HOW CAN BRITISH PEOPLE *STILL* BE FOOLED?
July 7th 2005 London Bombings
7/7: Evidence Verification
The Security Services - Prior Knowledge, Infiltration and Accountability
To start with I would like to thank those members of MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch and other law enforcement authorities whose work has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives.
There are undoubtedly many unsung heroes within these authorities and if there was not significant evidence and testimony revealing complicity in past terrorist attacks, then I for one would be much less sceptical of the official account of the 7th July London bombings.
For some context one should be familiar with the infiltration of Al-Muhajiroun, the training and manipulation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Britain's role in Operation Gladio, the complicity in the Israeli embassy bombing in London, the funding of terrorists to kill Gaddafi and the infiltration and manoeuvring of the IRA.
Over the years terrorism in Britain has been, rightly or wrongly, used as a basis to bolster public support for military action, to increase the power of the intelligence services and to suppress individual freedoms.
A typical day at GCHQ
When one asks who benefits from these apparent solutions, it becomes clear that those who profit from war and those who gain power through control, would have a vested interest in maintaining a strategy of tension, with terrorism as a prominent facet.
I have always found it plausible that rogue elements within the interconnected shadows of Western intelligence may have the motivation to allow or even orchestrate attacks on Britain. It is obvious that the British intelligence services have been complicit in maintaining the lies of 9/11, they spearheaded the deception leading to the Iraq war and they have been implicated in many terrorist attacks pre-911.
In the case of the 7th July bombings the public has been told that two of the alleged bombers had come to the attention of MI5 due to being on the fringe of terrorist plots.
The public are led to believe that Khan and Tanweer were not perceived as a threat and were therefore not kept under surveillance. It has not been made explicitly clear why they were not seen as a threat giving that they had apparently been on the periphery of terrorist plots uncovered during Operation Crevice. Of course no one has been held to public account regarding this decision.
There are thousands of people under surveillance everyday and the excuses that the security services were too busy to partly monitor two more men who were reportedly discussing the success of the Madrid bombings with men recognised as high priority terrorist threats appears to many to imply negligence.
If the official account is correct and there was no mastermind involved with the 7th July attacks, then the four men would have been leaving a trail of evidence behind them in their attempts to build and construct the supposed peroxide based detonation devices. In other words surveillance of Khan or Tanweer would have quickly led to 18 Alexandra Grove and the bombings could have been prevented.
I understand it is easy with hindsight to make these conclusions, but I can also understand that the victims of 7/7 would receive some closure from the decision making intelligence officers being held publicly accountable.
The persistent refusal to hold a public inquiry into the 7th July bombings has not only upset many victims but it has also exacerbated public suspicion.
Evidence put forward at the recent trial of Saleem, Shakil and Ali showed that these men had contact with the alleged 7/7 bombers leading up to the attacks. The jury eventually found that the men had no connection with the planning of the attacks.
Many officials still believe that there must have been a significant support network involved in the 7th July operation. To the surprise of those investigating 7/7, no support network has ever been established.
If association and contact implicates possible guilt, then why was there not a similar trial to investigate the connection of Haroon Aswat to the alleged bombers?
In the latest Intelligence and Security Committee report of May 2009, the authorities make a number of their conclusions based on apparent phone records. There is however no confirmation or denial of phone records with Aswat. Does this mean that the numerous reports of Aswat's contact with the men were all unfounded or are the authorities covering up the connection due to Aswat's reputed ties with MI6?
The alleged bombers were also purported to have connections with members of the MI5 infiltrated organisation named Al-Muhajiroun, but none of these leads are properly explored or substantiated in any official report.
Therefore at least two avenues of investigation that would implicate Britain's intelligence services have been seemingly washed over.
The public must be aware that the infiltration of terrorist organisations has in many cases led to the ability to control and/or influence them. The upmost level of compartmentalisation and secrecy within the intelligence agencies ensures that only a handful of people have to know about the activities of agents and informants.
Some intelligence analysts have suggested that Mohammed Siddique Khan may have been acting as one of the hundreds of informants in Britain, reporting on suspected terrorist activity for the intelligence services. Khan had helped the Leed's police force with investigating criminal gang activity and may have been recruited after this. This would certainly explain why he was on the fringe of alleged terrorist plots, but mysteriously avoided MI5 suspicion and identification.
One can logically speculate that if this was the case MI5 may have been betrayed by Khan and are now covering up their working association with him. Others have speculated that Khan and his friends were set up to take the fall for a more elusive and insidious group of terrorists that took advantage of connections with the security services.
Of course these theories are speculation but it is important that the public realise that these scenarios do occur and are known in the intelligence world as blow-back. Osama Bin Laden who was initially set up by the CIA is a prime example.
7/7: cctv Timelines and Eyes on Witnesses
With regard to cctv footage, the problem is verification. I can say for certain that it would be possible to manipulate, plant or time change public cctv footage in London.
When one looks into the companies in charge of cctv in London, and understands how the systems are electronically networked, it becomes obvious that those with the knowhow and the connections could access and manipulate cctv.
Everyone should be able to grasp this potential. Therefore the entire premise of cctv evidence comes down to a question of trust. You either trust the authorities and believe the cctv evidence is genuine, or you don't trust the authorities and are suspicious of the authenticity.
The bottom line is that a large number of British people simply don't trust the authorities due to a catalogue of past deceptions. The blatant lies that led to the recent illegal and profit driven genocidal wars have seriously weakened their credibility.
People have continued to waste their energy arguing over the veracity of these images - but their authenticity can't be verified and the time/date can't be verified - sorry, that’s the world we live in now.
What one can say for certain is that some of the proposed cctv evidence contradicts the official timeline. For example, in the Home Office report the men are noted as passing through the ticket barriers at 07:15, but then according to the same report they’re all back outside the station to pose for camera 14 at 07:21.
I went to Luton station back in 2005 shortly after the attacks, camera 14 is outside - there are no barriers to walk through until you are inside. What did the men do? Buy return tickets, go through the barriers then use the tickets to return back outside, then come back in to the station and buy more return tickets? How the Police/Home Office cock these things up I don't know, but one can certainly see why some believe they just fabricated the story.
Another example is the cctv video purportedly showing the men removing bags from a car in Luton station car park - the time shown in the version broadcast by the BBC runs up to 19:20 - if this time is correct then this also contradicts the Home Office narrative.
Other oddities such as the men's clothes not matching up have led to further suspicion. But then I suppose the authorities will only claim that for example Tanweer did not want to die in white trousers and so therefore he must have changed into black trousers between Woodhall Services and Luton station.
Even after the recent release of a number of cctv videos many people immediately pointed to the fact that there is still no footage of the men actually boarding the tubes or the No. 30 bus. This is indeed intriguing, but the point is that even if these clips were released they could still never be fully verified as indisputable evidence, and lets not forget the cameras on the bus were mysteriously not in operation that day.
One would assume that there were several witnesses that remember seeing the four men on the morning of 7/7. Four lads dressed in casual clothes carrying large rucksacks would have stood out from the crowds of suited and booted briefcase handling commuters. However there were barely any reports to the police or the media.
The Home Office report only gives direct reference to two witnesses who are presumably Danny Biddle and Richard Jones - their statements are confounded by contradictions and therefore are perceived as unreliable testaments.
This leaves a couple of other less specific witnesses in the report whom were supposedly on the 0740 train that didn't actually run. As everyone knows the 0740 didn't run and the police somehow got it wrong for over a year, but then they told the Home Office and John Reid made the amendment. Is the public supposed to assume the apparent witnesses must have also been on the 0725? There has never been any official confirmation.
Let us remember that a number of the survivors who were in the carriages close to where the bombs went off have actually stated that they don't recall any men fitting the alleged bomber's descriptions being where they should have been. And how about the reports of police officers pressurising members of the public in desperate attempts to find witnesses, and also the fact that large sums of cash were never claimed by witnesses.
The distinct lack of eyes on witnesses may mean nothing, but at the same time it may mean everything.
7/7: Explosive Explanations and Reports
When it comes to forensic evidence, one comes up against the same conundrum. The public is left with no valid method of verification, and you either believe the very few authorities with access or you have reservations.
Of course it is possible that DNA, documentation and explosive evidence was planted. As it is also possible that all the convenient evidence found implicating the men was genuine.
No one in the public can say for certain and so opinion, belief and subsequent speculation are again based on trust.
Have authorities blamed crimes on patsies in the past and planted evidence to convict them? Yes, and due to this deceptive legacy those still tuned into history will know that suspicion of the state, especially the notoriously conniving British state, is justifiable.
There were no traces of any explosive chemicals found in the men's homes, yet the Home Office suggests that some of the men were so involved with the bomb making process that their hair had turned blond. If this was the case then in my opinion forensic examinations would have found explosive chemical traces at their homes and in other places, but this was not the case.
The bulk of the forensic evidence rests on what was found inside 18 Alexandra Grove. To start with there is no substantiated evidence to show that the alleged bombers had access to 18 Alexandra Grove. As far as I am aware there is no evidence showing Magdi al-Nashar was indeed letting the flat to the men as proposed by the authorities. And again, even if the men were renting the flat, how can it possibly be verified that the DNA and bomb making equipment was not planted?
One would assume that the type of explosives used on 7/7 would have been firmly established a long time ago, but we are left with the vague assessment that the devices were handmade organic peroxide based devices. The authorities have still not confirmed that the four men definitely detonated the devices.
The somewhat ludicrous number of conflicting reports pertaining to the type of explosives used on 7/7 epitomises the confusing nature of 7/7 research. On top of this confusion comes the intriguing accounts of the eye witnesses.
If the official account is to be believed and the explosives used were peroxide based then the witness reports contradict this account due to their descriptions of the blasts not being in line with what experiments have shown peroxide explosives to achieve. The witness reports are much more consistent with high grade military style explosives such as C4.
It is also worth noting that there were a high number of survivors who described damage to the tubes consistent with bombs having been underneath the carriages. Of course explosions inside the carriages could have created damage which simply gave this impression, but when one couples these numerous reports with an official explosive theory that does not fit blast descriptions, witness accounts claiming there was no bomber where the bombs went off and the significant amount of lower body injuries there is clearly a case.
7/7: Identification: DNA and Documents
Several types of identification linked to the men were found close to the bomb sites. Many people speculate that these recoveries were too convenient and that therefore the identifying objects must have been planted. The official line could very well be true - that the men wanted to be identified and so left a trail of identification near the sites.
Yet again, the validity of this evidence recovery depends on trusting a small number of authorities. How can the public ever verify that these forms of identification were not planted?
Credit cards and driving licenses would have been quickly picked up by members of the public, so this implies that the numerous identifying objects were hidden from plain sight. It seems unlikely that the men would have had time to stash these objects in as many places as they were found.
Bird's Eye view of GCHQ Benhall in 2006
The Pentagon 2001, hit by a missile, see video:
The officials insinuate that the objects survived the blasts because the men wanted to be identified and therefore put them in places away from the blasts. One would assume this assumption is based on evidence from witnesses or cctv indicating the men hiding some of the pieces of identification recovered, but there is nothing to confirm this.
There is no official detail provided with regard to pathologist reports and DNA analysis. Many people question how the men's bodies could have been identified so quickly. Although perhaps what is more significant is that some of the men's family members called for further post-mortems because the bodies were apparently returned relatively intact.
7/7: The Four Men: Radicalisation and Terrorist Training
It is important to note that the official authorities have hardly released any information that provides insight into the character and lives of the four men.
The public perception of the men was shaped largely by unfounded stories based on hearsay and mysterious, often apparently official, unnamed sources. People tend to remember themes and imagery - not facts and sources, and still to this day stories proven to have no basis in fact are recalled as being proof of the men's terrorist connections.
And it's not just people like me that noticed this. The unnamed official who compiled the shoddy Home Office report also had the same insight.
What I see as pertinent is that whether the men were guilty or not, the corporate media, with its embedded intelligence assets (MI6 - IOPS - Information Operations), was yet again guilty of misleading the public, and is responsible for creating confusion and disinformation.
What many people end up asking is why, if the men were guilty, was there such an effort to build an exaggerated and false public perception of them?
Seemingly desperate attempts to link the men to the somewhat mythical Al Qaeda organisation have all turned out to be false or dubious. Again this is noted in the Home Office report.
From nuclear documents in cars to thumb drives in Iraq, the wild variety of allegations have served to deepen the men's guilt in the eyes of the media consumer, but few people understand that the majority of these stories are never confirmed and substantiated by officialdom.
On a couple of occasions since 7/7 I have spent time in Leeds talking to those who knew some of the men. Many of these people gave interviews and testament to the mainstream press, but their words were twisted and taken out of context. After the publishing of false and fabricated stories regarding activities in the Beeston community, the suspicion of the authorities and the distrust of the press was further cemented.
The bottom line here is that shortly after the attacks much of the information about the men that didn't fit the official Al Qaeda archetype began to be distorted or was deemed unworthy of publishing.
There is indeed some evidence that the men were becoming more radical and I do accept that the men could have lived double lives and maintained appearances for those they knew, but based on what I learnt about the men from spending time in Leeds and meeting people that knew them, I find it difficult to believe that they could have planned and carried out the 7th July bombings, especially without any logistical mentorship, as the public has been led to believe.
The official reports released thus far claim to have evidence of Khan and Tanweer attending terrorist training camps, but on closer inspection their case is weak and again relies on unverifiable electronic intelligence and seemingly unreliable human intelligence.
The videos released by unknown sources, that the media refer to as martyrdom videos, are yet more unverifiable electronic forms of evidence. Although it is accepted that the videos could be significant proof that the men were indeed radicalised abroad, the videos could have been recorded for a number of more surreptitious reasons, and we've all seen Hollywood films - of course they could have been faked. No official report has ever verified the authenticity of these videos.
It is important to keep an open mind in this deceptive time.
PROBLEM > REACTION > SOLUTION
NEW WORLD ORDER OUT OF CHAOS
Obama - Matrix world
keywords: synthetic terror 911 wtc israel mossad gleneagles david kelly war iraq iran bush blair Robin Cook high-tech murder RAF ira kurras stasi double-agent cia nato gladio