Welcome to July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
International Herald Tribune London bombers may have been duped By Don Van Natta Jr. and Elaine Sciolino The New York Times THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005 LONDON Within hours of the July 7 attacks here, many British police and intelligence officials assumed that the four bombers had intended to die with their bombs.
But in recent days, police officials are increasingly considering the possibility that the men did not plan to commit suicide and were duped into dying.
Investigators raising doubts about the suicide assumption have cited plenty of evidence to support the theory. Each of the four men who died in the July 7 attacks purchased round-trip railway tickets from Luton, a city north of the capital, to London. The rented car of one of the bombers, Germaine Lindsay, that was left in Luton had a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard. A large quantity of explosives were stored in the trunk of that car, perhaps for another attack. Another bomber had just spent a large sum to repair his car.
The men carried driver's licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers. In addition, none left behind a note, videotape or Internet trail as suicide bombers have done in the past. The bombers' families were baffled by what seemed to be their decisions to kill themselves.
While some of these clues could be seen as the work of men intent on covering their trail, some investigators increasingly believe that the men may have been conned into carrying the bombs onto the trains and leaving them, thinking they would explode minutes later.
There remains some evidence suggesting that these were suicide bombers, beyond the fact that they all died in the blasts. Their bodies, all of which were recovered, were positioned in a way that led investigators to make a preliminary determination that these may have been suicide attacks.
One of the remaining mysteries that neither theory can explain away is that the attacker on the bus died 57 minutes later; witnesses saw him putting his hand in the backpack. The bus bomber could support either theory.
To further complicate the matter, there are conflicting eyewitness accounts of the behavior of the July 21 attackers. Some of the attackers fled after the bombs failed to explode; at least one, on the bus, was said to have left the scene before the failed detonation.
Several senior officials say a lively debate is under way within the investigation and wider intelligence circles.
Some officials say the initial hypothesis that the July 7 attacks were carried out by determined fanatics willing to die in the name of a radical interpretation of Islam may have been too simplistic.
"What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't appear to be so today," said one corporate executive and former senior defense official with access to police information. "There was the strong feeling after attack one that these kids must have really been brainwashed to become suicide bombers. "Then the botched Attack 2 happens and the question now is whether these were dedicated guys ready to die or stupid guys run by a smart group of people pulling the strings."
The suicide question has major implications not only for the investigation, but also for the assessment of the terrorist threat that London faces.
If the attacks were a suicide mission, they would be the first suicide bombings on European soil, and signal a dangerous new threat on the Continent. Suicide bombings could indicate a higher level of commitment, and point to the existence within Britain of radicals willing to die for a cause.
If the men were not suicide bombers, it changes some of the most basic assumptions of the investigation. On one level, it makes the plot less ominous. It is much easier to recruit "mules" who will carry and deposit explosives than people who are prepared to die.
It also makes it more likely that there is an unknown mastermind who might have organized both attacks, and could be organizing others.
The British police have been reluctant to publicly declare the July 7 bombings a suicide mission. Britain's top police officers - Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, and Peter Clarke, the head of Scotland Yard's antiterrorist branch - have steadfastly refused to call the men "suicide bombers" in public.
"Technically they're not suicide bombers," said an officer familiar with the investigation. "Scotland Yard has not said they are. Even if we may think they probably were suicide bombers, the police have not said this outright.
A senior official of a European intelligence agency said: "The British from the beginning have had some doubts about the suicide hypothesis and cannot say exactly whether it is true. Our own analysis is that we can say that it is not absolutely necessary that this was a suicide mission."
The botched bombing attacks of July 21 have made the debate even more urgent. The July 21 attackers' lack of sophistication made some investigators reassess the July 7 bombing team's organization skills.
Several investigators said the July 7 bombers, ranging in age from 18 to 30, might not have been sophisticated enough to plan a synchronized attack, with three bombs exploding in the London Underground within 45 seconds.
"I just have a hard time fathoming kids that young being that sophisticated," a senior intelligence official said.
Another theory, several intelligence and counterterrorism officials said, is that the men knew there were timers on the bombs, and were instructed to leave the explosives on a train at a designated time, perhaps 9 a.m.
"It is possible that they were told the bombs would blow up at 9:10 a.m. or 9:15 a.m., and they were to stay with them until 9 a.m.," another official said. The bombs went off at 8:50 a.m.
In the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, American investigators are convinced that several of the hijackers, the so-called muscle who were recruited near the end of the operation, may not have been told that the four hijacked airplanes were intended to be part of suicide missions.
In a news conference the day after the first attacks in London, Blair, the police commissioner, said: "There is nothing to suggest that there was a suicide bomber involved in this process. On the other hand, nothing can be ruled out."
Essentially, that view has not changed since then.
Jonathan Allen and Hélène Fouquet contributed reporting for this article.
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05
The Australians appear to have thought it was the work of anarchists and/or anti-globalisation protesters:
Australian Financial Review - "Alston points finger at 'anarchists' Jul 08 06:21 AAP
Australia's High Commissioner in London Richard Alston believes bombs in the city are most likely the work of anti-globalisation 'anarchists' to coincide with the Group of Eight summit meeting in Scotland.
Alston played down claims from the little-known Secret Group of al-Qaeda's Jihad in Europe that it was responsible for the four blasts that have killed at least 40 commuters.
The leaders of the world's eight richest countries are meeting at the Scottish resort of Gleneagles.
"Everyone is speculating about the possible source of this," he said.
"If this was done to coincide with Gleneagles then it's more likely to be a more narrow group of anti-globalisation protesters or anarchists who seem to take great delight in disrupting meetings of international leaders."
Three blasts on the London underground train service and one on a double decker bus rocked the capital at peak hour this morning, crippling the transport system and the city.
At least 33 people have been confirmed dead.
Australian consular staff are at St Mary's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital and plan to attend other major hospitals in London in the search for any Australian victims.
"We've been doing our best to make contact with the hospitals, it seems to be a bit early for them to be able to give us any useful intelligence," Alston said.
"We've been liaising with all the emergency organisations.
"There's not much more we can do except monitor the situation and over time we expect the hospitals to be able to give us something more meaningful."
Alston said the 'terrorists' may have targeted London while a major security operation was protecting world leaders, including US President George Bush, at Gleneagles.
"People in London have always been of the view that something was bound to happen here," he said.
"As we know there have been a few near misses ... which is a tribute to security here.
"Maybe one reason why they didn't directly target Gleneagles and took the soft option to come to London when everyone's attention was elsewhere."
He said Australia would back Britain in its fight against 'terror'.
"I don't think there's any doubt at all the British government will be resolute and determined and we'll be 110 per cent behind them and I'm sure the British people will be as well," Alston said.
"If these things are designed to intimidate and cower, then they simply don't work."
People unable to make contact with Australians in London who they believe may have been up in the incidents can contact the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra on 1300 555 135.
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05
ONLINE JOURNAL™ www.onlinejournal.com Opinion Dupes and dupers in London, America, and the world By Jerry Mazza Online Journal Contributing Writer
August 6, 2005—Now that the British police and intelligence are having second doubts about the four bombers being suicide bombers, the notion has surfaced that maybe they were duped into dying. The question is who are the dupers?
After all, each of the four young men who died (or vanished) on July 7 had purchased round trip railway tickets from Luton to London. I guess you wouldn’t do that if you weren’t planning to come back. Germaine Lindsay’s rented car was left in Luton with a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard. Also, a large quantity of explosive was left in the trunk of that car, maybe for a second round of bombings.
One of the other alleged bombers also had his car fixed, probably to insure a getaway. What’s more, all the men carried driver’s licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers, unless you were Mohammed Atta, and your ID somehow managed to pop up clean and clear as day in the wreckage of 9/11. That is, after the plane you flew into the tower exploded in flames and came down in a heap with the building. But that could be someone else’s way of saying, hint, hint, it was him, he did it, which might indicate someone was trying to dupe us. Who could that have been?
Well let’s think. Maybe the London guys carrying the bombs onto the trains were ‘mules,” who planned to just leave them to make a few bucks. Maybe they were angry young men making a political statement, maybe both. Their handler might have promised it was an in and out job and they could get out before the blast. The blasts might have surprised them as much as the horrified onlookers and victims. Bottom line, dead men tell no tales, which perhaps they never considered. But 57 minutes later, the fourth bomber, who I guess never bothered to check on his first three cohorts, went up in smoke the same way. Witnesses, it is said, actually saw him put his hand in the backpack—to ignite the bomb or look for his shades and split? We’ll never know.
Then we have the July 21 bombers, exactly two weeks later, for whom practice obviously didn’t make perfect. The bombs failed to explode. The bomber on the bus took off as the detonator fizzled. Did he and the others instantly assume they might be on their way to heaven? If so, maybe they weren’t ready to meet the virgins waiting there. Maybe they were lightweights. And calling them suicide bombers, calling on the full flagon of fear from the English and Europe, was bloody unnecessary, and not a signal for a new level of threat. After all, it is easier to recruit “mules” than die-hard patsies, a la the 9/11 guys (if indeed they were) or Lee Harvey Oswalds (one or two of them), the genuine article(s) or even Jack Rubys, dying of cancer in jail, lips sealed in Omerta. So what are we dealing with here, and whom? In addition, the explosives went from being high level military material to home-brewed boom for the blooming home boys.
Supposedly there’s some lively debate going on about the level of commitment and fear ratings in intelligence circles. Or maybe the intelligence agencies, MI-5, MI-6 or CIA, are purposely going round in circles to obfuscate. Because we all know, or should, this is an inside job, a booster shot for Tony Bliar’s, excuse me, Tony Blair’s War on Terror. Some people even think that saying, as the New York Times did, “that the initial hypothesis that the July 7 attacks were carried out by determined fanatics willing to die in the name of a radical interpretation of Islam may have been too simplistic.” Well, it’s good to see the investigative principal of questioning government press releases is still alive in the uptown press.
The Times went on to say that maybe these weren’t “dedicated but stupid guys run by a smart group of people pulling the strings.” Now there’s a memorable line, a kind of one-size fits all terrorists’ line. And maybe even Hanni Hanjor (the purported idiot, according to his flying instructor) who supposedly flew Flight 77, didn’t know he was going down with the plane, if he and his buddies were on the four flights at all. They weren’t listed on the manifests, nor did anyone actually prove they were on the planes.
But subsequently the so-called 19, 9/11 terrorists, their names and pictures were produced only 19 hours after the tragedies out of a hat by the same dysfunctional FBI that couldn’t stop them in the first place. Is there a pattern here of disinformation along with dysfunction? And may it all be for the purpose of obfuscation, part of a process Webster Tarpley calls 'synthetic terror' in his new book, 911 Synthetic Terror- Made in USA, and in the London case, made in Great Britain.
The Concept of ‘Synthetic Terror’ It is Tarpley’s notion that ‘synthetic terror’ is state-sponsored, using members, poseurs or manufactured sympathizers, of nations that we want to attack us, to get our people to want to kick the bejesus out of those nations, in this case out of the Islamic world. And that would include our arch enemy, Osama bin Laden, whom Donald Rumsfeld has told us, he would much rather have dead than alive. “You can bet your life on it,” he told reporters. Because, what, dead men don’t talk? And old Osama, who’s been on the CIA payroll since 1978, was hired by the ageny and Saudi and Pakistani intelligence, to lead an army of Mujihadeen. They in turn were trained, armed and paid for by the CIA as well to fight the Soviets, whom our own Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security chief, provoked into attacking Afghanistan in ‘78.
So who’s your daddy, Osama? Tarpley’s book on page 149, tells us of an October 2001 article in Le Figaro by Alexandra Richard, who reported, “The CIA met bin Laden in Dubai in July” [of 2001], two months before 9/11." Imagine that. An American France Presse dispatch quoted in Tarpley’s book says,
Osama bin Laden underwent treatment in July at the American Hospital in Dubai where he met a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official . . . Quoting a “witness,” a professional partner of the administrative management of the hospital, they said the man suspected by the United State of being behind the September 11 terrorist attacks had arrived in Dubai on July 4 by air from Quetta, Pakistan. He was immediately taken to the hospital for kidney treatment. He left the establishment on July 14.
The dispatch also reports that the CIA man was named Larry Mitchell, Osama’s handler and case officer. He was seen going into bin Laden's room and later “boasting to his friends of the meeting.” Le Figaro also reported that bin Laden brought his own doctor, and a close collaborator who would be the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with bodyguards and a personal nurse. Dr. Terry Callaway was bin Laden's urologist and attended to his serious kidney condition. Bin Laden also had had a mobile dialysis machine sent to his Kandahar hideout in Afghanistan in the first half of 2000 . . ." Of course, the CIA denied this all, despite reconfirmation from the ballsy French investigative reporters.
So we were in touch with the world’s number one terror maven several months before he supposedly spearheaded 9/11. What could the conversation have been about, past exploits or future projects? Did bin Laden know what he was really getting into? In fact, in his first post-9/11 speech he expressed surprise at how extensive the damage was, and that the towers actually fell. Perhaps it was like the British bombers meeting with their handlers, their spooks duping the dupes in London. If the notion works for the super-heavies, why wouldn’t it work for the lightweights? After all it serves the greater oligarchic cause of ruthless rule of the few and not democracy’s cause of serving the ‘common good.’
Also, consider who the players are on both sides of the pond: the British queen, what with her $100 billion stashed in her private Coutt’s bank in London, her palaces, lands, investments and such, and her good friends and 13th cousin, Georgie Bush 43 and her 12th, 41, who keep a few bucks (billons) there too, a kind of all in the family deal.
As to London as a recruiting ground, Tarpley writes,
The role of London as the leading center of Islamic radicalism has been an open secret for years, but has never been reported by the US controlled corporate media . . . In the post colonial world, the British have found it to their advantage to encourage violent movements which could be used for destabilizations and assassinations in the former colonies, which their ex-masters did not want to see become strong and effective modern states. Between 1995 and 1999, protests were lodged by many countries concerning the willingness of the British government to permit terror groups to operate from British territory. Among the protestors were: Israel, Algeria, Turkey, Libya, Yemen, India, Egypt, France, Peru, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia. This is a list which, if widely known, might force certain US radio commentators to change their world picture about who is soft on terrorism.
‘It Must Have Been Forces Behind Them’ Returning to our four 7/7 bombers, in a July 27 New York Times article, headlined “Police Debate if London Plotters Were Suicide Bombers, or Dupes” . . . it was reported that “Shehzad Tanweer’s uncle, Bashir Ahmed, 65, said his family had no idea that the 22-year old Leeds man who loved cricket and soccer was planning a suicide attack. ‘It must have been forces behind him.’”
“The family of Germaine Lindsay, 19, also said they were stunned. His wife, Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, said her late husband was ‘a loving husband and father’ who had shown ‘absolutely no sign of doing this atrocious crime.’” Ah well, love, but we can’t ask him, can we? He and his fellow conspirators are conspicuously gone. But as the Times tells us, “Mark Baillie, the terror and defense expert at the Center for Defense and International Security Studies, said the debate about whether the July 7 bombers intended to die ‘is something that everybody is beginning to talk about. It would have been very interesting if they were tricked.’” Indeed, sir. And to know just who of your dupers scuttling in the shadows, shadow people themselves, did so. So use this little episode as the great English Poet William Blake suggests, “To see the universe in a grain of sand,” in this case, the micro terror event working like the macro. Think of Osama in his cave, with his kidney dialysis machine, his laptop in his hand, and a few rough hewn associates on the move with him, and think of the pinpoint precision of the colossal bombings that 9/11 morning, and of the huge apparatus it took to coordinate the many parallel “terror hijack exercises” that were going on along with the real thing.
Richard Clarke Decides it Was al Qaeda And so the principle of synthetic terror remains, whether in London or New York, Africa or the Middle East. The physical terror caused deep psychological terror, which engendered feelings of hatred of the supposed perpetrators, who we were told later were Islamic terrorists, and all al Qaeda, the CIA’s household name, actually the name on a file on bin Laden’s laptop, which contained the names of fighters he had met in his 10 years of war in Afghanistan. And how did the al Qaeda revelation come about? Perhaps in part as Tarpley tells us on page 20 of his book. . . .
[Richard] Clarke tells us in his memoir that he attempted to collect his thought about the events going on around him [on 9/11] as he walked from the White House Secure Videoconferencing Center just off the Situation Room across the White House to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, which was Cheney’s underground bunker:
"In the quiet of the walk, I caught my breath for the first time that day: This was the 'Big al Qaeda Attack' we had warned was coming and it was bigger than almost anything we had imagined, short of a nuclear weapon." (Clarke 17)
Tarpley himself states:
This is already one of the most fateful snap judgments in world history. Had Clarke utterly forgotten the lessons of Oklahoma City, when leaders had inspired the report that the explosion was the work of Muslims? Clarke had no proof then, and has come forward with none since.
Rushing to overtake Clarke as the leading hipshot in snap strategic diagnosis was CIA Director Tenet [of Slam Dunk fame]. While Bush was cowering in his spider hole at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, he conducted a National Security Council meeting by means of teleconference screens. “Who do you think did this to us?” Bush asked Tenet. Tenet was emphatic: “Sir, I believe it’s al Qaeda.” (Bamford 2004 91) In other words, Tenet also had no proof, no evidence, no case—just his crude Lockean sense certainty, real or feigned.
Later, after the World Trade Center 7 had gone through its inexplicable and embarrassing collapse at about 5:50 PM, Clarke addressed a high-level interagency meeting from the Situation Room. Present by video link were Armitage of State, General Myers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and other important officials. Clarke stated: “Okay, we all know this was al Qaeda. FBI and meantime, let’s go with the assumption it’s al Qaeda. What’s next?” (Clarke 23) Before he went to bed in the White House, Bush jotted a note to himself: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today. We think it’s Osama bin Laden” (Bamford 2004 92).
There’s nothing like hard-nosed investigative fact-finding to reach a conclusion. Only the nation’s and perhaps the world’s future were at stake. But perhaps it was all so easy to believe for Bush & Company because these ideas had been in the air for quite a while to act upon or ignore, in the form of copious FBI and CIA reports, suppressed or quietly observed. And from Clarke’s point on, it was only a matter of reiteration and official finger-pointing at Osama—from Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, et al. And despite the warnings of Professor Paul Rogers, as Tarpley reminds us, warnings against assuming Middle Eastern extremists were behind the tragedy, the hysteria, the orchestrated hysteria, spread like wildfire, to a war in Afghanistan to unsuccessfully find bin Laden, to a war in Iraq on false premises that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and god knows what else and where next.
What Really Did Happen in Oklahoma? Moreover, just in case you’re wondering about the bottom line on the Oklahoma bombing, let me provide some facts that predate the above scenarios . . .
Raw news footage and reports in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma bombing show that local TV reporters stated over and over that two additional, sophisticated, undetonated explosive devices were found by investigators on the scene. TV reporters questioned the official government version that an “extremist” and his friend acted alone (like Lee Harvey Oswald and his double?), this time using a Ryder rental truck and a 1,200 pound ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) bomb to destroy the building’s face.
KWTV-9, KFORTV-5 and Channel 4's initial feature reports, confirmed by state, local, and federal officials, told that a total of three bombs had been placed inside the Murrah building. Obviously, one went off inside the building, collapsing it. Two did not and may have been slated for early responders and further rescuers. Reporters confirmed that the two other bombs “were larger than the first one” that blew up inside, not outside, the building. The other two bombs were found inside the east and west sides of the building. The Ryder truck explosion occurred in front, on the north side of the building. TV-9 also reported “the U.S. Justice Department confirmed” that other bombs were found in the structure.
In later reports, within hours of the blast, news crews reported federal and local authorities confirmed the two other explosives (bombs) had been “defused” and “moved off site.” This was not unlike early reports of JFK being hit by four bullets, two from the front, two from the rear, which had to be inflicted by several shooters. Later the story changed to three bullets, all from the rear, and from one shooter. So it goes.
McVeigh, the right arm of the not-so-lone assassin team, said he did it in return for the destruction of the Branch Davidians in Waco, giving the feds “dirty for dirty.” TV news reported President Clinton said three anti-terrorist teams were en route from D.C. to investigate. And that the White House and Justice Department . . . have said [the bomb] was the work of a sophisticated group and would have had to been carried out by an explosives expert. Critics complained McVeigh and Nichols were not known experts. Later that day into the next, details of witnesses, the authorities, the rescue efforts began to change. Just like JFK assassination reports. Especially after Oswald was shot by Ruby and Kennedy’s body had been whisked away to Bethesda Naval Hospital.
In 24 hours, honchos from BAFT (Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco) reversed stories and said that the explosion hadn’t occurred in the building, but the damage was caused by the “car” parked in front, packed with an ANFO bomb. Soon the “car” was a Ryder rental truck and the bomb grew in size to 4,500 pounds. Pundits began to pooh-pooh the second and third bomb stories, focusing on the single north-face blast as the one and only. Nevertheless, witnesses said they felt the Murrah building “shake and shift” for several seconds from within, before “glass blew on top of them.” One said he saw the ceiling collapse “several seconds before the glass blew in.” Experts outside of D.C. said the ANFO bomb was intended to mask the internal explosion and, in fact, gave the government a plausible reason for its single bullet, excuse me, 'single bomb outside' version.
In the years following the tragedy, investigators of all kinds gleaned through old evidence and found new evidence to suggest the early reports were probably the most accurate. One website posted official government documents and statements substantiating the three-bomb reports first aired by local TV news. A Department of Defense Atlantic Command memo released a day after the blast says “ . . . a second bomb was disarmed; a third bomb evacuated . . ." A Federal Emergency Management Agency report dated April 20, 1995, confirms the reality of three bombs in the building. A U.S. Forces Command daily log report said the same day: “two more explosive devices located in vicinity of explosion site. Evidently intended for rescuers.” Also, independent engineers, explosives experts, and military analysts’ studies conclude the government’s “single truck-single bomb” explanation “technically impossible.”
Curiously, the Murrah building was torn down two weeks after the attack. The site was covered with dirt and like the Twin Towers wreckage the building materials were trucked to a dump, though this one was manned by armed guards and buried. What could they be hiding? Could it be any existing evidence? Or the fact that witnesses reported three men in the parking garage of the Murrah building? It was nine stories tall and had a four-floor parking garage underneath. These men were working with electrical equipment and pointing at various parts of the garage in the days before the attack. Many survivors said some of these men were dressed in uniforms identified by the words “Government Services Administration.” Get that. The witness had never seen them before or since! Were they government black ops, out to give America its first big terror punch?
And So Forth and So On . . . I will spare you the first World Trade Tower’s real story, and ask you to investigate that on your own in Tarpley’s book. But think of the March of Time and memory. And how it forces one to consider who our friends are and who are not. And who or what our government has become, or became one day, when no one was looking because life was too good, in New York, London or Timbuktu.
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05
The following is from a PDF I found that contained some posts from Liberty Forum. The article makes the point that the 'premature and irrational' investigative task of searching through thousands of hours of CCTV was a nonsense until the full details of the type of explosives, the detonators and their placement was known - details which even the official Home Office report, produced almost a year later, fails to identify or describe correctly.
The article also makes a number of other pertinent points that seem to have become lost in the melee of 'information':
Staging an Attack to Fix the Coverup of Another Don't Focus on "Evidence," Find Those Who Planted it! By Impatient
This latest “attack” is supposed to correct some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.
What has given them the most trouble with the first attack? Their choice of patsies. They assumed that a loose Muslim connection would be enough to persuade everyone that these lads from Leeds were suicide bombers. But rather than clinch it for the planners, it backfired and the most common and reasonable question that everyone has about the suicide bomber fiction was invoked: How could young men who were not religious fanatics, who were educated, decent fellows, with loving families, and bright futures – how could they kill themselves and others?
Another unforeseen problem was the effusive praise coming from Efraim Halevi that described the London bombings as “near-perfect”. Too many people could not get a picture in their minds of four young men with rucksacks able to so perfectly execute simultaneous bombings. It caused doubts that have not been quelled. Too many people saw the hand of the Mossad and its affiliates in the earlier bombing because the four “bombers with rucksacks” did not evoke the necessary sophisticated timing, operational capacity, and scope.
The latest “attack” is supposed to reaffirm that young men with rucksacks are perfectly capable of a simultaneous triggering of devices, a demonstrable fearlessness in the face of death, and a disregard for the lives of others, even women with babies.
Because all four bombs malfunctioned this time round, it tells us that the bombers are not the Mossad or any other intelligence agency because 100% malfunction is very unprofessional, it may mean that their first bombing was just good luck, not expertise.
While the rucksacks in the first bombing have not turned up, this new bombing tells us once again that four young men carried bomb-laden packs aboard the trains and [would have] died when they detonated.
The investigation has not proceeded methodically. The whole question of how the bombing was done and who did it was effectively squelched when they began looking for the needle in the haystack – the CCTV films. Without knowledge of the type of bombs, their power, placement, and detonation, there could be absolutely no reason to begin looking at CCTV tapes. They could not know what to look for without the certainty that the bombs were carried on, and not placed beforehand.
It is significant that of all the thousands of hours of CCTV tape they have examined, the only tape they seem to have of the young men from Leeds does not come from London at all! In the pictures we have seen the lads are in Luton, 25 minutes away. Unless they can show us the “bombers” going their separate ways and boarding three or four different trains I will not believe that the young men ever made it to London. Seeing them together at Luton means nothing if they cannot be placed getting on the trains at exactly the right time to take them the right distance from King’s Cross before they explode.
In the case of the 7/7 bombings, going straightaway to the video tapes was very premature and irrational. It can only mean that they knew what they would find because they had planted the "evidence". It makes no sense to begin looking at thousands of hours of video tape from as far away as Luton without any idea of what you are looking for. What could it be? Rucksacks, packages, briefcases, baby strollers, gym bags? Suspicous looking people of a certain race? And remember that the first story was that at least 24 people had been involved.
What would be the motivation to look at the tapes from Luton? Did they also look at tapes from video cameras at the airports and bus stations? It would seem to be just as reasonable to look at those tapes as looking at Luton. And why is the Luton tape the only tape?
Luton is interesting because an office of ICTS (the Israeli security firm) is about a mile from a Thameslink station. ICTS is actually located in the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital. It seems a little odd that this firm that handles security for the Stansted airport would be located at the Hospital.
Just like the problem with 9/11 and Madrid - there were no hijackers and no bombers to film. They tried to get around that on 7/7 by getting some patsies to photograph. They did not leave it to chance, for those picked had to be disposed of as though they had been killed in the blasts.
Never Mind the "Evidence," Who Planted it? The "investigation" that led to the Leeds four was not a real investigation because the videotape evidence was "planted" and the investigation was "led" to find it. People seem to overlook this fact and assume that there were real clues that led the "investigators" to check the video cameras in Luton. Luton is distant from London and a real investigation would have no more reason to check those cameras than they would the cameras at Stansted or Heathrow or the bus stations or Thameslink stations in other directions. They vaguely justify looking northward and in Leeds because one mother called about her missing son - one mother out of 120,000 calls! Just like the 19 photographs of the suicide hijackers, we never ask where those came from and how the FBI got them. The FBI admits there was not a single piece of paper to indicate the planning or knowledge of 9/11 but we are to believe that pictures of 19 hijackers sort of "turn up" very quickly after 9/11.
But people seem to begin their questions too far down the road, away from the initial and thoroughly incriminating points.
Wherever there is "planted" evidence it means the perpetrators have planted it to divert honest investigators. To investigate the planted evidence as though it is real is to miss the opportunity of catching the fix at the beginning. It is those who plant the evidence who are responsible for the crime.
The real perpetrators give themselves away by going directly to Luton to find their video. What are the chances of that? They went to Luton before there was any forensic investigation at the bomb sites. They were off to Luton even before they had removed all the body parts from the blasts - before they had any evidence that rucksacks were used to bring the bombs onto the trains - they were on their way to Luton to find the pictures of the lads carrying rucksacks and they found them.
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05
Three days after 7/7, no suicide bombers but instead 'white mercenary terrorists' hired to carry out the attacks. Odd then, that the recent story that received no coverage in the media just happened to be a story about a far-right, BNP member and his colleague with the largest single haul of chemicals ever found, rocket launchers, an NBC suit and a 'masterplan':
QUOTE ("The Independent")
Police hunt 'mercenary' terror gang recruited by al-Qa'ida Sophie Goodchild, Severin Carrell
Jul 10, 2005
Police and intelligence agents are investigating the theory that a gang of white 'mercenary terrorists' was hired by al-Qa'ida to carry out last week's devastating attacks on London.
The Independent on Sunday can reveal today that investigations into the bombings of three Tube trains and a bus, which left at least 49 people dead, are focusing on the possibility that criminal gangs were paid to mount the worst atrocities in British history.
Last night, amid fears of further attacks, police evacuated 20,000 people from the centre of Birmingham after receiving intelligence of a threat. Officers later carried out a controlled explosion, but emphasised that the alert had no connection with the bombs atrocities in London .
Among new revelations about the highly sophisticated nature of Thursday's attacks, intelligence officials disclosed that they were examining the prospect that so-called 'clean skins' " who could have been Muslims from the Balkans with no previous links to terror groups " were recruited to evade heightened security in the capital.
The theory was given credence by the fact that the security services had no advance warnings, suggesting that the bombers were not known extremists. Police and intelligence agencies admitted yesterday they were caught off guard.
The Metropolitan Police's investigation team is analysing hours of CCTV footage from around the targeted train stations and from the bus wreck, as well as checking lock-ups and garages for any clues that may lead them to the bombers. There is growing fear that the cells involved could be about to carry out further attacks. There was also alarm at the sophisticated nature of the explosives.
Alarm about the terrorists' expertise sharply increased after it emerged yesterday that all three of the Underground bombings took place within seconds of each other.
Detectives ruled out the possibility that suicide bombers were involved, but police sources indicated there was the risk that attackers had further supplies of explosives amid reports that up to four cells could be active in the UK.
A global search is under way for a number of known Islamist radicals and terrorist suspects, such as Mohammed al-Garbuzi, a Moroccan accused of involvement in the bombing of Casablanca killing 33 people in 2004.
The claims by the so-called Secret Organisation of the al-Qa'ida Jihad in Europe, posted on the internet on Thursday, are being taken seriously. Two other groups have also claimed responsibility. The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade posted the claim on an Islamist website where similar claims for responsibility have appeared in the past. Its authenticity could not be verified, but the statement promised more attacks on London.
The little-known Organisation of al-Qa'ida " Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula also claimed responsibility, and threatened to attack Rome. The Met said they now had new evidence which clearly indicated that the blasts on the Tube trains had happened 'almost simultaneously'.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said this indicated that the terrorists would have used timing devices to trigger the bombs. Mr Paddick said, 'We are not looking for any specific individuals at this stage. We are pursuing a whole series of investigative lines.'
Meanwhile, a government-prepared dossier says that al-Qa'ida is targeting middle-class Britons to join its ranks, according to The Sunday Times. The reports, by both the Home and Foreign Offices and drawn up in the aftermath of the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, detail how extremists were looking to recruit in Britain.
Citing a copy of the briefing document, the paper reported that Britain could be harboring thousands of extremists, including homegrown residents who may be linked to Thursday's bombs. It also says Britain's role in Iraq is being used as a way to enroll likely recruits. But, on the BBC's Today programme yesterday, Tony Blair denied he had made London a terrorist target by sending UK troops into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Forty-nine people have been confirmed dead, but it is expected to be several days before an exact death toll can be provided because there are still bodies at least 500 feet underground at King's Cross.
The IoS has learnt that Britain's leading Muslim scholars are to issue a 'fatwa' condemning the terrorists behind Thursday's bombings.
Member No.: 1
Joined: 25-November 05
In today's Evening Standard there is an interview with a Muslim woman under the small headline of, "As the Archbishop of York claims the veil attracts 'unwelcome attention', a mother of young children talks about why she adopted the niqab and how it shapes her views". This is followed by the rather larger headline of:
"I've seen no evidence 7/7 was the work of Muslims"
From today's Evening Standard article by Joan Smith:
Janna acknowledges that the decision of women to start wearing the niqab needs explaining in a society where it was, until recently, uncommon. She won't accept that it's sinister or separatist - but then she won't admit either that the 7/7 bombings in London last year were carried out by Muslims.
"Were they?" she asks combatatively when I suggest it's one of the reasons some non-Muslims feel anxious about Islamic extremism in this country. "I've seen no evidence."