Rachel's apparent lies

We are interested in the amount of lies that Rachel North has been telling in the newspapers and on the T.V. If you have seen anything suspicious send a comment to this blog. We are going to give people a few days to do their research and get information to us.

We have received a message from someone ( which we have printed in the comments box attached to the post below) who says he knows that Rachel was in carriage 1. because points she made about her experience when she met him, tally with his own story. He says that he is a survivor of carriage 1. and this seems to be true. We believe that this poor man ( or woman) has been deceived by Rachel North. The points this person makes are: Rachel says she knew the driver's accent.... which was probably a London accent....and anyone could have heard it or worked that out...she was able to say that a ladder was used to get down to the tracks onto carriage 1., and she knew about the fact that people were using their mobile phones on the way out to Russel Square. We are glad he (she) sent this comment in because it shows that in all the time he was in the bombed carriage and then getting out of the bombed carriage and making his way to Russel Square he did not see or hear Rachel North. He could have missed her on the tracks if she was far behind him but we do not see how he could have missed her in the carriage if they were both there for half an hour, which is what Rachel says.

This person suggests that Rachel must have been on the bombed carriage because she came out at Russel Square Station. He says that everyone who was not in the bombed carriage went to Kings Cross and everyone in the bombed carriage went to Russel Square but this would seem to be a myth that has sprung up. We think that lots of people who were not on the bombed train carriage made it to Russel Square Station rather than Kings Cross which is understandable. People naturally will have tried to go after the driver who was leading the way. Obviously. We would have. Especially people from carriages 2 & 3.

This picture shows the ladders used to evacuate the trains. (Obviously, it would not be possible to escape such a bomb blast unharmed). This picture is Edgware road and it is an example of the trains and the ladders used to evacuate the trains. A very sad and upsetting picture to all.

Correction: the following paragraphs on this post ( Mon 30th June 2008) were written at the outset of this blog. We have revised this view after investigating the trains and the tunnel.

We suggest that ladders were used all the way along the train carriages. Just because people were not in a bombed carriage it does not mean that they would have been expected to jump onto the tracks, obviously. Everyone will have used ladders. Especially to get down from the bombed carriage onto the track. (We have been told that carriages do not have ladders, but the drivers do. The survivors say that they used ladders to escape.)

It is significant that ladders were used to evacuate the bombed carriage, as this shows that the train tunnel space between the side of the train and the tunnel was wide enough for people who were in the carriages behind carriage 1 to pass through the space between the train and the wall of the tunnel and go to Russel Square . Along with survivors of carriage 1. of which there were of course very few ( if any? almost all people in carriage 1. were very severely injured or had died.) We believe that people in other carriages down the train behind the bombed carriage tried to hear the driver as he was telling survivors who could hear him, to go to Russel Square, ( which was probably all about him getting the trains stopped from coming towards his train) and then the survivors from the other carriages went down onto the track and then went past the bombed carriage and went to Russel Square behind the driver. Other people from the other end of the train nearest to Kings Cross went to Kings Cross.

We believe that Rachel North did this. She understandably left carriage 2. or 3. and cut across the space in the tunnel beside carriage 1. and went to Russel Square.

Rachel North has all the characteristics of a scammer

Rachel North whose probable scam we expose below, has all the characteristics of a female scammer. She has :-

• A deep desire to be accepted in a "niche" of society which does not accept her for who she is and never will. She is desperate to be regarded as a member of the Sloane ranger class, but she is a Liverpudlian Vicar's daughter whose face would better figure on an episode of Brookside. She is terrified that upper/middle class Britain will not accept her
• A need for attention from a man who does not give her any. Her husband was not there when she was raped ( if she ever really was) and often stays working until 2.00 am in the office and now she's gone on holiday without him. It looks like he married her to shut her up and the scene she made over her marriage was chronic- it could have put Mills and Boon out of business
• A pattern of making frantic cries for attention through sympathy, throughout life.
• A mixed palate of strange views which don't add up
• A fixation about anonymity to the point of obsession (and fraud?)
• A tendency to fabricate stories about others who appear to naturally posses what she lacks in terms of style and sophistication which is natural and which can't be imitated
• A tendency to lay claim to revelations that amount to the overwhelming and the fantastic, Here is just one example we can provide, complete with broadcaster who fell for her delirious sounding claims like a moral fool. She is making amazing claims about how she cried her heart out with frantic grief at relevelations that came to her from MI5. She promises to deliver. Strange though, no one hears about these revelations ever again.

Quote extract from scammer Rachel containing a fantastic claim, she wrote:

"But what I found out was devastating. First, whispers, rumours. Then, facts, and I checked, and followed up, and I sat with what I knew, and sometimes I cried. And I bit my lip and waited...
It was, and is, not just about a failure of intelligence, but a failure to use intelligence. A failure of imagination. A misguided belief in a 'Covenant of Security', that was never security; that was a lie.
And for me, it is about the screaming I hear, still, in the darkness, when I sleep.That might have been avoided, knowing what I know, what they knew, what we will all know, soon. And so I wait, and I write, and I wish, for what is coming soon..."

• An outsize ego that lays claim to incredible revenge episodes
• A tendency to surround herself with anyone abusive provided they defend her stories
  

We believe that if her life circumstance had been different a blog like this one would be exposing her for giving herself false Dukedoms and dipping into employers accounts and taking millions while pretending that she was something and someone else.

We are receiving comments challenging Rachel's story about her wounds. For effect, Rachel has claimed that she was wounded in the carriage bombed on July the 7th, and a bone was protruding from her arm. Most people are too intimidated to challenge her story. We have condensed our response onto this post.

We think that Rachel stumbled off the train and saw the press flood the scene, and thought 'I'm a story.' But she knew that she'd have to come up with something better than any of the other witnesses, who like her were on the other carriages.... so she could take the front pages of the newspapers. She said to herself 'Just a little lie.... I'll say I was on the bombed carriage....'

Rachel said on her blog: " 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."

Also

"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."

There was a journalist that she spoke to outside the station. If her story about the bone protruding from her arm is true, she will have been bleeding profusely and in need of an ambulance. You can only lose a limited amount of blood before fainting and dying, and the wound she clearly describes is enough to cause that type of bleeding. She covers that by saying that when a car picked her up she fainted in the car, but no mention of bleeding? So the journalist who she talked to outside will have seen her terrible wound won't he?

If our suspicions are correct a terrible fraud has been committed against the bomb victims.
The journalist who she talked to outside the station will have seen her terrible wound won't he? He doesn't mention it though, and he doesn't tell her to get medical help either?

When she was talking to him was she holding her arm above her head? Also, if you are bleeding that badly from being wounded to the bone in your arm why do you hold your arm above your head? Maybe she was not wounded to the bone.

We think Rachel was on another carriage further down the train and was grazed on her arm when the train crashed to a halt because everyone will have been thrown down when it came to a halt. She had a graze from being flung to the floor of the train. She held her hand above her head to stop the blood flow on a graze or for other reasons. If she had suffered the wound she describes...being able to see her own bone... she would have been covered in blood and requiring an ambulance and she was not at all. She was chattering to reporters outside the station.

The account she gave the Telegraph follows:

Rachel McFadyen, 34, of Highbury, north London, said: "It was so dark and we were using light from people's mobile phones.
"I was in the first carriage and the driver emerged and told us he was going to try to get us out. We were all telling everybody to shut up so we could hear what he was saying.
"He told us he was trying to have the track turned off so we could walk to the next station. We were passing the information back along the carriages. Everyone was just scrambling to their feet and trying to help one another.
"It was about 25 or 30 minutes before we could get off. People were crying and sobbing and one woman was just screaming her head off.
"We started filing off the train through the driver's carriage and we made our way cautiously along the tunnel. The driver was telling us not to touch the track because he didn't know if it had been turned off.
"All the way we kept reassuring each other, saying 'We're going to be fine.' It took about 15 minutes to get to Russell Square.
"When we got out I noticed my wrist was bleeding. All our faces were black. Everyone was looking really shocked.
"I immediately phoned my partner then my parents, who live in Norfolk, to tell them I was OK. I said to my parents 'I've just got off the train; I've escaped the bomb.' They hadn't even heard what had happened."

She was telling the terribly wounded people who were trapped in the front bombed carriage, where she says she was, to "shut up" so she could hear what the driver was saying? (That is kind and considerate?)
Did she telephone her parents and her partner with her arm 'in which there she could see the bone held over her head,' probably not. She told the Telegraph that she only noticed her wrist was bleeding when she got out of the station. If she could see her bone in her arm she would have MOST CERTAINLY noticed her injury before then. She would have been screaming from the start, not telling everyone in the bombed carriage which she claims she was in, to "shut up" so she could hear the driver.

"She says that "everyone was scrambling to their feet", you can imagine this if they were in the other carriages but not in the bombed carriage. Rachel obviously was not in the bombed carriage. People were not scrambling to their feet in the bombed carriage. Rachel also said 'It was about twenty-five or thirty minutes before we could get off. People were crying and sobbing and one woman was screaming her head off'. However there were many more than that screaming in the bombed carriage... according to Rachel's writing a week later..... also according to to the wounded witnesses who were in the bombed carriage. So Rachel was not on the bombed carriage. Not if you look at what she told the Telegraph straight away.

If Rachel can:

Show us her wound and prove she was injured to the bone
Show us CCTV from Finsbury Park Tube Station
Show us caring concern for the injured and people who died instead of complete indifference to their fate and their feelings
Produce witnesses who can confirm her story about being in the bombed carriage
Write one thing that adds up

We will withdraw our suspicions.

A media executive called Rachel who was by an amazing coincidence on the bombed carriage itself who just happens to be a personal mate of the London editorials, come on, how stupid are you.

She gave the London papers a story and they wanted her to keep it going. Like all scammers she had no idea that things would go so far and that she wouldn't be able to withdraw and retract.

One commenter has written in to say that he has noticed that Rachel has made different claims about her situation inside the bombed carriage. Sometimes she says she was ten yards away from the blast and sometimes she says she was seven feet away. Which was it? Those are two very different positions. We suspect she says what she does so no witnesses from the bombed carriage can contradict her claim that she was in the bombed carriage. They chanced not to see her because she was in a different place to them. Right?

Rachel often says that the fact that the carriage was so tightly packed, protected her from the force of the bomb blast which is why she is perfectly OK and not wounded. Consider the force of a bomb bast on a building. Her story about being protected by the density of other passengers crowding round her is complete BS. . OBVIOUSLY. But we expose in our post below the fact that she said that ' she felt a huge power lift her up and throw her to the floor....' so which was it? Was she densely packed in like a sardine among other passengers so that a ten foot away BOMB had no effect on her at all? Or did this 'huge power' that she later described on a T.V. programme lift her out of the densely packed crowd and bang her to the ground .......? Yeah..... right.......

A web of lies

Is this the face of an honest woman?

Rachel North who runs a blog called Rachel From North London was probably never on the carriage bombed on July 7th 2005. This blog will examine her web of lies...... ever since July the 7th 2005 Rachel North has been making a lot of statements about July 7th. She calls the bombed train "My train." But was she in the bombed carriage?

Is she a scammer?

Is there anyone who can back up her claims? There is never anything from witnesses to support her statements.

We would like to know....

Why does she stick so rigidly to the official version?

Why has she never produced her own detailed account of events in the carriage?

Why is she so fit and well when no one else is?

Is it possible for a group of people to have protected her from the bomb blast, as she claims? Why was no one and nothing else protected from the bomb blast if so?

How does she have no difficulty talking and talking about the subject?

Why does she make a living out of the bomb blast?

Why are her feelings so different from the other survivors feelings?

Why does she let the press take advantage of her position?

Have a look at this fire fighter's description of the scene provided by this link.

How is it possible to escape that blast without being affected? But, Rachel North says she did. She says she was in the carriage where the bomb was detonated at Kings Cross station and she was never hurt at all. Here is her description of the bomb scene. Very suspicious!

" We were okay."

She also wrote " We tried to keep each other calm, I remember saying: "If anyone's boss gives them grief for being late, we know what to say to them, eh, girls?"People laughed and we kept saying, "not long, it's the long walk to freedom, nearly there".

Is this the reaction of a woman who has experienced the bomb carriage described by the fire fighters?

Rachel's descriptions of what she experienced in her first account which she printed on her blog... sound like the experiences of people from numerous carriages along who were not directly affected by the bomb blast. This is always the case when she is talking about small effects. When she is talking later on about shock and other experiences her stories are fantastical.

Why is she jumpy about the CCTV question?

Look at how her story of her "eye witness account" changes when she is speaking on a platform, provided by this link. She is coming out with very strange views which deeply offend many survivors. Now, on this link, you can see she is saying that instead of leaving the train in a rush directed by the driver, everyone in the bombed carriage stood and held hands in the dark. ( Who is "everyone"?) This contradicts nearly all the other evidence.

Look at how her account has changes. Here is a quote ( 18 June 2007) from someone who has been watching Rachel's statements. He was watching a television interview with Rachel.

"Jon then talks to Rachel North. Rachel recounts of her experience in the bomb train (Piccadilly line) which she boarded at Finsbury park. Rachel says "I felt this huge {pause} POWER smashing me to the floor."

Ooooh Rachel that was close. Were the words 'heat blast' or 'fireball' on the tip of your tongue then? Rachel, do be careful. ..... "

But wait, what’s this? Rachel says "The air was thick with smoke" Hummm. Interesting. SMOKE. Something's burning right? What causes smoke? Heat or fire, for example incendiaries - incendiary explosives. Why am I talking about fireballs, smoke and incendiaries? Well, because TATP, the supposed explosive used, doesn't give off flames or significant heat when it explodes. Oh dear Rachel.... I'm not saying your lying......"

Rachel North is now, these days, saying that she suffered a loss of hearing after the bombing. TATP, the chemical used to explode the carriage of the train does not make a huge noise, its often described as 'silent but deadly.' We can provide a TATP description via this link. Also, a quote from this link provided by the MOD..

"The explosion of TATP is similar to the decomposition of azide, for example, which produces nitrogen gas but little heat, is used to fill airbags for cars. TATP is the most extreme example currently known, but it may be possible to design molecules that behave as an even more powerful explosive."

Fire fighters were automatically sent to the bomb scene. Their description of the bomb scene appears accurate and ties in with the known effects of a chemical bomb.

On Rachel's first account, which emerged on her blog before TATP was discovered to be the source of the bomb fuel she wrote:

"Normally I board half way up the train, but the train was so full, I walked up to the front of the train.
I was in the first carriage, behind the driver's carriage, standing by the doors - it was absolutely packed.
Even more people got on at Kings Cross. It felt like the most crowded train ever. Then, as we left Kings Cross, at about 8.50am, there was an almighty bang.
Everything went totally black and clouds of choking smoke filled the Tube carriage and I thought I had been blinded.
It was so dark that nobody could see anything.
I thought I was about to die, or was dead. I was choking from the smoke and felt like I was drowning.
Air started to flood in through the smashed glass and the emergency lighting helped us see a bit. We were OK.
A terrible screaming followed the initial silence."

We notice that the fire fighter, Mr Roche, is also supposed to have talked about smoke but this might just be journalism embellishment. Mr Roche did not write the account in the Guardian himself. The journalism embellishment might have been inspired by Rachel. Rachel North is a media and advertising executive with an eye for an opportunity.

It is always possible that she was never on the train at all. It is more likely that she was on another carriage that was not badly affected by the bomb.

We want to know: how is it possible to "hold hands in the dark" with other people ( who don't seem to exist) while a huge surge of "power" smashes you to the floor? How is it possible to be smashed to the floor by a chemical bomb and emerge fit and well...chatting about what to say to your boss on the same morning?

Looking at Rachel's first account again.

"I was on a crowded train to work. It was 8.40am when I boarded the rammed Piccadilly line train at Finsbury Park.
Normally I board half way up the train, but the train was so full, I walked up to the front of the train.
I was in the first carriage, behind the driver's carriage, standing by the doors - it was absolutely packed."

Thats extraordinary isnt it. Is it possible?

She boards half way up the train, usually. But on this day she decided to go to the front of the train to the carriage that would end up being bombed. She says the middle carriage was packed, so she will have had to have pushed her way through a large crowd with determination to get to this carriage at the front. You can understand Lindsays motive for going straight to the top of the platform to board the front carriage since his idea was to bomb the driver, and bring the whole thing down 9/11 style. But Rachel? She went from the middle of the platform to the top she says. Pushing your way through a crowd like the one she describes takes five minutes at least. There are always seven long carriages on a tube train at least. There usually isnt any time, you have to wait for the next train, which would have been the logical thing to do. The middle carriage was packed, so she didnt get on it. The front carriage was packed, so she did? After making her way through this very large crowd in two minutes. No mention of her trying any of the train carriages in between the middle and the top ones.

There should be CCTV from Finsbury Park tube station it does not concern the bombers.

We think Rachel North should explain herself.