It would be wise to consider all reports dating from 7th or 8th July regarding conclusions of a complicated, ongoing forensic investigation as suspect. Unless local investigators were incredibly lucky, and no such evidence for that exists, it is unlikely that the British forensics experts would have accumulated or identified sufficient physical evidence regarding how the bombs were either constructed or activated - bear in mind that all 4 scenes were forensically complex and difficult. The bus was in situ for 10 days whilst investigators were recovering material for the investigation; the scenes on the tube are even more complex.
Unnamed US authorities saying that the British investigation had done/recovered x is always a suspect form of words. They are far removed from the scene, and are indulging US press speculation. Cannistraro apprears to have been just plain wrong regarding the recovery of unexploded devices, so why is he being referred to? The Guardian form of words is probably misleading - suspect, but innocent, packages would be more accurate. At any rate - all these early US- sourced statements of what the British investigators have found or said, have turned out to bear no relation to what British investigators have actually said.
Bear in mind that there were large numbers of inaccurate reports on the 7th itself - most notably that there were 7 explosions, 3 buses were bombed, there was a litter-bin bomb, that police had shot a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf, that devices were found in Cardiff. This all seems to have been, er, crap.
I don't consider the lack of a bomb-belt significant regarding the suicide bomber theory - there would have been lots of reasons why they might not have gone down that route - and this would include the fact that they would have had to be wearing them for hours whilst in transit to their scenes of crime - and this would have necessitated bulky clothing for concealment, not jeans and t-shirts. In the context of a UK summer, dressing in a puffa jacket or overcoat could be bit of a giveaway. There's always a tendency to impose prior event paradigms on these kinds of spectaculars - the initial assumption that this wasn't a suicide attack was based on the example of Madrid.
This is the real issue - terrorists replicate what works, that's true; but they don't always follow the same MO. If the London bombers and Madrid bombers had no "operational" connections , then their MO's are liable to be different.
I would also suggest that whilst there are plenty of people thinking "conspiratorially" about these events, it should not be forgotten that terrorists think this way as well. The ambiguities and apparent inconsistencies are just as likely to be "design features" - and there are coherent reasons for this. Given that the attacks took place when the UK's counterterrorism resources were deployed and focussed elsewhere ( stretched ), there has to be an equal possibility that the planners, by tying up large portions of the UK's domestic and foreign security/forensic/investigative resources are intent on creating further holes that they can exploit.
But the question of whether or not the men were suicide bombers is absolutely essential and I wrote the above article to keep the focus on that topic.
And not to strap on the hat any further, yes it's true that 1500 London officers were in Scotland at the time but the whole incident of a private company running counter-terrorism exercises at the exact same stations is very odd.
I still haven't read anywhere on whose behalf Powers' org was doing them for either. Have you?
Pax Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian
Now, I would suggest that if Powers is telling the truth, these considerations would trump any version of commercial confidentiality that could be pulled out of the hat. It would be reasonable to assert that there was an issue with either Power's company, or his client's, personnel or computer security that needs to be thoroughly investigated by the police.
I would certainly agree that the necessity to conclusively identify whether the bombers were suicide bombers is an essential feature of the investigation. If they lack any testamentary evidence that bombers left behind, then the only way that it will be possible to make a determination of this will be the mechanics of the bombs themselves. My guess is that this will take weeks, if not months - and this will make it difficult to prioritise lines of inquiry and correctly allocate resources for the time being - ie it contributes to a resource stretch.
While it will take a while to wrap up the subway bombings due to the location, it seems to me like they should know already if there is physical evidence of a timer or not on the bus.
However, for the sake of investigative rigour, they would still need to determine that at least 2 of the bombs were triggered in an identical fashion.
That said, there has been no official or well-sourced information regarding the bus-bomb being trigger or timer activated.
There has been a lot made of two controlled explosions that the police organised at the bus bomb site. These were very likely precautionary measures to open suspicious parcels that were found (the polic have stated this). In the early days the explosives were thought to be military or construction grade high explosives rather than the mixture we are now told it was. That required both more room and a greater weight of explosive so the possibility of the "bus bomber" carrying more than one is unlikely.
I remember hearing at least one report that a timing device had been found embedded in the remains of one of the bombers. I think that was the bus and the forensic examination is obviously going to be long - he was identified as being on the bus as his description matched that of a head found at the scene.
