PDA

View Full Version : 7/7 - Challenge to official narrative goes MSM



Peter Presland
07-04-2009, 07:01 PM
Well here's a turn up for the book as the 4th anniversary approaches. Bets hedged; equivocations; all the usual journalistic devices to couch the thing in terms that claim lack of an inquiry 'is fuelling outrageous conspiracy theories' - the usual stuff to provide plenty of wriggle room etc. But the fact that this is front page and deals credibly with a number of blatant inconsistencies, obfuscations and down right impossibilities in the official narrative should open the whole thing up a bit.

It's particularly interesting to note the near apoplectic outrage of some of the commenters at the very idea that elements of their State government and or agencies could possibly be hiding anything, much less have a LIHOP or MIHOP involvement


Conspiracy fever: As rumours swell that the government staged 7/7, victims' relatives call for a proper inquiry


By Sue Reid (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Sue+Reid)
Last updated at 11:53 PM on 03rd July 2009



Comments (27) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197419/Conspiracy-fever-As-rumours-swell-government-staged-7-7-victims-relatives-proper-inquiry.html#comments)
Add to My Stories (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197419/Conspiracy-fever-As-rumours-swell-government-staged-7-7-victims-relatives-proper-inquiry.html)


Today almost four years on, the images of that dreadful morning are etched into our minds: the woman in the haunting white burns mask being helped to safety; the shell-shocked businessman in a suit with his hair and shirt matted with blood; the crippled No 30 bus with its roof blown off; the mangled wreckage of smouldering Tube trains.
The country's worst-ever terrorist atrocity during London's morning rush hour on July 7, 2005, shattered for ever the heady euphoria in which the capital was basking the morning after winning the bid for the 2012 Olympics.
That afternoon, Tony Blair - who was hosting the G8 summit on global poverty in Gleneagles, Scotland - returned to Downing Street to pronounce that the attack was an act in the 'name of Islam'.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-02D9D30E0000044D-742_468x383.jpg Fateful day: The iconic image of a 7/7 Tube victim wearing a burns mask

Later, at a meeting of the Government's national emergency committee COBRA, London's anti-terror police chief Andy Hayman told senior ministers that he suspected suicide bombers.
And so the story of 7/7 that we have come to accept was pieced together: four British Muslims - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18 - blew themselves up using home-made explosives, killing 56 and injuring 700 on three Tube trains and a double-decker bus.
They had travelled on a mainline train from Luton into King's Cross Thameslink Station in London, each carrying a heavy rucksack of explosives.
It is a version of events that has been endorsed by a high-level Parliamentary inquiry and a government report, both published in May 2006 ten months after the event, based on 12,500 statements, a police examination of 142 computers and 6,000 hours of CCTV footage.
The report insisted that the bombers acted on their own, constructing explosives from chapatti flour and hair bleach mixed in the bath at a flat in Leeds, Yorkshire, where all four had family and friends.

It concluded that the Muslim bombers were not controlled by a terrorist mastermind, but inspired by Al Qaeda ideology picked up on extremist websites.
But families of the dead victims and an increasing number of 7/7 survivors claim there are inconsistencies and basic mistakes in the official accounts that need explanation.

And they are demanding a full public inquiry to answer key questions about what the Intelligence Services and the police did and did not know before the bombings.
Meanwhile, the Government's determined refusal to meet their demands is having a very dangerous side-effect - fuelling myriad conspiracy theories about 7/7. Books, blogs and several video documentaries point to oddities in the official accounts.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-02E113FA0000044D-12_468x286.jpg Messages left for the victims of the London bombings at the site of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square

Alarmingly, some of the conspiracy videos are being hawked around mosques throughout the country to whip up anti-British sentiment.

For the most outlandish and offensive of them suggest that the attacks were not the work of Muslim terrorists at all, but were carried out by the Government to boost support for the Iraq war.
The survivors are so intent on an independent inquiry that they are now taking legal action in the High Court to try to force the Home Secretary Alan Johnson to authorise it.
Campaigner Diana Gorodi, whose sister Michelle Otto, 46, was one of those killed, explains: 'It's just very hard for us to believe four people got up in the morning, put bombs together on the basis of information from the internet and managed to throw London into chaos and to create a tragedy. It's impossible for me to believe those four individuals acted on their own.'
Rachel North, a 39-year-old strategy director who survived the King's Cross Tube bombing, adds: 'We need a public inquiry. It was the public, after all, not the politicians, who were attacked. Let the public know what risks they run and tell them why there are those living among them who seek to kill for an ideal.'
Central to the puzzle is which train the four Muslims caught from Luton to London on the morning of the bomb blasts - bearing in mind that the three separate Tube explosions at Edgware Road, Aldgate and King's Cross occurred together at exactly 8.50am, followed by the red bus an hour later near Tavistock Square.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-036EEB6F0000044D-42_468x353.jpg Tavistock bombing: The remains of the bus after the terrorist attack

The official reports said the bombers got on the 7.40am train from Luton which would have arrived at King's Cross in good time for them to board the Tube trains.
However, the 7.40am train never ran that morning. It was cancelled.
The Government has since corrected this information - but only after the error was raised by survivors - saying the bombers actually caught an earlier train, the 7.25am from Luton, for the 35-minute journey to King's Cross. It was due to arrive in the capital at 8am.
Yet this throws up more questions than it answers. For this train ran 23 minutes late because of problems with the overhead line which disrupted most of the service between Luton to King's Cross that morning. It arrived in London at 8.23am, say station officials.
According to the July Seventh Truth Campaign - another group calling for a public inquiry - this again places the official version of the bombers' travelling times in doubt.
A still CCTV photo of the four bombers arriving at the station in Luton is the only one of the four men together on July 7. Controversially, no CCTV images, either still or moving, of them in London have ever been released.
The Luton image is also contentious: the quality is poor and the faces of three of the bombers are unidentifiable. The conspiracy theorists say it could be a fake.
This photo is timed at four seconds before 7.22am. But if this were the case, the men would have had just three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their £22 day return tickets and get to the platform, which was packed with commuters because of the earlier travel disruptions.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-02DB7B460000044D-909_468x361.jpg Blown up: A Circle Line train between Liverpool Street and Aldgate stations

The Truth Campaign group is equally sceptical about the bombers' supposed arrival time at King's Cross.
They say it takes seven minutes to walk from the Thameslink line station to the main King's Cross station, where there is an entrance to the Tube network.
Police say the four men were seen on the main King's Cross concourse at 8.26am, although no CCTV footage has ever been made public.
But is this possible? How had the men got there in three short minutes after getting off the Luton train at 8.23am?
And it is such inconsistencies that are fuelling the deepening concerns. This week, a television documentary on BBC2 called Conspiracy Files 7/7 revealed the existence of a conspiracy theorist's 56-minute video called Ripple Effect.
It accuses Tony Blair, the Government, the police, and the British and Israeli Secret Services of murdering the innocent people who died that day to stir up anti-Islamic fervour and create public support for the 'war on terror'.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-0319CBA30000044D-725_233x423.jpg Fact or fiction? Some theories suggest Mohammad Sidique Khan's video was a forgery

It alleges that the four British Muslims were tricked by the authorities into taking part in what they were told would be a mock anti-terror training exercise. What they weren't told, the video alleges, was that the Government was going to blow them up, along with other passengers, then pretend the four were suicide bombers.
Without any evidence, the Ripple Effect video accuses government agents of setting off pre-planted explosives under the three Tube trains and on the bus.
It suggests that the four Muslims were not, in fact, on any of the Tube trains, claiming that they missed them altogether because of the train delays on the Luton to London line.
It adds, astonishingly, that because the four did not get onto the Tube on time, three of them were murdered by police at Canary Wharf later that morning and the fourth - the bus bomber - ran off.
Outrageous though these claims are, the video has become an internet hit. More worryingly, it is playing on the fears of Britain's Muslim community.
Even some senior Islamists believe the events of 7/7 were fabricated. As Dr Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, says in the BBC2 documentary: 'We do not accept the government version of July 7, 2005. The Ripple Effect video is more convincing than the official statements.'
Mr Naseem, a well-educated man, had made 2,000 copies of Ripple Effect for members of his mosque. Research has revealed that even before the contentious video came out, one in four British Muslims thought the Government or the Secret Services were responsible for the 7/7 atrocities. Now the number of doubters is growing.
At Friday prayers recently, Dr Naseem asked the congregation to raise their hands if they did not accept the government version of events. Nearly the entire gathering of 150 men and boys did so. He then urged his audience to collect free copies of Ripple Effect at the back of the mosque.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-02DA86060000044D-784_468x286.jpg A victim is taken away from King's Cross station by emergency personnel

The respected chairman has since said that the identities of the bombers were discovered by the police suspiciously quickly. 'When a body is blown up, it is destroyed. How is it that the identification papers found at the bomb scenes of these men were still intact? Were they planted?'
That is another suggestion in Ripple Effect. So who is behind this dangerous video?
He is 60-year-old Yorkshireman Anthony John Hill who lives in Kells, County Meath, Ireland. He is currently under arrest there and fighting extradition to Britain. Police here want to interview him on a charge of perverting the course of justice after he sent a copy of his video to a jury member in a terrorist case.
Mr Hill made Ripple Effect at his own home and is the narrator.
In many ways, it is an amateurish affair: the dialogue is jumbled and hard to understand. But that begs the question, why is Ripple Effect having such an impact?
The answer is that muddled in with the wild theories of a government plot are some questions that are hard to ignore.
Why did the four bombers get return tickets to London if they were on a one-way suicide mission? Why are there no CCTV images of the four together in London even though the city has thousands upon thousands of such cameras in public places?
Why did so many survivors of the Tube bombings say that the explosions came upwards through the floor of the trains, not down, as would be the case if a backpack blew up inside? And why do no passengers on the London-bound Luton train clearly remember the four bombers with their huge rucksacks on that fateful morning?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/03/article-0-02E268680000044D-852_233x423.jpg Some sources say the Government planned the attack

By the most extraordinary coincidence - Ripple Effect says it is a billion-to-one chance - there was a mock terrorist exercise going on in London that day. This was revealed by the organiser and former Scotland Yard officer Peter Power on BBC Radio 5 in the early evening after the atrocity.
He said: 'At half-past nine this morning we were running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up.'
And what of the menacing suicide videos that Khan and Tanweer made before the bombings, which were released on the internet after the attacks? The Ripple Effect video has an answer for this, too.
Mr Hill explains on it: 'The oldest would be asked to make a "suicide video" prior to the mock training exercise in order to make it as realistic as possible... the second oldest would also be asked to make a similar video, as a back-up, just in case anything went wrong or the oldest pulled out of the exercise before the date.'
Fact or fiction, it does not matter. The impact of the video is swaying Muslim feeling. The BBC2 documentary shows worshippers in the Birmingham mosque commenting on 7/7 after seeing Ripple Effect. One elderly man states: 'There can be little doubt that the Government did this themselves to these four young men.'
Another adds: 'We have been deceived by the British authorities, and Muslims have been framed for these attacks. They are lying from A to Z.'
Few are more concerned than Rachel North, the King's Cross Tube bomb survivor, about Ripple Effect and the discontent it is stirring up: 'If people in mosques think the Government is so antagonistic towards them, that they're actually willing to frame them for a monstrous crime they didn't commit, what does that do to levels of trust? That is a problem for everybody in this country.'
She says the video's central tenet - that 7/7 was faked to demonise Muslims and sway public opinion in favour of the 'war on terror' - is like throwing petrol on a fire.
Like her, many responsible people - and they include former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, former anti-terror chief of London police Andy Hayman (who oversaw the police response to 7/7) and David Davis, until recently Tory Shadow Home Secretary - now support the call for an independent investigation into the bombings.
Paddick himself said this week, the torrent of rumours about 7/7 was harming relations between Muslims and the rest of Britain: 'Hopefully there will be people in the police service, the security service and Whitehall who will realise how important it is that every attempt is made to counteract these conspiracy theories.'
As the fourth anniversary of the London bombings approaches next Tuesday, they are words the Government would be wise to heed.

Peter Presland
07-04-2009, 07:16 PM
I should have added - for those not familiar with the UK MSM - that the Daily Mail is a pretty scurrilous rag. Right wing, jumps on every populist bandwagon imaginable - especially when allegedly 'bogus asylum-seekers', immigration and 'Muslim terrorism' are involved. It is forever cheerleading the 'Our brave boys in Iraq/Afganistan' fetish too. IOW it has absolutely no issue with this country's warmongering and the establishment overarching narrative of the UK's heroic place in the world. Nonetheless it's daily circulation figures are around 2.5 million so that story will get exposure and may well run.

Here's a link to the video mentioned - 'Ripple Effect' (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776) - 57 minutes. It's also available in several shorter episodes at the same site.

Paul Rigby
07-04-2009, 07:56 PM
I should have added - for those not familiar with the UK MSM - that the Daily Mail is a pretty scurrilous rag. Right wing, jumps on every populist bandwagon imaginable - especially when allegedly 'bogus asylum-seekers', immigration and 'Muslim terrorism' are involved. It is forever cheerleading the 'Our brave boys in Iraq/Afganistan' fetish too. IOW it has absolutely no issue with this country's warmongering and the establishment overarching narrative of the UK's heroic place in the world.

Agreed - and this is to neglect both its love affair with the Austrian watercolourist in the 1930s, and Dacre's gushing interview with Angleton in the late 1970s. It thus begs the question - what is going on here?

A couple of suggestions.

First up, is it designed to add a few more nails to NuLab's coffin? A public inquiry which embarrassed, let us say, a NuLab Home Office minister (or two) would surely not be unwelcome to an establishment desperate to annoint the Etonian?

Second, is it so very inconceivable that, at a wild guess, Langley is unhappy with the current leadership of their British counterparts, some of whom enjoyed less than glorious roles in events both before and after 7/7 (not to mention 9/11) - and not above nudging things in a direction which would benefit more enthusiastic UK proteges primed a couple of rungs beneath the top of the ladder?

Paul

Paul Rigby
07-04-2009, 07:59 PM
...what is going on here?

A couple of suggestions.

First up, is it designed to add a few more nails to NuLab's coffin? A public inquiry which embarrassed, let us say, a NuLab Home Office minister (or two) would surely not be unwelcome to an establishment desperate to annoint the Etonian?

Second, is it so very inconceivable that, at a wild guess, Langley is unhappy with the current leadership of their British counterparts, some of whom enjoyed less than glorious roles in events both before and after 7/7 (not to mention 9/11) - and not above nudging things in a direction which would benefit more enthusiastic UK proteges primed a couple of rungs beneath the top of the ladder?

Paul

PS There is only one thing worse than being cynical, and that is being insufficiently so.

Peter Lemkin
07-04-2009, 07:59 PM
7/7 is TOO parallel to 9/11 (drills that day that were the same general or exact scenario that occurred, etc.), and each was TOO unlikely to unfold as they did in and of themselves...it gives it all away......[i.e. from the same Black Ops 'hymn' book]

Paul Rigby
07-04-2009, 08:32 PM
...what is going on here?

A couple of suggestions.

First up, is it designed to add a few more nails to NuLab's coffin? A public inquiry which embarrassed, let us say, a NuLab Home Office minister (or two) would surely not be unwelcome to an establishment desperate to annoint the Etonian?

Second, is it so very inconceivable that, at a wild guess, Langley is unhappy with the current leadership of their British counterparts, some of whom enjoyed less than glorious roles in events both before and after 7/7 (not to mention 9/11) - and not above nudging things in a direction which would benefit more enthusiastic UK proteges primed a couple of rungs beneath the top of the ladder?

Paul

PS There is only one thing worse than being cynical, and that is being insufficiently so.

Apologies for the serial nature of this response, but I'm thinking aloud.

We know beyond doubt that two key components, the spooks and the military, of our beloved permanent establishment forced Prudence Broon into tranforming the Iraq war enquiry from a rapid closed session in a Whitehall broom cupboard into a sort of public hearing. Why? Because they understand the deep unease that surrounds the role of both in this abominable war crime and want to get their spin on the record.

In the course of this sort of public enquiry, to be presided over by a man with a well-earned reputation for cosiness with, among others, MI5, are we to be treated to a few juicy morcels by our spooks and military about the gauchness of their Yank counterparts? You know the sort of stuff, the wise Greeks versus the rash Romans, that sort of condescending crap.

Now, imagine you are sitting in Langley pondering how to fire a shot across some eminent Limey bows...how better than to use a solidly right-wing paper to remind said eminent Limey spooks and generals that their own boat is less than ship-shape?

Paul Rigby
07-05-2009, 10:11 AM
...is it so very inconceivable that, at a wild guess, Langley is unhappy with the current leadership of their British counterparts, some of whom enjoyed less than glorious roles in events both before and after 7/7 (not to mention 9/11) - and not above nudging things in a direction which would benefit more enthusiastic UK proteges primed a couple of rungs beneath the top of the ladder?

Another straw - and quite a large one, at that - in the wind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6639521.ece

From Times Online July 5, 2009

Wife blows MI6 chief’s cover on Facebook

By Ben Gurr


The wife of the new head of MI6 has caused a major security breach and left his family exposed after publishing photographs and personal details on Facebook.

Sir John Sawers is due to take over as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in November, putting him in charge of all of Britain’s spying operations abroad.

But entries by his wife Shelley on the social networking site have exposed potentially compromising details about where they live and work, their friends’ identities and where they spend their holidays. On the day her husband was appointed she congratulated him on the site using his codename “C”.

Lady Sawers had put virtually no privacy protection on her account, making it visible to any of the site’s 200m users around the world who choose to be in the open-access London social network on Facebook.

The extraordinary lapse exposed the couple’s friendships with senior diplomats and well-known actors, including a leading character in The Archers, the BBC Radio 4 drama, and revealed that the intelligence chief’s brother-in-law, who holidayed with him last month, is an associate of David Irving, the controversial right-wing historian.

Once the Foreign Office had been informed of the faux pas all the material was removed from the internet. The move suggests that MI6 or the Foreign Office had not vetted the information the Sawers family shared over the internet.

Foreign Office staff are warned about using social networking sites when they join but MI6 advises its agents to maintain even tighter secrecy, telling them to reveal their true role only to their closest family.

Last night Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, told The Mail On Sunday: “This type of exposure verges on the reckless. The prime minister should immediately commission an internal inquiry as to whether this has breached the security of the incoming head of MI6 too seriously to allow him to take up the post.”

The Tory MP Patrick Mercer said the MI6 chief had left himself open to blackmail. A Foreign Office spokesman was unavailable for comment last night.

Was Sawers' wife really that naive? And is this the man Langley wants in his stead?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4794989.ece


Charles Farr, a 49-year-old spymaster who has overhauled the Home Office’s handling of the war on terror, is widely tipped to become “C” - the chief of MI6 - next July, succeeding Sir John Scarlett.

Paul Rigby
07-05-2009, 11:22 AM
...is it so very inconceivable that, at a wild guess, Langley is unhappy with the current leadership of their British counterparts, some of whom enjoyed less than glorious roles in events both before and after 7/7 (not to mention 9/11) - and not above nudging things in a direction which would benefit more enthusiastic UK proteges primed a couple of rungs beneath the top of the ladder?

Another straw - and quite a large one, at that - in the wind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6639521.ece

From Times Online July 5, 2009

Wife blows MI6 chief’s cover on Facebook

By Ben Gurr


The wife of the new head of MI6 has caused a major security breach and left his family exposed after publishing photographs and personal details on Facebook.

Sir John Sawers is due to take over as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service in November, putting him in charge of all of Britain’s spying operations abroad.

But entries by his wife Shelley on the social networking site have exposed potentially compromising details about where they live and work, their friends’ identities and where they spend their holidays. On the day her husband was appointed she congratulated him on the site using his codename “C”.

Lady Sawers had put virtually no privacy protection on her account, making it visible to any of the site’s 200m users around the world who choose to be in the open-access London social network on Facebook.

The extraordinary lapse exposed the couple’s friendships with senior diplomats and well-known actors, including a leading character in The Archers, the BBC Radio 4 drama, and revealed that the intelligence chief’s brother-in-law, who holidayed with him last month, is an associate of David Irving, the controversial right-wing historian.

Once the Foreign Office had been informed of the faux pas all the material was removed from the internet. The move suggests that MI6 or the Foreign Office had not vetted the information the Sawers family shared over the internet.

Foreign Office staff are warned about using social networking sites when they join but MI6 advises its agents to maintain even tighter secrecy, telling them to reveal their true role only to their closest family.

Last night Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, told The Mail On Sunday: “This type of exposure verges on the reckless. The prime minister should immediately commission an internal inquiry as to whether this has breached the security of the incoming head of MI6 too seriously to allow him to take up the post.”

The Tory MP Patrick Mercer said the MI6 chief had left himself open to blackmail. A Foreign Office spokesman was unavailable for comment last night.

Was Sawers' wife really that naive? And is this the man Langley wants in his stead?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4794989.ece


Charles Farr, a 49-year-old spymaster who has overhauled the Home Office’s handling of the war on terror, is widely tipped to become “C” - the chief of MI6 - next July, succeeding Sir John Scarlett.

Sawers' offence?

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-important-spooks-are-not-given-any.html


In 2008, Sir John Sawers, while Permanent Representative of the UK to the UN, said about Palestine: "The closing of all crossings and restriction of the supply of fuel, food and other goods in order to create suffering among the civilian population is not the right response..."

So now we know - he's not "on message" with the neo-cons.

Mark Stapleton
07-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Sawers' offence?

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-important-spooks-are-not-given-any.html


In 2008, Sir John Sawers, while Permanent Representative of the UK to the UN, said about Palestine: "The closing of all crossings and restriction of the supply of fuel, food and other goods in order to create suffering among the civilian population is not the right response..."

So now we know - he's not "on message" with the neo-cons.


I reckon you're right Paul, but I think it was in January 2009. Obviously feelings over Gaza were high at this time, but it didn't get him off the hook apparently.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/189/38251.html


A quick googling shows that his past statements in the UN don't seem overtly critical of Israel.

Any support for the Palestinians is a career terminator.

Former Aussie PM Gough Whitlam can attest to that.

Magda Hassan
07-07-2009, 03:45 AM
Thanks for posting this Peter.
The blatant murder of the Brasilian de Mendez begs the question of whether he had seen or knew of some official complicity in the 7/7 events and was in a position to disclose this? There are certainly way too many questions unanswered in this and 911 who ever was behind them.

Peter Lemkin
07-11-2009, 11:48 AM
New 7/7 Bombing Photo Contradicts Official Story
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-77-bombing-photo-contradicts-official-story.html

Image appears to duplicate witness statement that bomb was planted under train

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

A new photo released on the fourth anniversary of the 7/7 attacks in London appears to contradict the government’s official story that Muslims with backpack bombs were responsible for the Tube and bus bombings which killed 52 people.

The image seemingly dovetails with a survivor’s eyewitness statement that the bombs on the Tube trains were placed underneath the carriage and that suicide bombers were nowhere to be seen.

Debunkers have attempted to dismiss this vital hole in the official story by claiming that questions about eyewitnesses stating bombs were placed under the train have been explained. London Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum interviewed witnesses who stated that “tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up,” when the bombs were detonated. Honigsbaum later said that the quotes were taken out of context when they were cited as evidence that the bombs were planted under the trains – and debunkers duly seized on this in an attempt to dismiss the entire issue.

However, one very reliable eyewitness statement is very clear in making it plain that no suicide bombers were involved, and the bomb could only have been planted underneath the train, contradicting the official story completely.

The words of 7/7 survivor Bruce Lait, who was just yards from the explosion when it happened, cannot be taken out of context.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing, described to the Cambridge Evening News how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.

“We’d been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now,” he said.

He and Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been.

“The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said.

In his statement, Lait makes clear four things – according to what he witnessed, there was no suicide bomber, there was no rucksack or backpack that could have contained a bomb, there was nobody around the location where the bomb exploded, and the bomb appeared to have been placed underneath the train.

The fact that the policeman had to warn them of a “hole” as they were being led out to safety obviously suggests that the hole was in the floor and therefore a potential hazard to them exiting the train.

The photo displayed below is currently being carried on the Daily Mail website with the caption; “Warped and blackened by the blast, this is the Piccadilly Line carriage where Jermaine Lindsay’s bomb detonated at Russell Square station. A forensics officer in white rubber gloves inches his way along the floor – itself sheared away in the blast, exposing metal beams – searching for the smallest of clues.” Note that Bruce Lait’s comments refer to the Aldgate tube bombing. This photo is from the Russell Square bombing, but it appears to dovetail his testimony that the bombs were planted under the train.


CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT

Despite the fact that the image is cut off at the point where the hole begins, one can clearly see it at the very bottom of the picture. The cabling underneath the floor cover is exposed and the area to the right of the hole is raised up, as if pressure has been exerted from underneath.

The contention that there were no suicide bombers actually on the train at all, as Bruce Lait contends, is consistent with other evidence surrounding the attacks.

The fact that the ID’s of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID’s would have had a reasonable chance of surviving relatively unscathed if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

Remember that the London Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch themselves reported that from studying the behavior of the alleged suicide bombers before the attacks via CCTV footage, the bombers “did not fit the preconceived terrorist profile.”

The suspects were seen to be arguing with cashiers, walking in and out of shops, including McDonalds, and “bumping into people” in the minutes before the blasts – hardly the behavior of people who are in the final crucial moments of planning a terror attack in which they will be killed, and who wish to go unnoticed.

“I’ve seen the CCTV footage of these people. They do not appear to be on their way to commit any crime at all,” a London Metropolitan Police representative said.

“The roundtrip tickets, the fact that one of them spent a lot recently repairing his car and one of them had a family and was the teacher of the disabled and underprivileged children, it doesn’t ring right,” said Paul Beaver, a security and defense expert in London with close police contacts. “If you had that much commitment, how are you going to take your life? It’s happened in Palestine, but these people were brought up in the UK.”

Turning back to the question of devices planted under the train, the get out clause of the “exercise” or “drill” scenario would have also provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for a company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security and alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange ‘coincidence’.

It is important to stress that this is just one piece of evidence amidst a myriad of smoking guns that all directly contradict the government’s official story. A summary of that evidence can be found here. An archive containing further stories can be found here.

Questions surrounding the 7/7 bombings have been met with a stonewall response from the British government, leading victims’ relatives to call for an independent inquiry.

Scotland Yard’s former head of counter-terrorism Andy Hayman, who was Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations at the time of the bombings in 2005, has also publicly called for an independent investigation into the bombings.

“Incidents of less gravity have attracted the status of a public inquiry — train crashes, a death in custody, and even other terrorist attacks. How can there not be a full, independent public inquiry into the deaths of 52 commuters on London’s transport system?,” said Hayman.

However, individuals who produced Internet documentaries about these questions, such as the author of 7/7: Ripple Effect, 60-year-old Anthony John Hill, have been targeted for character assassination by the media, and in particular the BBC. Hill was arrested merely for sending a copy of his DVD to a jury member after authorities accused him of perverting the course of justice.

Ed Jewett
07-09-2010, 08:27 AM
SOTT Focus (http://www.sott.net/signs/list_editorials)

London Bombings - The Facts Speak For Themselves (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/124587-London-Bombings-The-Facts-Speak-For-Themselves)
http://www.sott.net/images/print_article.png?1224850421 (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/124587-London-Bombings-The-Facts-Speak-For-Themselves#)
http://www.sott.net/images/icons/bomb.png?1230658166 Joe Quinn
Sott.net
Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:00 EDT


http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/23746/pod/mifive.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/23746/full/mifive.jpg)© somethinginthewater.co.uk
...with a little help from the Mossad

Five years ago today, on the morning of July 7th, 2005, someone detonated four carefully placed bombs in London. Three exploded on London underground trains within 50 seconds of each other at 8.50 am, the first on the sub-surface eastbound Circle Line, the second on the sub-surface westbound Circle Line, a third on the deep-level underground southbound Piccadilly Line. A fourth bomb exploded almost an hour later at 9.47 am on the upper deck of a double decker bus in Tavistock Square.

Fifty two innocent British civilians were killed, many of whom had already become seriously disenchanted with the Blair government as evidenced by the massive voter turnaway from the Labour party in the British general elections of March 2005.

Having initially believed that power surges in the underground power grid had caused explosions in power circuits, the British government quickly announced that this was a terrorist attack, and identified four 'home-grown Islamic suicide bombers' from CC camera footage of them allegedly entering Luton train station on the morning of July 7th.

Who Dunnit?

Later on the same day, a claim of responsibility was made by a 'previously unknown group' calling itself 'The Secret Cell of al-Qaida of Jihad in Europe' and posted on an Islamic website. On the same day, a letter dated June 20th allegedly from Osama bin Laden, was released wherein the al-Qaida leader said that the London bombings were part of a wider al-Qaida summer offensive: A translation of the letter stated:
"Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters. We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid." etc. etc.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/zawahri.jpg Puppet on a String - 'al-Zawahiri'
Later in September 2005, alleged 'al-Qaeda' deputy leader 'Ayman al-Zawahri', in a videotaped message (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4262392.stm) aired on Arab television station al-Jazeera, stated for the first time that 'al-Qaeda' carried out the 7 July suicide bombings. Interestingly, in the tape, the Mr Magoo of Islamic terrorism stated that the plans to toughen the UK's anti-terror laws in the aftermath of the bombings showed "the dreadful colonial face of Britain". As we have noted in the past, it seems that 'al-qaeda' seems quite content to provide the British government with the justification to institute draconian anti-terror laws while at the same time criticising the British government for introducing those laws.

As mentioned, the claim of responsibility made by the previously unknown 'Secret Cell of al-Qaida of Jihad in Europe' was posted on an Islamic website. A little research turns up the following report from the UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1524813,00.html) which states:
"The claim of responsibility for the London attacks was first posted on one of the dozens of Islamic websites that are routinely monitored by western intelligence services. The statement, under the name of "the Secret Organisation of the al-Qaida Jihad in Europe", said: "The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters." It was posted on an Arabic website, al-qal3ah.com, which is registered by Qalaah Qalaah in Abu Dhabi and hosted by a server in Houston The Houston company that owns the server has intriguing connections. Everyone's Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about 17m). Renowned for his charitable work, Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president's navy secretary" Despite these admissions of guilt by Islamic groups and 'al-Qaeda', in April 2006, the Observer newspaper published (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750139,00.html)leaked details of the first draft of a forthcoming Home Office report on the bombings, compiled for the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke by a senior civil servant. On May 11th 2005, the Blair government ruled out a full public inquiry into the attacks and instead released a final "narrative" report. The report stated that the attack was planned with a budget of just a few hundred pounds by four men using information from the Internet. While they had visited Pakistan, it was declared that, despite the claims of Osama and al-Zawahiri, there was no direct support or planning by al-Qaeda and that meetings in Pakistan were "ideological, rather than practical."

Sadly, the Blair government's final report failed to address many pertinent details that pose serious questions about the accuracy of the official conclusions about the perpetrators and the nature of the bombings:

High Street Chemist Or High Explosive?

The Blair government claimed that the bombs were crude home-made acetone peroxide-based devices cobbled together on a 'shoestring' budget. However, on July 12th 2005, the Times of London ran a report (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690391,00.html) stating that "a lone bomb-maker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices." The paper also reported that similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four bombing sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the bombs was the work of one man using materials that "were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans." The paper quotes Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, the chief of the French anti-terrorist police, who is in London to help Scotland Yard as saying "The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying."

Further confirming that the explosives used were not "home made" by four teenagers, a report in July 2005 from German newspaper Bild am Sonntag as quoted by Israeli daily 'Ynet News' stated (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3111121,00.html):
The terror attack in London last week may be tied to a suicide bombing on Tel Aviv's beachfront in April 2003, German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported Monday. According to the paper, Mossad officials informed British security authorities that the explosive material used in the Tel Aviv attack on Mike's Place pub was apparently also utilized to stage the series of bombings in London on Thursday. After analyzing the explosive material used in the Mike's Place attack, the Mossad concluded it was produced in China and later smuggled into Britain, the paper reports. The explosives were apparently stashed by terrorists connected to al-Qaeda who were able to evade raids by British security forces. According to the newspaper, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said the explosive in question is very powerful, and much more lethal than plastic explosives and can be smuggled undetected due to its composition. The Mossad was also able to determine the substance was developed and produced at the Chinese ZDF arms factory, located about 65 kilometers (about 40 miles) from Beijing, the paper reports. As a general rule, two-bit terrorist organisations and British teenagers would find it difficult to procure high-grade military explosives from Chinese arms factories that generally confine their business to the world of international arms deals between governments. It is certainly interesting that explosives used in alleged "islamic terror attacks" in London and Israel are being traced to arms factories in China, especially since the UK and Israel both have long-standing arms deals with China (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1038835&C=airwar), which include such high-grade military explosives.

These facts were ignored by the final British government report on the London bombings, which maintains that the explosives used were manufactured from materials "found in high-street chemists".

Amazing Coincidence?

Amazingly, on the morning of July 7th 2005,a UK-based crisis management firm, Visor Consultants, was running terror drills (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/10/london_bombings_coin.html) that simulated bomb attacks at the very same train stations as the actual bombings.

The managing director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, an ex-Scotland Yard anti-terror branch man, stated on ITN news on July 7th 2005:
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on. Mr. Power refused to name the company that had employed his services to stage the mock terror attack on London underground trains, however, the Visor website states "our clients include one of the top seven companies in the USA and key Departments of the UK Government."

Can it really be a mere coincidence that a crisis management company was running a terror drill that simulated terrorist bombings on the very same London underground trains and stations at the very same time as duplicate real bombings were occurring? Should the fact that the very same coincidence occurred on the morning of September 11th 2001 when FEMA was conducting a simulated bioterrorism attack in New York raise any eyebrows?

What about the fact that (http://thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm) on the morning of September 11h 2001, officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had planned and was running an exercise in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings?

The US government called this a "bizarre coincidence". What would you call it? At what point does 'coincidence' become evidence of criminal activity?

On the morning of 9/11, with FEMA, oh so conveniently already on the ground as the attacks occurred, a Mr. Richard Sheirer, in his capacity as Director of the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, was heavily involved in overseeing the City's rescue and recovery operations. On departing the office of the Mayor of New York, Giuliani established Giuliani and Partners, a company "dedicated to helping leaders solve critical strategic issues, accelerate growth, and enhance the reputation and brand of their organizations in the context of strongly held values", and other nonsensical business-speak. The important point is that, as a close confidant, Giuliani took Mr Sheirer with him, with Sheirer currently enjoying life as Vice President at Giuliani and Partners. The 'bizarre coincidence' that I want to point out here is that Sheirer, and the above mentioned Visor Consulting director Peter Power, are quite well acquainted with each other and, as of January, 2005, both were serving on the advisory board of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness (http://wcdm.org/) and both Guiliani and Partners and Visor Consulting specialise in security preparedness and mock terror drills.

Coincidences on top of coincidences! But it gets better.

Giuliani and Netanyahu On The Scene

Guess where Rudolf Giuliani just happened to be on the morning of July 7th 2005? Rudy was lounging at the Great Eastern hotel just a few yards from Liverpool street station where one of the bombs went off. In the same Great Eastern hotel where Giuliani was staying, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange just happened to be hosting its economic conference. Guess who the keynote speaker was? Israel's then Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The same guy who, when asked by a news reporter on the afternoon of September 11th 2001 what he thought of the 9/11 attacks, responded:

"It's very good... well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel"

As it turned out, Netanyahu never arrived at the Great Eastern Hotel because, as news reports in the days after July 7th informed us, Netanyahu had in fact received a warning from the Israeli embassy, (by way of the British Metropolitan police) that bombings were to occur and that he should stay in his hotel in Mayfair. Again, the official British government report makes no attempt to address how British police knew at least 6 minutes (probably longer) in advance that the bombings were to occur when, 'officially', British authorities were not even aware that they were dealing with bombs, believing that the explosions were the result of a power surge, until the bus bombing one hour after the first train explosion.

CCTV - Close Circuit Or Complete Codswollop?

According to the official government report, the bombers were identified by CCTV images of them arriving at Luton railway station at 07:21 a.m. on 7 July (below)

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/280px-Londonbombing2.jpg

However, a Sunday Mail report (http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/uruk/uruk_200705.html) from July 2005 recounted the eyewitness testimony of a survivor of the bus bombing who claimed to have seen Hasib Hussain the alleged bomber:
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. "This young guy kept diving into this bag or whatever he had in front of his feet," he told The Associated Press. 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. Hasib Hussain is seen on the extreme left in the above image as he entered Luton railway station on July 7th, allegedly on his way to carry out the bus bombing.

Below, he is seen inside the train station:


http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/Hussaincctv.jpg


Compare his clothing with the claims of the eyewitness who said he saw him on the bus.

To date, these are the only images that the British police have released, and they refuse to release further CCTV footage which they claim shows the four 'bombers' emerging on to the concourse at King's Cross where, according to the home office narrative report, they are seen hugging and appear "euphoric".

Indestructible ID

In an amazing turn of luck, British police claimed that they were able to salvage credit cards and documents from the scenes of the bombings enabling them to quickly identify the bombers. Amid the carnage of twisted metal and bloody body parts, it was claimed that credit cards and other ID were recovered. Two weeks after the bombings, the Pakistani government, for some reason, released a copy of a passport that they claimed belonged to Hasib Hussain and which proved, British authorities claimed, that Hussain (and his fellow bombers) had visited Karachi in Pakistan on 15 July 2004, and that this constituted 'evidence' that they had undergone 'ideological training in Jihad'. However, as reported by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4704427.stm), the passport actually belonged to a very much alive teenage boy living in High Wycombe, north-west of London, also called Hasib Hussain. As the BBC report stated: "evidence showing that all three of the London bombers of Pakistani descent visited Pakistan last year has been thrown into doubt."

These claims of miraculous discoveries of identification of terrorists are strangely similar to the events of 9/11 and the incredible (literally) recovery in the rubble of the WTC towers of a passport belonging to one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. We are also reminded of the BBC report that, at least four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were still alive (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm).

Impossible Journeys?

The British government and Metropolitan police claim that the bombers boarded the 7.40am Luton train for Kings Cross (from where it is claimed that they boarded their respective 'bomb trains') The three 'bomb trains' left King's cross station at 08:35, 08:42 and at 08:48.

However, as can be seen from the following official timetable (http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005/10/train-times-from-kings-x-at-last.html), the 7.40 from Luton was cancelled, as was the 7.46, leaving the bombers with no option but to take the 7.48, which arrived at King's Cross at 8.42, meaning that two of the bombers would not have had enough time to board the trains on which they allegedly detonated their bombs. Of course, the bombers, having arrived at Luton at 7.21am could have taken the 7.24am or the 7.30am trains to King's Cross, but the official Home Office Narrative Report insists that they took the 7.40am. Again, no explanation for this problem has ever been given by British authorities.

Thameslink Trains: Luton to Kings Cross on 7 July 2005 Official Timetable Actual 7 July Timetable Depart Luton Arrive Kings Cross Platform Departure Time Arrive Kings Cross 7.04 7.40 1 or 3 7.04 (On Time) 7.40 (on time) 7.08 7.56 1 or 3 7.08 (On Time) 8.26 (30 mins late) 7.16 7.48 1 or 3 7.21 (5 minutes late) 8.19 (31 mins late) 7.20 8.08 1 or 3 7.20 (On Time) 8.15 (7 mins late) 7.24 8.00 1 or 3 7.25 8.23 (23 mins late) 7.30 8.04 4 7.42 (12 minutes late) 8.39 (35 mins late) 7.40 8.16 N/A Cancelled Cancelled 7.46 8.28 N/A Cancelled Cancelled 7.48 8.20 N/A 7.56 (8 mins late) 8.42 (22 mins late) 7.56 8.32 N/A Cancelled Cancelled
Bombs That Suck?

Equally absent from the official British government narrative report on the London bombings is any reference to a very disturbing eyewitness report from the Cambridge Evening News (http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/05/bruce-lait-i-dont-remember-anybody.html) from July 2005. Dancer Bruce Lait had just boarded the train at Liverpool Street station on his way to the South Bank for a rehearsal when an explosion occurred:
"We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. [...] We were right in the carriage where the bomb was. I was knocked out. I did not know what was going on." He and Crystal (his dance partner) were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag." If someone would kindly explain to me how a bomb in a rucksack on the floor of a train can cause the floor of the train to be blasted inwards, I would truly appreciate it.

For The Love Of Terror

I have written in the past (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060704_OsamaDeathSquadsandtheBiggestLieEver Told.php) about the counter-insurgency strategy currently being employed by US and British military intelligence agencies in Iraq, where covert attacks on the civilian population of Iraq are being carried out in order to confuse and demoralise the Iraqi population, and the real insurgency that they support, in an attempt to consolidate US government control over the future of the Iraqi nation. It is my opinion that in the 9/11 attacks, and the Madrid and London train bombings, we are witness to the very similar counter-insurgency tactics, only this time they are being used against the American, British, Spanish and wider European and world civilian population.

There is a very clear link between the American and Israeli war in Iraq, Palestine and soon the wider Middle East, and the need for the population of Europe and America to believe in the reality of the 'war on Islamic terror'. The invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq by American and British forces is, after all, being pursued under the aegis of the very same 'war on Islamic terror'. It is essential therefore for the populations of America and Western Europe to continue to believe in the 'reality' of ' Islamic terrorism' in order for the US, British and Israeli governments to continue to expand their war of aggression in the Middle East and beyond. Given the absence of any real worldwide Islamic terror threat, it has long been understood by these governments that such a threat must be manufactured. In the 9/11, London, Madrid and other alleged Islamic terror attacks, we have evidence of just such a campaign of manufactured Islamic terrorism, and the glaring holes in the official accounts of how and why those attacks occurred provides more than enough evidence to support this thesis.

Forest Gate - Psychological Terror Op

On June 2nd 2006, 250 heavily armed British police descended on a house in East London where, it was alleged, 'Muslim terrorists' were manufacturing chemical weapons to unleash on innocent Londoners. During the raid, which has become know as the 'Forest Gate Raid', one of two brothers living in the house was shot and both were arrested. At a press conference after their release, the brothers (aged 23 and 20) described their ordeal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1796915,00.html).
When Kahar heard the front door being smashed down, he assumed it was a burglary and left his bedroom to come down stairs, where, at a distance of 'two or three feet', a policeman opened fire without issuing a warning or identifying himself. "We had eye contact and he shot me straight away," recalled Kahar. The bullet entered his chest and exited through his shoulder, sparing his life by inches. "I was begging him, 'Please, please, I can't breathe,' and he just kicked me in my face. He kept on saying, 'Shut the fuck up'.... one of the officers slapped me on the face ... I thought that they're going to either shoot me again, or they're going to start shooting my brother." Koyair, the brother, was also sworn at and beaten. Their elderly mother was dragged out in handcuffs. Their sister, Humeya Kalam, told the BBC, "I heard doors being smashed, windows being broken. I woke up, opened my door and saw a person dressed all in black, gun pointing towards me." Meanwhile, the police raided the house next door, where the residents received similar rough treatment. In what has become standard policy, the police attempted to smear the two victims by claiming first that Kahar had been shot after he had struggled with officers, then that he had actually been shot by his brother during a scuffle, and then that a police officer had 'accidentally' discharged his gun as a result of wearing thick gloves. It was also stated that the brothers had attended militant Islamist demonstrations and that Kahar's wound was superficial. Not surprisingly, all of these were outright lies, and the two brothers were entirely innocent, but even more shocking was the subsequent revelation (http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/92038) that the police informant who provided the information that led to the raid, was an "utter incompetent" with an IQ of 69.

Mohammed Abu Bakr Mansha (22) is a friend of the two brothers and had been imprisoned in January for possessing an old address of a decorated British soldier. This was an operation that involved 250 heavily-armed and bio-suited officers in a pre-dawn raid on a London home. Such operations are not sanctioned without meticulous planning, including, in theory, rigorous checking to make sure that the 'target' is a genuine, or likely to be genuine 'terrorist'. Are we to assume that the British 'securocrats' that sanctioned this operation were unaware that, given that the informant was a 22 year old incompetent idiot, any information he might offer should have been treated with serious suspicion, especially if he was being offered early release in exchange for any information on 'terrorists' he could provide, meaning that there was a distinct possibility that the information he provided was bogus, as indeed it turned out to be?

The obvious conclusion here is that the Forest Gate raid was given the green light, not because any faith was placed in the 'tip off' from the incompetent idiot, but rather because it would help to create the 'reality', in the minds of the British population, that Islamic terrorism is a real threat to the world and that the Blair government is justified in introducing further draconian anti-terror laws. After all, if 250 heavily-armed police are kicking in doors and shooting people, then there simply must be a good and justifiable reason for it, right? Well, yes, there is a justifiable reason for it, but it's not any justice that you or I would readily ascribe to, unless of course we were deceived into doing so.

Candy From A Baby

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/seas%20of%20david.jpg Incompetent half-wits - the FBI wants You For Islamic Terror Opportunities!
We are also reminded of the 'Miami Seven' affair (http://www.apfn.org/APFN/miami7.htm) in the US, where an undercover FBI agent, posing as an 'al-Qaeda' operative, approached a group of apparently incompetent half-wits living in a warehouse in Florida. The group's name is "the Sea of David' and far from having anything to do with 'Islamic terrorism' they all claimed to be Christians who "trained through the bible". In a perfect example of how agents of the US government are actively attempting to manufacture Islamic terrorism, the undercover FBI agent:

approached the group and asked them if they wanted to join 'al-Qaeda'

'swore one of them in' as an 'al-Qaeda' member

offered them $50,000

provided them with army boots and a video camera

suggested that they might want to blow up some government buildings

suggested that they wanted to blow up the Sears tower

suggested to them that they wanted to wage "full ground war against the United States."

identified that one of them knew what the Sears tower was and had actually been to Chicago - once.

All of this was trumpeted in the mainstream press as evidence of an "Islamic terror cell" working out of Florida and planning attacks against the American people. I kid you not, and not once was the most appropriate word used - entrapment

Jihad From Jail

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/images/muhajir.jpg Manfactured Terrorist - 'al-Muhajir'
Arch ex-bogeyman and 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' leader al-Zarqawi was killed in a June 2006 bombing of his safe-house in Iraq. Despite having two 500lb bombs dropped on his head, a picture of his only slightly-blemished face was spread around the world as proof that, not only is the 'war on terror' real, but the US is actively fighting it. Immediately after al-Zarqawi's demise, a successor was needed, so out popped 'Abu Hamza al-Muhajir' who, courtesy of one of Osama's dubious tapes, was lauded as al-Zarqawi's successor and the man to lead the jihad against the occupiers of Iraq. However, the US government hardly had time to slap a $5 million bounty on his head before this newest bubble of fake Islamic terror was unceremoniously popped (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A924A436-D330-42C8-83C3-FEAF91E6B326.htm) by an Egyptian lawyer who declared that he had just recently visited 'al-Muhajir' in the Egyptian prison, where he has been languishing for the past seven years.

Now, answer me a couple of questions: Don't you think that 'Osama', if he is all that the US government says he is, would have known that there was slight problem with the new leader of his Jihadi forces in Iraq in prison in the form of him being locked up in an Egyptian cell? Why then would he have announced to the world, via one of his infamous and very suspicious tapes, that an Egyptian jail bird was to spearhead Islamic terror in Iraq and around the world?

All of it stinks folks, but we are dealing with a very particular odour here - I'm getting Langley, Virginia (http://www.cia.gov/), Thames House, London (http://www.mi5.gov.uk/), and Herzliya, Israel (http://www.mohr.gov.il/Mohr)

Stating The Obvious

The facts are clear: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism in terms of there being a world wide network of terrorists who want to "hurt civilised people everywhere". Any such suggestions should be seen for the clear Nazi party-style government propaganda that they are.

All of this may sound like a joke, albeit a rather sick one, that the US, British and Israeli governments are perpetrating against the global population, but make no mistake, from their point of view, this is no joke - the 1 million+ Iraqi civilians and the growing number of Palestinian civilians that have been butchered in the name of the 'war on Islamic terror' is a stark testimony to that fact.

It's time (again) to wake up and stop blithely swallowing government lies and manipulations. Unnecessary and brutal war is being waged in your name and, until now, with your support. How long the killing continues is entirely - 100% - up to you.

Peter Lemkin
07-09-2010, 10:21 AM
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2319

especially second post...but both, for sure!

Carsten Wiethoff
07-21-2010, 08:45 AM
There is an interesting thread at http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=9&view=findpost&p=2016020
detailing the circumstances under which John Howard, then PM of Australia, could claim that the number of dead victims would be 52, at a time (morning of 7/8), at which nobody knew the number of victims, some where not even discovered, and some of the later victims allegedly were still alive.

You don't have to follow all the conclusions of this website to find that interesting. The British media began using the number 52 on 7/11, at a time when at least 2 of the victims were still alive and one was not yet discovered, according to the BBC.

Christer Forslund
10-11-2010, 09:44 PM
From: NO ONE TO VOTE FOR / Kev Boyle. Monday, 11 October 2010
The 7/7 Inquest (http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/2010/10/77-inquests.html)


On BBC Radio 4 this morning John Humphreys was interviewing Reverend Julie Nicholson, who resigned from her church after her daughter was murdered on the morning of 7/7/05.
He asked her, "What do you want from this inquest? We know what the verdict will be, that goes without saying, but what do you want."

Yes it does go without saying. The narrative is fixed.

There has been no Public Inquiry to disturb this narrative. Nor will any jury be allowed to interject with uncomfortable questions, nor deliberate on the anomalous evidence regarding this great crime.

The J7 website (http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/)covers all these issues in great detail. An excellent book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terror-Tube-Behind-Veil-Investigation/dp/0930852737) and four strong films, here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776#), here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719#), here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=590416857132687483#) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m630pIT6-zs), have been made undermining the official story.

Anyone who has read the evidence or watched one of these films MUST have the most serious doubts about the story we have been given re 7/7.

As usual, it is the detailed physical/scientific evidence that poses the greatest threat to the government's narrative. The witness evidence of the blasts and the ever-changing story re the explosives used are comically incoherent.

Do not expect the Inquest to ask such obvious questions as:

"If these terrorists were determined to murder people on the Tube by blowing up four trains, why did they decide to kill themselves in the process?"

This was quite unnecessary.

These men would surely have heard of devices called electronic timers so they would have known that they could easily have survived to carry out who-knows-how-many-more murderous attacks against the infidel.

...

Paul Rigby
10-12-2010, 06:08 AM
From: NO ONE TO VOTE FOR / Kev Boyle. Monday, 11 October 2010
The 7/7 Inquest (http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/2010/10/77-inquests.html)


On BBC Radio 4 this morning...

The world's finest guarantee of...a squalid establishment lie.

David Guyatt
10-14-2010, 11:01 AM
As usual, it is the detailed physical/scientific evidence that poses the greatest threat to the government's narrative. The witness evidence of the blasts and the ever-changing story re the explosives used are comically incoherent.


Ah yes, the inconvenience of scientific evidence.

Thank Goodness we Brits have a media that is willing to underwrite any and all security driven nonsense to ensure that scientific evidence never inconveniently merges with the truth.

What lucky bunnies we are eh.