the wall of the tunnel was inches away so people could not squeeze out.

They had to stay and wait to be rescued. They could not get out and they were afraid of the live tracks and of jumping into a tunnel - and they waited to be rescued. They did NOT break a door and deliberately walk towards a bomb area and climb over dead and injured people. To suggest it is disgusting.

I feel very upset and angry even having to write this and I can't believe you are still carrying on with this disgusting blog after I communicated how offensive it was last week to me and other survivors.

never in that carriage said...

Thankyou for your interesting comment, if you are the survivor who wrote to us last week. Please do not rant at us.

Your comment is very interesting.

We have been through the tunnel and we can say that if it was wide enough outside the door of carriage 4. for people to pass along the tunnel then it was very probably wide enough along the rest of the tunnel where the train was concerned.

It is not disgusting and disgraceful to make an enquiry.

Nor is it disgusting and disgraceful to assume that people will have tried to escape any which way and fight their way through.

You should stop angrily dictating.

If people could get out from the middle carriage, carriage 4. then presumably they could get out from the other carriages and pass by carriage 1. At least carrige 4. may have done.

Anonymous said...

Survivor, with respect- how do you know what other people behind you did?

Anonymous said...

The barrister says that the doors and windows were smashed all the way along the carriage by people who had been escaping and that people had been leaving their belongings behind...

woody said...

Carriage 4 is the middle carriage where Rachel suggests she went before making her way to the front carriage

Anonymous said...

Carriage One Survivor (probably aka RN) wrote: '...crater where the blast had smashed through the floor ( and also the ceiling). The middle doors came off ...'

TATP? Yer right!

COS closes by writing: 'I feel very upset and angry even having to write this and I can't believe you are still carrying on with this disgusting blog after I communicated how offensive it was last week to me ..(afterthought?) and other survivors.

It is very sad that this flawed individual feels the need to keep herself in the centre of the 7/7 debate. She is the perfect foil for keeping attention away from the real issues.

This whole outrageous charade needs to be exposed.

Anonymous said...

It will have been a squeeze!

never in that carriage said...

The tunnel is narrow. But there are indeed places where the wall is over a metre away and it would be possible to pass through. These places are significant in length. If you're not thinking about it they look as if they could be smaller because the train move so fast, obviously.

Anonymous said...

'I feel very upset and angry even having to write this and I can't believe you are still carrying on with this disgusting blog after I communicated how offensive it was last week to me ..(afterthought?) and other survivors.'

Thi is her classic line. She is always dragging it out like an old pair of laddered tights when the going gets a little confrontational. T

trouble is, it don't impress no one no more. Which suvivors are they? It's a mystery.

Anonymous said...

'They had to stay and wait to be rescued. They could not get out and they were afraid of the live tracks and of jumping into a tunnel - and they waited to be rescued. They did NOT break a door and deliberately walk towards a bomb area and climb over dead and injured people. To suggest it is disgusting.'

And no one left the Titanic by life boat either. Disgusting and outrageous. How dare we investigate her angelic claims?

never in that carriage said...

anon at 6.15 no:

The carriages are very long

And seven feet is two metres.

Test our observations on the Piccadilly line trains.

Another reason that Rachel's Richard and Judy claim is outlandish is that she is unharmed.

Of course we are glad that she is unharmed.

Our case is that we don't think she should be telling lies about 7/7.

addition: Rachel claims that she was right near the driver. Not beside the carriage doors.