The July 7th London Bombings

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 “antiterror” 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 “antiterror” 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 distinctivelycolored 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-inlaw 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 emergencypreparedness 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 socalled “Captain Hook” — Abu Hamza al-Masri who was the imam of the Finsbury Mosque in London and head of the subsequently- outlawed AlMuhajiroun. 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 preplanted 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 socalled “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 emergencypreparedness 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 DarEs-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 allpowerful 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-busexplosion.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-isfake.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-trainjourney_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-cctvevidence.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-bigmac-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/7-7profile-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-hasibhussain.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-soldiername_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-profilemohammad-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-cctvevidence.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-profilemohammad-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-familystruggle-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/77_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-hatchedin-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