The July 7th London Bombings (Updated)

The Stepford Double-cross: The London “Suicide Bombers” that Never Were

Karin Brothers

One intriguing aspect of the London Bombing report is the fact that the MI5
codename for the event is “Stepford”. The four “bombers” are referred to as
the “Stepford four”. Why is this the case?

There is no place in the UK called Stepford, the word HAS to be a reference

to the novel and film The Stepford Wives. Of course the plot of this sci-fi film
is that the wives of Stepford are actually completely submissive servants,
gynoids created by an elite group of men. The only entry in the dictionary
for the word Stepford has the following description: pertaining to a person
with a conforming and compliant attitude, much like a robot . So does this
explain why the four bombers seemed to be completely calm, acting
normally, going for Big Macs, buying return tickets, arguing over being short
changed before they blew themselves up? … the MI5 codename is very
revealing in that it suggests the operation was a carefully coordinated and
controlled one with four compliant and malleable patsies following direct
orders. Now if MI5 has no idea who was behind the operation or whether
there were any orders coming from a mastermind, why would they give the
event the codename “Stepford”?

Steve Watson, January 30, 2006 Prison Planet

Introduction to the Events of July 7th, 2005

Would four young, secular British men who loved life commit suicide -
simultaneous suicide — to make a political point or “for the promise of
immortality”? Why would anyone blow themselves up with bombs that were
equipped with timing detonators? Where did the military C4 explosive come
from that was identified at all blast sites? Why has there been virtually no
evidence that any of the accused men were even in London on Thursday, July
7th, 2005? How did identification papers of some accused men come to be
found in more than one blast site? Why is there an assumption of guilt when
all evidence contradicts it?
Who would benefit from causing death and destruction in London? Who
would benefit from demonizing British Muslims? Why is the British
Government refusing to hold a serious investigation?

It is important to understand the facts behind the explosions that shut down
London on July 7th, 2005, because of their impact on British civil liberties,
their role in the further demonization of Muslims, and on the growth of the
British intelligence industry. It is significant that, despite extensive evidence
to the contrary, the explosions were blamed on “suicide bombers”
particularly since British intelligence has been caught setting up bogus
“suicide” operations. (Akleh, 2005) While the official version of 9/11
supposedly showed that educated Muslims might choose to commit suicide
to make a point to Americans, the July 7th bombings supposedly showed that
respected, second-generation, secular Muslims could blow themselves up
merely to make a political statement to their fellow citizens. As a result of
the events of 9/11 and July 7th, Islam alone replaced oppression and despair
as the West’s perceived cause of suicide bombing. Its impact on British civil
liberties and western discrimination against Muslims cannot be overstated.

There were several convergent investigative reports on the July 7th

explosions that came out in 2006 — a BBC TV program in January and two
government reports (from the Commons’ Intelligence and Security
Committee (ISC, 2006)) and the government’s own official account on May
11, 2006. (BBC, 5/2006) Despite the fact that the official British version of
events was internally contradictory and inconsistent with many of the known
facts of the bombings, all of these reports repeated the official version of
events and concluded that the four accused had acted independently and
killed themselves to become martyrs. An examination of the evidence will
demonstrate how the government’s foreknowledge, misinformation to the
public, and continuing attempts to cover up the facts, all point to its
complicity .

This article will present the evidence that was published in newspapers and
has come to light through investigations since July 2005. The main sources
for new information are the July 7th Truth Campaign website, Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed’s book The London Bombings, which also documents a
context of British and western intelligence operations, testimony from the
Operation Crevice trial, (in the “Epilogue”) and the October 2007 trial of the
police handling of their killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. While it is
important to examine the details of the events to understand that the media
has convicted the men through the press, the story must be understood in a
larger context that examines “false flag” operations and the motives of
terrorism. A timeline is provided at the end of the paper to clarify the
events.

The events of September 11, 2001 set the stage for fear of so-called “al
Qaida” terrorism. When the planes crashed into the World Trade Towers on
9/11, President George W. Bush called it “the new Pearl Harbor”, which
reflected the language of the report Project for the New American Century
(now in Wikipedia) , a 1997 blueprint for how the US might attain greater
world control through a stunning event such as “a new Pearl Harbor.” The
events of 9/11 not only allowed the US Government to curtail important
American civil liberties such as freedom of speech and due judicial process,
but it also encouraged — or coerced — the world community to follow suit.
The so-called “War on Terror”, also referred to as the “War on Extremism” or
the “Clash of Civilizations,” reflects the agenda to limit civil liberties and
reframe language to rationalize and support the illegal invasions and
occupations of Muslim countries of the Middle East. It should be noted that
“terrorism” by definition reflects a partisan political position: the U. S. and
Britain use the word “terrorism” to describe actions against themselves or
their allies, who themselves merely carry out “security” operations.

After 9/11, Britain became an even closer ally of the US, participating in the
US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and designing repressive “anti-
terror” legislation that surpassed even US laws. By the spring of 2005,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “anti-terror” legislation was in deep
trouble, having been rejected by the British judiciary, legislature and the
public. British newspaper headlines from March until early July described the
humiliation and the crisis in 10 Downing St. over Blair’s controversial
legislation, which included severe treatment of those merely suspected of
terrorist connections and a biologically- based ID system for everyone in the
UK. On July 4th, 2005, British newspapers noted that support for Blair’s
invasive ID card legislation was only 45% and civil libertarians were
gathering a million-pound “war chest” in support of violators of what was
referred to as the “ID card fiasco”.

On July 6th, Britain was the focus of world news, having just been chosen for
the next Summer Olympics. Also, world leaders were arriving there for the
G8 conference in Scotland. The following morning on Thursday, July 7, 2005,
four explosions in three subway carriages and a bus in London killed 56,
injured over 700, and shut down the city. Within five days Scotland Yard
came up with the names — some inexplicably incorrect — of four respected
British Muslim men of Pakistani descent who they accused of being “suicide
bombers”. Police called them “clean skins” because they had no police
records and police claimed that they didn’t know them. Two weeks later
there was a copycat incident involving four harmless “bombs”; and on the
following day, a public execution of a Brazilian electrician by an elite British
intelligence team. Two bizarre video tapes mysteriously surfaced, five weeks
and one year after the July 7th events, appearing to finally provide a motive
for two of the accused.

What happened on July 7th, 2005?

On the morning of Thursday, July 7th, the first full day of the G8 meeting in
Scotland, there were many reports of explosions on London Transport subway
trains and buses. The London Underground staff were alerted at 8:51 a.m. to
a problem that they claimed was due to a power surge. At 9:20 a.m. they
announced an emergency. Explosions had occurred on three subway trains
leaving King’s Cross station traveling south (Russell Square), east (Aldgate)
and west (Edgware Road) between 8:50 am and reportedly 9:35 am. Almost
an hour after the first blast, at 9:47 a.m., a fourth explosion tore through the
northbound No. 30 double-decker bus at Tavistock Square. (Antagonist,
2005)

Observers noted two extraordinarily coincidences: There happened to be a

1,000-person emergency-preparedness operation designed for “multiple
simultaneous subway bombings” just at the three subway stations affected
and precisely when these explosions happened. (Chossudovsky, 8/2005)
Peter Power (formerly connected to British intelligence) of Visor Consultants,
the company that organized the operation, refused to identify who
commissioned it. [Note 1] The northbound No. 30 bus, taking an
unexplained southbound detour, exploded in front of the British Medical
Association, where doctors rushed out to aid the injured. In all, fifty-six were
killed and about 700 hundred injured; the bombs caused a day-long
disruption of London’s transport and mobile telecommunications
infrastructure. For most of the day, London was shut down to visitors.

Significantly, Metropolitan Police statements immediately claimed that

“suicide bombing” could not be “confirmed”, clearly suggesting that unlikely
possibility. There was an assumption that the explosions “had to be” caused
by al Qaida. Two little-known groups claimed responsibility for the blasts. On
the day of the explosions, a virtually-unheard-of organization called “the
Secret Organisation Group of Al Qaida of Jihad Organisation in Europe”
posted a claim of responsibility on the Internet; this was later identified as
the same group that had claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing of
March 2004; web links were reported to lead to Austin, Texas. Despite the
lack of verified evidence, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke and Prime
Minister Tony Blair took the claim at face value and declared that the
bombing had been committed in the name of Islam. Prime Minister Tony
Blair rejected calls for an independent inquiry, claiming that the effort would
detract from the hunt for the terrorists.

Warnings

Scotland Yard claimed that it had no information that would have led it to
anticipate these bombs. It was later revealed that not only had the British
Government been warned by various sources, but they had received serious
warnings of a Madrid-like attack on the London Underground to happen by
July 2005! (Ahmed, 2006, 138-141) Despite this, Scotland Yard reduced the
alert level three weeks before the July attack deadline. Moreover, Scotland
Yard warned the Mossad six minutes before the subway explosions, causing
Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel an appearance he was to have made at the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange conference. (Sheva, 2005) The conference was held
at the same hotel near Liverpool Street where former New York City major
Rudy Giuliani, then in the security business, happened to be staying. This
warning was reportedly confirmed by a senior Israeli staffer. The AP article
was withdrawn hours later and the Israeli embassy subsequently denied this
embarrassing story, which would have led people to wonder why Scotland
Yard hadn’t warned subway riders. Hours after the bombings on July 7th, the
Stratfor Intelligence Agency, with links to US intelligence, published “Israel
warned United Kingdom of Possible Attacks” an unconfirmed story that Israel
had warned London of the attacks a ‘couple of days ago.’ (Bellacio, 2005)

The official investigation and early conclusions

Timing of the explosions: Scotland Yard initially announced that the three
subway bombs were detonated about 45 minutes apart. It wasn’t until two
days later, in newspapers of July 9th and 10th, that reports noted that these
explosions occurred within 50 seconds of each other at 8:50 a.m. (Marsden,
2005) Interestingly, The Jerusalem Post ran a July 7th article by the former
head of the Mossad, Efraim Halevi, that noted that the London bombs had
been “simultaneous” and that the operation had been “almost perfect”,
implying he knew what “perfect” should have been!. [Appendix B]

The Explosives: On July 8th, a Metropolitan Police report announced that the
bombs would have weighed “less than 10 pounds each” and fit into
backpacks! The French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, brought in
to advise Scotland Yard, noted that a sophisticated bomb-maker seemed to
have constructed all four bombs, which he noted used high-grade military
explosive. [Note 2] This assessment was confirmed by a story in The Times,
that noted that an unusual type of American military explosive C4, which was
not easily obtainable, had been found in traces at all four blast sites.
(McGrory et al, 2005)

Explosive placement: It was not clear from the physical evidence at any of
the blast sites who might have been responsible; even in the case of the bus
bomb: “Police do not know whether suicide bombers carried out the attacks
or whether bombs had been left in packages on the Underground or in buses,
according to Brian Paddick, Metropolitan Police deputy assistant
commissioner. Paddick said it wasn’t clear whether the bombs were on the
trains or in the tunnels.

Despite eyewitness accounts, such as one eyewitness who saw no one with a
backpack at the site of a train explosion, and Bruce Lait’s about carriage
floors ripped upwards, indicating pre-planted explosives in the subway
undercarriages, (Ahmed, 2006, 36-38) police continued to assume the bombs
originated with passengers. The initial assumption was that those
responsible for the subway bombs had all walked away after planting them,
particularly as cell phones detonators were identified at the three bombed
train sites. So early police investigations did not appear to be focused on the
crime scenes.
Timed detonators: The early discovery of timed detonators in the trains’
wreckage led investigators to claim that these bombings could no longer be
regarded as possible suicide bombings. (ABC News, 2005)

CCTV evidence: British public transit is covered by tens of thousands of

closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras, so CCTV tapes were expected to be a
major tool in identifying the perpetrators. On July 11th, the Monday after the
blasts, papers reported that 800 detectives had gathered to observe 2,500
CCTV tapes with the hope of picking out people who entered the stations
with bags and exited without them. The published estimate was at least two
weeks to complete the task. But the very next day, police claimed that the
bombers had been identified from CCTV footage as four Pakistani-British men
(three or four were named in newspapers), that one of two rental cars
connected with the men was found to contain homemade explosives and
that homemade explosives were also identified in a bathtub at an address
claimed to be an “operational base” of the accused. The four Muslims were
immediately accused of being “suicide bombers” even before the
identification of their bodies was complete - one would clearly not have
appeared to be East Asian — and before they had been publicly identified as
among those killed in the blasts!

Suicides? There was media outrage when the accused were claimed to be
“suicide bombers”; they along with their community were immediately
branded as “terrorists”. Few journalists asked questions or reported
evidence that challenged this assumption. The BBC ran stories from Israel,
drawing parallels between Israelis and Londoners as innocent victims of
terror. The July 10th Daily Telegraph had a sensational half-page article
about a web site - reportedly found by someone in Washington– with a slick,
corporate- style video on how to blow up buses. Despite the obvious
improbability in production and location, the article surmised that this was a
Hezbullah video shot in the occupied Palestinian territories!

Blair went on an immediate offensive, using inflammatory language to lay

the responsibility squarely on the Muslim community: “This is not an isolated
criminal act,” he said. “It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a
perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.” He
demanded that Muslims “root out the evil ideology” and report those with
“extremist” views — which seemed to translate to anti-Israeli. He attempted
to criminalize language that “glorified” or “rationalized” “terrorism”
anywhere — which would have presumably included reports on the
occupations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Referring to suicide
“martyrs” would have been criminal, as well as explaining why one might be
motivated to blow oneself up. Despite the immediate boost for Blair’s “anti-
terror” agenda, this legislation was initially defeated.
The effect on the Muslim community was terrible. One Muslim man was
kicked to death the day after the accused were named and papers across
Britain were filled with stories of abuse of local Muslims. Within two to three
weeks, one in five British Muslims affirmed that either they or someone in
their family had been abused or humiliated in public; two-thirds considered
leaving Britain. The impact was even felt in Canada, where Muslims reported
public humiliations and insults from strangers.

Identification of the alleged suspects

The so-called “lucky break” in the case reportedly came when the mother of
Hasib Hussain called the police hotline (along with 115,000 others) to report
her son missing. Police claimed that this was the break that put names to
the four men with backpacks who they saw on CCTV footage. On the day of
this announcement, police claimed that they not only had the names of three
or four of the culprits (one was initially identified as Ejaz Fiaz rather than the
muscular, Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay) but they even knew which route
each had taken - without showing any evidence proving that the men were in
London that day. While police would claim that they had no prior knowledge
of these men, they had to admit later that Hussain was the only one of the
four not previously known to them.

The closed-circuit television (CCTV) evidence appears to be virtually

nonexistent, which is noteworthy, given the thousands of cameras used
around London and in transit stations. There has been no CCTV evidence
released that convincingly shows any of the accused in London on July 7th.
The stills that have been released have no CCTV time stamps and/or
contradict other July 7th evidence:

1. Police claimed that the three British-Pakistani men traveled south from
Leeds to Luton in a rented car, where they met with the fourth suspect and
apparently a fifth man caught on another unreleased Luton station CCTV.
(J7:Evidence)

2. Five men were reportedly seen together on a 7:21 a.m. CCTV tape at
suburban Luton Station, four of whom had identical backpacks resembling
those used by British Infantry. Police initially claimed that all of the men
were of Pakistani origin. The shots released to the public are of very poor
quality: the faces are difficult to make out, there are no other people in the
background despite the rush hour. The Luton photo, supposedly taken early
on July 7th, shows Hasib Hussain wearing a denim jacket, which contradicts
the alleged missing person report, which has him wearing a distinctively-
colored top. Some claim that the image appears to have been modified, with
images of handrails coming through the photos in suspicious ways. (WAG,
23/7/2005) In September 2005, British police released
June 28th photos that they claimed showed a “trial run” despite the fact that
the time of day was different and the men do not visit the stations where the
explosions occurred on July 7th! (BBC, 9/2005)

3. The Home Office claimed that the four were seen on unreleased CCTV and
by witnesses boarding the 7:40 or the 7:48 am ‘Thameslink’ train to London,
which would have taken them to King’s Cross Station by 8:26 am, where they
were said to be seen on the station’s main concourse — again, with a fifth
man — before entering the underground. In the fall of 2005, researchers
realized that this time line was an impossibility: on July 7th the 7:40 train was
canceled and the 7:48 delayed! (J7 update, 2006) The accused could not
have arrived in London in time to board any of the bombed trains, thereby
demolishing the entire case against them. These timings also disprove the
police account of how they came to identify the
four accused through CCTV evidence. When this discrepancy was brought to
the attention of the government, the Home Office changed the account. A
year later, on July 11, 2006, Home Secretary John Reid announced that the
alleged bombers had actually taken the 7:25 am train. He did not claim that
this was verified by either CCTV or by witnesses.

4. The four accused were later claimed to be seen arriving around 8:26 a.m.
at King’s Cross Station, again caught on an unpublished CCTV tape with a
fifth man. (Fox, 2005) While Scotland Yard detectives claim that the CCTV
tape that broke this case showed four to five men chatting and laughing
easily together, this tape has not been shown to the public and its veracity is
questionable because of the government’s changing claims about the train
schedules.

5. CCTV tapes are said to show Hasib Hussain at 9 am in various places. The
one that was released, again with no identifiable people in the background, is
suspicious because of the evacuation that took place at that location at the
time of the time stamp. (J7:Evidence)

Identifying “explosives” in Luton car connected to the accused: The fast

identification through the claimed CCTV evidence and the missing-persons
report seemed to be confirmed by the rapid locating of two cars connected
to the accused. It should be noted that these cars were in parking lots for
five days after July 7th and that their alleged drivers were not alive to
confirm or deny either their connection to these cars or the contents. A
rental car at the Luton station parking lot was reportedly found with
“homemade explosives” in the trunk. There were various claims about the
number of bombs in the trunk of the Luton car; although the identification of
“explosives” was subsequently retracted and the material, as of 2006,
unidentified. (Ahmed, 2006, 44,45) The second car — with a valid parking
ticket — had been inexplicably towed by the police from Luton to Leighton
Buzzard just hours after the London explosions. This was found not to have
explosives when police examined it five days later. (Ahmed, 2006, 42,43)

Identifying “explosives” in a bathtub at an “operational base”: Later on July

12th, police raided addresses that they claimed were connected with the
accused, including a vacant apartment which contained a bathtub loaded
with more “homemade explosive”. The apartment had been rented by
Magdi Asdi el-Nashar, an Egyptian- born Ph.D. and lecturer at the University
of Leeds who had left the UK before July 7th, reportedly as a result of visa
problems. After several weeks’ detention and a tremendous media circus in
Britain claiming his guilt, Egyptian officials exonerated him from having any
connection with the blasts. (The analysis of the tub’s contents was not
released, but the claim that they were explosives was retracted (Ahmed,
2006, 31, 45) and the contents remained, as of 2006, unidentified.

Identification papers found “by their seats”: police implied they knew where
the accused were sitting in the trains! Police have not explained how ID
cards from one or two of the accused men — Mohammed Sadique Khan and
possibly Shehzad Tanweer — were reportedly found in more than one blast
location. While early stories reported that these men’s ID cards were found
at various blast sites, it appears that at least Khan’s ID cards were found at
the Edgware Road and Aldgate sites. (BBC, 7/2005) Another curiosity is that
when the men were first identified, Khan was incorrectly named as Rashid
Facha, a name very different from his own, despite the fact that every other
detail of his family and address was correct.

DNA evidence: The claim by police that the fourth accused was identified
through his DNA, would indicate that the police knew whose DNA to compare
with the tissue from the subway blast. (J7 Profile: Lindsay) One report
claimed that a DNA sample from Germaine Lindsay, accused on July 14th as
the fourth “suicide bomber”, was taken from the parking stub in the car that
police towed from the Luton parking lot several hours after the blasts. This
indicates that police knew the identify of the car’s driver and presumably
that it was connected with the explosions.

Identification evidence related to the No. 30 Bus blast: While the CCTV
equipment of British buses is reportedly not able to be switched off by the
bus drivers, the CCTV of this No. 30 bus was never produced, so there has
been no reliable, public record shown of who was on the bus or what
happened. The northbound bus took an unexplained southbound detour and
exploded across from the British Medical Association building at 9:47 a.m.
One report claims that the hard drive of that CCTV was given to the
Metropolitan Police. (J7: Evidence)

From the initial evidence, it was not clear where the bus bomb came from: In
a Timesonline article: “Forensic pathologists have been paying particular
attention to the remains of two bodies found in the mangled wreckage of the
double-decker. A senior police source said: “There are two bodies which
have to be examined in great detail because they appear to have been
holding the bomb or sitting on top of it. One of those might turn out to be
the bomber.’” (Evans et al, 2005) Hasib Hussain’s credit card was found in
the bus, as was Tanweer’s. (Herbert, 2005)

Despite the ambiguous physical evidence on the bus, police claimed that
Hasib Hussain was the “suicide bomber” responsible for the bus explosion.
According to the police reconstruction of events, Hussain would have tried to
take the northern subway route from King’s Cross station which they claimed
was closed the morning of July 7th, although the denial of that supposition by
a spokesperson from Transport for London (Bennetto et al, 2005) should have
changed the police theory.

There are various contradictory accounts of what Hussain was doing at 9

a.m.: (J7 Profile: Hussain)

Police claim that mobile phone records showed that at 9 am –10 minutes
after the three subway explosions — Hussain made three calls to the others
on his cell phone but got no response. He was reported to have been walking
down a street while making the calls; Hussain was reportedly seen on a
McDonald’s CCTV camera (J7 Profile: Hussain) at 9 am ordering food and
Hussain was shown in a published CCTV image in front of a drug store at
King’s Cross station with a time stamp of 9 am. According to reports, King’s
Cross was already being evacuated by 9 am on July 7th. (J7: Evidence) In this
image, Hussain is not wearing the “distinctive colored top” that he was
reported to have been wearing in the Missing Persons report; (McGrory,
7/2005)

Hussain was supposed to have boarded the northbound No. 30 bus (possibly
after taking a Bus. 91 in the opposite direction. (Muad’Dib). Given the
hundreds of CCTV cameras that should have been in operation along
Hussain’s route between King’s Cross and Euston, it is significant that none
have been released.

The most publicized witness who came forward, a Richard Jones, offered
evidence that is not seen as credible. (J7: Mind the Gaps) The witness
accounts varied widely with each other as well as with earlier, reported CCTV
evidence as well as with the Missing Persons’ Report. Hasib Hussain was
described as both clean shaven and with stubble, carrying only one small
bag and burdened with a huge haversack, wearing a distinctively colored top
(as in his mother’s missing person report) and wearing dark jeans and a top
(from the questionable CCTV evidence). Witness accounts also have Hussain
frantically searching through his bag when it exploded or with a bag that
blew up when he sat down. (WAG, 21/7/2005)
Information about the accused: MI6 connections?

The four men were unlikely to have been either terrorists or “suicide
bombers:” besides being known as secular, westernized and peaceful, they
had clear future plans and clearly did not expect to die.

Shehzad Tanweer, 22, (who police claim was killed in the train at Aldgate
Rd.), was a handsome, bright, athlete who loved cricket and had trophies for
the long jump. He had just graduated from the university in Leeds and was
planning a career in sports science. He had visited family in Pakistan to
examine schools, but returned claiming he was turned off by anti-British
feeling there. His family noted his patriotism; his friends commented on
what a sweet person he was and how critical he would have been of
terrorism. Some noted that he loved driving his Mercedes around the
neighborhood; he had just paid a large car repair bill on it. His driver’s
license and credit cards were found at the Tavistock Square No. 30 bus blast
that killed Hussain. Police made much of the fact that he had visited relatives
that spring in Pakistan, but investigators could find nothing suspicious about
his trip.

Hasib Hussain, 18, (who police claim died in the bus) was called a “pillar of
the community” by friends, who couldn’t believe such a gentle and apolitical
person — who just talked about girls, sports and cars — could have been
involved in any radical plot. In the days before July 7th, he talked about a car
he wanted to buy. Hussain was initially subjected to media smears about his
educational background which turned out to be untrue. He was looking
forward to studying at Leeds Metropolitan University to do a business course;
the day after the bombings the results came back that he had scored
distinctions in four out of the five exams he had taken. His family noted that
his trip to Pakistan, where he met his fiancee, was to attend his brother’s
wedding. His family believes evidence will eventually prove his innocence.

Germaine “Jamal” Lindsay was a handsome, highly intelligent man who

“never got into any trouble”. He was married and had an 8-month old; his
wife — who did not believe he could be connected to a plot — was expecting
their second child at the time of these explosions. From all reports, he was a
gentle and apolitical person who abhorred violence.
Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30, whose identification was found at least at
Edgware and Aldgate, was accused by official reports to be the “main”
organizer of the blasts. He was an outstanding counselor for the children of
immigrants and the learning disabled. He was so highly respected that
The Times of London had featured him in an educational supplement. (J7
Profile: Khan) His mother-in-law had received special honor at Buckingham
Palace for a life of progressive community work. Khan himself had been
friends with his Member of Parliament’s family for two decades. He had a
14-month old daughter and his wife was expecting a second child. Despite
reports about an alleged estrangement, his wife reported Khan missing
within several hours of the explosions. Friends describe Khan as a loving,
exceptionally compassionate and peaceful person who would not have
chosen to blow himself up — along with other innocent people — to prove
any political point to the British public. As a friend of his Member of
Parliament, he would have known of more effective ways to communicate his
sentiments. While Khan had made a springtime trip to Pakistan; police found
no evidence that this was anything more than a simple vacation.

It is not inconceivable that a young man prominent in the Muslim community

would be asked to undertake work for the security services to identify
potential extremist groups. In September 2005, a leaked document detailed
plans by MI6 to infiltrate such groups. (J7 Profile: Khan)

There are indications that Khan might have been working for British
intelligence: Martin Gilbertson, who worked in the Muslim bookstore Iqra,
claimed that Khan was a link between various strata of Muslims who
frequented the shop. He claimed that he had tipped off police about
“suspicious activities” by Khan and Shezad Tanweer in October 2003 and
asked anti-terrorism officers to contact him. He claimed that he sent a
package of incriminating material to the police that showed that Khan and
Tanweer were linked to extremist web sites. While Gilbertson said he had
received no response, a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee
(ISC, 2006) revealed that Khan had come to the attention of MI5 “in the two
years before July 7, [2005].”

It could have been that “anti-terrorism” officers had no need to contact

Gilbertson. An “ex-anti-terrorist” agent, Martin McDaid, who now calls
himself Abdullah, says he worked several hours a week at the Iqra bookshop
in Beeston which reportedly produced and distributed DVDs that juxtapose
images from the Crusades with those of mutilated Muslims. McDaid admitted
that he knew all of the four accused men as well as the Egyptian chemist
who was accused of being implicated earlier. McDaid also admitted that he
had served in the Royal Marines for 10 years, spending a year and a half with
the Special Forces in the Special Boat Service. He claims that he left them
“nearly 15 years ago.” (Thornton, 2005)

On the BBC Newshour programme Charles Shoebridge, a former detective

with the Metropolitan Police, stated, “The amount of information coming out
and the quality of information coming out. The fact that that has been so
consistently overlooked it would appear by the security service MI5, to me
suggests really only one of two options. Either, a) we’ve got a level of
incompetence that would be unusual even for the security services. But b)
possibly, and this is a possibility, that this man Khan may even have been
working as an informant for the security service. It is difficult otherwise to
see how it can be that they’ve so covered his tracks in the interim.” (Watson,
6/2006)

Despite Scotland Yard’s claim that they had had no connection with Khan or
Tanweer, it turned out that both men were bugged and taped by British
intelligence in 2004. According to the July 7th Truth Campaign web site, ” In
October 2005, it emerged that Khan had been under surveillance in 2004,
and just a few days after this, it was revealed that all four men had been
tracked by the security services. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s
Report into The London Bombings (ISC, 2006) described Khan as being
“peripheral” to previous surveillance, despite the fact that resources were
devoted to photographing him, tracking his car and tapping his phone.
Interestingly, the ISC were unable to view the transcripts of the taped
telephone conversations, prompting accusations of a cover up by MI5.”

There were reports on various web sites that Muslims were specifically being
recruited for drills in the London Underground, possibly to test security
provisions in dealing with suicide bombers. (Watson, 7/2005) All of the men
could have been lured by extra money, with Khan and Lindsay soon to be
new fathers, Tanweer with a large car repair bill and Hussain engaged to be
married and planning to attend college

Did any evidence point to suicides?

The physical evidence from all of the explosions contradicts suicide

bombings. The evidence from the subway carriages shows that explosives
were planted underneath the carriages for the floors to be blown upwards.
(Ahmed, 2006, 36-38) The relatively benign placement of the bomb on the
No. 30 bus also contradicts a suicide bombing, as maximum damage would
have been caused by detonating it in the center of the lower level, rather
than its location at the rear of the upper level of the bus.

The personal evidence indicates that the four men did not know that they
were to die. Police claim that on the (unreleased) King’s Cross CCTV tape,
they appeared to be laughing and chatting easily together. Their families
expected them home. There were no suicide notes. They had purchased
return trip tickets. The parked cars had days of parking prepaid. Tanweer
had just paid a huge car repair bill. At least three were carrying identification.

While a January 3, 2006 BBC News article noted that the four Muslim men
must have been preparing for death because they paid “part of some of their
debt” and one had made a will, most would claim that NOT paying one’s
debts might have been taken as knowledge of death. And more might have
chosen to make wills.
Beyond the immediate evidence that there was no expectation of death,
these four men had good lives; they had no reason to choose to die to make
any political statement. While much of the British Muslim community has
high unemployment and reasons for despair, these men were respected in
their community and had everything to live for. None was believed capable
of such a horrific act. There was no case in which a close friend or relative
acknowledged that such behaviour was conceivable from the gentle person
they knew.

Given the evidence that challenges the men’s presence in London on 7/7,
what evidence is there that they died or how they died? Several articles have
been published with bizarre implications. One report claimed that the body
of Khan was not found at the Edgware blast site where he was claimed to
have died: “Police have said that property in the name of a third man who
traveled to London from West Yorkshire - reportedly Khan - was found at both
the Aldgate and Edgware Road sites, but there was no evidence proving he
died at either blast.” (BBC, 7/2005)

The Telegraph reported on 29th October 2005, that Khan’s family had asked
for a second post mortem to be carried out on his remains by an
independent pathologist to confirm the cause of his death.

As an apparent response to questions about the bodies of the four men,

Metropolitan Police claimed in The Guardian of Aug. 24, 2005, that they were
in possession of all bodies of the bombers, to reassemble their body parts to
analyze their positions on the bombs’ detonations. Since they didn’t identify
the accused for five days, and initially did not assume suicides, such an
admission is stunning — they surely did not hold onto all of the bodies of the
52 dead for that long. The claim that police would be reassembling 3-month
old corpses is bizarre; why were police refusing to release the bodies to the
families?? .

In October 2005, it was reported that Tanweer’s body had been taken to
Pakistan for interment in a family grave, accompanied by security personnel
who accompanied the body to Pakistan and then guarded the site for days.
What were they paid to prevent?

There were several mysterious reports of police snipers killing what were
described as “suicide bombers” on the morning of July 7th around Canary
Wharf. These stories were reportedly withdrawn after one broadcast and no
further details were ever provided; this report was not repeated on
mainstream media. One victim, killed outside the Credit Suisse First Boston
Bank (Shortnews, 2005) was described as “believed to be part of a team of
other suicide bombers.” July 9th’s New Zealand Herald reported that a
Reuters journalist claimed that two colleagues “who did not want to be
identified” witnessed police shooting two “apparent suicide bombers” at
10:30 a.m. on July 7th outside the HSBC tower on Canary Wharf. (Toronto’s
July 7th Globe and Mail reported the killing of one “suicide bomber” there,
and named a witness.) The New Zealand Herald article noted that “following
the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away
from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours.” (N Z Herald,
2005) The instruction to “Stay away from windows” would have precluded
further witnesses. Bus schedules indicate that the distance between King’s
Cross and Canary Wharf is approximately one hour.

The Release of tapes of Khan and Tanweer

On September 1, 2005, almost eight weeks after the July 7th bombing, a
mysterious tape purporting to be of Mohammad Sidique Khan appeared with
edited-in clips of Al Qaida’s Al Zwahiri. In it, Khan was wearing a red
Palestinian-type scarf like a bandana around his head, standing in front of a
rug and stabbing the air with a pen when making a political statement
warning the British of retaliation for their killing of Muslims. In a portion of
the tape that was released, Khan’s lip movements do not match the words
spoken. (J7:Evidence) Although the tape did not mention any planned event,
the implication was that this tape was be taken as a copy of Palestinian
suicide tapes, (not an Al Qaida practice) to “prove” Khan’s motive to kill
himself.

Khan’s closest friend as well as neighbors claim that the tape is a fraud, both
from the contents as well as from the quality of the voice. Friends noted that
his appearance on the tape was from 2004, which turned out to be the year
that Khan had been audio taped and videotaped by British intelligence. (J7
Profile: Khan)

Later, in September of 2005, Scotland Yard claimed that a similar tape

existed of Tanweer. About ten months later, on July 5, 2006, an ABC News
reporter claimed that a tape of Tanweer would be shown on Al Jazeera the
next day, which happened. While this tape was portrayed as “coming from
Al Qaida”, no one actually knew what its origin was. The only people who
appeared to know about it before it surfaced were British police and ABC
News.

The video images of Khan and Tanweer dated from 2004 and had the same
props. Tanweer was wearing the same head scarf as Khan, with the identical
background and making the same strange stabbing gestures with his hand.
As in the Khan tape, a clip of Al Zwahiri was edited into the tape, making it
appear that the two Brits were associated with Al Qaida. In the Tanweer
tape, there are additional shots of a purported “training camp” with
disembodied hands claimed to be “mixing chemicals” “igniting explosives”
and circling Victoria Station on a map, all pictures that could have come from
someone’s back yard. While some may have found them laughable, the BBC
presented them as threatening. Neither of the tapes have been seen
publicly in their entirety.

A transcript of Tanweer’s video was made available, which included clips of

Ayman al-Zawahiri and American al Qaida member “Adam Gadahn”. While
Gadahn is also known to the FBI as “Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb,
Yihya Majadin Adams and Yayah”, his real name is Adam Pearlman and his
grandfather was a member of the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation
League in Orange Co. California.

None of Tanweer’s family or friends have volunteered their opinion of the

veracity of this tape. It is clearly possible (for those who have seen displays
of voice technology and advertisements with animals dancing) that both the
images and voices of the men could have been technically produced.

The tapes attempt to show that Khan and Tanweer were connected with Al
Qaida, that they supported terrorism against their fellow citizens and were
making the tapes as virtual suicide notes of their intentions. But is it a
coincidence that the images of Khan and Tanweer came from 2004, the year
the police had them under surveillance? Al Qaida has not been known to
make suicide tapes. If they were really connected to Al Qaida, why would
suicide tapes have been made? Why would either the professional Khan or
Tanweer make vague statements about their beliefs dressed up with
Palestinian scarves in front of any camera? Since Palestinians have not been
shown to be connected to al Qaida, why do the tapes attempt to make that
connection? Who would benefit from that contrived implication?

It is ironic that the British government maintains that these tapes prove
motive while also claiming in 2006 reports that the men acted
independently! If the accused acted alone and were not connected to a
conspiracy, as officially claimed, who created these tapes and who released
them?

The Copycat bombings and the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes

Exactly two weeks after the July 7th explosions, events occurred that seemed
to be related to them, although the relationship is not clear. On July 21st,
four North African immigrants apparently tried to blow themselves up in
what appeared to be July 7- copycat explosions, with three attempts on
subway cars and one on a bus. The accounts of the dud bombs of July 21
were actually hilarious, with one “bomb” oozing out of a case like the bread
dough that it was made from, since an active ingredient of their “bomb”
recipe was chapatti flour. The four men scattered in all directions with their
identifying pictures reportedly caught on CCTV tapes. It was apparent that
the four were of African descent. Three were quickly rounded up; the fourth,
Hussein Osman, escaped to Italy where he was caught the following week.
In Osman’s published Italian interviews, he claimed that he, along with the
other (five) accused, were fed a steady diet of graphic films for some weeks
that portrayed mutilated Iraqi victims of American and British military
actions. The men were reportedly told to keep quiet about these mysterious
films, which reportedly came from the banned al Mouhajiroun. On July 21,
the four men were apparently primed to sacrifice themselves as a gesture of
their horror at the slaughter that the US and UK continued to commit in Iraq.
Although Osman claimed that he only intended to scare people and not
cause actual damage, it appeared that at least some of the men did not
believe that they would survive their actions. The men were diverse; the
apparent ringleader had a background of petty crime, and at least Osman
was secular.

While the four Muslims who were accused of being suicide bombers on July
7th clearly had no idea that they were about to die, these four seemed ready
to martyr themselves. The questions that beg to be answered are:

Who was behind motivating men — four men — to sacrifice their lives? Who
stood to benefit from the four suicide attempts? Who stood to lose?

Why did they model their bombing sites on the July 7th events, choosing
three subway trains and one bus? Who would be expected to benefit from
this resemblance?

Was there any significance to the timing? The next day’s execution of Jean
Charles de Menezes by a combination of Britain’s most elite police and
military teams was presented as a frenzied response to these would-be
“suicide bombers”.

The Mirror’s July 22, 2005 edition showed the extraordinary foreknowledge
demonstrated by the British government before this event, indicating a
possible intelligence connection to these copycat bombs. Nafeez Ahmed
quotes it to note that,

“Despite the government’s official insistence that it had no prior knowledge

of the attacks of 21 July 2005, anonymous British security sources revealed
that Scotland Yard had obtained precise advanced warning of replica bomb
attacks on the Tube network that would almost certainly be executed on
Thursday of that week. . . Indeed, only two hours before the terrorist strikes,
Home Secretary Charles Clarke ‘warned senior cabinet colleagues the capital
could face another terror onslaught’ in a confidential briefing. … Most
surprisingly, the Home Secretary had specifically ‘hinted at fears there could
be copycat attacks in the wake of the July 7 atrocities’…. Indeed, police were
racing on the morning of the 21 to locate at least one of the bomber
suspects, several hours before the detonations … .’ At 9:29 a.m. an armed
unit raced to Farrington station as they closed in on the suspected bomber —
but narrowly missed him.’

The incident indicates the extent of the detail apparently available to the
police. How did they know he would pass through Farrington? If they had
information of such precision, did it extend to other elements of the plot?’”
(Ahmed, 2006, 103,104)

In another extraordinary admission, police testified in October 2007 that the

only other times that the contents of the dud “bombs” has been seen in the
UK were the police discoveries the week after the July 7th events of
unidentified explosives in an abandoned car and bathtub supposedly linked
to the four originally accused. Since it appears that British security services
were the most likely source of the “homemade” material found after the July
7th explosions, it follows that they were also the most likely source of these
dud “bombs”.

The Execution of Jean Charles de Menezes

The supposed police chaos resulting from these abortive copycat attempts
was given as an excuse for the execution the next morning of a Brazilian
electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, in a Stockwell station subway train. On
July 22, senior police officials oversaw and led elite military and police units
to the brazen execution of the Brazilian electrician. While this execution
continues to be spun by the police as an unfortunate accident stemming
from a chaotic police environment, an analysis of the facts suggests the
opposite — an intentionally targeted surveillance and execution. Questions
continue to arise because of the extraordinary lengths police have taken to
hide the facts around this execution.

The teams: It is known that at least two elite British intelligence units were
involved in this murder, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) that
specializes in surveillance and “false flag operations” and the newly-formed
police marksmen’s unit, C019 (or referred to as S019), trained by the elite
SAS. Many see evidence — in the weapons used as well as in the manner of
the killing — that point to British special forces actually carrying out the de
Menezes’ execution. (Norton-Taylor, 8/2005) The involvement of the
particular elite units named as performing this execution raises questions
about the claimed accidental nature of the murder. Ahmed describes the
background of the units in his book:

“The SRR’s Northern Ireland connection raises a number of disturbing

questions. The Regiment unit is ‘formed from members of a highly secret
surveillance agency — the Joint Communications Unit [JCU] Northern Ireland
— which . . . worked with the SAS, MI5 and Special Branch in ‘covert
surveillance or urban and rural areas. . . The SRR’s primary mission in turn is
‘to infiltrate Islamic terrorist groups such as al-Qa’eda .. To penetrate groups,
either directly or by ‘turning’ terrorists into double agents.’ In doing so, the
Regiment is tasked to provide the intelligence necessary for SAS and other
agencies to conduct covert military operations effectively. The SRR thus
employs the same personnel, methods and objectives as it predecessors in
Northern Ireland, which, on behalf of the British state fought a protracted
covert war against the Republican movement in Northern Ireland. . . . Among
the agencies participating in this covert war were the ultra-secret wing of
British military intelligence, the Force Research Unit and the 22 Squadron, . .
.the operations [of which were claimed to be] sanctioned right at the top. . .
this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. . . . What was an organization
such as the SRR, employing personnel and methods with such a track record,
doing in the British capital one day after the 21/7 attacks leading to the
unlawful execution of an innocent civilian on the London Underground?”
(Ahmed, 2006, 113-115)

The responsibility: Crown Prosecution Services declared in July 2006 that no

one would be held personally responsible for de Menezes’ death. Hence
Cressida Dick, responsible for the operation as the Metropolitan Police’s
Designated Service Officer, was exonerated. The actual killers, identified
only as Hotel 1, Hotel 2 and Hotel 3, remain anonymous. There was a trial in
October 2007 to examine police responsibility for putting the public at risk in
its handling of de Menezes’ killing. Police testimony revealed new
information; disappointingly, no public eyewitnesses were called. While the
testimony made it apparent that de Menezes was the actual target of the
SRR surveillance teams, the manner of his death was strangely
unprofessional.

Testimony: According to police testimony at the October 2007 trial, the chain
of events started when police were examining Hussein Osman’s gym bag
containing the bogus explosives at 4:30 am on July 22 when they claim that
they discovered a gym membership card of his friend, Abdi Omar. Dick
called on the elite CO19 team to show up at Abdi Omar’s apartment building
at 21 Scotia Road from 5 am onwards to check the identities of all those
leaving the apartment building for either bombing suspect Hussein Osman or
his friend Abdi Omar. From 6 am onwards, the elite military team, the SRR,
provided the electronic surveillance on the Scotia Road apartment building,
with video cameras ready to transmit images to the police headquarters for
identification confirmation. According to a security source, those who
manned such surveillance stations were never to leave their posts for any
reason; urination was to be performed in a bottle. Dick testified that the
C019 team was to have been there to question those exiting, but they were
unfortunately four and a half hours late for this assignment. (Dodd, 2007)
Police claimed that this delay set in motion the circumstances that caused
the execution of the Brazilian electrician that morning.
According to the police — who initially claimed that no video or CCTV footage
existed of this event — they were on the lookout for one of two North
Africans, when the order went out to send two SRR surveillance teams (one
on foot, the other in a vehicle) to follow de Menezes, who was described from
the onset as a “Northern European white male”. (None of the six people
leaving 21 Scotia Road before de Menezes that morning nor any of those
leaving afterwards were either examined or followed.)
The two teams followed de Menezes for 30 minutes, during which time the
CCTV evidence shows that he boarded a bus, exited the bus to find that a
subway station was closed, made a phone call (to his uncle, saying he’d be
late meeting him for their job), got back onto a bus continuing on the same
route to the Stockwell station, picked up a newspaper, paid for his subway
with his prepaid card, and strolled to the platform. De Menezes was shown
to be wearing a light denim jacket and carrying no bags or backpack.

Police initially claimed that de Menezes looked suspicious, because he was

wearing a “puffy jacket with wires hanging out.” The whistle blowers who
distributed the photo that exposed this police lie were severely punished.
(Sanderson, 2006) Police continue to claim that he acted suspiciously by
taking the second bus ride and that they believed that he looked nervous.
Police attempted to bolster their case of misidentification by creating a
computer composite of the faces of de Menezes alongside that of Hussein
Osman. It was noted that the face of de Menezes was clearly manipulated
by police to support this comparison. (BBC, 10/2007) In her October 2007
testimony Cressida Dick claimed that she received “five positive” claims that
de Menezes was Osman and that, with this confidence, she gave the
command to “stop” de Menezes {an ambiguous command understood in
intelligence circles to mean kill.] Other testimony contradicts her assertion;
she apparently asked for confirmation of the identification as her agents
entered the Stockwell station, which they claimed they were unable to give.
The police log was tampered with to make it confusing whether agents did or
did not identify de Menezes as Osman. Most significantly, according to The
London Bombings, with the exception of only one agent , the surveillance
units did not believe that de Menezes was the suspected bomber Hussein
Osman.

The execution: In the subway car where de Menezes was seated, a

surveillance agent held the door open, stopping the train from moving, while
he pointed out de Menezes to the agents running to get in and said “He’s
here.” Plainclothes agents identified only as “Hotel 1, Hotel 2 and Hotel 3″
pinned de Menezes down without identifying themselves and started
pumping eleven (banned) dum dum bullets into de Menezes, with at least
five hitting his head. According to an eye witness who had to insist that her
testimony be included in the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints
Commission) report, the shots came at about three-second intervals and
lasted for 30 seconds. The other passengers scattered; one of the killers then
threatened the subway driver, chasing him into the tunnel. Some witnesses
noted that the weapons photographed on the killers were not issued to C019
and that the method of execution reflected special forces, not a police unit.
(Smith, 2005)

Maintaining the charade: Why were police staking out 21 Scotia Road? The
initial rationale for staking out 21 Scotia Road was that it was the apartment
of suspect Hussein Osman’s friend, Abdi Omar. Soon after the execution of
de Menezes, police burst into Omar’s family’s home, putting his mother-in-
law in the hospital with a heart attack. In fact, Omar had left the UK the
previous week: his absence should have been apparent to the SRR if they
had actually put Omar’s apartment under surveillance. When Omar returned
to the UK, he asked police if they wanted to speak to him: they didn’t.

Abdi Omar’s gym membership card, which supposedly led police to that
address that morning (Cobain et al, 2005), was not even reported to have
been in Osman’s bag according to other sources. Hussein Osman was a
member of the same gym club as Omar, so presumably would not have
needed Omar’s card. Strangely, by the 2007 trial, Omar’s name had
disappeared from the story. It became only Osman who was “linked” to 21
Scotia Road. (BBC, 2007)

Was de Menezes seen as a threat? The surveillance units did not see de
Menezes as a threat and allowed him to get onto 2 busses and a subway with
other passengers, and openly directed the marksmen to him on the subway
carriage, which could have allowed de Menezes to detonate anything if he
had been armed. At no time during the surveillance did Scotland Yard
headquarters, which was directing the operation, ask whether de Menezes
was carrying any bag or wearing padded clothing, which might have
indicated that he might have had explosives. According to Ahmed, “the bulk
of the evidence available in the public record strongly suggests that the
threat perception of officers on the ground were manipulated by senior
officers for reasons that so far remain difficult to fathom.” (Ahmed, 2006,
119)

While the officers on the ground detected no danger, C019 testimony was
that they were told that they had to be “up for it” that morning because they
could be confronting a suicide bomber; they were specially armed with
special dum dum bullets — usually banned — for a killing.

The disinformation campaign Police sprang into action soon after de

Menezes’ death with a disinformation campaign: evidence was missing,
manipulated, hidden and distorted. Their testimony raises serious questions.

Internal police documents indicate that police understood quickly that de

Menezes was not one of the previous day’s would-be bombers, but this was
not officially acknowledged until the proof of the truth was produced. Chief
Ian Blair is still trying to maintain his position despite the blows to his
credibility and integrity and the subsequent calls for his resignation. Police
attempts at hiding the facts are clearly ongoing as demonstrated at the
October 2007 trial.

Police banned the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) - which

had the obligation to investigate the killing — from the site of the execution
for several hours and has refused to turn over their internal documents as
required by law. (Mitchell, 2007)

Police maltreated the whistle blower and her associates who published the
photo of the dead de Menezes wearing a denim jacket, and were understood
to have threatened one of the jurors at the October 2007 trial.

Despite the supposed litany of incompetence and failures that led to the
death of the innocent Brazilian, Scotland Yard continues to make it clear that
there will be no independent inquiry into the wrongful death. If the execution
had been an accident, the supervising officer would have been at least
reprimanded for incompetence. Instead, Cressida Dick was promoted to
Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in September
2006.

In October, 2007, police continued to misrepresent their rationales for the

surveillance and execution of Jean Charles de Menezes: After four hours of
deliberations on October 31, 2007, an Old Bailey Central Criminal Court jury
found the Metropolitan Police guilty of breaching health and safety laws by
allowing a potential suicide bomber to access public transportation and by
killing him in the presence of other passengers. But in an extraordinary rider
to their verdict they said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who
was in overall charge of the Gold Team operation, had “no personal
culpability”! The explanation for the execution remains a mystery; de
Menezes’ work as an independent electrician leads many to suspect a
connection to the events of July 7th. Did telephone surveillance indicate that
de Menezes was about to confide something to his uncle? Was the public
execution a warning? The police motive can only be guessed.

*****************************

What Really Happened on 7/7

The emergency-preparedness operation script gone awry: proof of the

double-cross
The key to understanding what happened is realizing that the news media
was given a script for the July 7th 1000-person suicide operation, which was
the cover for the real operation.

All early reports of the July 7th bombing included the line that “suicide
bombing” could not be “confirmed”. The constant repetition of that phrase
was stunning and clearly showed an insidious agenda, because no one who
wanted to bomb London had to be a suicide bomber. Why would anyone
have chosen to die when they could just leave a bomb with a detonator
somewhere? When the military explosives were found with detonator parts,
reports even excluded that possibility. But a script clearly read “suicide
bombers.”

It was obvious, from the strangely incorrect information that came out after
the bombings, that the media were following a pre-written script that didn’t
jibe with reality. There were early claims that the men seen on CCTV with
the suspiciously identical rucksacks were all of Pakistani descent; initially,
The Times even put out the names of four Pakistani-British men. If anyone
had been looking at actual footage, they could not have missed Germaine
Lindsay, the large, muscular black man who accompanied them that
morning.

Other bizarre media reports demonstrate that the four Muslims were hired to
take part in the large emergency- preparedness operation as the “pretend”
suicide bombers. While the four Muslims were not able to take the 7:40 or
7:48 am Luton trains to London, the script no longer worked. Fortunately for
them, police and media didn’t know to jettison the script. If the trains had
operated as scheduled, the CCTVs would have certainly been in operation
and would have shown the accused with their backpacks on their way to the
fated subway cars. Police would have been praised for their incredibly fast
work in identifying the bombers; it would have been almost impossible to
deny the obvious evidence.

The most obvious sign that the men were part of the emergency-
preparedness operation were the police reports that IDs of the accused were
found “near their seats”. It would have been hard even if the men had been
on the trains to have determined where they had been sitting; the fact that
someone knew where they were supposed to have been sitting demonstrates
the police foreknowledge of the operation. Even more stunning, were the
reports that the bodies of the “suicide bombers” were not found where they
were supposed to have died! The BBC reported that Khan’s body was not
found at Edgware, where he was supposed to have blown himself up, and on
July 13, Peter Clarke was quoted in The Guardian as remarking that it was not
clear if all of the “suicide bombers” had, indeed, died! (Bennetto et al,
7/2005) The emergency- preparedness operation script read “suicide
bombers” and no one changed the wording just because the bodies weren’t
to be found!

Those running the operation must have realized that the Luton trains were
canceled — very possibly, Khan would have notified them himself —
because, incredibly, the mobile phone network was brought down soon after
the detonations. While the police initially denied that they had shut down
the network, they had to admit, in December 2005, that they had lied. Police
claimed the “the most senior officer”, a member of the Met’s Gold Team, had
made the decision. That was the same Gold Team that was responsible, two
weeks later, for directing the elite security teams’ stalking and execution of
Jean Charles de Menezes. The cell phone shut down meant that the three
men had no way to notify anyone about the double-cross and that they were
still alive after the explosions. There was a media shutdown of the news that
“suicide bombers’ were killed by police marksmen at Canary Wharf. Luckily
for the men, they were close enough to media outlets where there were
witnesses connected to media so that this news did ultimately leak out
through major papers in Canada and New Zealand.

There were clearly two unforeseen problems that the police faced from the
new twists: the identification of the strange black man who wasn’t supposed
to have been there, and how to dispose of three bodies that clearly hadn’t
been killed in the train blasts. The public waited for days while police
supposedly did DNA tests on the body from the subway car.
The issue of their bodies was an added complication that the police had to
deal with, because at least two of the families didn’t seem to believe the
story about “suicide bombers.” In October, 2005, The Guardian ran the story
about the police keeping the bodies for reconstruction analyses. Someone
must have been thinking about reconstructing planes after crashes rather
than rotting bodies that would have been over three months old; the reality
boggles the mind. The police clearly didn’t want to return the bodies of the
men to their families. The story about security men accompanying
Tanweer’s body to Pakistan for burial and remaining for days, guarding the
body at the burial site, shows the lengths the police were prepared to go to
prevent a viewing of a body. Since the bodies should have been the property
of their families, the police ability to maintain that control is shocking.

The operation seemed to choose “suicide bombers” from among the least
likely Muslims to have committed such acts. It might not have been by
chance that the four accused Muslims were secular, westernized and
patriotic, because that specific scenario then permitted the British
government to institute a virtual witch hunt for hidden “extremism” in the
Muslim community. While some may wonder at the naiveté of the Muslims to
take part in an operation as fake “suicide bombers”, they clearly did not
expect such a betrayal. Mohammed Sidique Khan must have felt such total
confidence in his connections to the establishment that he couldn’t conceive
of being betrayed. He was friends with his Member of Parliament, there had
been The Sunday Times supplement on his wonderful work with children, and
his mother-in-law had been specially feted by Queen Elizabeth. It was also
probable, from evidence that has been presented, that he was connected to
MI5. It had to be beyond his imagination — or the belief of his friends — that
he could have been double-crossed so brutally, particularly when taking part
in a public-service activity. If Christian or Jewish men with the reputation of
Khan and his friends had been accused of terrorism, it is doubtful that that
accusation would have been seen as credible. It appears to be a sign of
underlying racism that the charges against these men were so easiily
accepted, particularly given the hard evidence of their innocence.

Evidence of MI5/MI6 involvement in the preparedness operation/London

bombings:

The sophistication of the July 7th bombs implies a military source. Historian
Webster Tarpley presents evidence in “911 - Synthetic Terrorism” that the
other event that “al Quaida of Europe” took credit for, the simultaneous
March 2004 bombs in Madrid, was also connected to western intelligence.
(Tarpley, 2005, 401) The Madrid bombs occurred just before the Spanish
elections and were expected to help the US-supported Prime Minister, who
was an ally in Iraq. The New York Times reported that the US administration
admitted that it had studied the intended effect of such an event and was
shocked that it did not have the anticipated effect.

The timed bombs of both the London and Madrid events were reported to be
set off by synchronized alarms using cell phones, and there was evidence of
organizational connections. The Times (McGrory et al, 2005) reported that:
“Forensic scientists have told The Times that the construction of the four
devices detonated in London was very technically advanced. “You keep
hearing that terrorists can easily make a bomb from using instructions on the
Internet. You can, but not of the design and sophistication of these devices.
These were well put together, and it would appear the bomb-maker has
highly developed skill,” one expert said. ” The trigger device was ‘almost
identical’ to the ones found in the rucksack bombs used in the Madrid
bombings in March last year - although the terrorists used industrial
dynamite stolen from a quarry in northern Spain rather than plastic
explosives.”

A British citizen named Haroon Rachid Aswat is said to have played a central
role in the London attacks. Aswat comes from the same town where three of
the alleged bombers lived, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and is claimed to
have visited the bombers in the weeks before the attacks, chosen the target
locations, and made about 20 calls to them until shortly before the blasts.
(Ahmed, 2006, 274) Despite being on a security watch list, it appears that
Aswat arrived in England two weeks before the attacks, and flew out just
hours before the subway and bus blasts. Despite that, British authorities did
not want him arrested and were reportedly not interested in questioning him
about his role in the July 7th blasts. (Woods et al, 2005)

In an interview with Fox News of July 29, 2005, John Loftus, a terrorism expert
and a former prosecutor for the US Justice Department, claimed that Haroon
Rashid Aswat, as a “mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings”, was a British
‘Intelligence Asset’ with connections to the British Secret Service MI-6.
(Chossudovsky, 8/2005) Loftus noted that Aswat was the assistant of the so-
called “Captain Hook” — Abu Hamza al-Masri who was the imam of the
Finsbury Mosque in London and head of the subsequently- outlawed Al-
Muhajiroun. According to Nafeez Ahmed in The London Bombings, the
leadership of the “al Qaida-linked” organizations in Britain — such as the
Finsbury mosque and Al-Muhajiroun — as well as the Pakistani ISI, are
connected to MI5 and MI6. (Ahmed, 2006, 175)

The London-based Al-Muhajiroun, which was formed during the Kosovo crisis,
worked with MI6 to recruit first Pakistani British Muslims, then Somalis and
Eritreans to fight for Muslim interests in Kosovo. While both the imam and
the person under Aswat were later indicted, Aswat led a charmed existence,
continually being freed in Britain and internationally after a variety of
arrests. In July, 2005, Loftus noted: “the entire British police are out chasing
him, and one wing of the British government, MI-6 or the British Secret
Service, has been hiding him…”

Before Aswat’s August 2005 arrest, an informative Sunday Times article of

July 31, 2005, documented astonishing official British protection of Aswat:
while acknowledging that there had been telephone calls between Aswat and
those accused of the London bombings leading up to July 7th, “British
investigators … caution that the calls may have been made to a phone linked
to Aswat, rather than the man himself.” (Woods et al, 2005)

Despite Aswat’s apparent connection to the London bombings, he does not

appear to have been questioned in the matter as “investigators say there is
no hard evidence of what role, if any, Aswat played in the London attacks.
Scotland Yard sources say he is not considered a priority in their criminal
investigation into the July 7 and July 21 attacks.” (Woods, et al, 2005)
Despite acknowledgment that Aswat was in the UK until July 7th, the article
notes that: “British security officials think this may be a case of mistaken
identity.”

Aswat was arrested in August, 2005 and remains in British custody. A link
between Western intelligence and “Al Qaida” would explain the edited-in al
Zwahiri sections to the Khan and Tanweer tapes.
Former MI6 agent James Casbolt reported that the four accused were paid
MI5 “stooges” who were told that they would be taking the role of simulated
bombers as part of the emergency-preparedness operation. The bus had
explosives pre-planted in the seats and under the floor; the trains had pre-
planted bombs as well as agents who planted bombs on the trains then
exited before the explosions. The agents were connected to MI5, MI6 and
formerly, SAS (Special Air Services). (Casbolt, 2007)

Casbolt’s testimony seems to be confirmed by reports from July 7th that

document more than four explosives. Vincent Cannistraro, the former head
of the CIA’s counter terrorism centre, was quoted in a July 8th 2005 Guardian
article “Four bombs in 50 minutes”: that “two unexploded bombs” were
recovered as well as “mechanical timing devices”. Various witnesses
described other bombs going off in London on July 7th at Aldgate and Russell
Square as well as two explosions from the No. 30 bus. (Muir et al, 2005)

The Israeli connection: There is evidence that the Mossad was a partner in
these operations, as well as being a beneficiary. Efraim Halevi’s July 7th
article (see Appendix B) demonstrated foreknowledge of what the “perfect”
plan should have been. The Israeli company Verint that runs the London
CCTV system claimed that the cameras at the stations that were bombed
were not in operation at that time! There were also no pictures produced
from the hundreds of CCTV cameras along Hasib Hussain’s route between
King’s Cross and Euston.

The British Government’s apparent refusals to investigate: The official

Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2005/6
that reports on the July 7th blasts (BBC, 5/2006) is highly self-serving to the
security establishment. While praising security personnel for their work, it
blamed intelligence failures on insufficient resources and recommended an
expanded intelligence sector as the solution to future problems. While
noting that the accused Muslims seemed normal, it assumed that they
became “extremists” and incredibly, claimed that they had no accomplices,
thus eliminating the need for any further investigation.

Who benefited from 7/7 as a “suicide bombing” operation?

Why would police have insisted on “suicide bombers” in the face of evidence
that contradicted it, and knowing what the serious implications would be for
that accusation? The British Muslim community could not expect to benefit
from “suicide bombers” in London, as it would clearly isolate them even
further from the British public. The British public paid dearly for the “suicide
bombings” with their resulting loss of civil liberties. The July 7 terrorism and
official fear-mongoring enabled the passage of legislation that eliminates
freedom of speech and invades personal privacy. The criminalization of
language gives the British government control over expression with
punishment of up to seven years in prison. According to the Human Rights
Watch Report of 2005, this legislation can criminalize support for any issue
the government chooses (HRW, 2005), such as the environment, animal
rights and even resistance to illegal occupations.

Did anyone benefit from the London bombings regardless of how they were
caused?

Financial speculators: In the ten days before July 7th, unusual short selling of
the British pound caused a mysterious 6% drop in the value of the pound.
(Watson, Jones, 2005) Two days before July 7th, U. S. Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan released $40 billion in additional liquidity to the
financial markets that would serve to protect undue fluctuation of currency.
Despite this, fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further after
the explosions.

Who benefited from the accusation that the London bombs were caused by
“suicides”?

Blair’s national “anti-terrorism” agenda: The British intelligence

establishment continues to mushroom in budget and manpower with a witch
hunt for citizens with “extremist” opinions and forbidden sympathies. The
investigation of potential “terror supporters” among British Muslims in
particular has caused a stunning expansion of the British “counterterrorism”
industry. The Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2006 -
2007 notes that by 2007/08, annual spending [on areas of security] will be
2.5 billion pounds sterling, more than double the expenditure before 9/11.

As an example, Project Rich Picture was set up “shortly after” July 7, 2005 to
proactively identify “those who may be being groomed for terrorism”, an
estimated half of one percent of British Muslims, or potentially 8,000 “terror
supporters.” According to the July 3, 2006 Independent (”MI5 conducts
secret inquiry into 8,000 al-Qaida ’sympathisers’ “),

“Undercover agents are gathering information from all over the country,
including at colleges, mosques, and Internet web sites where extremists may
try to radicalize those sympathetic to the aims of al-’Qa’ida.” The security
services are concerned that the estimated 5 - 7 % of British Muslims who
believe that the July 7th attacks were justified may be targeted by “Islamic
extremists.” One year after the bombing, much of the work of Project Rich
Picture is being carried out by MI5 officers working out of four new regional
stations (Scotland, northwest, northeast and midlands) and aided by the
eavesdropping facilities of GCHQ at Cheltenham; a further four stations
(southwest, Wales, east and southeast) are to be operational by the end of
2006. (Bennetto, 2006)
Tony Blair’s international “anti-terrorism” agenda: An address by Dr. Robin
Niblett, Executive Vice President, & Director, Europe Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), demonstrates the self-serving
use Britain made of these events with the United States. Dr. Niblett spoke to
the American Subcommittee European Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on April 5, 2006:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address you and members
of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs on the issue of Islamic
Extremism in Europe. Islamic extremism has emerged over the last five
years as one of the central threats to Europe’s security and social cohesion.
… The rise of Islamic extremism in Europe also poses important security
considerations for the United States in the fight against international
terrorism. How European governments and societies deal with it will be an
important determinant of the sort of partner Europe will be for the United
States in the coming years. It is worth noting at the outset that the rise of
Islamic extremism has awoken a particular fear in Europe. European nations
are now aware that they contain within their borders immigrants, and first,
second, and third generation citizens who see their own governments,
countries, and fellow-citizens as the enemy. Driven by Islamic extremist
ideology, a very small but important minority are willing to kill and maim,
potentially on a massive scale, in the name of that ideology. The attacks in
Madrid a little over two years ago and in London last July were the most
visible and shocking manifestations of this new reality. (Niblett, 2006)
[emphases added]

Thus did the July 7, 2005 events allow Britain to join the US as a full partner
in supposed victim hood. Blair continued this posturing in late July by talking
about hosting an international conference on “Islamic extremism”.

Israel: Hours after the British Government declared that the London
bombings were the result of suicide bombers the BBC evening news ran a
prepared story comparing Londoners and Israelis as innocent victims of
suicide attacks. This was soon followed by a major newspaper article
describing a slick, professionally-produced, instructional video (kindly located
by someone in Washington, D. C.) on blowing up busses that was surmised to
have come from the occupied Palestinian territories! Prime Minister Tony
Blair’s response was to denounce “extremism” — defined only as anti-Israeli
attitudes — and to suggest legislation that would criminalize language
“supporting terrorism.” By his definition, this would have included
criminalizing “martyr”, explaining Palestinians’ legal right of resistance to
occupation or describing why Palestinians might be motivated to act to attain
freedom or basic human rights.

Conclusion
The July 7th operation was an important part of the Anglo-American “war on
terror”, providing a similar shock to 9/11. This terrorism fits the model of
intentionally-shocking events that enable governments to assume more
power. This modus operandi is described in Naomi Klein’s important book,
The Shock Doctrine, which provides the blueprint for understanding the
underlying economic philosophy behind many of today’s most disturbing
events, including those around Hurricane Katrina. Klein describes the so-
called “war on terror” as “endless war for endless profit.” According to Klein,
“endless war” is based on the scenario that Israel is threatened by hostile
Muslim populations (possessing desired resources) that must be demonized
to fuel an unending conflict that will provide for the endless profits for
military investors. The assumptions behind the rationale must come to be
accepted by western voters, which creates the motivation for terrorist events
that implicate Muslims.

One of the greatest barriers to public acknowledgment of these facts, outside

of access to skeptical media, is the refusal of many to accept that their
trusted leaders could be complicit in not only causing death and destruction
on their own soil but also in destroying traditional freedoms and real
democracy to facilitate an economic agenda.

While there is little that individuals can do to make an impact on their

government’s agendas, people can try to educate those around them and act
to preserve what they can of civil liberties for the next generation. To do this
for the July 7th events:

I. Challenge the British Government to produce answers: Given the

extraordinary impact of the July 7th bombings on British civil liberties, British
citizens should be demanding that the government investigate and provide
answers for some important questions:

1. Who was responsible for the 1000-person emergency preparedness

operations at the right day, the right time and right tube stations organized
by Visor Consultants; who devised the idea of “suicide bombers” for this
event?

2. Where is the man initially named as the fourth bomber, Ejaz “Jacksy”
Fiaz? What is the story of this man, who happened to be another very
westernized Pakistani Briton?

3. Who were the “fifth” men who seemed to be meeting with the accused on
CCTV tapes of July 7th?

4. Where did the unusual variant of the military explosive C4 — that was
identified at all of the blast sites — come from?
5. Who was responsible for killing the four Muslims (assuming Fiaz remains
alive)? .

6. Why was Jean Charles de Menezes executed? And, most importantly,

7. What was the role of Haroon Rachid Aswat? Given accusations of MI5 and
MI6 involvement, there should be an investigation - without the help of these
institutions - to ascertain their role in these events. There will be legal
complications for any investigation even if the British Government were to
consider a inquiry into the July 7th events. On June 7th, 2005, the Inquiries
Act became law, giving the executive full control of all inquiries and making
any truly independent inquiry impossible.

II. Protect civil rights by challenging racism: “Anti-terrorism” laws that are
applied today against Muslims — or dissidents, or animal-rights activists, or
environmentalists - will be used against ordinary citizens tomorrow. To
salvage as much as possible of freedoms, civil liberties, and judicial due
process:

1. Challenge the insidious use of terms that are either undefined or defined
by a political perspective such as “extremism”. Such terms must be exposed
as eroding freedom of speech and of furthering the Anglo-American
geopolitical agenda,

2. Protest language misrepresenting and/or marginalizing Muslims, such as

the “clash of civilizations,”: recognize it as implicitly racist and furthering the
“war on terror” agenda;

3. Challenge the unacceptable assumption that terrorists tend to be Muslim:

this assumption only serves the American agenda which is behind the
labeling of those it targets; and

III. Protect civil rights by working for a more cohesive and inclusive society.
Create bridges between Christian, progressive Jewish and Muslims
communities for mutual understanding and support. All parts of our society
must work together to preserve and restore the democratic values we want
to pass on to our children.

*************************************

Epilogue

Despite the fact that the British government’s official version of the July 7th
terrorism continues to be contradicted by evidence, it is hard to find public
acknowledgment of what should be exoneration of the four accused.
New information about police connections with Mohammed Sadique Khan
and Shezad Tanweer have come out in the so-called “fertilizer plot” trial that
are making earlier police disclaimers increasingly embarrassing. Police have
clearly been confused about how to explain the history of their contacts with
these men. The discovery of Germaine Lindsay’s phone number in a police
phone book has also not been explained.

In March, 2007, three men became the first people to appear in court
charged with conspiring with the four alleged terrorists: Mohammed Shakil,
30, Sadeer Saleem, 26, and Waheed Ali, 23, from Beeston, Leeds. The men’s
conspiracy charge is only until June 26, 2005, one day after the apparent
dummy run: was it a mere coincidence that this date does not allow an
examination of the July 7th events? On May 9th, four more were arrested,
including Khan’s wife, on conspiracy charges. Although only one of the four
was charged (and not with a July 7th-related offense), more arrests are
promised.

Operation Crevice, or “The Fertilizer Plot”: an apparent MI5 sting

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan Police

claimed that the recent [Operation Crevice] convictions showed the success
of the “war on extremism” and support the extension of “preemptive action
to protect the public from the threat of terrorism.”
In March 2003, MI5 started “to investigate” a British al Qaida- connected
leader, Mohammad Quayyum Khan, known as “Q”, who led what appeared to
be terrorist plots in Britain. This culminated, a year later in eight arrests for
what is referred to as the “Fertilizer Plot”, in which the accused were said —
among other things — to have planned various bombings around Britain with
600 kg of stored fertilizer. (Naughton, 2007)

The Fertilizer Trial, which ran from March 2006 until April, 2007, was one of
the longest and most expensive in British history. In this case, 960 officers
were involved in the arrests of 18 people 50 cars, homes and business
premises were searched with 80 computers seized; 7,600 people were
involved in the investigation, including police, witnesses and security
services with 173 interviews, 3,600 witness statements, 3,500 hours of audio
material, 24,000 hours of video evidence, and 33,800 man- hours of
surveillance. The cost of the trial alone was £50 million, the most expensive
in UK history. Despite the quantity of evidence from 105 prosecution
witnesses, the jurors could not agree on verdicts! Besides the apparent
leadership of at least one agent provocateur, the main evidence revolved
around testimony from an admitted terrorist, Mohammed Junaid Babar, who
become a cooperating witness when the FBI made him “an offer he couldn’t
refuse” — and pointed out that he could face a death penalty if he didn’t
cooperate. Although he was not supposed to perjure himself, (defense
attorneys accused of him being a liar), the trial was marred when the
defendants would not defend themselves because of alleged threats from
Pakistani intelligence (ISI) against relatives in Pakistan. There was also the
accusation that one of the defendants, Amin, was forced to make statements
as a result of 10 months of MI5- related torture in Pakistan. The lead
prosecutor, David Waters, QC, had previously handled cases that involved
covert operatives and the protection of damaging state secrets.
Significantly, Mohammed Junaid Babar is to be sentenced only after the last
of the related trials, that of Mohammed Momin Khawaja in Canada.

The quantity of evidence was clearly not compelling. After almost three
weeks of inconclusive deliberation, Judge Michael Astill allowed the jurors to
decide by majority rather than by unanimity. A week later — making this one
of the longest deliberations in U. K. history — Salahuddin Amin, Jawad Akbar,
Anthony Garcia, Omar Khyam, and Waheed Mahmood, were given life
sentences, (extended by antiterrorism legislation); Nabeel Hussain and
Shujah Mahmood were acquitted. Despite protests, “Q” remains free, not
having been questioned, arrested or detained; his alleged al-Qaida boss,
Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, was arrested early in 2007 and sent to the American
torture gulag in Guantanamo in April. (Cobain et al, 2007)

After the verdicts were announced, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Tanweer
were identified as connected to those convicted. While this relationship has
been seen to implicate Khan and Tanweer with al Qaida, the evidence in its
entirety could be consistent with Khan being used as an MI5 informer and
then as a dupe: Khan visited Pakistan in 2003 and met with one of the
defendants, where he is accused of attending a camp to learn how to create
explosives; MI5 identified Khan on February 2, 2004 then bugged and
photographed him and Tanweer throughout February and March of 2004, but
refused to release Khan’s photograph(s) to the FBI that April to show to their
cooperating witness Mohammed Junaid Babar. Babar claimed at the
“fertilizer trial” that he could have identified Khan if he had been shown his
photograph. MI5 allegedly withheld Khan’s photos because of their poor
quality, which was disputed by others who claim that Khan is identifiable in
them. MI5 also withheld 5 out of its 6 photos of Khan and Tanweer from the
Commons’ ISC investigation, which Tony Blair claimed had seen “all relevant
information.”; MI5 also refused to show these withheld photographs to BBC’s
Panorama.

In a bugged conversation between Khan and Omar Khyam in February 2004

Khan asks Khyam, “Are you really, seriously, a terrorist?” and then Khan
asks Khyam who he works for — questions that a British agent would be
expected to ask. Khyam may have had his own links to British intelligence,
because he then told Khan about the coming police raids the following
month, (raids in which Khyam himself would be arrested!)
Could Khan and Tanweer’s 2004 connection with police explain the
mysterious tapes, apparently created in 2004, that were released after their
deaths, as well as the foreknowledge exhibited by Scotland Yard about the
existence of the Tanweer tape? Could an MI5 connection have been the
reason for their creation? Charles Shoebridge’s surmising about an MI5
connection with Khan appears increasingly likely.

Finally, it is apparent that the terrorists responsible for the July 7th
explosions, which left residues of an unusual version of the military explosive
C4 at all four blast sites, would not have been related to the homemade
fertilizer bomb plot. While media are making a lot about Khan’s connection
to men convicted in this “fertilizer plot”, it should be apparent that the
sophisticated bomb maker behind the July 7 blasts, with access to military
explosives, would not be connected with fertilizer concoctions. What might
be significant would be Khan’s connection to British intelligence and Khan’s
own assessment of these men.

Karin Brothers is an Associate Member of the Scientific Panel Investigating

Nine-Eleven
July 14, 2008
******************************

Chronology of events relating to the July 7th explosions

June 7, 2005

The Inquiries Act becomes law, giving the executive full control of all
inquiries, making a truly “independent” inquiry impossible.

July 7

The first full day of the G8 meeting in Scotland:

7:21 am: Four accused and a fifth were said to be seen on closed-circuit TV
(CCTV) in Luton Station, a London suburb. (The photo released with
a 7:21 time stamp shows only four hard-to-identify men who are
alone in the station; many believe this photo was contrived.).

7:40/48 am: The government claimed that the four accused were identified
on a Luton CCTV (not released to the public) and by eyewitnesses as
departing on either the 7:40 or the 7:48 am train for King’s Cross, London. It
was confirmed months later that on July 7th, the 7:40 a.m. train had been
canceled and the 7:48 a.m. train delayed: people traveling to London at that
time from Luton would not have been able to be in the exploding subway
cars.

8:26 am: The government claimed that the four accused plus another man
were seen on (unreleased) CCTV and by witnesses at King’s’ Cross Station
when the above trains - if they had been operating on schedule — should
have arrived in London.

8:30 am: Three of the men were then supposed to have taken trains going
West, East and South of King’s’ Cross.

8:45 am: Scotland Yard calls Israeli consulate to warn them of an impending
event: (Netanyahu remains in hotel rather than appearing at a
meeting near the Edgware station.)

8:50 am: Three explosions occur within 50 seconds in three subway cars
near the stations of Piccadilly/ (Russell Square), Aldgate, and Edgware; [the
latter two are in largely Muslim communities].

8:51 am: London Underground and Metronet report a dangerous power

surge (denied by National Grid)

c. 8:55 am: Police shut down part of London’s cell phone network for four
hours. Police in December, 2005 admit that “the most senior officer”, a
member of the Metropolitan’s “Gold Team” [the same team responsible for
directing the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes], shut down cell phones
within a one- mile radius of Aldgate tube station. Police shut down the
network in violation of previously-agreed to procedures and admit that they
had lied in earlier denials. (BBC, 12/2005)

9:00 am: Hasib Hussain is said to make three cell phone calls from the
street, trying to contact the others, reportedly from McDonalds and from
Boot’s drug store at King’s Cross Station, from where a suspicious CCTV
photo without a time stamp was shown.

9:30 am: The Underground declares an emergency while a 1,000- person

emergency- preparedness operation is taking place at these three subway
sites. (Scotland Yard is under the impression for a day or two that these 3
explosions were 45 min apart; news that they were almost simultaneous
came out two days later on July 9th and July 10th British newspapers.)

9:47 am: Bus 30 explodes after making a detour by the British Medical
Association: two bodies are suspiciously badly damaged. “Eyewitnesses”
give sharply contradictory evidence on what happened and whose bag
exploded. CCTV evidence was not produced. Some witnesses report hearing
two explosions from the bus.

10:30 am: Up to three “suicide bombers” are reported to be killed by police

marksmen at Canary Wharf: one at Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, the other
one or two at HSBC tower.
Later that day: Peter Powers, of Visor Consultants, appears on TV to explain
how his company, Visor Consultants, ran the 1000-person emergency-
preparedness operation for three simultaneous subway explosions at the
same three tube stations that were attacked and at the same time. He
refuses to identify the organization that hired them. While police denied that
they had recovered any unexploded devices, a source told The Guardian that
three controlled explosions had been carried out on “suspect devices.”
Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism centre,
told The Guardian that “two unexploded bombs” were recovered as well as
“mechanical timing devices”. (Muir et al, 2005)

“Hours after the explosions”: Police tow a car with a valid parking stamp
from the Luton station parking lot to the Leighton area “as a matter of
routine”. A virtually-unheard-of organization called “the Secret Organisation
Group of Al Qaida of Jihad Organisation in Europe” posts a claim of
responsibility on the Internet.

While Scotland Yard reports that the subway bombs occurred about 45
minutes apart, former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, referred to the
“multiple, simultaneous” London subway explosions and claimed that the
plot that was carried out with “near-perfect execution” with A Jerusalem Post
dateline of July 7th. Later that day, The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israeli
government instructs a shutdown of further comments on the London
bombings..

July 8th: Scotland Yard make a stunning claim that they knew the bombs
were less than 10 pounds each and “small enough to fit into rucksacks,
implying sophisticated military explosives were used.

July 9th and 10th: British papers report that the three subway bombs of July
7th were, in reality, almost simultaneous — within 50 seconds of each other
— at 8:51 am.

“Days after” July 7th: Police remove an electronic monitoring device from
Khan’s car.

Monday, July 11th: In the July 11th newspaper Le Monde, Christophe

Chaboud, France’s anti terrorism coordinator called to London, claimed that
the explosives used in the London bombings were military and
specifically not homemade, a claim echoed by various munitions experts.

Tuesday, July 12: The Guardian reported that detectives seized 2,500 CCTV
tapes which “could take as little as two weeks” to find clues in; they are
following up about 2,000 calls to the anti-terrorist hotline as well as
115,000 calls to the casualty bureau.
Wednesday July 13th: Papers claimed that four British Muslims of Pakistani
descent had been identified as the “suicide bombers”; most papers identified
three men as Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad
Tanweer. The Times named the fourth as Ejaz (or Eliaz) Fiaz, who had dyed
his hair blonde.

The police claim did not jibe with the later identification of Germaine Lindsay,
a large, muscular Jamaican-born man who would not have appeared to
resemble those of Pakistani descent.. The men were said to have been
identified from CCTV shots of the four together with their rucksacks, with the
“lucky break” coming when the mother of Hussain reported him missing on
the police hotline (which took 115,000 calls). DNA tests are allegedly
conducted on the Piccadilly Line carriage to identify Lindsay.

Police claim that they have located two cars connected with the bombers,
one in Luton car park and the other one “elsewhere” (the car that they had
towed from Luton on July 7! ) Police claim that they identified “homemade”
explosives in the trunk of one of the cars which they then claim meant that
the explosives used on July 7th had to be similarly homemade. [Some
pointed out that the trunk of the Micra, which was supposed to be the car
with the explosives, had insufficient room in the trunk for any backpacks plus
explosive. It was later noted that there were varying accounts of how many
explosives were found. The report on the analysis of the contents was not
released. By 2006, the identification of these contents was retracted with no
further analysis provided.]

Police get an address that is supposed to be connected to the alleged

bombers. They evacuate hundreds of residents and find a bathtub in what
the media described as the “terrorists’ operational base”filled with
“homemade explosive”. This was also taken to confirm that the July 7 bombs
were homemade. [By 2006, the identification of the bathtub contents was
retracted with no further analysis produced.]

Metropolitan Police stated at their press conferences of July 12th and July
14th that they had found personal documents bearing the names of three of
the four men “close to the seats” of the three subway explosions. [Those
taking part in the emergency preparedness operation were reportedly to
have gone to particular cars and taken certain seats!] (Khan’s documents
were found at the subway cars both at Aldgate and at Edgware Road, where
he was supposed to have been killed — although papers noted that his body
was not located! Tanweer’s ID was found at Aldgate, where he was supposed
to have died, as well as on the No. 30 bus.

Despite the government accusation about the “suicide bombers”, Peter

Clarke, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist
branch, said, “We are trying to establish the movement of the suspects in
the run-up to last week’s attack and specifically to establish whether they all
died in the explosions.” (Bennetto et al, 7/2005)

Thursday July 14th: Despite British denials, French officials point out that
some of the accused were known to British intelligence in the spring of 2004;
police had bugged both Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad
Tanweer for two months in 2004.

After reported DNA tests “on the Piccadilly train” to identify the fourth
accused, police announce that Germaine “Jamal” Lindsay was the fourth
bomber, a black Jamaican bodybuilder whose wife was about to have their
second child. The DNA sample was supposedly taken from the parking stub
from the car the police towed on July 7th, which implied that the police knew
the name of the car’s driver but didn’t know if he was the actual bomber. (J7
Profile: Lindsay)

Friday July 15: Naveed Fiaz, brother of Ejaz Fiaz, who was originally named
as the fourth “bomber”, is arrested.

Thursday July 21: Four Afro-British men detonate copycat “bombs” that they
later claim were hair gel and flour with detonators. (Police claim these
contents have not yet been identified as of 2006.)

Friday July 22: After two elite surveillance teams follow a white Brazilian
electrician (allegedly suspected of being an African wanted for questioning)
for half an hour that included two bus rides, an elite security team executes
him with 11 shots after he is pinned down in a Stockwell station subway car.
The police start a disinformation campaign to rationalize the killing.
Independent Police Complaints Commission investigators are barred from the
scene.

Scotland Yard refuses to identify the killer(s) or to hold an independent

inquiry to explain why they killed Jean Charles de Menezes.

Saturday July 23: Naveed Fiaz is released without charge.

August 7, 2005: Haroon Rashid Aswat is arrested in UK on arrival reportedly

from Zambia, where he had been detained.

September 1, 2005: A mysterious tape surfaces of Mohammed Sidique Khan,

one of the four accused “suicide bombers”, reportedly showing him as he
appeared in 2004, with an edited-in clip of Al Qaida’s al Zwahiri. Some of
Khan’s mouth movements do not match the words and the full tape is not
shown publicly. Friends and neighbors of Khan’s claim the tape is a fraud
from both the voice and the content..
September 2005: Police claim that a similar tape of Tanweer exists. Police
release several June 28th, 2005 images of the four accused, which they
claim show a “dry run” for the July 7 events.

Investigators confirm that on the morning of July 7th, 2005, the 7:40 am train
from Luton to London was canceled and the 7:48 am train was late. The
accused could not have been on these trains; they could therefore not have
been in King’s Cross when the fated subway trains left that station.
October 2005

The Guardian reports that Metropolitan police are holding the bodies of all of
the alleged suicide bombers for reconstruction and analysis. [Tanweer’s body
is later buried in a family plot in Pakistan; Government security agents
reportedly guard the grave for days.]

January 6, 2006: BBC TV special investigative report claims that the

bombings were done cheaply, that Khan and the other three were the sole
perpetrators and that there were no accomplices.

May 2006: Two government reports are released which confirm the official
version of the events. The accounts do not attempt to reconcile the
inconsistencies with known facts and leave many questions
unanswered.

July 5, 2006: An American broadcaster claims that a tape of Shezad Tanweer,

another of the four accused “suicide bombers”, will appear the next day at Al
Jazeera.

July 6, 2006: A tape of Tanweer as he looked in 2004 and strikingly similar to

the video of Khan, mysteriously appears at al Jazeera and is aired on the eve
of the first anniversary of the July bombings. It includes edited-in clips of al
Zwahiri, a self-proclaimed American member of al
Qaida, and various other footage purported to appear “terrorist.” The full
tape is not shown publicly although there was a transcript..

July 11, 2006: Home Secretary John Reid changes the time the Government
claims the alleged “suicide bombers” caught the train to London from 7:40 or
7:48 a.m. to 7:25 a.m. to fit with the discovery that they could not have
made it onto the exploding cars with the July 7th trains they had been
claimed to be on. He did not claim that this was
corroborated by either CCTV tapes or witnesses. Reid claimed that Scotland
Yard had not been the source of their misinformation; Scotland Yard said that
the official account had been produced by the Home Office.
July 17, 2006: Crown Prosecution Service decides that no one will be held
personally responsible for de Menezes’ death. (No criminal charges in De
Menezes shooting

September 2006: The inquest is adjourned indefinitely.

January 2007: BBC suddenly scraps its plans to create docu- dramas on the
stories of the accused and Jean Charles de Menezes

March 2007: Mohammed Shakil, Sadeer Saleem, and Waheed Ali, (or Shipon
Ullah) as named in the New York Times] were arrested and charged with
conspiracy for the alleged “dummy run” in June 2005; the period of
investigation excludes July 7th.

April 30: Two acquitted, five convicted to life sentences for “Fertilizer Plot”.
Khan and Tanweer, named as associates, were photographed and identified
by MI5 on February 2, 2004.

May 9: Metropolitan police arrest Khan’s widow, Hasina Patel, and her
brother Arshad Patel, along with Khalid Khaliq, a neighbor of Tanweer’s, and
Imran Motala on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or
instigation of acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Police present Khan’s widow with what they claimed to be Khan’s suicide
note that they allegedly found “days after the attack”, along with 400
pounds Sterling “for the children.” [She suffered a miscarriage at the news
of Khan being a “suicide bomber.”] Despite the fact that the contents of the
letter exonerates Hasina Patel of any foreknowledge of July 7 bombings,
police hold her for six days, claiming her DNA was at the Leeds
“explosives”-in-a-bathtub apartment. Lawyers for Mrs. Patel lodged a
complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which said it
would supervise an investigation to be conducted by the Metropolitan police.
They are all released with the exception of Khaliq, who is charged with an
offense unrelated to the events of July 7th.

A Metropolitan police spokesman “reissued an appeal for information about

how the [alleged] bombers were motivated and financed”, implicitly
acknowledging stunning police ignorance on both accounts.

It has became evident that MI5 had withheld photographic evidence of Khan
and Tanweer not only from the FBI request of April 2004, but also from the
House of Commons’ Intelligence Service Committee’s investigation. The ISC
was given only 1 of at least 6 photos of Khan. MI5 refuses to allow BBC’s
Panorama to see this evidence.
May 2007: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan
Police claims that the recent convictions showed the success of the “war on
extremism” and support the extension of “preemptive action to protect the
public from the threat of terrorism.” Since 9/11, MI5 has doubled in size and
now spies on 2,000.

July 27, 2007: Hasina Patel “utterly condemns” her husband’s actions in a
Sky interview.

October 31, 2007: The Old Bailey trial to examine whether the Metropolitan
police endangered the public when they killed Jean Charles de Menezes
determines that they did, both by allowing a potential suicide
bomber on public transport as well as by their public execution of him. No
public witnesses were called. DSO Cressida Dick, who has been promoted to
Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is specifically
exonerated in an extraordinary statement with the verdict. New scenarios
are presented at this trial which differ markedly from those previously
claimed. While it had been understood that Operation Kratos, procedures to
execute potential suicide bombers had been used as the basis for the de
Menezes killing, that was denied at this trial.

Notes and Appendices

Notes:

1: The 1000-person emergency preparedness operation: On July 7th, BBC-5

TV interviewed Peter Power of Visor Consultants who reported that his
company had been hired to carry out the July 7th emergency preparedness
operation with 1,000 people for multiple simultaneous subway bombs; the
further coincidence was that this was to take place just when the bombs
went off and at the exact three stations affected by the blasts.
(Chossudovsky, 2005) Powers, who had worked for Scotland Yard in the past
and had been connected with British intelligence, refused to identify who
ordered this operation. (Former MI5 agent and whistle blower David Shayler
claimed that Rudi Giuliani, the mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11,
had been connected with Powers’ company) (Szymanski, 2005)

Coincidentally, Rudolf Giuliani, Mayor of New York on the September 11,

2001 attack , was in London, staying at the same hotel as Netanyahu near
the Liverpool bomb site. At this time, both Giuliani and Powers were serving
on the advisory board of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness ;
both Guiliani and Partners and Visor Consulting specialise in security
preparedness and mock terror drills.

2: Police doubled the supposed weight of the bombs from “less than 10
pounds” to ten kilograms as noted in a July 16, 2005 Timesonline article
“Hitchhikers to Heaven who created Hell on Earth” when the explosives
changed to “homemade.” (Macintyre, 2005)

Major References and Suggested Reading

The web site for the July 7th Truth Campaign at www.julyseventh.co.uk This
web site has detailed information on the accused men and the known facts
of the 7/7 bombings. Highly recommended.

The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed:

Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. 2006. This contains information on the July 7th
investigation, MI5 and MI6 links to radical Muslims, as well as documentation
linking British and western intelligence to ” Al Quada- related” terrorism to
control international resources.)

YouTube analyses of July 7th CCTV tapes;

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdRhvnxcUv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ow6RDkWuHA

9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Griffin Tarpley Progressive Press/ Tree of Life
Books 2005. This book documents false flag terrorism by western
intelligence disguised behind infiltrated radical organizations.

The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism by Naomi Klein published
in 2007 in Canada by Alfred Knopf

Appendix A

Operation Kratos: Initially claimed as the rationale for de Menezes’ killing.

The Metropolitan Police had been preparing to counter the threat of suicide
bombers in London for almost four years since 9/11. Operation Kratos, the
controversial policy they put in place to deal with suicide bombers, had been
signed off operationally and legally on January 22 2003 at MI5 headquarters.
(REF) Many agencies became involved in the development of Kratos,
including the Home Office, MI5, Special Forces, the MoD (Ministry of
Defense), the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and
Treasury lawyers. Legal advice was crucial, as fatalities seemed likely;
meeting minutes noted that the legal issues were “complex”.

On July 22 Kratos policy covered only two narrow scenarios: “Kratos”, a

spontaneous event in which a potential suicide bomber is suddenly identified
by, say, a member of the public and there is no prior intelligence; and
“Clydesdale”, where there is detailed intelligence about an attack on a
specific target which means that the police have ample time to put their
tactics in place. The situation on July 22 fell into neither category and was
not one that had been planned for, according to Deputy assistant
commissioner Barbara Wilding (now chief constable of South Wales) who
became Chair of the Met’s suicide bomber working party. Although senior
officers claim that the final decision to use lethal force rests with the person
who pulls the trigger, the ultimate responsibility may lie with the officer who
gives permission for a killing. Once a Kratos operation is under way, it is
commanded by one of a number of specially trained officers at Scotland Yard
known as “designated senior officers” situated in the Special Branch
operations room at Scotland Yard. The person in the most exposed position
— who activated the CO19 unit — is Commander Cressida Dick, a highly
regarded, Oxford-educated officer, who was DSO when De Menezes was
killed. Whether Dick used language authorising the use of lethal force,
despite her specific exoneration of responsibility at the October 2007 trial, is
still in question.

Appendix B

Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack: Rules of conflict for
a world war

By Efraim Halevi, The Jerusalem Post, 07/07/05

“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London
transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational
capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two
attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-
Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.

“There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated

choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a
deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere
as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.

“One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the
target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone’s throw of a building
that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that
preceded the State of Israel. It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim
Weizmann, a renowned chemist, presided over the effort that culminated in
the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of
the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still a part
of the Ottoman Empire.

“We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and
characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable
enemy. There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another
creating the wrong impression that the battle is all over, or at least in the
process of being won. Generally speaking, the populations at large are not
involved in the conflict and, by and large, play the role of bystanders. But
once in a while, these innocents are caught up in the maelstrom and suffer
the most cruel and wicked of punishments meted out by those who are not
bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society. For a
while, too short a while, we are engrossed with the sheer horror of what we
see and hear, but, with the passage of time, our memories fade and we
return to our daily lives, forgetting that the war is still raging out there and
more strikes are sure to follow.

“It cannot be said that seven years after this war broke out in east Africa, we
can see its conclusion. We are in for the long haul and we must brace
ourselves for more that will follow. The ‘Great Wars’ of the 20th century
lasted less than this war has already lasted, and the end is nowhere in sight.

“There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people
will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern
them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take
every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry
the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and
spiritual leaders are inhabiting.

“The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of

this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be
rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself. Anything
short of this invites disaster and must not be allowed to happen.

“The aim of the enemy is not to defeat western civilization but to destroy its
sources of power and existence, and to render it a relic of the past. It does
not seek a territorial victory or a regime change; it wants to turn western
civilization into history and will stop at nothing less than that. “It will show
no mercy or compassion and no appreciation for these noble values when
practiced by us. This does not mean that we can or should assume the
norms of our adversaries, nor that we should act indiscriminately. It does
mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain
the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.

“Much has been said in recent years about the vital need for international
cooperation. There is no doubt that this is essential. Yet no measure of this
will suffice and it cannot replace the requirement that each and every
country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and
recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle, under the direction of
the legal powers that be.

“In the past, governments have been expected to provide security to their
citizens. The responsibility is still there, in principle. But in practice, no
government today can provide an effective ’suit of protection’ for the
ordinary citizen. There can be no protection for every bus, every train, every
street, every square. In these times the ordinary citizen must be vigilant and
must make his personal contribution to the war effort. Private enterprise will
have to supplement the national effort in many walks of life.

“The measures that I have outlined above will not be easily adopted
overnight. When the US entered World War Two, Congress approved the
momentous decision by a majority of one vote. Profound cultural changes
will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed
to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its
duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic
way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of
every one of these necessities.

“This war is already one of the longest in modern times; as things appear
now, it is destined to be part of our daily lives for many years to come, until
the enemy is eliminated, as it surely will be.”

Efraim Halevi, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad. (Halevi,
2005)

Appendix C

What is the evidence for “al Qaida”? A Skeptic’s view

“Al-Qaida, Arabic for ‘the base camp’ is the name given to an international
movement comprised of independent and collaborative groups that, inspired
by Osama bin Laden, claim to be striving towards the reduction of western
influence on Islamic countries.

According to Wikipedia: “the term “al-Qaida” could have been introduced to

U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the CIA with
intelligence about bin Laden since 1996. The BBC documentary “The Power
of Nightmares” says that the name “al-Qaeda” was first used in the 2001
trial of Osama bin Laden and the four men accused of the 1998 United States
embassy bombings in East Africa. According to the documentary, the U.S.
Department of Justice needed to show that Osama bin Laden was the leader
of a criminal organization in order to charge him in absentia under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO
statutes. The name of the organization and details of its structure were
provided in the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl….
To quote the documentary:

“The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-
powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organised
network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a
name: “al-Qaeda”. It was a dramatic and powerful picture of bin Laden, but
it bore little relationship to the truth. The reality was that bin Laden and
Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned
Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no
organisation. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations
and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their
commander. According to “The Power of Nightmares”, there is also no
evidence that bin Laden used the term “al-Qaeda” to refer to the name of a
group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the
term the Americans had given it.

Questions about the reliability of al-Fadl’s testimony have been raised by a

number of sources because of his history of dishonesty and because he was
delivering it as part of a plea bargain agreement after being convicted of
conspiring to attack U.S. military establishments. Sam Schmidt, a defence
lawyer from the trial, had the following to say about al-Fadl’s testimony:

“‘There were selective portions of al-Fadl’s testimony that I believe was false,
to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I
think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what
this organisation was. It made al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new
Communists. It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it
easier to prosecute any person associated with al-Qaeda for any acts or
statements made by bin Laden.’ (Schmidt, 2004)

“The scarcity of al-Qaida members, despite many terrorism arrests, suggests

that there is no such organization. Only the definitions of al Qaida that
describe philosophical connections rather than organizational connections
appear to be valid.”

It is evident that Western countries are using the term “al Qaida” for
propaganda purposes.

Journalist Eric Margolis, in Lies, More Lies and Damn Lies, points out that, “. .
. a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group that had nothing to do with Osama
bin Laden appropriated the name al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.’ This was such a
breathtakingly convenient gift to the Bush Administration, many cynics
suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain’s wily MI6. Soon
after, the White House and the Pentagon began calling most of Iraq’s 22 plus
resistance groups, al-Qaida’ … even though 95% of Iraq’s resistance groups
have no sympathy for bin Laden’s movement ”
(Margolis, 2007)

University of Ottawa Professor Michel Chossudovsky is among many experts

who claim that official documents amply confirm that Al Qaida as it’s
currently understood, was a creation of the American intelligence apparatus,
and confirms that both the CIA and its British counterpart MI6 are known to
have links to Al Qaida operatives. The documentation on the connection
between western intelligence organizations connected to al Qaida is so
extensive that some experts, including Chossudovsky, have called al Qaida a
“CIA-asset”. Investigators including Chossudovsky and Nafeez Ahmed
document stunning American and British use of “al Quaida”; while operating
behind — or as — “al Qaida” they use it to rationalize greater civil control
and higher military and security budgets.
This is a time for vigilance.

*********************************

REFERENCES:

Akleh, Elias. 2005 British Terrorism in Iraq. Global Research. September 30.
retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AKL200
50930&articleId=1024

Intelligence and Security Committee. May 11, 2006. Intelligence and Security
Committee Report into the London terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005. retrieved
on June 2008 at:
Http://www.ginfo.pl/more/322446,INTELLIGENCE+AND+SECURITY+COMMITT
EE+REPORT+INTO+THE+LONDON+TERRORIST+ATTACKS+ON+7+JULY+200
5.html

BBC. 2006. At-a-glance: 7 July reports. 12 May. BBC News. retrieved on June
26, 2008 at: Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4764427.stm

Wikipedia, Project for the New American Century, 2008, retrieved July 5,
2008 at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Antagonist. 2005. London 7/7: Number 30 Bus Explosion - Photos &

Questions. 1 September 2005. Anything that defies my sense of reason. ,
retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
Http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/09/london-77-number-30-bus-
explosion.html

Chossudovsky, Michel. 2005. 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the
Real Time Terror Attacks? 8 Aug. Global Research. Retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200508
08&articleId=821
Televised interview “Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal” at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc

Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. 2006. The London Bombings, London: Duckworth.

Shera, Arutz. 2005. Report: Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast. 7 July
2005. Propaganda Matrix. retrieved July 6, 2008:
Http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/070705israelwarned.ht
m

Bellacio, 2005. Stratfor Consulting Intelligence Agency: ’Israel Warned United

Kingdom About Possible Attacks’. 8 July 2005. Prison Planet. retrieved June
20, 2008 at:
Http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/080705israelwarned.htm

Marsden, Chris. 2005. Unanswered questions in London bombings. 11 July

2005. World Socialist Web Site, retrieved June 2008 at:
Http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/lond-j11.shtml

McGrory, D., and Evans, M. 2005. Hunt for the master of explosives. 13 July.
The Times. retrieved June 26 at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1692033,00.html

ABC News, 2005. Officials: London Bus Body Could Be Bomber. 8 July. ABC
News, retrieved June 20, 2008 at:
Http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/Story?id=918193&page=1
J7 7/7 CCTV ‘Evidence’ Analysis: The CCTV images deconstructed. n.d. J7:

The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved July 6, 2008 at:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

(WAG, 23/7/2005) Evidence Luton CCTV Image is Fake. 23 July 2005. WAG
News. retrieved in June 2008 at:
Http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/evidence-luton-cctv-image-is-
fake.html
And video at YouTube: 77 London Bombing CCTV analysis British False Flag
Op at:
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdRhvnxcUv4,
Also: Image at:http://www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/groupcctv.jpg

(BBC, 9/2005) London bombers ‘did a trial run’. 20 September 2005. BBC.
retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4260000/newsid_4265400/42654
72.stm
(J7 update, 2006) Update to “THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY”. 24 June
2006. J7: July 7th Truth Campaign Blog. Retrieved July 6, 2008 at:
http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2006/06/update-to-impossible-train-
journey_24.html

(Fox, 2005) Cops: London Attacks Were Homicide Blasts. July 15, 2005. Fox
News. retrieved June 20, 2008 at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html

(J7:Evidence) J7 7/7 CCTV ‘Evidence’ Analysis: The CCTV images

deconstructed: ANALYSIS OF THE CCTV IMAGES RELEASED: CCTV Still #3:
Outside Boots at King’s Cross Station. n.d. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.
retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-
evidence.html

(Ahmed, 2006, 44,45) Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. 2006. The London

Bombings, London: Duckworthpp.

(BBC, 7/2005) Police release bus bomber images. 14 July, 2005. BBC News.
retrieved July 6, 2008 at:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4683555.stm

J7 Profile: Jamal/Germaine Lindsay (Age: 19. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,
2006 retrieved July 6, 2008 at:
Http://julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-germaine-lindsay.html

Evans, M., O’Neill, S. Webster, P, 2005. Terrorist gang ‘used military

explosives’. July 12. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article542988.ece

Bennetto, J, Sengupta, K. 2005. Bus bomber stopped for a Big Mac before
killing started. 25 August. The Independent. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bus-bomber-stopped-for-a-big-
mac-before-killing-started-504122.html

(J7 Profile: Hussain) J7 Profile: Hasib Mir Hussain (Age: 18). J7: The July 7th
Truth Campaign. retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-
profile-hasib-mir-hussain.html

McGrory, D. 2005. Anxious mother’s call led police to her bomber son. July
13. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article543379.ece

(Guardian, 2005) The London Bombers Hussain at King’s Cross. July 18, 05.
The Guardian Unlimited. image retrieved June 26, 2008 at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10505241767,00.html
Muad’Dib. Chapter 6: The Number 30 Bus. 7/7 Ripple Effect. retrieved July 8,
2008 at: http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/

(J7: Mind the Gaps) July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 1, Documenting the
catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far - Part 1: THE TESTIMONY OF
RICHARD JONES. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
Http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html#richardjones

(WAG, 21/7/2005) Was Bus Bomber Really Hasib Hussain? July 21, 2005. WAG
News. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/was-bus-bomber-really-hasib-
hussain.html

(J7 Profile: Khan) J7 Profile: Mohammad Sidique Khan (Age: 30). J7: The July
7th Truth Campaign, retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-mohammad-sidique-khan.html

(Thornton, L. 2005) Exclusive: Bombers and the Special Forces Soldier. July
21. Mirror.co.uk, retrieved on July 6, 2008 at:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15760968&method=full&siteid=9
4762&headline=exclusive–bombers-and-the-special-forces-soldier-
name_page.html

(Watson, P.J.) Terror Expert: London Bomber Was Working For MI5. June 27,
2006. Prison Planet. retrieved July 6, 2008 at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/270606londonbomber.htm

(J7 Profile) Mohammad Sidique Khan (Age: 30). J7: The July 7th Truth
Campaign, retrieved July 5, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-
mohammad-sidique-khan.html

(BBC, 7/2005) Police release bus bomber images. 14 July, 2005. BBC News.
retrieved July 6, 2008 at:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4683555.stm

(Shortnews, 2005) ‘Suicide Bomber Neutralized’ in Canary Wharf, London.

July 10, 2005. Shortnews. retrieved June 25, 2008 at:
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=49029

(N Z Herald, 2005) ‘Police shot bombers’ reports New Zealander. July 9, 2005.
New Zealand Herald. retrieved on July 7, 2008 at
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334992

J7 7/7 CCTV ‘Evidence’ Analysis: The CCTV images deconstructed: ANALYSIS

OF THE CCTV IMAGES RELEASED. n.d. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.
retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-
evidence.html

J7 Profile: Mohammad Sidique Khan (Age: 30). J7: The July 7th Truth
Campaign, retrieved July 5, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-
mohammad-sidique-khan.html

(Norton-Taylor, R. 2005) New special forces unit tailed Brazilian. August 4.

The Guardian retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/04/july7.menezes

(Dodd, V, 2007) Confusion, delay, disaster: how police got the wrong man.
From a vital clue to a fatal case of mistaken identity, officers were hampered
by lack of communication. November 2. The Guardian. retrieved June 26,
2008 at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/02/menezes.immigrationpolicy

(Sanderson, D. 2006) Police persecuted me, says De Menezes whistleblower.

May 8. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article714493.ece

(BBC, 10/2007) Menezes picture ‘was manipulated’. 17 October 2007. BBC.

retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7048756.stm

(Smith, M) Could this ‘police officer’ be a soldier? SAS Link. August 01, 2005.
Intelligence. retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/cat_special_reconnaissance_regiment_s
rr.html

At 21 Scotia Road: First Omar:

(Cobain, I, Dodd, V. 2005) ‘Third man’ tells of bomb hunt ordealGym card link
put Somali in danger during police shooting. August 30. The Guardian.
retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/30/july7.brazil
Then Osman:

(BBC, 2007) The Menezes Killing. BBC News. undated images retrieved July 7,
2008 at:
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk/07/demenezes/swf/de_menezes_1
0_629.swf

Mitchell, P. Police Chief “Cleared” of De Menezes Killing. February 26th, 2007.

Ukwatch. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
http://www.ukwatch.net/article/police_chief_%2526quot%3Bcleared%2526qu
ot%3B_of_de_menezes_killing

Watson, PJ, London Bombing Aftermath: The Spin Continues, July 27, 2005.
Prison Planet. retreived June 25, 2008 at:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/270705bombingaftermath.htm

(Ahmed, 2006, 274) Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. 2006. The London Bombings,
London: Duckworth

Casbolt, J. A Message of Love to my Asian Brothers and Sisters: The true

inside facts about the 7/7 London bombings, February 18, 2007.
Jamescasbolt. retrieved June 26,
2008:Http://www.jamescasbolt.com/bombings.htm

(Herbert, Ian, 2005) Hussain’s Story: Family struggle to understand why their
gentle boy became a bomber. 2 August. The Independent, Retrieved July 7,
2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hussains-story-family-
struggle-to-understand-why-their-gentle-boy-became-a-bomber-501162.html

(Chossudovsky, 8/2005) Chossudovsky, M, London 7/7 Terror Suspect Linked

to British Intelligence? August 1, 2005. Global Research, retrieved July 7,
2008 at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO200
50801&articleId=782

(Loftus, 2005) John Loftus On Fox TV Claims London Bombings ‘Mastermind’

Is MI6 Double Agent . July 29, 2005. retrieved July 7, 2008 at
Http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/WATLoftusMI6.htm

(Woods, R, Leppard, D., Smith, M. 2005) Tangled web that still leaves
worrying loose ends: The arrest of Haroon Rashid Aswat sets numerous
questions. July 31. The Sunday Times. retrieved June 26, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article549996.ece

(Muir, H, Cowan, R. 2005) Four bombs in 50 minutes - Britain suffers its

worst-ever terror attack. July 8. The Guardian. retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/terrorism.july74

(Awoken, 2004) Al-Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset, Jan 11, 2004. Awoken.

retrieved June 20, 2008 at:
http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/01-11-04/discussion.cgi.28.html

(Chossudovsky, 2001) Chossudovsky, M. Who Is Osama Bin Laden? 12

September 2001. Centre for Research on Globalisation. retrieved June 26,
2008 at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
(Tarpley, 2005, 401) Tarpley, Webster. 9/11Synthetic Terror. 2005. CITY:
Progressive Press/Tree of Life Books

(Bennetto, Jason. 2006) “MI5 conducts secret inquiry into 8,000 al-Qa’ida
’sympathisers’”. 03 July. The Independent. Retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1155174.ece

(Watson , Jones, 2005) Watson, PJ, Jones, A. 7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her
Majesty’s Terrorist Network. August 7 2005. Infowars Network. retrieved June
26, 2008 at: http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/7-
7_final_word.htm

(Niblett, 2006) Niblett, R. Statement before the Subcommittee European

Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 5 April 2006. U. S. Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations: Islamist Extremism in Europe. retrieved July
7, 2008 at:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:y6bglnkimH4J:foreign.senate.gov/testi
mony/2006/NiblettTestimony060405.pdf+robin+niblett&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=
4

(HRW. 2005) Backgrounders: Clause 1: Encouragement etc. Of Terrorism

2005. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/uk1105/3.htm

(Naughton, P. 2007) Five given life for fertiliser bomb terror plot: Link to 7/7
bombers can be revealed for the first time. April 30. The Times Online.
retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1725608.ece

(Cobain, I, Vasagar, J. 2007) Free - the man accused of being an al-Qaida

leader, aka ‘Q’, May 1. The Guardian. retrieved July 7, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2069312,00.html

(Bennetto, J, Herbert, I, 2005) The suicide bomb plot hatched in Yorkshire. 13

July. The Independent. Retrieved July 9, 2008 at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-suicide-bomb-plot-hatched-
in-yorkshire-498616.html

(Halevi, E. 2005) Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack.
July 7. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
Http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9410.htm

(Szymanski, Greg, 2005) Former MI5 Agent Says Bombings Look Like Inside
Job. July 30, 2005. Rense.com. Retrieved on July 7, 2008 at:
www.rense.com/general67/says.htm
(Margolis, Eric, 2007) Lies, More Lies, And Damn Lies. 18 July 2007.
Information Clearing House. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18032.htm
69. Al Fadi’s start of al Qaida term, etc. Sam Schmidt, defense lawyer on
believing al-fadi lying as quoted

(Schmidt, 2004) Schmidt, S. quoted in Adam Curtis’s “The Power of

Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear”. 2004. BBC documentary.
retrieved July 8, 2008 at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
Or/and:
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. 2004. DVD. Written
and directed by Adam Curtis. BBC.

(Macintyre, Ben. 2005) Hitchhikers to Heaven who created Hell on Earth. July
16. The Times. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at
Www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article544617.ece

URL: http://www.physics911.net/karinbrothers