 |
|
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||
The Stepford Double-cross:
How the 2005 London bombings turned every Muslim into a terror suspect
Dedicated to former South Yorkshire terror analyst Tony Farrell who lost his job but kept his integrity
and with special gratitude to the July 7th Truth Campaign for their dedication to working for justice
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? … 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
On Thursday morning rush hour on July 7, 2005, at least four explosions ripped through three subway carriages and a bus in London, England, killing 56 and injuring over 700 — 300 seriously. The City of London was shut down for the rest of the day; within the week, four respected British Muslims would be blamed as “homegrown suicide bombers”. This was followed by several related events:
• On July 21st, exactly two weeks after the bombings, there were four “copycat” incidents involving North African refugees who tried to detonate bombs on three subways and a bus at London’s noon hour.
• On the morning of July 22, an elite security unit killed a Brazilian man after staking out the home of a North African wanted merely for questioning about the “copycat” events. Although police claimed that the killing was the result of numerous, seemingly incompetent “miscommunications,” those responsible were protected from prosecution and promoted. And finally,
• five weeks and then one year after the July 7th bombings, two mysterious video tapes surfaced which appeared to demonstrate that two of the men accused of the London bombings were motivated by the Palestinian cause and “al Qaida”.
•
While the official version of 9/11 claims that educated, foreign Muslims might choose to commit suicide to make a political statement to Americans, the London bombings supposedly showed that respected, secular, second- generation Muslims could blow themselves up to make a political statement to their fellow citizens. As a result of this official version of the London bombings, all Muslims are now considered potential terror threats; the devastating international impact on Muslims, civil liberties and judicial due process cannot be overstated. While the four Muslims accused of blowing themselves up have been convicted in the media as examples of Islamic “extremism”, the evidence points in a more sinister direction. Every inquiry related to the London bombings has uncovered not only significant police lies, but extensive evidence of British government foreknowledge and cover-up.
It took years for inquiries to occur that produced witnesses. The first “investigative reports” (in 2006 by BBC TV, the Commons’ Intelligence and Security Committee (the ISC) and the Government’s own official account), all reflected an official version of events that was internally contradictory and inconsistent with many of the known facts of the bombings. These reports all concluded that the four accused had chosen to become martyrs and had no outside assistance. The self-serving ISC report not surprisingly recommended that more be spent on British security. It would not be until the 2010 Hallett inquiry that any witnesses would have the chance to testify about the London Bombings. There were several inquiries that looked into aspects of the security killing of the Brazilian man, the last and most important of which occurred in 2009. This article will deal with each of the major events related to the London Bombings separately.
The background to the events of July 7, 2005
After the three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed on September 11th, 2001, Britain became an even closer ally of the US. Assured by the US of Muslim guilt, it participated in the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and designed repressive "anti-terror" legislation that surpassed even US “Patriot” legislation in its elimination of civil liberties. By the spring of 2005, however, 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 a crisis in 10 Downing St. over Blair’s controversial legislation, which included draconian treatment of those merely suspected of terrorist connections and a biologically- based ID system for everyone in Britain. 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" to fight what was referred to as the "ID card fiasco". Banner headlines described Blair’s humiliating situation dramatically: “Panic and No. 10 [Downing St.]”
On Wednesday, July 6th, 2005, Britain was the focus of world news, having just been chosen for the next Summer Olympics. Also, world leaders were arriving for the G8 conference in Scotland. Then it all began to happen.
PART I. The London Bombings
|
• The July 7th, 2005 explosions on London Transport bus and subways On Thursday morning July 7th, the news was filled with reports of explosions on London Transport subway trains and buses. Using the timeline provided on the website of the British “July 7th Truth Campaign” as a basis, along with additional information: • Two minutes later, the London Underground announced the bus explosion and also that explosions had been reported at various stations between 8:50 am and reportedly 9:35 am, including three subway trains leaving King’s Cross station: one traveling south (Russell Square on the Piccadilly Line), east (Aldgate) and west (Edgware Road, the center of London’s Muslim community); • Metronet quickly announced that the entire subway system was closed; • At 10:30 that morning, there were reports of police marksmen killing either two or three “suicide bombers” around the Canary Wharf complex. The radio report was withdrawn after one broadcast and was not repeated in mainstream British media. Although police refused to confirm the killings, they were widely published internationally, including in Toronto’s respected Globe & Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Ottawa Citizen, and Britain’s Sunday Telegraph. The July 7th Globe and Mail reported the killing of one "suicide bomber" and named a witness. (Rook, 2005) Shortnews reported that one victim killed outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank was "believed to be part of a team of other suicide bombers." (Shortnews, 2005) July 9th’s New Zealand Herald reported that a Reuters journalist claimed that two colleagues “who did not want to be identified” claimed that: “police may have shot two apparent suicide bombers in London’s East End … in the aftermath of the shooting, 8,000 HSBC employees were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours” (N Z Herald, 2005) — an instruction that would have precluded further witnesses. • By noon, Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair reported that there had been “about six” explosions: five at various subways starting from about 8:50 and one on a bus, at 9:47; The confirmed sites were given as 1) Russell Square and King’s Cross underground; 2) Moorgate, Aldgate and Liverpool St. underground; 3) Edgware Road underground; and 4) the bus at Tavistock Square. Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center was quoted in the July 8th Guardian’s “Four bombs in 50 minutes” reporting that two unexploded bombs were recovered as well as “mechanical timing devices.” (Muir et al, 2005) Road signs asked that people avoid London: one of the world’s greatest cities was “closed”. |
An extraordinary coincidence was aired on the afternoon and evening of July 7th on both TV and radio. Peter Power of Visor Consultants told the BBC: “At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning.” Power refused to identify who commissioned it at the time, but later claimed it was Reed Elsevier, one of the world’s largest media companies, and a company which until 2008 organized major arms exhibitions through its companies DSEi, ITEC and LAAD. Power, it turned out, had been involved in similar emergency preparedness operations in London, some of which were similar to the July 7 events. (Appendix A)
While the Metropolitan Police Services (the “Met”) reported that suicide bombing could not be “confirmed” – an extraordinary statement, given that that had never happened in Europe — there was a general assumption that the explosions had been caused by al Qaida. This was not surprising, because the media had been running al Qaeda terror stories the weeks before July 7th. Two little-known groups did claim responsibility for the blasts. One group called “the Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe” posted a claim on July 7th in Arabic that they had carried out the attacks in response to Britain’s role in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turned out that the name of the group was the same as the one that took responsibility for the March 2004 Madrid bombings that killed 190. Muslims were suspicious; the Arabic grammar was poor and the Koran, misquoted. Investigators later found other significant similarities to the Madrid bombing. (Appendix A)
Despite the lack of any hard evidence, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Prime Minister Tony Blair declared on the evening of July 7th that the bombing had been committed in the name of Islam. Blair went on an immediate offensive: "This is not an isolated criminal act … 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 appeared to be defined only as anti-Israel.
The assumption of Muslim guilt was so pervasive that even normally-responsible media ran anti-Islamic articles. Television screens and newspapers were filled with horrific images of the injured from the bombings along with stories comparing Londoners to Israeli victims of suicide bombs. A disturbing example of fabricated propaganda was published in the respected Daily Telegraph on July 10, 2005, which gave major coverage to a mysterious Arab instructional video which “looked like a National Geographic production” on how to create bus bombs! The article claimed that the video had been “discovered” by a Washington D.C.-based terror consultant “to several western intelligence agencies”, which thought that the “slick production”, “with the feeling of a corporate video” was made by Hezbollah in the [occupied] Palestinian territories, “where Arab militants frequently use suicide belts on Israeli citizens”. Those terms were thrown together for a gullible public; there was no explanation of how members of Hezbollah would have entered the occupied Palestinian territories, or why they would have had any experience making suicide belts or bus bombs in Lebanon.
Blair had an extraordinary reaction to the opposition’s obvious call for an inquiry; he didn’t merely reject it, he was reportedly “incensed”. Blair portrayed the request as not only a waste of time and money (in locating people the government already “knew” were guilty) but as an outrageous insult to the security services. The demand was dropped. In fact, the possibility of any serious inquiry had been remote. Exactly a month before the London bombings, on June 7, the Inquiries Act came into effect, which gave the Prime Minister total control over inquiries; by law, no truly “independent” inquiry was even possible. Blair’s refusal to hold an inquiry continued even when the “al Qaida” claim was traced to a server in Texas. (Pallister, 2005).
Early media coverage demonstrates unexpected security-related foresight
Over the next two days — Friday and Saturday, July 8th and 9th — newspapers reported that the subway bombs had actually been simultaneous, not 45 minutes apart as Scotland Yard had initially believed. Some noted that that had already been reported in a Jerusalem Post article by Efraim Halevi published two hours after the actual bombing on July 7th! In “Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack: Rules of conflict for a world war,” Halevi accused al Qaeda of the “simultaneous” attack but noted that the execution of the operation was only “near-perfect“. (See Appendix E ) Halevi had recently joined the Advisory Board of Quest, described as a “risk mitigation” organization. Another Quest-related article showing extraordinary foresight came out on Sunday, July 10th written by John Stevens, Chair of Quest and former Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police. Stevens’ prediction, which sounded like a casting call, was that the perpetrators would be “apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education…” (J7)
The initial investigation produced significant observations :
| • 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 had constructed all four bombs, which he noted used high-grade military explosive and were specifically not homemade, an assessment shared by other experts. • Traces of an unusual variant of the US military explosive C4 were subsequently found at all London blast sites (McGrory et al, 2005); • The remains of timers were reported found in the debris of the subway sites, indicating prior placement of the bombs; no one had to die to detonate them. (ABC News, 2005) • The bombs were found to have trigger mechanisms that were virtually identical to those used in the March 2004 Madrid bombings. (McGrory, et al, 2005) |
British public transit is covered by tens of thousands of closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras, so it was widely assumed that CCTV tapes would 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 up to 5,000 CCTV tapes with the improbable hope of picking out people who entered a station with bags and exited – perhaps from another station — without them. Because the affected tube stations were equidistant from King’s Cross, police claimed that would be the starting point in the CCTV search; the published estimate was that it would take at least two weeks – possibly months — to complete the task. But reportedly at 8 pm that Monday evening, police seemed to spot what they were looking for. At a press conference the next day, police claimed that suspects had been picked out from CCTV footage as four or five men of Asian descent with matching backpacks ( which resembled UK military gear.) They were reported to have traveled from the northern city of Luton, where they took a commuter train to King’s Cross station in London before boarding the subway cars that exploded.
The so-called "lucky break" in naming the accused reportedly came when the mother of 18-year old Hasib Hussain called the police hotline on July 8th (along with 115,000 other callers) 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 suspects, but they even claimed they knew which bombing site each was responsible for because of identification found “by their seats.”
What appeared to confirm the unbelievably fast naming of the accused was the police identification on Tuesday, July 12th of two abandoned cars associated with the accused, one of which – a Nissan Micra – allegedly contained “homemade explosives” in the trunk. Later that day, police went to an address at 18 Alexandra Grove in Leeds that they claimed was an “operational base” of the accused. After evacuating six hundred nearby homes, they found a bathtub filled with what they claimed was “homemade explosives” – a veritable “bomb factory”. Police surmised that the “suicide bombers” must have left the “explosive” in the trunk of the Nissan MIcra and in the Leeds bathtub for use by a presumed “second cell.”
Police claimed that despite their being “clean skins” – men unknown to the police, with no criminal record – they had been able to identify them as 30-year old Mohammad Sidique Khan, 22 year old Shezad Tanweer and 18 year old Hasib Hussain. One paper initially named the fourth man as Ejaz Fiaz — another secular, western-oriented Muslim of Pakistani origin — but police took days longer in naming the fourth accused.
The first three men named fit the initial description of being of Asian descent; they also met Sir John Stevens prediction that they would be educated and respectable British citizens. In fact, it would have been difficult to find three people less believable as “terrorists”:
| • Shehzad Tanweer, 22, who police claimed died in the Aldgate explosion, had just graduated from university in a sports-related field. He was a keen cricket player who had even played the night before the bombings. His family owned a popular fish and chip restaurant; Tanweer drove a red Mercedes. Police reported that he had traveled to Pakistan that spring in the company of Khan.
• Hasib Hussain, 18, who police said had died on the No. 30 bus, had recently visited Pakistan. Reports described him variously as a youthful trouble-maker to a “gentle giant” and “pillar of the community". • Mohammad Sadique (“Sid”) Khan, 30, who police claimed died at the Edgware blast, would be accused by official reports to be the "main" organizer of the bombings. He reportedly had visited Pakistan that spring in the company of Shehzad Tanweer. “Sid” Khan was a respected counselor for the children of immigrants and the learning disabled; The Times of London had featured him in an educational supplement. The husband of the principal of Khan’s school was a Member of Parliament, who he knew and had visited. Khan and his wife, Hasina Patel, had married outside of their respective communities and were known as progressive. His mother-in-law had received special recognition at Buckingham Palace for a life of progressive community work with Muslim women. The couple had a 14-month old daughter and his wife had recently been experiencing problems with her second pregnancy. Although Khan and Patel were reportedly estranged, Patel had reported Khan missing several hours after the explosions; she had suffered a miscarriage around the time of his death. |
Police implied that the visits to Pakistan by those of Pakistani descent implied possible support for terrorism, which has not been substantiated.
The Fallout from the identification of “homegrown suicide bombers”
Muslim communities suffered from public outrage when the accused were declared to be "suicide bombers"; Muslims were immediately branded as "terrorist". 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. Muslims around the world were subjected to public insults in the wake of this story.
Blair’s popularity immediately soared, with the vast majority of voters suddenly supportive of his anti-terror legislation. Buoyed by the polls, Blair called for even further restrictions on free speech, such as criminalizing “martyr” and even descriptions of why people might want to martyr themselves.
Early police evidence
The government soon claimed that they had even more evidence to prove the guilt of the four accused. Police claimed that they had found CCTV footage as well as eyewitnesses to prove that the four had caught either the 7:40 or 7:48 a.m. commuter train from Luton to London’s King’s Cross station on July 7th, from where they fanned out to take trains going east, west and south. The northbound subway was initially presumed to be out of service and thus the reason, police surmised, that Hasib Hussain allegedly blew up a north-bound bus instead. London Transport, however, denied that the northbound trains had been closed on the morning of July 7th. (Bennetto et al, 2005) Police refused to show the CCTV footage that showed the men taking one of those trains.
After the alleged police discovery of the “homemade explosives” in the Nissan Micra and the bathtub “bomb factory”, the London bombs suddenly became “homemade” bombs made of acetone peroxide or TATP. The earlier evidence of the C4 explosives previously identified at the four blast sites was ignored. The July 8th Metropolitan Police report stating that the bombs would have weighed "less than 10 pounds each" was doubled after this “discovery” to 10 Kilograms to fit the new story line. (Macintyre, 2005).
The 18 Alexandra Grove “bomb factory” apartment was traced to Magdy al-Nashar, an Egyptian who had just received his PhD in biochemistry in May from Leeds University and was on the list of their faculty. With banner headlines blazing, the media claimed that al Nashar’s involvement would demonstrate the widely-assumed link to al-Qaeda. It looked as if Scotland Yard had found their man.
Police meanwhile claimed that, unlike the other accused men, the body of the “fourth” suspect, (accused of the Piccadilly bombing), was so “shredded” by the blast that DNA tests were needed to identify him. The parking tag of the second Luton car – a red Fiat that police had inexplicably moved hours after the bombings — was being analyzed for a DNA match; police did not explain why they thought that the driver’s DNA would be on a parking stub. On Thursday, July 14th, police announced the identity of the fourth “suicide bomber “: Germaine Lindsay. When this announcement was made, police arrested the brother of the man originally named, a Naveed Fiaz. Fiaz was incarcerated for one week before police released him without charge.
Germaine/Jermaine/"Jamal" Lindsay, 19, was named as the “fourth” bomber the day after his wife Samantha – who had just delivered their second child — reported him missing. Lindsay had moved to Britain from Jamaica with his mother as a young child and changed his name to “Jamal” after they converted to Islam when he was a teenager. Observers noted that Lindsay, a muscular black body builder, did not fit the police’s original description of someone who looked Asian.
But police were encountering a more serious problem with their accusation against Lindsay which would soon be evident; they couldn’t find his body.
Police evidence was not holding up to scrutiny
Why was it taking so long to identify the bodies?
It was taking police an extraordinarily long time to identify the victims. While the 190 victims of the Madrid bombings had been identified within 24 hours, it took almost two weeks — until July 19th – for police to identify the 52 victims of the London bombings. People wondered why. It became apparent that police were playing for time because they did not have the body of a “suicide bomber.” But that was the tip of the iceberg; many police claims were clearly untrue.
No police “advance warning” on July 7th?
Despite Scotland Yard’s claims that they had no advance warning about the bombings, a senior Israeli staffer confirmed that Scotland Yard warned the Mossad (rather than London subway riders!) six minutes before “the first bomb”, causing Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned appearance at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange conference at Liverpool, near one of the bombing sites. (Sheva, 2005) Scotland Yard had allowed the bombings to happen without notifying London Transport.
No previous police contacts with accused?
Soon after Scotland Yard’s claim that the accused were “clean skins” with no prior connection to the police, France’s Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy embarrassed Scotland Yard by pointing out that they knew both Khan and Tanweer from “Operation Crevice” (also known as the “Fertilizer Plot”). A group of Muslim men in Britain and one in Canada had been arrested in March and April, 2004 and were still awaiting trial, over a year later. British police brushed off the allegation, claiming that the roles of Khan and Tanweer had been too trivial to bother with. Scotland Yard happened to have sent their extensive files on the “Crevice” operation to Canada on July 8th, the day after the bombing.
Men identified from ID papers “by their seats”?
The police claim that they had identified the accused by their identification papers found “by their seats” disintegrated when it was shown that ID of some accused were distributed over various sites:
| • Hasib Hussain’s was said to be at the No. 30 bus, where he allegedly died; • Shezad Tanweer’s was found at Aldgate, where he was alleged to have died, and on the bus, which exploded almost an hour after the Aldgate explosion; • Sid Khan’s were found not only in Edgware (where police initially noted his body was not to be found!) but also in Aldgate and, days later, also on the bus! |
Police offered no explanation. It should be noted that ID papers of other victims were also found at the blast sites. This issue of ID would become even more bizarre, when police claimed that some of the men’s bodies had disintegrated in the blasts but that their ID had survived intact.
An “al Qaeda” connection?
The claim that Magdy Al-Nashar had been involved in the London bombings turned out to be erroneous. Al-Nashar had left England on June 30th, claiming that he had a visa problem, but had “promptly applied to his Egyptian employer, the Egyptian National Research Centre, for permission to return to Britain.” (Saleh, et al, 2005) Egypt claimed that Al-Nashar was innocent and refused to extradite him; interestingly, the vocal British accusations were immediately dropped, despite the alleged “bombs” found in his apartment. His apartment had been vacated one week before the bombings and while fingerprints of the accused — his friends — were found at his apartment, neither their fingerprints nor their DNA were found on the containers that police claimed held chemicals or “explosives.” (7/7, 2012)
How could police identify cars of the accused before they identified the accused?
The reason that one of the cars – the red Fiat later connected to Jamal Lindsay — was found “elsewhere” five days after the bombings, was that police had towed it — just hours after the bombing — from Luton Station to a holding area at Leighton Buzzard. Police never offered an explanation for moving Lindsay’s car; that was not the normal treatment for even illegally-parked cars. Police would later claim that they used the DNA from the parking ticket to put a name to the “fourth” bomber.
What “explosives” were either found or identified in the cars of the accused?
Scotland Yard claimed that Tanweer had rented a Nissan Micra for this “suicide bombing” job. The Nissan Micra has a trunk capacity described as 251 litres. The car would have had to hold three large men, three or four backpacks estimated to have a volume of 80 litres each, plus another backpack “beneath the front passenger seat”, ice chests and – as originally claimed — some quantity of explosives. The choice of such a tiny rental car was highly unlikely, particularly given the government’s claim that the men constructed the bombs in the public parking lot when unpacking the contents of the trunk.
Explosives?
Although the fast identification of the four accused seemed to be confirmed by the police identifying the “explosives” in the trunk of a Nissan Micra and the so-called “bomb factory bathtub”, police quietly retracted the identification of these materials. On a Tuesday, July 19th briefing, Sir Ian Blair made the stunning statement that: “It was made absolutely clear we do not know what this [explosive] is.” (Cowan, 2005) Testimony at the 2010 Hallett inquest indicated that “the Government could not find any forensic chemist, who will claim to have been able to identify the primary explosive mix – not at London, Luton or Leeds.” (Kollerstrom, 2011)
The media coverage had facts about the “explosives” going in all directions; while it appeared at first that (various numbers of) bombs were only found in the Nissan Micra (nine controlled explosions were reportedly carried out on its contents), other reports claimed that the Fiat may also have had explosives. Others that maybe there were actually no explosives in either car. (Wright et al. 2005)
While an unusual variant of the military explosive C4 had been identified at all London blast sites, the police claimed that they found only “homemade” explosive in the Nissan Micro and the “bomb factory” bathtub. Instead of concluding that the found “explosives” could not have been connected to the accused, police (and media) claimed – contradicting the evidence — that the London bombs had to have been “homemade”.
No apparent CCTV or witness evidence
Despite the hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras throughout London (and the hundreds around the affected public transport stations), police have never shown CCTV footage that proves the four men were in London on July 7th, 2005.
The bombing of the No. 30 Bus
|
• The lack of CCTV footage showing Hasib Hussain on July 7th • It was a mystery what Hussain did the morning of July 7th. His reported wanderings for almost an hour around London should have been picked up by literally hundreds of CCTV cameras. One non-time-stamped photo of Hussain on an escalator shows him wearing a dark jacket, not the “distinctive” jacket described in his Missing Person Report; the photo could have been taken anywhere, at any time. |
The various contradictory accounts of his actions start at 9 a.m., nine minutes after the 8:51 a.m. subway explosions: (J7 Profile: Hussain)
|
• Hussain was reportedly seen in McDonald’s (J7 Profile: Hussain) at 9 am ordering food; unfortunately McDonald’s staff reportedly turned off their cameras when Hussain was entering. • Despite reports that Hasib Hussain had been seen that morning in various locations and on two busses, the only July 7th image shown of Hussain shows him outside a Smith’s at King’s Cross station where he had reportedly purchased a 9- volt battery. The timestamp shows 9 a.m., when King’s Cross was being evacuated, but the evacuation is not evident. (J7: Evidence) Other peoples’ faces have been erased on the footage, so the timestamp cannot be confirmed by other witnesses. In the King’s Cross 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 wandered around London for the better part of an hour, reportedly ending up at Euston Station, from where he supposedly boarded the northbound No. 30 bus (possibly after taking a Bus. 91 in the opposite direction! (Muad’Dib, chap. 6). Despite the hundreds of CCTV cameras that should have been in operation along Hussain’s 45-minute trek between King’s Cross and Euston, none have been shown. |
Was Hasib Hussain on the No. 30 bus?
Testimony at the 2010 Hallett Inquiry indicated that there had been four cameras on the No. 30 bus. Although one report claims that the hard drive of the Bus No. 30 CCTV was given to the Metropolitan Police, (J7: Evidence) the footage was never produced. There is no reliable record of who was on the bus or what happened; there were no photos of Hasib Hussain on the bus, no clear witness evidence that he was on the bus, and no photos indicating what caused the blast.
Bus 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) (McGrory, 7/2005) 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) The most publicized witness who came forward, a Richard Jones, offered evidence that contradicts the known evidence and indicates that Jones did not, in fact, see Hussain on the bus. (J7: Mind the Gaps) The 2010 inquiry found that another Asian youth had been sitting at the back of the top of the bus at that time.
Did anyone commit suicide on the No. 30 bus?
Some noted that the location of the bus explosion made it an unlikely “suicide bombing.” The explosion, which occurred at the top rear of the bus, would cause minimal damage; a suicide bomber intent on causing maximum damage would have chosen the front of the bus near the driver. Witness reports that the bomb appeared to come from under a seat also made the “suicide bombing” scenario unlikely.
From the initial evidence, it was not clear where the bus bomb even came from. A Timesonline article reported that: "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)
Destroyed evidence and a “difficult” site
The bus bomb was followed soon afterward by a “controlled explosion” which had initially been denied by police. The death toll from the bus was originally two but was changed to “13 or 14”, depending on whether Hasib Hussain was included in the count, which he did not seem to be initially. Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair explained that the large discrepancy in the death count was because the seemingly straightforward explosion “was a difficult site”. Blair did not explain why the count of dead on the bus would have presented any “difficulties” ; it should have been easier than those in subways.
Despite the lack of evidence that there had been any suicide bombing on the bus as well as the proliferation of various people’s identification cards that were found (including at least those of Hussain, Tanweer and Khan) police named Hasib Hussain as the “suicide bomber” on July 12th.
The Subway/”Tube” bombs
No CCTV evidence of the accused on subway stations
The first leg of the trip of the accused to London was at the Luton commuter station. Police claimed that the Luton CCTV pictures of July 7th first tipped them to the identity of the accused. The photo that police released of the accused at Luton commuter station (time- stamped 7:21 am on July 7th ) appeared to be crudely photo-shopped: three unidentifiable men were shown alone at a station that should have been bustling with rush hour congestion. (WAG, 23/7/2005) The train from Luton would have taken them to the Kings’ Cross station in London.
Although there were 76 CCTV cameras inside King’s Cross Station alone; none of them were operating on the morning of July 7th from 8:30 a.m. until after the explosions, at 8:54 a.m. There was also no footage from any of the subway stations that were involved in the bombings from between 8:30 am until after the bombs detonated.
Although police had claimed that their (unreleased) July 7th CCTV images of the accused at King’s Cross had allowed police to identify them, police refused to show (until 2010) any footage that indicated the presence of those accused of the subway bombings even in London on that day. The footage clip from 8:26 am on July 7th that police released in 2010 is not of the quality that can be considered proof. The faces are not clearly identifiable and the faces of surrounding witnesses who might corroborate the time were erased. Because this footage includes a large black man, it could fit the men ultimately accused but it contradicts the original CCTV description of all appearing Asian.
One year after the London bombings, it became clear why there had been no CCTV footage shown of the accused in London on July 7th. The Home Secretary John Reid was forced to admit that the Luton commuter trains – which the government had claimed they had ample CCTV and eyewitness evidence that the accused had taken – had either been cancelled or delayed on the morning of July 7th. Reid suggested that the men must have taken an earlier train at 7:25 a.m. but offered no evidence. It was apparent that if the men had tried to catch the 7:40 a.m. trains, they could not have reached London in time to be on any exploding subway car.
Police clearly expected the accused to take the commuter trains leaving Luton around 7:40 a.m. because they made that claim with no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it. Given the train delays, the men would have arrived at King’s Cross after the explosions and seen that something catastrophic had occurred. Could the men have realized that the “emergency preparedness” operation had become real and that something had happened to the trains that they might have been on? Could the men have tried to reach the media center at Canary Wharf, where reportedly “suicide bombers” were shot one and a half hours after the train explosions? Bus schedules indicate that it takes about one hour to travel between King’s Cross and Canary Wharf.
Were there any “suicide bombers”?
The Missing Bodies
Police initially noted that two bodies of “suicide bombers” could not be found where they were supposed to have died!
|
• Police had noted on July 12th, after claiming that Sid Khan died at Edgware, that his body was not to be found among the dead (BBC, 7/2005). • Police reported in a July 13, 2005, Independent article that they did not have the body of the “fourth”, Piccadilly bomber (Bennetto, Herbert, 2005) [after their claim that the remains were being examined for DNA identification!] • Witnesses at the 2010 Hallett Inquiry noted that the bodies of Khan and Tanweer were originally not among the count of the dead at the respective sites of their alleged deaths. |
Eyewitnesses to the explosions contradicted “suicide bombers”
|
• Survivors of the train explosions, such as Bruce Lait, remembered that the train floors were torn upwards from underneath, indicating bomb placement that could not have come from within the trains. (Ahmed, 2006, 36-38) • Some eyewitnesses claimed that they saw no men with backpacks near where the bombs exploded! • Witnesses at the 2010 Hallett Inquiry reported multiple explosion points in the floors of various subways cars; more bomb sites than three men could possibly have been responsible for. |
Could the accused have planned to commit suicide on July 7th?
Would it have been possible that the accused men did intend to commit suicide on the subways and were prevented by the delays of the Luton commuter trains? Some have hypothesized that the accused might have been “blowback” for either the British roles in Iraq and Afghanistan or for the infiltration of Muslim organizations that were against these occupations. The question of their intent to die is thus critical. What is the evidence?
|
• Hussain believed the others were all alive: Police claim that mobile phone records showed that after 9 am Hussain made two attempts to call each of the other three accused on his cell phone — demonstrating that he thought they were all alive — but received no response. Because the police shut down the mobile phone system for at least an hour after the bombings Hussain had no way of reaching them. Because the London Transport was only reporting problems from a “power surge”, Hussain had no way of knowing that there had been the subway explosions. • The four accused showed no signs that they expected to die. The Mirror was the first to report that: • They had return train tickets and • they had even paid their parking fees. • Their actions before the bombings were reported to be normal and even jovial. • There were no suicide notes, as required by Islam and • their families all expected them home. |
The men had expectations for the future and such actions were out of character: The families and friends of every one of the accused were in disbelief that these men could have been part of any act of terrorism:
|
• Hasib Hussain was described as a gentle, soft-spoken flirt with a good sense of humor; he enjoyed talking about girls, sports and cars. He was planning to go to Leeds University that September, and was waiting for the results of five entry exams, which arrived the day after the London bombings; he had scored distinctions in four out of the five subjects. His family noted that his trip to Pakistan, where he met his fianceé, was to attend his brother’s wedding. Hussain’s family believes that he will ultimately be proven innocent. • Lindsay’s wife, Samantha Lewthwaite, insisted that she would only believe her husband had been involved if it were proven through DNA; Lindsay’s family were also in disbelief. While much of what has been written about Lindsay has been contradictory, he seems to have been peace-loving and apolitical. Lindsay’s family refuses to believe that he could have been responsible for any violence because “he was always a peaceful man who loved people." Lewthwaite, delivered their second child soon after July 7th. Lindsay was doing well financially; his bank launched an investigation because of the (unpublished) amount of money in his account. • Shezad Tanweer, just having graduated from university, was looking forward to a career. He was handsome, popular, smart, and had everything to live for. Friends claimed he was apolitical and didn’t follow the news; they also noted what a sweet-natured person he was. His family remarked on his patriotism; he was turned off by anti-British feeling he witnessed on a recent family visit to Pakistan. He was affluent; his bank account was found to have a balance of over 100,000 pounds. • “Sid” Khan was highly regarded in both the British and Muslim communities; people who knew Khan were incredulous at the accusation that Khan could have been responsible for any terrorism. Described as a warm, exceptionally compassionate and peaceful person, his career was focused on helping others. After working at various government agencies, Khan went to university where he realized his talent in conflict resolution with youth; he was able to resolve dangerous situations, issues with difficult teens and also help those with drug problems. He also became recognized as an outstanding counselor for the children of immigrants and was featured in a Sunday Times educational supplement. |
Khan’s friends said he was western-oriented, had mostly white friends and loved all things American after a trip there; friends called him by the western nickname Sid. He was patriotic: when designing a brochure, he insisted that: “The British flag must be part of it. I was born here and I am proud to be British.”
Although he did not have a reputation as religious, he was active in the Muslim community and spent time at the Iqra bookstore and at a Muslim community center, where police thought he met some of the other accused. Khan made a springtime trip to Pakistan in 2005; police found no evidence that this was anything more than a simple vacation. A claim that Khan made a 2004 trip to Pakistan conflicted with Khan’s employment record. (J7: Khan)
Khan’s wife Hasina Patel claimed that she had never heard him criticize the actions of the British government or its role in world events. In excerpts from an interview with Sky news (Sky, 2007), Patel said “… I kept thinking that something was wrong, I don’t know, that maybe it was a set up, … I didn’t even have any inkling towards his views even going in that direction … I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams, never.”
By British law, suicides are illegal and intent must be proven before one can be labeled as “a suicide”. Despite the requirement to confirm suicides – and the contradictory evidence that these four men did commit suicide — the British Government refuses to investigate the “suicidal intent” of the four accused.
What became of the bodies of the accused?
|
• The police did not allow the families of the accused to identify any of their bodies. When the corpses of the accused would have been over six weeks old, The Guardian of Aug. 24, 2005 reported the Metropolitan police claimed that they were keeping all of the bodies of the accused to reassemble their body parts to analyze their positions on the bombs’ detonations! • Khan’s family was clearly suspicious and asked for a second post mortem by an independent pathologist to confirm the cause of his death. It is not known if they received it. He was apparently given no funeral. |
The 2010 Hallett Inquest into the July 7, 2005, London Bombings: sowing further confusion
In May 2010, Lady Justice Hallett called for an inquest into the activities of the British security services the year prior to the July 7th bombings. The inquest, which the security services warned would "encourage terrorists," was held in the fall of 2010; the hearings were public but there was no jury. The families of 52 of the victims were allowed to take part; the families of the accused were excluded, and so not able to challenge any witnesses. Lady Justice Hallet and QC Hugo Keith controlled the proceedings.
The inquest was expected to answer questions on the timing, the location and the makeup of the bombs, it instead raised even more questions. The government’s destruction of evidence and lack of documentation made it impossible to resolve discrepancies between the government’s claims of (limited) damage and witnesses accounts. While this inquest did produce stunning information, it specifically excluded significant questions such as how police came to know the names of the accused.
The Hallett Inquiry ultimately demonstrated a pervasive government manipulation and/or mistreatment of the evidence, including from the various bombings, the integrity of CCTV footage, and of the bodies of the victims.
|
• The police did not allow the families of the accused to identify any of their bodies. When the corpses of the accused would have been over six weeks old, The Guardian of Aug. 24, 2005 reported the Metropolitan police claimed that they were keeping all of the bodies of the accused to reassemble their body parts to analyze their positions on the bombs’ detonations! • Khan’s family was clearly suspicious and asked for a second post mortem by an independent pathologist to confirm the cause of his death. It is not known if they received it. He was apparently given no funeral. |
Questions about the bombings were complicated by the destruction of evidence
The government claimed that the bombings were far simpler than the complex events that police had originally reported, such as blasts affecting trains traveling in opposite directions. However, their claims did not jibe with the various directions and destinations of the victims and the accounts of more explosions even within the various subway cars. The government had disposed of the subway carriages before fully documenting the damage, leaving unresolved questions such as:
|
• How many London Transport trains and busses had explosions (some victims should have been at sites that had originally been named as having explosions, such as Moorgate and Old Street); • Which train lines were affected as well as the direction of the affected trains (reports and evidence indicated that trains entering and exiting Edgware had been affected, rather than the Government’s claim of only one direction.); • How many cars were involved at each affected station and where the explosions originated within the cars: one investigator noticed that the Metropolitan Police diagrams reconstructing the subway explosions did not made sense given the official Home Office description of those killed and injured. Taking the Liverpool/Aldgate explosion as an example, he noted that the Met diagram only showed a total of 43 people in the carriage while the Home Office narrative claimed that “the blast killed 8 people, including Tanweer, with 171 injured.” According to the police diagram, the two standing on either side of Tanweer survived, one with only minor injuries. The investigator noted that if the blast killed 8 of the 43, that left only 35 potentially- injured in that carriage. The implication is that the other 136 injured at that site must have been occupants of another three cars in that train with a similar occupancy. “ (7/7, 2012) • Subway “Trackernet” evidence showed that the explosions were not simultaneous but started as early as 8:46 am, several minutes before later explosions. Police had reported explosions as late as 9:17 a.m. at the time. Even the cause of the explosions was unresolved by this inquiry. • Many witnesses insisted that that there actually had been an electrical power surge, possibly before other subway train explosions. • The Inquest has clarified that the Government cannot find any forensic chemist, who will claim to have been able to identify what they claim was the primary explosive. (Kollerstrom, 2011) • Traces of the homemade TATP explosive, which police claimed the accused had used, were not identified at the blast sites. • CCTV footage was missing or questionable |
Evidence indicating the source of the explosions contradicted the official story of bombs in backpacks:
Hallett testimony indicated that the pattern of injured and dead on the trains did not match police claims of where the bombs were detonated. Observed injuries tended to indicate the legs and feet, which corresponded to witness accounts of damage coming from under the floors: they were not consistent with backpack bombs in packed trains. No autopsies had been performed on those "unlawfully killed", which could also have indicated the bombs’ locations
The scope of the missing CCTV footage was extraordinary, given the number of closed circuit cameras that were not operating at critical times throughout the subway system.
Although the lack of CCTV footage had always been apparent, people assumed that five years later, more footage would have been located. The footage that was produced showed significant and inexplicable gaps; the realization of how many cameras “didn’t work“ in the crucial minutes at the sites before the bombings occurred made the lack of footage even more suspicious.
|
• It was apparent that police had started looking at Luton CCTVs before footage from King’s Cross on July 10, 2005; there was no explanation for their initial priority of Luton station CCTVs. • CCTVs capturing Tanweer’s drive to Luton station on the morning of July 7th showed him wearing two different pants during a very fast trip. • The inquiry was shown footage from Luton station parking lot on the morning of July 7th; Lindsay had reportedly arrived at Luton station at 5am on July 7th, waiting almost an hour in the car park for the other three accused to arrive. Minutes had been cut from the footage – with no explanation — that should have shown the accused getting out of their cars and possibly meeting others; • Footage of a Jaguar that appeared to have been meeting up with the men on more than one occasion had been cut. Intriguingly, there was a Jaguar prominently at the site of the No. 30 bus explosion. • While the three men accused of the subway bombings were supposed to have taken trains from King’s Cross station on July 7th, there is no CCTV footage showing them in the London Underground that day. . Only one camera showed the four accused as they walked towards King’s Cross Station from the Thameslink commuter tunnel at 08.26.32 a.m.; although it is rush hour, the three are alone and their faces are not identifiable. The footage shows erased, unidentifiable faces surrounding the accused, which does not allow witness confirmation of when the footage was taken. Tanweer had been wearing an identifiable t-shirt on July 7th; the t-shirt markings are hidden in this newly-released footage. This footage is supposed to be the CCTV reportedly seen by police in 2005, although it does not fit their initial description of only men of Asian descent and the men’s faces could not have been identified from this footage. The 2010 Hallett inquest was the first time police showed this footage. |
III The evidence about the accused: significant for what was covered as well as missing
The Hallett Inquest presented horrific evidence concerning the discovery and remains of Khan and Tanweer
The Hallett inquiry addressed the discovery and the identification of the partial remains of only Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shezad Tanweer. There was no pathology or forensic evidence presented for Hasib Hussain or for Jamal Lindsay, who was supposed to have been identified through DNA.
According to the Hallett testimony, the initial count of the dead — “life extinct” — at Aldgate and at Edgware did not account for the bodies of either Khan or Tanweer, but police increased these counts later on July 7th to account for the subsequent discoveries of their alleged remains on July 8th and July 9th. A summary of Hallett testimony and information given earlier by authorities follows:
|
Mohammed Sadique Khan: • Hallett witnesses noted that the July 7th “life extinct” count at Edgware was initially six, which excluded Khan, but that police increased the count by one later that day — before Khan’s remains were found the next day. Shezad Tanweer: • The initial 7/7 “life extinct” count at Aldgate also excluded Tanweer’s body, • On Saturday, July 9th, only a 1.8 Kg spinal fragment was found; • While the Met “confirmed” Tanweer’s death on July 12th, • The DNA lab work was dated July 13 to 28th, with no indication of how police had already identified the remains as belonging to Tanweer; • Tanweer’s identification cards – found at both Aldgate and the No. 30 bus — survived the virtually total disintegration of his body. The damage to Khan’s and Tanweer’s bodies was not consistent with the damage of the other dead, even though others – dead and survivors — had supposedly been close to the sources of the explosion(s). The bodies of all others had remained basically intact and easily identifiable. Hasib Hussain: • Outside of noting that there had been four CCTV cameras on the No. 30 bus that were supposedly not working, there was little new information on the No. 30 bus explosion. There was testimony from various witnesses, with varying credibility but still no proof that Hussain was actually on the bus, particularly since another young man of Asian descent was found to have been at the back of the top level of the bus. |
Lisa French, a witness seated no further than five seats in front of the explosion, had increasingly clear memories of Hussain over the years. She testified at this inquiry that when she was getting off the bus, police discouraged her from helping a “pile” of people, indicating that they were already dead. (Adderly, 2011) Could this have been the reason the count of the dead from the bus changed from 2 to “13 or 14”? Could these have been bodies from other explosions that had been reported earlier that day? Could these have been the “difficulties” Sir Ian Blair referred to?
The CCTV footage that does exist comes from nearby busses; bus No. 30 was relatively easy to spot because it had a huge ad on its side for a terror movie! Observers noted the presence in all post-explosion photos of a white Kingstar demolition company van.
A photo taken soon after the bus explosion showed a body under a blue blanket, separated from the other bodies. This was reported to have covered Hasib Hussain’s body, although no one knew who had identified the body or who had placed it apart from the others and covered it with the special blanket.
Jamal Lindsay: did he survive the London bombings?
|
• Initial identification: There were mysteries from the beginning about Lindsay’s identification in the London Bombings. He could not have been one of those initially described by the police’s reported CCTV footage as of “Asian descent”: he was a hefty black bodybuilder. • Where was the body? • Police sources admitted, in The Independent of July 13th, 2005, that the alleged Piccadilly suicide bomber’s body was missing (Benneto, Herbert, 2005); • Police named Lindsay as “the fourth bomber” only after his wife reported him missing; • Two newspapers noted that police believed that Lindsay survived July 7th. According to articles in The Guardian (Jones, 2005) and The Bucks Herald police believed that Lindsay had survived. According to reports, Lindsay was last seen by neighbors packing up his car on July 8th. [Police “protected” Lindsay’s widow Samantha Lewthwaite after his identification as the “fourth suicide bomber”.] |
• Anomalies:
|
• Police had claimed that the Piccadilly “suicide bomber’s” body was so badly shredded that it required DNA to identify it; (note that this was in contrast to the bodies of Khan and Tanweer, which by implication were straightforward identifications!); • Police only claimed that they had Lindsay’s ID after they had searched his home; despite the claim that his body was “shredded”, his passport and driver’s license were intact; • A BBC article of July 14th, 2005, “Fourth bomber’s name disclosed” implied that police might not have had the DNA results that his wife was led to believe confirmed his role. Despite extensive media in July 2005 claiming that Lindsay’s body had been identified through DNA testing, no Hallett witness testified about any such laboratory work. Strangely, no Piccadilly body count was produced at the Hallett Inquest. |
Investigators noted that the amount of money in Lindsay’s bank account triggered an investigation from his bank, although the amount does not seem to have been published.
Former M15 investigative journalist David Shayler claimed, soon after July 7th, that one of the alleged “suicide bombers” had survived July 7th; it appears that he was referring to Lindsay. The police initially claimed that only men of Pakistani descent were involved; the marksmen at Canary Wharf may not have realized at that point that a black man would be one of the accused. Could the police removal of Lindsay’s car from Luton Station have been to ensure that Lindsay could not retrieve it?
The Hallett verdict
In May 2011 the Hallett Inquest determined that 52 of the 56 London deaths had been "unlawful", the fault only of the "bombers" rather than of the hours-long medical response time or a lack of diligence of the security services. Hallett refused to allow the families of the accused any investigation into how their loved ones might have come to have been involved.
On August 2, 2011 a legal challenge by victims’ families to force the British government to hold a public inquiry into the July 7 attacks was abandoned "acknowledging that the proceedings would be likely to be unsuccessful."
PART II: The July 21 Copycat “bombings”
The week after the July 7th bombings, police started to predict future bombings. Two weeks after the London bombings, the predicted events seemed to materialize. At:
|
• 1230: Ramzi Mohammed tried to set off a bomb in the subway at Oval station in south London; |
The stories of their detonations are amusing. When one of the men tried to detonate his device, it started oozing out like bread dough because a main ingredient was chapatti flour! When Yassin Omar detonated his, it sounded like a champagne bottle bursting; some around him thought it was a joke but others were spooked.
When their devices didn’t explode, the four North African men scattered in all directions with their identifying pictures caught on 18,000 hours of now-functioning CCTV tapes. Three were quickly picked up, which was extraordinary, because Yassin Omar, for one, had donned a burka and was in hiding in Birmingham. The fourth, Hussein Osman, escaped to Italy, leaving behind a gym bag which (only some reports claimed) contained the membership card with the address of his fellow gym member Abdi Omar.
Although the official police story was that they had no foreknowledge of the attempted bombings, The Mirror of July 22, 2005 contradicted that claim. Nafeez Ahmed quotes the article,
|
• "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 that a suspect would pass through Farrington? If they had information of such precision, did it extend to other elements of the plot?’" (Ahmed, 2006, 103,104)
Before Hussein Osman was extradited from Italy, he gave interviews which provided some insights into the operation. He claimed that he, along with four others were fed for “some weeks”– a steady diet of graphic films that portrayed mutilated Iraqi victims of American and British military actions. The men were told not to tell anyone about these mysterious films, which reportedly came from the banned al Mouhajiroun, a group that many believe was linked to British intelligence. By July 21, four of the men were prepared to act in unison to protest the atrocities that the US and UK were committing 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: Ramzi Mohammed wrote a suicide note to his girlfriend and the mother of his children.
A report by Italian judges authorising Osman’s extradition to Britain confirmed that the devices —
which consisted of flour, hair lotion, nails, nuts and bolts, and attached to a primitive device with a battery and unidentified powder which could be used as a detonator when attached manually to electrical wires — contained no chemical explosive material. The UK court heard that the “bombs” were plastic tubs containing hydrogen peroxide, chapati flour, nail varnish remover and metal nuts, screws and tacks with TATP (triacetone triperoxide) as the detonator.
There were striking differences between the July 7th and July 21 events but telling similarities.
Differences from the July 7th events:
|
• The devices used on July 21 did not explode, and -– despite police claims implying otherwise — could not possibly explode because of the way they were constructed; • The Closed Circuit TV videos were all working this time: 28,000 items of CCTV were gathered, 7,500 items viewed/18,000 man-hours of viewing with seven hours of crucial CCTV used in evidence • Although these men were also Muslim, they were not as highly regarded in their community as the first four accused; the apparent ringleader of this operation had a background of petty crime. They may have been unemployed to have had the time to go through the intensive indoctrination of “some weeks” of watching the horrific films. • The actions of these men were intentional; they were detonating something to make a statement. Similarities to July 7th events: • The accused men were Muslim, reinforcing the paradigm of “homegrown suicide bombers”; • The accused men were known to British intelligence: the BBC reported from the trial that the defendants had been photographed by police surveillance officers while on a camping trip in the Lake District in May 2004; • The scenario of three subway trains and a bus was similar if not identical to the July 7th bombings; (although a fifth bomber allegedly cancelled on July 21, there was also thought to have been a fifth bomber on July 7th.) • Significantly, the “homemade explosives” used on July 21 and the “explosives” that police found the week after the 7 July events in the car and at Leeds, were based on an apparently unique use of hydrogen peroxide hair bleach reportedly known only to “government scientists”. |
Forensic scientists could find no record in official, scientific or academic literature of explosives professionals ever building these kinds of bombs: according to Clifford Todd, a senior forensic investigator at Fort Halstad forensic explosives laboratory, these hydrogen peroxide-based devices were “unique in the UK and possibly the whole world” (McVeigh, 2011)
In an extraordinary admission, police testified in October 2007 that the only other times that the contents of the dud "bombs" had been seen in Britain were the police discoveries the week after the July 7th events of unidentified “explosives” in an abandoned car and bathtub allegedly linked to the four originally accused. All of these were based on the use of hydrogen peroxide hair bleach along with an organic component: in those found on July 12th, the organic component was black pepper, in those of July 21, chapatti flour.
The discovery that the unique hydrogen peroxide-based “explosive” connected to both the July 7th and the July 21st operations was known only to “government scientists” (Casciani, 2007) indicates the role of the British government in both operations, and contradicts their claim that laymen concocted this recipe.
The idea that four or five uneducated men could have independently located a virtually unique recipe “on the Internet” and then been motivated to synchronize blowing themselves up using a scenario copying the previous bombings – all without significant outside leadership – was not officially challenged.
The trial of the so-called “copycat” bombers took place from January to June 2007. According to author Nafeez Ahmed, there was little public information about this.
The government claimed that this operation was planned before the London bombings; given their apparent foreknowledge of the events, they might well have been in a position to know.
The Government admitted that it had been keeping the men under surveillance for 14 months before July 21, 2005. Muktar Ibrahim, 29, the leader, was seen by officers on at least four occasions before the bombings, and was on bail after being arrested on “suspicion of extremism.” In October 2004, Ibrahim was arrested by police for breach of the peace while handing out extremist literature in Oxford Street. He jumped bail but in December 2004 Special Branch officers at Heathrow airport stopped Ibrahim before boarding a flight to Pakistan. A Port Stop Request form recording the incident was filled in but the three men were allowed to go on their way. Despite having a criminal record, he was given British citizenship. Ibrahim confessed to making the bombs but claimed that he had learnt how to do so “on the Internet. [sic]” David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "This trial has revealed that the ringleader in the 21/7 plot was allowed to leave the country to train at a camp in Pakistan and return to plan and attempt the attack." This was despite the fact that he was facing criminal charges for “extremism”. (Gardham, 2007)
The repeated official claim that the bombs might have exploded was knowingly false. The British government admitted that Ibrahim constructed dud bombs because (having “failed maths GCSE”), he had wrongly calculated the ratio of ingredients. Moreover, the Italian report for Hussein Osman’s extradition noted that the bomb ingredients did not include chemical explosive.
The personal beliefs of family members were presented as relevant at the trial. Although Osman was secular, his wife was accused both for her “extreme views on Islam” [her fingerprints were discovered on tapes of "extremist Islamic preaching"] and for allowing her husband to take their son to a Lake District “terror training camp.”
Despite the role of the horrific Iraqi footage which had motivated the accused to act, the films were deemed too disturbing to show to the jury and were banned.
The four men and family members who had helped them in any way were sentenced harshly. The four men were declared guilty of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life in prison for a minimum of 40 years. Osman’s wife was sentenced to 15 years and two of his other relatives were sentenced to 9-10 years for helping Osman. The trial did not examine who might have been directing the men.
The July 21, 2005 “copycat” operations were followed the next morning by a killing that was claimed to be the frenzied response of Britain’s most elite police and military teams to the “copycat” events.
PART III. The Targeted Assassination of Jean Charles de Menezes
The supposed police chaos resulting from these abortive copycat attempts was given as an excuse for the killing the next morning of a Brazilian electrician. On July 22, senior police officials from the Metropolitan Police Services ("Met") Gold Team oversaw and led elite military and police units in the brazen, public killing of a 27-year old immigrant in a Stockwell station subway train. While this murder continues to be spun by the police as an unfortunate accident stemming from a chaotic police environment and the mistaken identification of the white man for a black man, an analysis of the facts — particularly testimony from witnesses in 2007 and 2008 – indicates that this was a targeted killing.
Police initially claimed that they chased a “nervous”, suspicious-looking man wearing a “puffy jacket with wires hanging out” into the Stockwell subway station. The man reportedly leapt over subway gates and ran into a subway train that was about the leave the station. A surveillance agent who had chased the suspect into the subway car held the door open for the marksmen, stopping the door from closing, and pointed him out to police. When they identified themselves as "police", the suspect appeared threatening, so they shot and killed him.
The public was shocked the next day to realize that the victim was not only white but that he was not even Muslim. Police initially tried to claim that the victim, Jean Charles de Menezes, was an illegal immigrant. They admitted it was an unfortunate mistake but the result of numerous miscommunications for which no one was to blame. And indeed, no one would be held to account.
There would be three inquests at which evidence came out in the de Menezes’ murder:
|
• A 2006 inquest Crown Prosecution Service decided that no one would be held personally responsible for de Menezes’ death; in September 2006 the inquest was adjourned indefinitely. • On October 31, 2007, an Old Bailey Central Criminal Court jury, after four hours of deliberations, found the Metropolitan Police guilty of merely 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. In an extraordinary rider to their verdict they said that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who had been in charge of the Gold Team operation, had "no personal culpability.” In fact, she had been promoted to Deputy Commissioner. No pubic witnesses testified. • The 2008 inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes was held because of pressure from the de Menezes family, and for the first time, public witnesses were called to testify. The court gave more than fifty police agents identity protection, however, and allowed the killers to testify behind a screen. Someone who tried to photograph a killer was arrested. These hearings produced shocking eyewitness testimony on the killing as well as links to the office of the Prime Minister. |
Questions continue to arise because of the extraordinary lengths police have taken to hide the facts around this execution, starting with why police were staking out 21 Scotia Road in the first place.
According to police testimony at the October 2007 trial, the chain of events started when police were examining “copycat” bomber suspect Hussein Osman’s gym bag containing the bogus explosives. They claimed that at 4:30 a.m. on July 22 they discovered a gym membership card of Osman’s friend, Abdi Omar. The Designated Service Officer (DSO) who was in charge and responsible for this operation was the highly-regarded Oxford graduate Cressida Dick. Dick called on the elite CO19 team to show up at Abdi Omar’s apartment building at 21 Scotia Road from 5 a.m. onwards to check the identities of all those leaving the apartment building to find either Abdi Omar or his friend, bombing suspect Hussein Osman. Interestingly, the police’s discovery of Abdi Omar’s gym membership card, which supposedly led them to the 21 Scotia 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 Abdi Omar, so presumably would not have needed Omar’s card. Strangely, by the 2007 trial for the Met’s endangering the public, Abdi Omar’s name had disappeared from the story; it became only Hussein Osman who was "linked" to 21 Scotia Road. (BBC, 2007) and who police allegedly "confused" with the white de Menezes.
From 6 a.m. onwards, the elite military team, the SRR, (the Special Reconnaissance Regiment) provided the electronic surveillance on the Scotia Road apartment building, with video cameras 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 that 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.
The only person exiting 21 Scotia Road that morning who interested Cressida Dick was described immediately as a “North European White male”. No matter that he didn’t look North African — he immediately had two elite SRR surveillance teams following him, one on foot, the other by car.
Since the initial story had been a fast chase, the public was shocked to realize that this had been a 30-minute stalk; 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 while police had initially claimed that no CCTV footage existed of the de Menezes killing, Jean Charles de Menezes’ trip between his home and his death was captured. CCTVs show that he took a bus to the Brixton tube station only to find that it was closed because of a “security alert” — an alert that perhaps allowed the elite agents to get into place at Stockwell station. He called his uncle on his cell phone to notify him of the delay and retraced his steps to get another bus continuing on the same route to the next station: Stockwell.
Police tried to explain at subsequent trials why they were following de Menezes as a suspect:
|
• At the October 2007 trial, police created a creative computer composite splitting the faces of de Menezes alongside that of Hussein Osman; people noticed that de Menezes face had been manipulated to support the story of police confusion; [The skin tones should be have been noticeably different; the newspaper image of the composite was in black and white.] • In 2008, police claimed that they had had no picture of Hussein Osman to go by when they were trailing de Menezes! Although this was later refuted, media did not ask how police could confuse a "Northern European white male" with a dark North African regardless of what photos they possessed; • A surveillance agent’s claim that they could not get a clear look at de Menezes’ face because they were always following him was not credible because de Menezes would have doubled back on his path when the Brixton subway station was closed. The police later tried to claim in court that de Menezes’ going back to get the next bus was evidence of his attempt to avoid them! • While the original story had been that de Menezes had attracted police attention by acting suspiciously, by the 2008 inquest, police suggested that de Menezes generated suspicion because he looked so innocent! |
According to Nafeez Ahmed, "the bulk of the evidence available in the public record strongly suggests that the threat perception of officers on the ground was manipulated by senior officers for reasons that so far remain difficult to fathom." (Ahmed, 2006, 119) 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 hidden explosives. In somewhat deceptive October 2007 testimony, Cressida Dick claimed that she received "five positive" claims that de Menezes was Osman [sic] — neglecting to mention that all five positives came from only one agent. (Police were supposed to be looking for Abdi Omar at that point, not Hussein Osman!) Other testimony contradicted Dick’s assertion that she was convinced of “the Osman” [sic] identification because she also asked for identity confirmation as the agents were entering the Stockwell station, which they were obviously unable to give at that point. Allegedly confident of the identification, Dick gave a “hard stop” command to stop de Menezes from entering the subway — which he had already entered.
While the officers on the ground had detected no danger, C019 marksmen were told that they had to be "up for it" that morning because they could be confronting a suicide bomber; they were armed with special dum dum bullets — usually banned — for a killing.
There was not much of a chase after de Menezes: One of de Menezes’ killers, a member of the elite CO19 specialist firearms unit who was identified only as C12, was already waiting outside of Stockwell station in an unmarked car before de Menezes arrived. (Walker, 10/2008) When asked why he did not arrest him at that point, “C12” merely “apologized” for the “communications problems.”
While the initial portrayal of the killing involved agents racing to catch a subway that was about to move, the 2008 testimony told a different story. The subway driver, Quincy Akpesiri Oji, said in a statement read to the inquest: "I got to the Stockwell tube station just before 10 am," "When I got there the light was red. This was unusual.” (Walker, 11/2008) The subway car appeared to have been stopped to wait for the killing, which took place at 10:06 a.m.
CCTV tapes showed that the relaxed De Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket and carrying no bags or backpack – no "puffy jacket with wires hanging out." Once at Stockwell station, de Menezes picked up a newspaper, paid for his subway with his Oyster card (which identified him electronically), and strolled to the platform, again chatting on his phone before entering the subway car parked on the tracks.
According to eye witness Anna Dunwoodie, who was seated two or three seats from de Menezes, she noticed another man who was also seated near her (Morgan, Nov. 3/2008) because he appeared jumpy and had a bag full of something metallic. He was later identified as the surveillance agent “Ivor.” When the marksmen approached their car, Ivor ran to the door and pointed out de Menezes to them.
The police marksmen testified at the 2008 inquest that they had had no intention of killing de Menezes when they entered the car and only made the decision when he responded aggressively after they identified themselves. While the seven police witnesses — all identity protected — testified that they shouted “police” at de Menezes, all 17 of the other eyewitnesses vehemently denied that police had identified themselves. They had thought that the police were out-of-control rowdies, frighteningly “hyped up” with adrenaline; none realized that they were undercover police.
The eye witnesses claim that de Menezes seemed unperturbed at the police entrance and looked up, calmly questioning, when surrounded by them. (Morgan, Nov. 3/2008) Plainclothes agents identified only as "Hotel 1, Hotel 2 and Hotel 3” — in the 2008 inquest, agents identified only as “C2” and “C12” — immediately pinned de Menezes down and started pumping eleven (banned) dumdum bullets into him, with at least five hitting his head. According to an eye witness who had to insist that her testimony be included in the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report, the shots came at about three-second intervals and lasted for 30 seconds.
The other passengers ran for their lives. One of the police killers chased the terrified subway driver into the tunnel, where he ran across live subway wires and the paths of oncoming trains to escape the “terrorists”.
Later that morning, pathologist Dr. Kenneth Shorrock was called to look at the body when it was still on the train floor. He testified that by the time they had moved the body out of the car and looked at the contents of Jean Charles’ pockets, only his passport and loose change remained; police had already taken De Menezes’ cell phone. At the inquest, Shorrock testified that police officers — including the senior investigation officer — had lied to him about the circumstances of de Menezes’ death (Morgan, Davis, 2008) claiming that de Menezes had been trying to escape them.
But on July 23rd, police were supposedly still looking for Abdi Omar, not Hussein Osman. Soon after killing de Menezes, police — supposedly still looking to question Abdi Omar, whose address had supposedly been 21 Scotia Road — burst into a home at another address where Omar’s wife and family were staying. The police attack put Omar’s mother-in-law in the hospital with a heart attack. In fact, Omar had left Britain the previous week. When Omar returned to the UK, he asked police if they wanted to speak to him: they didn’t.
On the day of the de Menezes’ killing, police announced that there would be no investigation and they refused to name the killer. A retired Scotland Yard officer went on BBC that evening complaining that something didn’t add up; any Scotland Yard killing would have triggered an automatic investigation. He said that someone else had to have committed this killing. 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). Scotland Yard admitted that at least one of the killers had trained in Israel but refused to identify them.
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 — the weapons used as well as the manner of the killing — indicating British special forces carried out the de Menezes’ assassination. (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 police cover up: Soon after Jean Charles de Menezes’ death, police sprang into action to protect themselves and to discredit de Menezes. Police not only produced a “disinformation campaign” of lies over virtually every fact of the killing, but evidence was missing, manipulated, hidden and distorted. The illegality seemed to start with the modification of the police log that was admitted at the 2008 inquest: one identity-protected agent (“Owen”) had eliminated the fact that Dick knew that de Menezes was not carrying anything while another (“Lawrence”) made it impossible to tell whether agents did or did not identify de Menezes as “Osman.” Police not only punished the whistle blower and her associates who published the photo of the dead de Menezes wearing only a light denim jacket (Sanderson, 2006), but they were also understood to have threatened one of the jurors who then left the October 2007 trial.
Brian Paddick, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, indicated that under the circumstances, Ms Dick’s “hard stop” command would not have been misinterpreted, as police claimed, but would likely have been taken as an order to kill. He also noted that Dick’s responsibilities should have been limited to whether or not to issue the “kill” command, not to “redirect traffic” for this operation (Laville, Sandra, 2008) which presumably referred to the closed subway station at Brixton and/or the parked subway train at Stockwell. He also noted that Dick was cool under pressure and unlikely to have been flustered into thoughtless action.
Police testimony raises serious questions about police perjury, destruction of evidence and, of course, murder. 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 his identity was produced. Chief Ian Blair kept his position despite the attacks on his credibility and the subsequent calls for his resignation up until the start of the 2008 inquest.
If the de Menezes’ killing had been an accident stemming from gross incompetence as police claimed, the Metropolitan Police’s DSO, legally responsible for the operation, would at least have been reprimanded, if not punished. Instead, Cressida Dick was promoted to Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Dick’s associate at that operation was also rewarded with a promotion. The actual killers, identified only as Hotel 1, Hotel 2 and Hotel 3, — later, at the de Menezes 2008 inquest, as C2 and C12 — remain anonymous. No one will be charged for the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The judicial cover-up: The October 2007 Health and Safety trial and the autumn 2008 inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes increasingly demonstrated the role of the judiciary in protecting the police from accountability. The most revealing information on this killing was witness testimony at the 2008 inquest.
At the 2008 inquest, Michael Mansfield QC, representing Mr. de Menezes’ family, repeatedly accused the officers of lying about their perception that Mr. de Menezes was a threat. The scripted responses of the seven identity-protected officers, who clearly perjured themselves about their claimed warning to de Menezes as well as other significant facts, were presented by Mansfield as examples of the continuing police efforts to deceive the public.
Nafeez Ahmed’s astute observation about the involvement of the elite SRR was confirmed at the 2008 inquest, when the involvement of Tony Blair in this operation was made public. A letter from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to the Home Office “mistakenly” dated the day before the de Menezes killing (instead of the day of the killing) read:
|
“In the meeting we had with the prime minister yesterday, I raised the issue of maximising the legal protection for officers who had to take decisions in relation to people believed to be suicide bombers.” (Tran, 2008) |
Michael Mansfield then asked Chief Superintendent Steve Swain, the former head of the Met’s international anti- terrorism unit, whether Sir Ian said officers should “be allowed to just shoot”. Swain claimed that he could not remember these details and asked Mansfield to end that line of questioning. (Tran, 2008) The previous testimony of an agent identified only as “Trojan 84”, however, bears out this apparent blanket permission. “Trojan 84”, a senior tactical advisor, testified that “It was my job to tell [the marksmen] they would be supported whatever decision they took because of the structures that were in place" (Percival, 10/2008); they were free to kill with no accountability.
A post-incident manager at Scotland Yard subsequently provided more direct evidence of the Prime Minister’s involvement. Chief Inspector Stephen Costello claimed that the Prime Minister was consulted over a decision to bar to IPCC from entering Stockwell subway station after the shooting and issued a directive which said: ‘Directed by Detective Superintendent Wolfenden not to allow access to the IPCC, authority of commissioner and prime minister." (Percival, 11/2008)l. In fact, the police not only banned the IPCC from the site of the execution, but they also refused to turn over their internal documents, as required by law. (Mitchell, 2007)
While the Prime Minister might have been ignorant about plans for de Menezes’ killing when Met Chief Ian Blair met with him to secure maximum legal protection for police killings of “suspected suicide bombers”, the directive banning the IPCC from the murder scene “authority of the … prime minister” implicates Tony Blair.
This blanket protection for killing “suspected suicide bombers” explains why police changed the claim that they were looking for Abdi Omar to Hussein Osman: they had only been given legal protection to kill suspected “suicide bombers”. They were not given the right to kill anyone merely wanted for questioning! Their “get out of jail free” card depended on the public and courts accepting that police had been looking for Osman rather than Omar. The media allowed this substitution without comment.
The British government’s betrayal of the public interest
The De Menezes’ inquest exposed not only the crimes of the police but complicity at the highest levels of the British government, the judiciary and even the media, which continue to shield the role of the government from public scrutiny. The government’s betrayal of public interest was shown to include:
|
• The police betrayal The police intentionally murdered an innocent man, then invented an elaborate cover-up which included lying to the public, attacking another innocent family, perjury and the destruction of evidence. • The Judicial Betrayal: The court protected the identity of over 50 members of the intelligence services that were involved with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, including the killers. At the end of the 2008 inquest into police responsibility for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, Coroner Sir Michael Wright’s prejudicial actions included: • informing jurors that they would only be allowed to return a verdict of lawful killing or an “open verdict”; they would not be permitted to return a verdict of unlawful killing by police; • warning the jurors that they were not to attach criminal or civil fault to individuals, such as DSO Cressida Dick; • giving the jury secret advice despite the public nature of the inquest; • giving the jurors questions that served police interests, to be answered by a Yes or No response that precluded the possibility of a narrative response from the jury; and • Suggesting that police perjury might have been committed for selfless motives. |
The jury returned an “open” verdict, much to the relief of the Met, which had expected an “unlawful” verdict, given the overwhelming evidence of their deceit and criminality. It appears that even the police who perjured themselves or admitted destroying evidence will never face charges.
|
• The media betrayal: The most ominous aspect of the inquests into de Menezes’ death has been the betrayal of public interest by not only the government and the police, but also by the judiciary and most disappointingly, by the media. Although that police tale started to unravel by that evening and came to be demolished in virtually every respect, there is virtually no article on de Menezes’s death that does not include the mantra that his killing was the result of an accidental misidentification – including articles that directly contradict that claim. • • How was Prime Minister Tony Blair involved? Why did he block investigators from the scene of de Menezes’ killing? • Was De Menezes’ public killing a warning? The Guardian reported in December 2008 that de Menezes’ friends were “terrified”; they understood the killing as a warning. |
The De Menezes family gave up their fight for justice on November 23, 2009, accepting a payment of one hundred thousand pounds Sterling plus legal expenses.
PART IV: The Release of the Mohammad Sadique Khan and Shezad Tanweer tapes
On September 1, 2005, almost eight weeks after the July 7th bombing, a mysterious tape of Mohammad Sadique Khan appeared with edited-in clips of Al Qaida’s Al Zwahiri. In it, Khan was wearing a red Palestinian-type kifieh/scarf like a pirate 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 (such as the London bombings), the implication was that this tape was to be taken as a copy of Palestinian suicide tapes, (not an Al Qaeda practice!) to "prove" Khan’s motive to kill himself.
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 then 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 beforehand were British police and ABC News.
The video images of Khan and Tanweer, which featured the same props, attempted to show that Khan and Tanweer were connected with Al Qaida and identified with the Palestinian cause; that they supported terrorism against their fellow citizens and were making the tapes as virtual suicide notes of their intentions. Tanweer is wearing the same kifieh 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 it, making it appear that the two men were associated with Al Qaida. While the tapes attempt to conflate the Palestinian cause with al Qaeda. al Qaeda did not make suicide tapes and Palestinians have not been connected to al Qaeda!
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 has been shown publicly in their entirety.
Khan’s closest friends, 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 was the year that Khan (as well as Tanweer) had been audio taped and videotaped by British intelligence. (J7 Profile: Khan)
None of Tanweer’s family or friends have volunteered their opinion of the veracity of this tape. It is possible, noting current voice and image technology, that both the images and voices of the men could have been technically produced. Tanweer’s tape included clips of Ayman al-Zawahiri and American al Qaida member "Adam Gadahn", with an interesting background. 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 Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Orange County, California.
It is ironic that the British government maintains that these tapes prove motive while also claiming that the men acted independently. If the accused had acted alone, who created these tapes with the al Qaeda material and who released them at varying, politically-useful times?
While the tapes purport to show Khan and Tanweer’s support for Al Qaeda, Palestinian suicide bombers and “Islamic extremism”, the tapes’ origins and releases both implicate British intelligence.
Part V. The London bombings: facilitating the agenda of the “War on Terror”
Despite the government’s acknowledging flaws in the official story of 7/7 that indicate that the official story could not be true, the story remains in place, largely unchallenged and with no independent investigation. The British government’s labelling the London bombings as “suicide” bombings and respected Muslims as “homegrown suicide bombers” is key to understanding the diabolical agenda behind these events: the elimination of British civil liberties as well as Britain’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
The London bombings, which created the “homegrown Muslim terrorist” paradigm, was at least as transformative an event as the supposedly Muslim-caused destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. Both events furthered the “war on terror” by assuming Muslim guilt while the respective governments reacted with outrage at the suggestion of any independent public investigation. The evidence of responsibility for the London bombings and its related events points overwhelmingly to the British government:
|
• There was a history of government-run terror exercises in London, including ones that closely mirrored the London bombings’ scenario; |
Security services had been in contact with those accused of both 9/11 and 7/7. Middle Easterners accused of being the hijacking pilots of 9/11 had been publicly connected with US military (Griffin, p. 118) and those accused of the London bombings were all known to Scotland Yard.
British infiltration of the Muslim community
By 2002, the year following the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers — and with the assumption of Muslim responsibility — British security forces started a program to cultivate relationships with the Muslim community. The Metropolitan police started the Muslim Contact Unit in 2002 to work with “credible” Muslim figures in order to counter potential terrorists. A document leaked in September 2005 detailed plans by MI6 to infiltrate potential “extremist” groups. It appears that the Iqra charity was a venue for such infiltration.
The Iqra bookshop in Beeston was described on its shop front as a ‘learning centre’ and part of the Iqra Trust, a registered charity with outlets worldwide providing not only Islamic literature but media services, youth activities, orphan sponsorship, seminars and presentations. In fact, the bookshop, which reportedly produced and distributed DVDs that juxtaposed images from the Crusades with those of mutilated Muslims, was used to attract unwary Muslims.
One of the bookshop’s most vocal employees turned out to be a “retired” "ex-anti-terrorist" agent, Martin “Abdullah” McDaid, who worked several hours a week at Iqra. McDaid admitted that he knew all of the four accused men as well as the Egyptian chemist Magdi al Nashar whose vacated apartment contained the bathtub with alleged explosives. 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 (SBS). The motto of the SBS, which has a counter-terrorism team, is “By Strength and Guile”. McDaid claims that he left them "nearly 15 years ago." (Thornton, 2005)
Former Hell’s Angel Martin Gilbertson, who worked in the bookstore, claimed that Khan was a link between various strata of the Muslims who frequented the shop. Gilbertson 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. Gilbertson’s testimony was discredited at the 2011 Hallett Inquiry as irresponsible.
A report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC, 2006), however, did reveal that Khan had come to the attention of MI5 in 2003. Both Khan and Tanweer had worked at the Iqra bookshop; in 2003, Khan was listed as a trustee and his phone number was the address of the shop.
British security connections to those accused of the London bombings
Shortly after the accused were named on July 12th, and Scotland Yard claimed they had no knowledge of the men, Nicholas Sarkozy embarrassed them by pointing out that some of the accused were known to Scotland Yard through “Operation Crevice”. After more reports were disclosed about previous contacts, it became increasingly clear that Shezad Tanweer — and particularly “Sid” Khan — had long been known to the police.
On a BBC Newshour program at the end of June 2006, former Metropolitan police detective Charles Shoebridge said he was struck by, "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 we’ve got a level of incompetence that would be unusual even for the security services, but 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)
It was subsequently discovered that “days after” July 7th, police removed an electronic monitoring device from Khan’s car. British security forces had devoted resources to photographing Khan, tapping his phone and tracking his car up until his death. Police must have been aware of Khan’s activities, and Khan might have been aware that he was being tracked. (Leppard, 2006)
By October 2005 Scotland Yard admitted that they had actually known all of the accused men. (Guardian, 11/2005)
Operation Crevice aka “the fertilizer plot”
According to the July 7th Truth Campaign web site: "In October 2005, it emerged that Khan had been under surveillance in 2004 and that both Khan and Tanweer had been bugged and taped by British intelligence in 2004”. Throughout February and March 2004, MI5 agents monitored both men interacting with the “Crevice” suspects, according to pretrial closed testimony and the judge’s ruling.
There are several indications that Khan was working for British security services at that time. One is a widely-published conversation that took place on Feb. 21, 2004 between Khan and Omar Khyam, (Perlez, Sciolino, 2007) who was later sentenced to life in the so-called plot:
|
“Are you really a terrorist?” Mr. Khan asked Mr. Khyam, according to a transcript of the conversation read in court. Mr. Khyam replied, “They are working with us.” To that, Mr. Khan asked again, “You are serious, you are basically?” “I am not a terrorist; they are working through us,” Mr. Khyam said. Mr. Khan replied, “Who are? There is no one higher than you.” [Khyam’s answer does not seem to have been published.] |
Khyam goes on to inform Khan that Khan should move, and soon. “I do not even live in Crawley any more” he said, “I moved out because in the next month they are going to be raiding big time all over the UK.” [And they did; Omar Khyam was arrested a month later.]
Khan seems to be pumping Khyam for information, as he would be expected to do if working for security services; and he would have known that this conversation was being taped. (Khyam’s answer, “They are working with/through us” indicates the stunning relationship that investigators such as Nafeez Ahmed and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky document between security services and those it claims are “terrorist.” Khyam’s knowledge of inside security information also points to this complex relationship. The subsequent arrest of Khyam in April 2004, must have given Khan false confidence about his own safety.
MI5 not only protected Khan and Tanweer from being arrested with the “Crevice” defendants, they also protected Khan from being identified by the FBI. The spring of 2004 Crevice arrests that took place in Britain and in Canada were overseen by the FBI and their “supergrass” agent Mohammed Junaid Babar. Babar’s own freedom allegedly depended on his ability to enable successful “terror” prosecutions. When the FBI asked British security forces in April 2004 for photographs of those whom Babar might know, MI5 intentionally withheld photos of Khan, claiming the photos were too poor to be useful. In fact, the photos reportedly clearly identified Khan and if they had been sent, Khan would have been immediately identified by Babar as a person of interest. Khan must have understood that MI5 was shielding him.
It would not be until the day after the London bombings that Scotland Yard sent their voluminous Crevice file with Khan and Tanweer’s information to Canada for the first terrorist trial there. The defendant, Momin Khawaja, had been arrested in March 2004 for his alleged role in the plot, fifteen months before the file was sent.
The third indication of Khan and Tanweer’s connection with MI5 is the creation of their bizarre “al Qaeda” tapes in the fall of 2004, the year the men were known to be taped by MI5. (Khan’s friends noted that the tape shown in September 2005 showed Khan as he appeared nine months before his death.) It is inconceivable that the tapes would have been created by the two patriotic and secular men. The non-synchronized word with lip movement on both tapes are evidence that the men did not control the creation of these tapes. It is also apparent that these tapes were released at politically opportune times for the British government. (September 1, 2005 and July 6, 2006, respectively).
Haroon Rachid Aswat
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) 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 bombings. (Woods et al, 2005)
Loftus noted that Aswat was the assistant of the so-called "Captain Hook" — Abu Hamza al-Masri who was the imam of the Finsbury Mosque in London and head of the subsequently- outlawed Al-Muhajiroun. According to Nafeez Ahmed in The London Bombings, the leadership of the "al Qaida-linked" organizations in Britain — such as the Finsbury mosque and Al-Muhajiroun — as well as the Pakistani ISI, are connected to MI5 and MI6. (Ahmed, 2006, 175) The London-based Al-Muhajiroun, which was formed during the Kosovo crisis, worked with MI6 to recruit first Pakistani British Muslims, then Somalis and Eritreans to fight for Muslim interests in Kosovo. While both the imam and the person under Aswat were later indicted, Aswat led a charmed existence, continually being freed in Britain and internationally after a variety of arrests. In July, 2005, Loftus noted: "the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI-6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him…"
Before Aswat’s August 2005 arrest, an informative Sunday Times article of July 31, 2005, documented astonishing official British protection of Aswat: while acknowledging that there had been telephone calls between Aswat and those accused of the London bombings leading up to July 7th, "British investigators … caution that the calls may have been made to a phone linked to Aswat, rather than the man himself." (Woods et al, 2005)
Despite Aswat’s apparent connection to the London bombings, he does not appear to have been questioned in the matter as "investigators say there is no hard evidence of what role, if any, Aswat played in the London attacks. Scotland Yard sources say he is not considered a priority in their criminal investigation into the July 7 and July 21 attacks." (Woods, et al, 2005) Despite acknowledgment that Aswat was in the UK until July 7th, the article notes that: "British security officials think this may be a case of mistaken identity." Aswat was arrested in August, 2005 and remains in British custody because of an American extradition request relating to an Oregon visit.
Aswat’s case made international news in 2012, when the US tried to extradite him as one of six Muslim terror suspects indicted on charges relating variously to hostage-taking in Yemen and the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The European Court of Human Rights rejected the pleas of the five “fellow terror suspects” that their extradition would violate their rights; they were extradited in October 2012. The court ruled unanimously on April 9, 2012, however, that Aswat’s extradition –“ possibly to the ADX ‘supermax’ prison in Florence, Colorado – would breach Mr Aswat’s human rights, specifically Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. It said: ‘In light of the medical evidence before it, the Court found that there was a real risk that Mr Aswat’s extradition to the USA, a country to which he has no ties, and to a different potentially more hostile environment, would result in a significant deterioration in his mental and physical health.’” (BBC, 2013)
Security-related commentary
Former MI6 agent James Casbolt reported that the four accused were merely paid MI5 "stooges" who were told that they would be taking the role of simulated bombers as part of the emergency-preparedness operation. The bus had explosives pre-planted in the seats and under the floor; the trains had pre-planted bombs as well as bombs placed under seats by agents who then exited before the explosions. The agents were ex- MI5, ex-MI6 and formerly, SAS (Special Air Services). (Casbolt, 2007)
Casbolt’s claim seems to be borne out by MI5’s codename for the London bombings, “Stepford,” presumably a reference to the compliant “Stepford Wives” of the TV series with that name. That codename appears to indicate that the accused were obediently following instructions.
The reputations of the accused facilitated the British security agenda
The government used the fact that the accused men were the unlikeliest of terrorists as its rationale for greater scrutiny of the Muslim community. British security services’ surveillance on Muslims mushroomed – along with security services offices, manpower and budgets — to search out such ideological transformations.
On July 19, MI5 announced ambitious expansion plans; special branches would be formed to monitor Muslim extremism “community by community” across the country. British security services now had a freer hand with their operations: British Police claimed that they would now adopt a “shoot to kill” policy for suspected “suicide bombers.” The government had new legislation ready to be rolled out making it illegal to “commit acts preparatory to terrorism”. With these new laws, police would be able to arrest those 1) planning terrorist acts before the acts were defined; 2) uttering sentiments encouraging others to commit terrorist acts; and 3) providing or receiving training in the use of hazardous substances “for terrorist purposes.”
Officials admitted that they had started drawing these new laws up “several months” before the London bombings. (Sparrow, 2005)
Epilogue
The elimination of civil liberties went beyond British nationals; international legal protections were affected.
British lawyer and author Gareth Peirce noted in her book “Dispatches from the Dark Side”, that within a month of the bombings, Britain — as predicted by one of its top judges, Lord Johan Steyn — started to jettison its obligations to Muslims under international humanitarian law in the name of “security”:
“Today for the Muslim community, any protection that may come from the courts is viewed in the context of what has occurred since 2005, as constituting the most temporary of impediments before the government implement new methods of avoidance, and where it views its legal obligations as irritating interferences with an overarching quest for claimed national security.” (Peirce, p. 58)
In 2007, the July 7th Truth Campaign published the powerful “Capitalizing on Terror” describing the post-7/7 state of British freedoms:
In less than two years the UK has descended into a police state. Taking photographs of landmarks is now classified as ‘terrorist reconnaisance’, being caught in possession of a map has been prosecuted as ‘having information likely to be useful to a terrorist’. Protesting outside the people’s Parliament is now a crime unless the state has first granted permission and you can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt a policeman doesn’t like. Your DNA and fingerprints will be taken and stored indefinitely. Everyone from young children to old age pensioners are actively being targeted under anti-terrorist legislation and this legislation is being used to suppress dissent and opposition to the government, its policies and the way it enforces them. Blair has talked of implementing private police forces and police powers have been given to thousands of non-police entities including amongst others traffic wardens, landlords and council officials. …
Recently the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, suggested that modern day Britain is comparable to Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda. Around the same time the leader of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr Mohammed Naseem, compared life for Muslims in the UK to that of the life of Jews in Nazi Germany. In among the furore that ensued among the liberal intelligentsia, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, gently reminded everyone that the laws don’t just apply to Muslims, or terrorists, the laws apply to everyone. If you are reading this in Britain, that means you. (J7,2007)
Appendix A
Noted security connections to the London Bombings
Al Qaeda of Europe: an organization that claimed both the Madrid and London bombings
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 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 …” (McGrory et al, 2005)
Historian Webster Tarpley presents evidence in his book "911 – Synthetic Terrorism" that the other event that "al Qaeda 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 backfired.
Rudi Giuliani: was the government-linked security consultant in London by chance?
Since retiring from his role of Mayor of New York, which he held on September 11, 2001, Giuliani had founded his own company involved in the “risk mitigation” business, Giuliani Security and Safety, a subsidary of Giuliani Partners LLC. headed by former New York head of the FBI, Pasquale D’Amuro. After 9/11, D’Amuro was appointed Inspector in Charge of the FBI’s investigation of 9/11. He later served as Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters and, Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence. D’Amuro had close links to the Neocons in the Bush adminstration.
Giuliani was visiting Britain in July 2005, and speaking publicly on the war on terror. He was in London on July 7th, where TASE was hosting its economic conference, with Israel’s Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as keynote speaker; both men were staying in the Great Eastern Hotel, close to Liverpool Street station. Giuliani’s initial comments after the bombings indicated possible premature knowledge, that the first report of the claimed power surge was “the first explosion”: "I didn’t hear the Liverpool Street bomb go off," he explains. "One of my security people came into the room and informed me that there had been an explosion. …" (quoted in the Evening Standard, 11 July 2005.)
At this time, both Giuliani and Power were serving on the advisory board of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness; both Guiliani and Partners and Visor Consulting specialised in security preparedness and mock terror drills. Former MI5 whistleblower David Shayler claimed that Rudi Giuliani had been connected with Power’s company. (Szymanski, 2005)
Bob Kiley: the ex-CIA manager was Commissioner of Transport for London
The Commissioner of Transport for London from 2001 – 2006, with responsibility for the whole London transport system was Bob Kiley, an American who had worked with the CIA, where he had served as Manager of Intelligence Operations and then as Executive Assistant to the Director, Richard Helms. His appointment for a two million pound four-year contract made Kiley the world’s most expensive public servant. He quit his position as Commissioner shortly after the London bombings, claiming alcohol-related problems. Kiley had been hired from his New York City transport role, where he had worked with New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani. Kiley is a member various organizations including the Council on Foreign Relations.
Peter Power: a government-linked security consultant with a history of preparedness operations:
|
• In 2003 an operation with several hundred people called OSIRIS2 tested the London Underground. (Interview with Peter Power, CTV, 11 July 2005). • Power had been featured in a faked news program on BBC’s Panorama in May 16th, 2004 which featured a scenario strikingly similar to the events of July 7th with bombings on three subways and a bus. • Visor Consultants had been involved in an April 2005 emergency preparedness operation focusing on the London Underground, code named Atlantic Blue. That operation, coordinated with the United States and Canada and labelled TOPOFF 3, had been ordered by the British Secretary of State Charles Clarke in coordination with his US counterpart, Michael Chertoff, head of US Homeland Security. Visor Consultants had been on contract to the British government and worked in coordination with the US Department of Homeland Security. (Chossudovsky, 8/8 2005) |
Before setting up Visor Consultants in 1995, Peter Power had worked for the Metropolitan Police Services elite Special Patrol Group and Anti-Terrorist Branch. Peter Power served on the Advisory Board to the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness (CCEP), together with Richard Sheirer, Senior Vice President of Giuliani and Partners. who was previously Commissioner at the NYC Office of Emergency Management, and Director of New York City Homeland Security.
(See CCEP at http://www.ccep.ca/ccep_shei.html) (Chossudovsky, 8/8 2005)
QUEST: a “risk-mitigation” organization with knowledgeable members
John Stevens, Chair of Quest and former Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, authored an article published on Sunday, July 10th, 2005, which described the perpetrators accurately as: “apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education…” A recent addition to the Board was former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevi, whose knowledgeable article on the London bombings was reportedly published two hours after the events. [See Appendix E]
Verint Systems: in charge of the CCTV system for the London Underground
In September 2004, Metronet, owned by Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier, EDF Energy and RWE Thames Water awarded the contract for the installation of CCTV systems on the London Underground to Verint Systems, an Israeli company that advertises itself as “a leading provider of Actionable Intelligence solutions and services for security intelligence”. Verint is a subsidiary of Comverse Technology, “the world’s leading provider of communications intercept and analysis” technology. Founded in Israel and with half of its employees based in Israel, about twenty key Comverse executives had worked for the Israeli military, six of whom were in Israeli intelligence. In Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade.
(Sanders, 2012)
Appendix B
Trials related to Mohammad Sadique Khan and Shezad Tanweer
Men who appear to be agents of MI5 or the FBI, such as Mohammad Junaid Babar, and became connected to the circle of Muslims that included Mohammad Sadique Khan, provided testimony that has secured terror-related convictions in British, American and Canadian trials. The presumed guilt of “homegrown Muslim terrorists” as well as alleged associations with Khan have facilitated convictions with little other evidence in the trials related to “Operation Crevice” (also known as “The Fertilizer Plot”) and the London sightseeing visit of Khan’s friends.
Operation Crevice, or "The Fertilizer Plot": an apparent MI5 “pre-emptive action” 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 "pre-emptive 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, Mohammad 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, (defence 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, Mohammad Junaid Babar was to be sentenced only after the last of the related trials, that of Mohammad Momin Khawaja in Canada [and Syed Hashimi in New York?].
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 anti terrorism 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 Qaeda, the evidence in its entirety could be consistent with Khan being used as an MI5 informer and then as a dupe. (See Part V.)
Finally, it is apparent that those 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.
The other side of the Met’s gloating about their successful “pre-emptive action” was the betrayal felt by the young British Muslims who felt victimized as citizens who should have had their basic rights respected. The statements made by defendants after the verdicts are important commentary on the Crevice trial. The following are two of the statements from the July 7th Truth Campaign’s “J7 Operation Crevice Information & Analysis”:
An excerpt of Imran Khan’s statement given outside the Old Bailey on 30th April 2007:
… This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case. …
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims. …
An excerpt from the statement made by Tayab Ali, lawyer for Salahuddin Amin, who was convicted and given a life sentence with a minimum term of 35 years.
|
I was convicted by false evidence and the fruits of torture. I am innocent. I told the jury the truth. I am innocent. I told the jury I had been tortured and mistreated by the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence services, over a ten month period of illegal detention in Pakistan during 2004. I told the jury how the British security services were responsible for my illegal detention, mistreatment, and illegal transfer to the UK. Even though I am a British Citizen, the British government did not lift a finger to protect me from abuse and torture. In fact, the British authorities made it worse by interrogating me at the same time as knowing I had been tortured. The British government have been able to hide their shameful involvement in my illegal detention and torture in secret sessions which occurred during the trial. These hearings cannot be reported to you, the public. They continue to hide behind this veil. I demand they tell the truth about what they did to me. I demand the truth about the other people who are still in secret detention and being tortured as part of this misguided war on terror. I was illegally detained with some of these people. I know that some of them were treated far worse than I was, while British, American, and Canadian intelligence officers stood ready to benefit from the unreliable fruits of torture. I demand an apology from the head of the security services and the British government about what they did to me. I demand an explanation as to how this could have happened. My wrongful conviction has given a green light to those who carry out the heinous act of torture on behalf of civilised western governments. I will continue to fight to clear my name. … |
The 2008 7/7 -related trial: Hostile Sightseeing or Guilt by Association?
On March 22, 2007, close friends of the alleged “suicide bombers” were arrested on charges relating to the July 7th bombings: Mohammed Shakil, 30, Shipon Ullah/ Wahid Ali, 23, and Sadeer Saleem, 26, from Beeston, Leeds. The men’s conspiracy charge was only until June 26, 2005, one day after the apparent dummy run — a date that did not allow an examination of the July 7th events. On May 9th, four more were arrested, including Khan’s wife, on conspiracy charges; only one of the four was charged – but not with a July 7th-related offence.
After a month of being held, the three men were charged in April 2007 under the Explosive Substances Act (1883) for "unlawfully and maliciously" plotting with the suicide bombers "to cause explosions on the Transport for London system and / or tourist attractions in London". The allegation was that the men spent a two-day sightseeing trip in London in December 2004 involved in reconnaissance for the bombings on July 7 “before the plan was finalised.” The dates of the charges excluded the possibility of an investigation into July 7th. The men had visited the London Eye, the Natural History Museum, the London Aquarium, (family), and, prosecutors ominously claimed, areas which bore a "striking similarity" to those where the bombs would be detonated the next year. While this phrase might lead one to think that they might have taken public transportation, they apparently drove their own car and frequently got lost. Since there were no July 7th tourist bombings, the accusation that includes the terms “and / or tourist attractions in London“ and “before the plan was finalised” appears fabricated.
It appeared that the real crime might have been their friends and their attitudes. The men were longtime friends of Khan and Tanweer: Ali, Saleem, Khan and Tanweer would all become trustees at the nearby Iqra Islamic bookshop. Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay would join Ali, Shakil and Saleem on their London sightseeing. The three defendants admitted going on jihadi training in Pakistan and made no secret of their support for the defense of Muslim lands. The denounced suicide bombing as un-Islamic, however, and denied any knowledge of a July 7th plot.
The jury was shown what would appear to be irrelevant footage of Ali with Khan and Tanweer meeting with a man described by police as a “committed terrorist” known as Ausman early in 2004. After an unsuccessful three-week deliberation at the end of a three-month trial, the presiding judge offered to accept a verdict from 10 of the 12 jurors to avoid a hung jury. The jury remained hung and was dismissed on August 1, 2008. Prosecutors threatened a retrial which took place in 2009.
On April 30, 2009, Mohammed Shakil and Wahid Ali were convicted – with Junaid Babar as the primary prosecution witness — of planning to attend “terror training camps” and sentenced to seven years in prison. They and Sadeer Saleem were cleared, however, of scouting the sites for the London bombings.
Note: After enabling terror convictions for Operation Crevice, the “Hostile Sightseeing Plot”, and the shameful case of Syed Hashmi of New York, Mohammed Junaid Babar was sentenced by an American court to only four and a half years of a 70 year sentence. Babar, who pleaded guilty to five counts of terrorism, is widely believed to have worked for the FBI before entrapping — or making the acquaintance of — those whose convictions he enabled.
Appendix C
Why does Germaine Lindsay’s former wife face a reported shoot-to-kill manhunt in 2013?
Jamal/Germaine Lindsay’s wife Samantha Lewthwaite gave birth to their second child shortly after the July 7th, 2005 bombings and made headlines when she insisted that she would only believe her husband was involved in the bombings if his DNA were confirmed. Police claimed that they initially “protected” Lewthwaite after the London bombings “believing she was innocent.” (Police “protection” was in stark contrast to their treatment of Sid Khan’s wife Hasina Patel, who was intimidated and gratuitously jailed for a week at one point!) The “police protection” would have monitored attempts by anyone trying to contact Lewthwaite.
In 2012, seven years after the London bombings, Samantha Lewthwaite’s name was again in headlines, this time with incredible hype. Sources now describe Lewthwaite, a mother with three young children living in East Africa, as a major terrorist connected to Al Shabaab and “the most feared female terrorist since Ulrike Meinhof, founder of the Red Army Faction which carried out bombings across West Germany in the 1970s.” Now the target of a reported shoot-to-kill manhunt, she has “some of the toughest and most resourceful members of the special forces and intelligence community looking for her”, including Scotland Yard, the CIA, and Kenyan police with South African detectives leading the hunt. Dozens of MI5 and MI6 officers are reportedly in Kenya trying to track down British jihadists: Lewthwaite and those around her.
What did Lewthwaite do to be targeted by an international manhunt?
After being reconciled with her family in 2007, Lewthwaite is thought to have become radicalized in 2008. In March 2009, she gave birth to a son Jamal (her first husband’s Muslim name) with no father named. She is closely associated with two Muslims who grew up in London, Jermaine Grant and Habib Saleh Ghani, whom she married. Ghani, a 30-year old, has been described as having a background in explosives. The articles that have been published about Lewthwaite are typically sketchy and full of absurd suppositions. From what can be gleaned about Lewthwaite and her close associates:
|
In August, 2011, Lewthwaite enters Kenya on a forged passport. She and Ghani and Grant seem to share a Mombasa apartment. • From what can be made out from various confusing reports, in December 2011, Kenyan police raid their Mombasa apartment and find “two of the key components of the terror attacks in London” [sic]: acetone (aka nail polish remover) and hydrogen peroxide, a common germ killer. Photographs show bottles of these materials, which may not have come from this apartment. Some articles feature a longer list of items found, including batteries, urea, etc. (Note that the Hallett Inquiry did not find traces of the supposed chemicals at any of the London blast sites.) • Grant, who was married the previous day, is arrested, Lewthwaite and Ghani escape with the children and evade a dragnet. Another “co-conspirator”, Fouad Manswab, fails to show up for bail. • They are all charged with “conspiracy to improvise an explosive device with the intent to cause harm to innocent civilians”. • Lewthwaite does not show up for a hearing on these charges in May 2012 and is then officially on the run. • In 2010, Jermaine Grant, a 26-year old with a rape record, is arrested for illegal entry into Kenya. |
Her treatment begs the question: What is the British Government afraid of?
Appendix D
The arrest of Khan’s widow, and the presentation of his “will”
In May 2007, Metropolitan police arrested Khan’s wife, Hasina Patel, “on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000”, claiming that they had identified her fingerprints in the bathtub “bomb factory.” It appeared that they did not possess samples of Patel’s DNA before her arrest because that was the first thing that she was forced to provide.
While police held Patel for six days, they presented her with what they claimed was Khan’s handwritten will that they had allegedly found “days after the attack”, along with 400 pounds Sterling [about $800 U.S.] that Patel was to spend on toys “for the children.” In her subsequent interview with Sky News, Patel noted that “[the will] all looked very official and there were appendices and things”. In the will, Khan apologizes to Patel for his deceit, effectively exonerating her from any foreknowledge of the July 7th events: "I know you trusted me and for that I thank you. Please forgive me for the deceit, lies and absence. It was to please Allah.”
Despite Patel’s apparent assumption that the will was legitimate, grounds for suspicion include:
|
• How did police come to possess Khan’s will? Where was it? • If police really had come to possess this document that incriminated Khan and provided a motive, why did they wait almost two years to show it? The police claim of “suicide bombers” had been immediately contradicted by the absence of any suicide notes and any believable motives. If police had possessed this document “days after the attacks” why didn’t they make it public? • When police released Hasina Patel and others from their six-day incarceration, a Metropolitan police spokesman "reissued an appeal for information about how the [alleged] bombers were motivated …", which demonstrated the police’s own disbelief in the will’s claim that Khan’s actions were “to please Allah”; • Police didn’t believe the “will” was credible. Since the will explicitly exonerated Hasina Patel, her arrest for complicity demonstrated that the police did not even pretend to take the document seriously; • If police had Khan’s money for his family, why did they keep it for two years? |
Why was Patel arrested and jailed for almost one week with no charges?
It became evident that the actual purposes of Hasina Patel’s arrest was to intimidate her and to present her publicly with Khan’s “will”. Lawyers for Patel lodged a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the six-day incarceration that ended with no charges. The IPCC response was that it would supervise an investigation that would be conducted by the Metropolitan police itself!
Hasina Patel was interviewed eleven weeks later at Sky News. She appeared to be very vulnerable and seemed to accept that her husband had, in fact, committed a suicide bombing. Yet it was clear that she had had no clue from either Khan’s personality or his attitudes that he could conceivably have committed such an act. She claimed that Khan had never expressed any anger about Britain and its role in world events. Quoting selectively from Sky’s “full” transcripts (Sky, 2007), Patel said that “… I kept thinking that something was wrong, I don’t know, that maybe it was a set up, … I didn’t even have any inkling towards his views even going in that direction … I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams, never. “The last time she saw Khan was in the hospital when she was bleeding in her pregnancy; he left with: “Just a normal goodbye, I’ll see you later, I’ll be back in a few hours kind of thing.”
On watching the tape shown of Khan in August 2005, Patel noted: “’What I saw on TV is just a completely different person.” There is a mysterious deletion in both of Sky’s “full transcripts” when Patel responds to the question: “Were there ever times … when you thought that nugget of information would have been good for the police?” Patel responded: “Everyone that he knew can say that he just seemed like a normal person, in fact, probably “. One version cuts off the sentence after the word “probably” and cuts to a “Part two”; a second “full transcript” puts a period at the end of “in fact.” and rearranges the order of the interview. In the video, that question was deleted. While this interview has been widely described as Patel denouncing her husband, the actual Sky question was: “And [do you] condemn what happened on that day?” to which Patel responded: “I completely condemn what happened.”
Appendix E
A file of significant newspaper articles
• Foreknowledge was demonstrated by this article, published two hours after the bombings.
Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack: Rules of conflict for a world war
By Efraim Halevi, The Jerusalem Post, 07/07/05
"The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.
"There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.
"One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone’s throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel. It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a renowned chemist, presided over the effort that culminated in the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still a part of the Ottoman Empire.
"We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy. There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, consequently 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) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9410.htm
On July 13, 2005, Police admit missing body of fourth bomber:
The suicide bomb plot hatched in Yorkshire
By Jason Bennetto and Ian Herbert
The Independent Wednesday 13 July 2005
The terrorists responsible for the Tube and bus attacks in London have been revealed as home-grown suicide bombers.
The four young British men, all thought to be of Pakistani origin, are believed to have blown themselves up with rucksack bombs on Thursday, killing at least 52 people.
Three of the bodies of the terrorists responsible for what was the first suicide bombing in western Europe have been identified, while a fourth is thought to be among the remains in the wreckage on the Piccadilly line between King’s Cross and Russell Square.
Police raids at six homes in north Yorkshire yesterday also led to one arrest. But senior security sources warned last night that they suspected al-Qa’ida planners bomb-makers and organisers were still at large and further suicide bombings were likely. The four men, including one teenager, all from Leeds and Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, were not considered Islamic extremists and were not thought to have significant links with terrorism.
The realisation that British nationals are prepared to make suicide attacks has transformed the way the country will have to view security.
"What we considered normal has changed forever," said a senior security source.
Security measures at all public places will have to be rethought. Tough new security laws are also expected to be introduced to try to combat the threat.
Anti-terrorist officers raided houses in Leeds and Dewsbury where they found a "bomb factory" believed to belong to at least one of the terrorists.
Explosives were also found in a car at Luton railway station, which is thought to have been used by the bombers to drive from Leeds on Thursday.
Police searched Colenso Mount in Leeds, the home of Hasib Hussain, believed to be responsible for the bomb on the No 30 bus that blew up in Tavistock Square. They also raided Colwyn Road in Leeds, the home of Shahzad Tanweer, believed to be responsible for the Aldgate blast.
It is understood that 19-year-old Hussain’s driving licence and credit cards were found in the wreckage of the No 30 bus. The bus bomber is thought to have failed to get on a Northern line train so boarded a bus instead. For some reason he detonated his bomb nearly an hour after his fellow terrorists had exploded theirs.
Tanweer, age 23, the man believed to have been responsible for the Aldgate blast, was seen by police officers on CCTV footage. Scotland Yard said the footage of the four men at King’s Cross station shows them with their rucksack bombs minutes before the attacks.
Tanweer and Hussain’s houses were among six raided by West Yorkshire Police. The men are known to have been missing since last week. Tanweer, who was said by neighbours near his home in the Beeston area of Leeds, to have been a university graduate and keen local cricketer, had not been at home since last week, which had been a cause of concern for his father Mohammed, who runs a chip shop near the family home.
His friend, Azzy Mohammed, said: "We played cricket together and I could not imagine him doing anything to hurt anyone as he has a very strong family."
Hussain, from the Holbeck of Leeds, is understood to have been the subject of attempts at discipline by his parents after becoming difficult to control in his adolescence. But he became devoutly religious 18 months ago and is believed to have gone to London last week, since which time he has not been seen or contacted,despite the efforts of his older brother.
Detectives evacuated 500 homes before carrying out a controlled explosion in the Burley district of Leeds.
The breakthrough in the investigation came at 8pm on Monday when detectives found a CCTV picture of the four bombers at King’s Cross station 20 minutes before they blew themselves up.
But a senior security source warned last night: "We have not got the plotters or planners. Al-Qa’ida methodology is to put someone into the country they do the preparation and they are out the door."
He said the fear remained that whoever helped the four bombers has recruited and trained other British suicide attackers. "How many other clean skins are waiting in the wings?" he said.
Only one of the three identified suicide bombers had any known connection to al-Qa’ida suspects, and it was a very low level of association, according to security sources.
Hours after the Leeds raids, police evacuated Luton railway station and car park as they recovered two vehicles, one of which was later found to have explosives inside.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch, said: "The investigation is moving at great speed.
"We are trying to establish the movements of the suspects in the run-up to last week’s attack and specifically to establish whether they all died in the explosions."
Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, leading the police hunt, said the bombings were the work of "extremists and criminals".
Tony Blair issued a defiant statement saying: "Together, our modern, diverse and tolerant country will ensure the terrorists fail in their attempts to destroy the way of life we all share and value."
The final death toll from Thursday’s attacks is expected to rise above 52, with police assigning family liaison officers to more than 70 families.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-suicide-bomb-plot-hatched-in-yorkshire-498616.html
• One of many reputable papers documenting the July 7th killing of “suicide bombers”:
‘Police shot bombers’ reports New Zealander
5:00 AM Saturday Jul 9, 2005
A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.
The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).
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, the New Zealand man said.
He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.
Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.
Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.
Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334992
• Two articles on Jamal Lindsay’s survival of July 7:
AYLESBURY WAS ’30 MINUTES FROM EVACUATION’
Published on Tuesday 25 October 2005 13:49
(TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25) Aylesbury was just 30 minutes away from a full evacuation following the July 7 bombings when anti-terrorism police first connected the town to the terror attacks in London, The Bucks Herald can reveal.
New details emerged last week about the immediate threat police believed Germaine Lindsay posed to the public after the suicide bombings on London’s transport network rocked the capital.
A day after the attacks Chief Superintendent Simon Chesterman, the most senior police officer in Bucks, arrived at his office at Aylesbury Police Station to be confronted by Scotland Yard’s counter terrorism unit.
Detectives believed that Lindsay, the Kings Cross bomber who killed 26 people, was, in fact, a fifth bomber, was still alive and posed an immediate threat to public safety.
Officers had discovered the car of Germaine Lindsay, who lived in Northern Road, abandoned at Luton train station, where he travelled to London with three other bombers.
What followed, said Chief Supt Chesterman, was the biggest police operation he had ever witnessed in 22 years on the force. He said: "On July 8 I arrived in my office to be confronted by a team from the anti-terrorist squad."
*For a more in-depth story please see last week’s Bucks Herald. http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/aylesbury_was_30_minutes_from_evacuation_1_600516
Aylesbury house is searched in effort to find associates
• By Sam Jones The Guardian, Thursday 14 July 2005 03.36 BST
The search for potential associates of the London bombers turned last night to Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, where police raided a house.
More than 50 officers – many armed – sealed off Northern Road at around 7pm before entering the house.
No arrests were made but Scotland Yard confirmed that the raid, which was conducted jointly with Thames Valley police, was connected to last week’s bombings in London.
Aylesbury is about 20 miles from Luton, Bedfordshire, where a vehicle thought to be linked to the attacks was towed away yesterday.
The raid focused on a house at the far end of Northern Road.
A resident of the street said a man in his 20s had moved in to the cottage three weeks ago, and that the house had been under surveillance for almost 24 hours before last night’s raid.
"I knew something was going on earlier because I noticed a suspicious-looking van parked in the road and reported its number to the police," said Daphne Sibley, the road’s Neighbourhood Watch coordinator. "They told me that it was a plain clothes surveillance officer."
Another resident, Paul Chilton, saw the police arriving as he left home to take his daughters off to a school disco.
"I noticed a Land-Rover which looked like an armed response vehicle and I thought that was a bit strange," said Mr Chilton, 40. "I dropped the girls off and set out for a Neighbourhood Watch meeting when, lo and behold, I saw about 30 or 40 police.
"Some were in plain clothes and some were in uniform and had guns, shields, and bulletproof vests. They were around number 10. I don’t know the people who live there, but I don’t think they were there when the police came."
Mr Chilton, a market trader, added: "You always think that something like this will happen to someone else, but it’s actually been quite nice.
"There are one or two Muslim families who live on the street and they came out and we all had a chat. I think they are all embarrassed about what happened last Thursday.
"The raid was a bit of a shock but we had quite a chuckle at the Neighbourhood Watch meeting, even though not very many people turned up."
It also emerged that the occupant of the house was last seen by neighbours on Friday – the day after the bombings – loading items into the boot of his red car, which was parked in Northern Road.
Despite the heavy police presence, around 100 people, many of them young Asian men, gathered at the scene. Some of them heckled the police until a councillor and former mayor of the town, Raj Khan, appeared and pleaded for calm.
One man, who did not wish to be identified, said: "People should really be asking questions about Tony Blair and the war. Dozens of people die in bomb attacks every day in Baghdad and we never hear about it."
Mr Khan said: "This could turn bad." He asked people to go home and show their feelings by instead taking part in today’s two-minute silence.
Nikman Hussain, a county councillor and town councillor for Aylesbury, said he was told by official sources that the house had been raided because of suspected links with the hire car found in Luton.
Police said late last night that the cordon would soon be lifted, and that they were scaling down the operation. A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard said: "We can confirm that officers from the anti-terrorist branch, supported by officers from Thames Valley police, this evening executed a search warrant issued under the Terrorism Act at residential premises in Buckinghamshire.
"A detailed forensic examination is expected to be carried out and may take some time. This is in connection with the investigation into the terrorist attacks in London."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/14/july7.uksecurity11
Karin Brothers is an Associate Member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
August 18, 2008. While the author retains copyright, this information may be used with attribution.
June 30, 2013 ************************************
Chronology of events relating to the July 7th explosions
2001
Bob Kiley, the former CIA Manager of Intelligence Operations (who served as Executive Assistant to the Director of US Intelligence, Richard Helms) and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, signed a four-year contract to be the Commissioner and Chairman of London Transport and the world’s highest-paid civil servant.
16 May 2004 A BBC Panorama program, London Under Attack, depicted a fictional terrorist attack involving three bombs on London Underground trains, followed by a fourth bomb on overground transportation device in central London about an hour later. The programme featured ‘mock broadcasts’ put together by the BBC and featured BBC World relief presenter Kirsty Lang. In the mock broadcasts used in the show, Lang announced the conclusion of the Home Secretary that the fictional attack, ‘bears all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda’. The programme featured the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, as an advisor and commentator throughout (2)..
4-8 April 2005 The anti-terror drill ‘Exercise Atlantic Blue’ (UK-US-Canada) played out terrorist attacks on UK transport networks that coincided with a major international summit. It aimed to ascertain ‘how safe London Transport systems were from attack’ and included bombs being placed on buses and also explosives left on the London Underground. Over two thousand UK personnel were involved in planning and delivery of the exercise (3). It was a ‘command post’ exercise, which meant that it worked on a strategic rather than an operational level and did not involve live action on the ground. The concurrent American exercise with Homeland Security, involved several times more personnel and did involve live action on the ground, was codenamed TOPOFF 3.
September 20, 2004
• Metronet Rail selected Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel’s Comverse Technology, to enhance security of the London Underground. Verint’s Networked Video Solution “enables government and commercial organizations to enhance the security of their facilities by networking video across multiple locations and applying advanced content analytics to extract actionable intelligence from live and stored video.” The system will enable security personnel to monitor passenger platforms and certain remote portions of the track.
June 7, 2005
The Inquiries Act becomes law, giving the executive full control of all inquiries, making a truly "independent" inquiry impossible. As described by the July 7th Truth Campaign: The act legislates full control of every aspect of any public inquiry to the executive, allowing the State to block scrutiny of State actions, shut down avenues of inquiry at will, suppress publication of information, and a raft of other things that are counter to conducting an honest and open public inquiry. The act was labelled "the public inquiries cover-up bill" and was drafted in response to the calls for a public inquiry into the murder of Human Rights Lawyer Patrick Finucane, … After investigating the killing, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens concluded there had been collusion and collaboration between Mr Finucane’s killers and members of the British security forces. [http://julyseventh.co.uk/]
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 suspicious photo, with a 7:21 time stamp, shows only four hard-to-identify men who are alone in the station.).
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. [a CCTV photo released in 2010 shows four unidentifiable men at the Thameslink station]
8:30 am
Three of the men were then supposed to have taken trains going West, East and South of King’s’ Cross.
8:32 am
A woman taking a subway at Holborn is warned not to use the trains because of a “power surge”; she takes an almost- empty train to Kings Cross station, where she then hears about the explosions. She shows her ticket to prove this timing at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaYKPrR6Q80
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]. [Trackernet analysis indicates that the Aldgate explosion occurred at 8:46 a.m., several minutes earlier.]
8:51 am
London Underground and Metronet report a dangerous power surge (denied by National Grid)
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; after initial denials, police admit to having made a “controlled explosion”.
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. • "Hours after the explosions” • While Scotland Yard reports that the subway bombs occurred about 45 minutes apart, a July 7th article in the Jerusalem Post – published two hours after the bombings — by 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". Later that day, The Jerusalem Post reports that the Israeli government instructs a shutdown of further comments on the London bombings. • 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. • Peter Powers, of Visor Consultants, appears on TV to explain how his company, Visor Consultants, ran the “1000-person emergency-preparedness operation” for three simultaneous subway explosions at the same three tube stations that were attacked and at the same time. • The Guardian reports 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) • July 8th • Metropolitan Police deliver a substantial package of evidence relating to Khan and Tanweer – 13 VHS tapes and 226 CDs of intercepted conversations, which included transcripts, audiotapes, surveillance records, an index of statements and photographs — to Canadian authorities in connection with the “Operation Crevice” case against Momin Khawaja, who had been arrested in Ottawa in March 2004. • Scotland Yard makes 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.
Sunday, July 10th an article by Quest President John Stevens (former head of the Metropolitan Police Services) is published describing the bombers as well-dressed and educated British citizens.
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 on CCTV tapes 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 a reputation as a party animal who would dye his hair blonde. DNA tests are allegedly conducted on the Piccadilly Line carriage to identify the remains of he fourth bomber.” • 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, although police retracted the claim that they had identified the material a week later. • 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". Police retracted the claim that they had identified the material the next week. • Samantha Lindsay reports her husband missing to the police, who promptly search her home. • Despite the government accusation about the “suicide bombers”, Peter Clarke, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch admits that they are missing the body of the “fourth bomber.” (Bennetto, Herbert, 2005) Police also note the absence of Khan’s body at the Edgware site. |
Thursday July 14th
• Despite British denials, French officials point out that some of the accused were known to British intelligence in connection with “Operation Crevice.”
• 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.
Saturday, July 16
Germaine Lindsay officially confirmed as fourth “suicide bomber”
Thursday July 21
• Four Afro-British men detonate copycat "bombs" that they later claim were hair gel and flour with detonators.
Metropolitan police chief Ian Blair meets with Prime Minister Tony Blair about providing maximum legal protection to officers who shoot “suicide bomb suspects”; evidence indicates that police were given permission to kill without direct orders. Blair allows the Met to bar the IPCC from a timely inspection of the next day’s murder site.
Friday July 22
|
• 4:30 a.m. Police claim to discover Abdi Omar’s gym membership with 21 Scotia Road address in Osman’s bag.. DSO Cressida Dick calls for the elite CO19 team to show up at 21 Scotia Road from 5 am onwards to look for either Abdi Omar or would-be bomber Hussein Osman, both North Africans. • 6 .a.m. Elite surveillance team SRR has electronic surveillance set up on 21 Scotia Road with video cameras transmitting to the police headquarters for identification confirmation. • 8.45 am Elite firearms team is armed with special “dum dum” bullets after being told they face determined suicide bombers, and “must be up for it.” • 9:33 a.m. De Menezes leaves 21 Scotia Road for work; he is immediately identified as a “Northern European white male”. Two elite surveillance teams are dispatched by Met headquarters to follow him, one on foot, the other by car. De Menezes takes a 30 minute journey, taking bus No. 2 to Brixton station (which was closed for a “security alert”, then retraces his steps to catch the next No. 2 bus to the next subway station, Stockwell. • 10 a.m. Marksman “C12” is waiting in an unmarked car outside Stockwell station. Stockwell subway operator Quincy Akpesiri Oji gets into train to see that the light is red, which was unusual; the train will not move until the light is green. Surveillance officer “Ivor” has entered the waiting subway car. • 10.03 am De Menezes enters Stockwell tube station with his identifying Oyster card. Elite firearms unit is taken to "state red" with “hard stop” instruction from DSO Cressida Dick to stop his entry. • 10.04 am Agent “C12” sprints into the station after de Menezes, vaulting ticket barriers. • “Ivor” goes to train door to meet C12 and marksmen who are entering the car saying, “He’s here,” pointing to an unpreturbed de Menezes who was seated. • 10:06 a.m. Agents pin de Menezes down and pump 11 dum dum bullets into him at 3 second intervals, for 30 seconds. Passengers and the train operator flee; the site is closed by police for several hours. • The Independent Police Complaints Commission, authorized to investigate police murders, is barred – -with the Prime Minister’s permission– from the murder scene for several hours. Pathologist Shorrock called to scene. • The police start a disinformation campaign to rationalize the killing. Scotland Yard refuses to identify the killer(s) or to hold an independent inquiry to explain why they killed de Menezes. |
Saturday July 23
Naveed Fiaz is released without charge.
July 2005
Khalid Khaliq volunteers to assist police with the 7/7 investigation.
August 7, 2005
• Haroon Rashid Aswat, who had been in close contact with all of the accused men the weeks previous to July 7th, is arrested in UK on arrival reportedly from Zambia, where he had been detained.
• August 24, 2005
The Guardian reports that Metropolitan police are holding the bodies of all of the alleged suicide bombers for reconstruction and analysis. The families are not given the opportunity to identify the bodies of the accused.
September 1, 2005
• A tape appears of Mohammad Sidique Khan (reportedly as he looked in 2004 and with a Palestinian-type scarf) expressing anger at British policy. The full tape, which included an edited-in clip of Al Qaida’s al Zwahiri, is not shown publicly.
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.
November 2005
• The Commissioner and Chairman of London Transport, former CIA official Bob Kiley , announces that he will leave his post in January, three years earlier than expected.
•
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 confirm the official version of the events and recommend a higher security budget.
July 5, 2006
• An American broadcaster claims that a tape of Shezad Tanweer will appear the next day on Al Jazeera.
July 6, 2006
• A tape of Tanweer as he looked in 2004 and strikingly similar to the video of Khan (including a Palestinian –type scarf), is aired on al Jazeera 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.
July 11, 2006
• Home Secretary John Reid acknowledges that the commuter trains that the government claimed that the accused men took on July 7th, were not operating on schedule that morning. With no claim of evidence, Reid assumes they must have taken the previous train!
July 17, 2006
• Crown Prosecution Service decides that no one will be held personally responsible for de Menezes’ death, and in September the inquest is adjourned indefinitely.
January 2007
• BBC suddenly scraps docu-drama plan about the accused and Jean Charles de Menezes.
•
March 2007
• Mohammad Shakil, Sadeer Saleem, and Waheed Ali, (aka Shipon Ullah], the only persons to be charged in connection with the July 7, 2005 bombings; were charged with conspiracy for the alleged "dummy run" in June 2005; the period of investigation excluded July 7th. Their 3-month trial for “hostile reconnaissance” ended in August 1, 2008 with a hung jury.
April 30, 2007
• Two acquitted, five convicted to life sentences for "Fertilizer Plot". [The accused have been intimidated by threats to their families in Pakistan and refuse to defend themselves.] Khan and Tanweer, named as associates, were photographed and identified by MI5 on February 2, 2004.
May 9, 2007
• 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 keep Khan’s widow for a week in isolation, 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.
• Imran Motala claims police accuse him of being the “fifth bomber” who lost his nerve on July 7; he is released after a week with no charges.
• 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 became evident that MI5 withheld photos 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 "pre-emptive 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” the London bombings in a Sky interview.
July 9, 2007
• Four men were found guilty of plotting to bomb London’s transport network on 21 July 2005. Muktar Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, and Hussain Osman, 28, (also known as Osman Hussain, Hamdi Isaac or Hamdi Adus Isaac) were convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder. Manfo Asiedu and Adel Yahya to be retried despite hung jury. Mr Justice Fulford QC had offered to accept a majority verdict of 10 to 2.
•
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 since 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.
November 9/13, 2007
• Manfo Asiedu, accused of being the fifth bomber on July 21, 2005, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause explosions after the charge of conspiracy to murder was dropped. Adel Yahya, who had the job of sourcing bomb ingredients, was sentenced to six years and nine months after admitting a lesser charge of collecting information useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
February 26, 2008
• Mohammed Hamid, was found guilty of training men to prepare them to fight abroad. Among those to have passed through Hamid’s camps were the four failed suicide bombers of 21 July 2005.
March 11, 2008
• Khalid Khaliq, 34, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison for possession of a CD with information publicly available on a US Ministry of Justice website. The CD had been produced in the Iqra learning centre by former Hell’s Angel Martin Gilbertson.
August 1, 2008
• The three-month trial of Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, the only people to be tried in connection with the July 7, 2005 explosions, ended with a hung jury. It was alleged that they took a London "hostile reconnaissance mission" (sightseeing trip) in Dec. 2004 with Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay, visiting areas which bore a "striking similarity" to those where the bombs would be detonated the next year [They did not use subways!]. Longtime friends of Khan and Tanweer, their DNA was identified at the Leeds bathtub apartment. A retrial took place in 2009 in which Ali and Shakil were found guilty of conspiracy for planning to attend a training camp for terrorists in 2007; they admitted to attending such camps before it had been made an offence. They were sentenced to seven years.
August 1, 2008
• A report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), the Westminster body that oversees MI5 and MI6, that was due to be published in September 2008 on the investigation that followed the July 7th attacks, may be delayed as a result of the hung jury.
August 12, 2008
• According to The Guardian on August 13, 2008, (“’Snooper’s charter’ to check texts and emails”) over a thousand British public bodies — including local councils and health authorities — are to be given the power to access details of everyone’s personal text, emails and Internet use (including VOID, such as Skype) under Home Office proposals published Aug. 12, 2008. These proposals stem from measures proposed (to both the UK and the EU) after the July 7th, 2005 explosions by the then home secretary Charles Clarke, who claimed that they were needed to investigate terrorist plots and organised crime. But the present Home Office document makes clear that the personal data (now to be retained for 12 – 24 months) will have to be made available to all public bodies licensed under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) for all purposes. The government intends to go one step further this autumn by introducing a draft communications bill which would require all the telecommunications companies to hand over this data to one central "super" database so that the police and other public authorities will be able to access it directly without having to make a request each time to the record holders.
Sept. 8, 2008
• British intelligence services suffer a blow when a jury in the “Heathrow case” refuses to convict any of eight men on terrorist charges regarding suicide bombers armed with explosive liquids on airliners to North America: after the trial, intelligence sources attempted to link the self-described leader, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, to those involved in July 2005 events.
• After three months of evidence in one of the most protracted and complex terrorist cases in Britain, the jury convicted only three of eight defendants of conspiracy to commit murder and reached no verdicts against four others, despite judge David Calvery-Smith’s ordering a two-week jury break and then allowing a majority verdict with as few as 10 of the 12 jurors in agreement. The jurors found three men – Mr. Abdulla Ahmed Ali, aged 27; Assad Sarwar, 28; and Tanvir Hussain, 27 – guilty, on a vote of 10 to 2, of conspiracy to commit murder; Ali and Sarwar had become very affected by witnessing children’s injuries when volunteering for a British Islamic charity in Afghanistan. But the jury failed to reach verdicts against any of the eight men on the plane-bombing charges, and similarly reached no verdicts on any of the charges against four other men- Umar Islam, aged 30; Arafat Waheed Khan, aged 26; Ibrahim Savant, aged 27; and Waheed Zaman, aged 24. According to the New York Times of Sept. 8th, Scotland Yard terrorism experts said that a key role in the plot appeared to have been played by Mohammed Gulzar, aged 26, the only defendant to be found not guilty on all charges on Monday and set free.
• This case damaged the credibility of all of the intelligence services; a retrial is expected. The Independent of September 9, 2008, reported that “Operation Overt, which began early in 2006, was one of the largest conducted by Scotland Yard and the biggest peacetime surveillance operation, involving officers from MI5, the Metropolitan Police and other forces around the country”. After the trial, they used hypothetical language to try to make connections to the July 2005 events, claiming that “Ali was in contact with the mastermind of the failed 21 July bombings. Muktar Said Ibrahim called Ali in 2004 and officials believe they may have met in Pakistan between December 2004 and May 2005. The visits coincided with the presence in Pakistan of two 7 July conspirators, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. All three groups planned terror assaults using bombs based on hydrogen peroxide [sic].” [emphases added] The fact that Ibrahim called Ali in 2004 shows that there was little relationship, but the media’s linking of these names in a prejudicial and unsubstantiated context creates the illusion of connections to unwary readers.
September 22, 2008
The inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes in Stockwell Tube station London on the 22nd of July 2005 was started in September 2008 at the Oval cricket ground in South London and presided over by High Court Judge Sir Michael Wright QC; it continues as of December 2008.
Security was so tight that those attending the inquest were not permitted to see the faces of the killers, who testified behind a screen. A photographer who tried to take a picture of one of them was arrested, a warning was issued that any such attempts would be considered a breach of the peace.
December 2, 2008
The coroner, Sir Michael Wright, instructed jurors that they will only be allowed to return a verdict of lawful killing or an “open” verdict and that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to individuals.
December 12, 2008
The De Menezes’ lawyers plan to appeal the Coroner’s instructions to the jury disallowing an “unlawful” verdict. The Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) are to review its earlier decision that no individual officer should face criminal charges.
January 21, 2009
• ITV’s “Stockwell” shown, based on “police and eyewitness” accounts of de Menezes’ death.
• February 13
• The CPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the two officers who killed de Menezes had lied in their accounts; they will not face prosecution.
February 14
• The de Menezes family will not challenge the Coroner’s instructions barring the “unlawful” verdict but does plan to sue Scotland Yard for damages in Jean Charles’ death.
April 30, 2009
Khan and Tanweer’s friends Waheed Ali, 25 and Mohammed Shakil, 32, with Junaid Babar’s testimony, were sentenced to 7 years for planning to attend a training camp in Pakistan in 2007; they, along with Sadeer Saleem were cleared of helping to select the targets of the London bombings.
May 15
Justice secretary Jack Straw has had to abandon plans to hold parts of inquests (in national security cases such as the de Menezes’ execution) in secret and without a jury. Instead, the government will consider holding an official inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act [giving the executive branch full control] in cases where “national security” precludes an open public inquest.
May 25, 2009
The Special Branch Officer identified as “Owen”, who admitted deleting evidence from his computer before speaking to the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, was cleared today by an official investigation. The IPCC found no evidence of "deliberate deception”.
Nov. 23, 2009 The De Menezes family settles with the Met. Police for L100,000+ plus legal expenses.
April 2010
Lady Justice Hallett plans a 2010 inquest into the London Bombings. Khan’s widow Hasina Patel requests legal aid for counsel to explore why her late husband and the others were involved in the July 7 bombings. With the response that the families of the accused should know why, they will be excluded.
April 30, 2010
West Yorkshire Police admit to having Khan’s fingerprints from arrests in 1986 and 1993
May 21, 2010
Despite MI5 claims of dire consequences to national security, Lady Justice Hallett will hold an inquest without a jury into the London bombings which will scrutinize the possible police and security role starting from July 2004; inquests into the deaths of the “suicide bombers” may be held later.
August 27th Lord Justice Thomas rejects Patel’s request for legal aid
October-December 2010 Hallett Inquest is held.
May 2011
The Hallett verdict is that the 52 “unlawful killings” were due only to the “suicide bombers” rather than incompetence of the security forces or of extraordinary delays in receiving medical help. She refuses to hold an inquiry for the four men accused of the London bombings.
August 2, 2011
The last legal challenge is abandoned requesting an inquiry into the July 7 attacks.
August 2011
Samantha Lewthwaite enters Kenya on an illegal passport.
December 2011
Lewthwaite’s Mombasa apartment is raided: police claim to find “key chemicals” used in the London bombings [sic]
March 2012
Lewthwaite does not show up for a hearing on the bomb charges and becomes “wanted”.
Notes and Appendices
Major References and Suggested Reading
The web site for the July 7th Truth Campaign at www.julyseventh.co.uk This web site has extensive documentation on the accused 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 Qaeda- 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
The web site http://jforjustice.co.uk/ includes links to DVDs on 7/7 including “7/7 Ripple Effect”.
WORKS CITED
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
Addley, Esther. 2011. “7/7 bus bomber jostled passengers with deadly backpack, inquest told” The Guardian. January 12. Retrieved August 25, 2012 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/12/77-july-7-bomber-inquest?INTCMP=SRCH
Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. 2006. The London Bombings, London: Duckworth
Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. 2005. The War on Truth. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press
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=AKL20050930&articleId=1024
Antagonist. 2005. London 7/7: Number 30 Bus Explosion – Photos & Questions. 1 September 2005. Anything that defies my sense of reason. , retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
Http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2005/09/london-77-number-30-bus-explosion.html
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
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
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_4265400/4265472.stm
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
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
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_10_629.swf
BBC, 8/2008. Victims reflect on 7/7 bombings. Friday August 1. BBC, video retrieved August 12, 2008 at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7498432.stm
BBC, 2013. Haroon Aswat US extradition rejected by court. April 16. BBC. Retrieved July 20, 2013 at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22165302
Bennetto, J, Herbert, I, 2005. The suicide bomb plot hatched in Yorkshire. 13 July. The Independent. Retrieved July 9, 2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-suicide-bomb-plot-hatched-in-yorkshire-498616.html
Bennetto, J, Sengupta, K. 2005. Bus bomber stopped for a Big Mac before killing started. 25 August. The Independent. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bus-bomber-stopped-for-a-big-mac-before-killing-started-504122.html
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
Bucks Herald, The. 2005. Aylesbury was ’30 minutes from evacuation’. Tuesday, October 25. The Bucks Herald. Retrieved July 28, 2011 at: http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/aylesbury_was_30_minutes_from_evacuation_1_600516
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
Casciani, Dominic, 2007. Was it linked to 7/7? Wednesday, 11 July 2007. Retrieved July 9, 2013 at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6249118.stm
Chossudovsky, 2001. Chossudovsky, M. Who Is Osama Bin Laden? 12 September. Centre for Research on Globalisation. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
Chossudovsky, 8/1 2005. Chossudovsky, M, London 7/7 Terror Suspect Linked to British Intelligence? August 1, Centre for Research on Globalisation. retrieved July 7, 2008 at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782
Chossudovsky, Michel. 8/8 2005. 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks? 8 Aug. Centre for Research on Globalisation. Retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&articleId=821
Televised interview “Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal” at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc
Cobain, I, Dodd, V. 2005. ‘Third man’ tells of bomb hunt ordeal Gym 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
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
Cowan, Rosie, 2005. “Type of explosive still not identified” . July 20. The Guardian, retrieved Sept. 10, 2012 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/20/july7.uksecurity4
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
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
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
Gardham, Duncan, 2007. Police let the July 21 bombers slip the net. July 10. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 25, 2012 at: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=2052&st=7 ]
Glendinning, Lee, 2008. Bomb plotter’s wife jailed for 15 years. Thursday, June 12. The Guardian. Retrieved August 25, 2012 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/12/ukcrime.uksecurity
Griffin, David Ray. 2004. The New Pearl Harbor. Olive Branch Press. Northampton: Massachusetts.
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
Guardian 11/2005. Bombers ‘tracked before July 7’. Thursday November 3. The Guardian. retrieved on July 20, 2013 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/03/july7.uksecurity
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
Herbert, Ian. 2005. Hussain’s Story: Family struggle to understand why their gentle boy became a bomber. 2 August. The Independent, Retrieved July 7, 2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hussains-story-family-struggle-to-understand-why-their-gentle-boy-became-a-bomber-501162.html
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
Hughes, Mark, 2008. De Menezes ‘was killed without warning’ October 31. The Independent. Retrieved on Nov. 3, 2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/de-menezes-was-killed-without-warning-980241.html
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+COMMITTEE+REPORT+INTO+THE+LONDON+TERRORIST+ATTACKS+ON+7+JULY+2005.html
Investigating the terror, 2012. 7/7: Seven documents that prove the official story cannot be true. June 30. Investigating the terror.com. Retrieved on July 21, 2013 at: http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/7_7__seven__documents_that_prove_the_official_story_cannot_be_true.htm
J7 blogspot Khan. The identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan.:J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. Tuesday, November 30, 2010. Accessed July 28, 2011 at:
Http://77inquests.blogspot.com/search/label/Mohammed%20Sidique%20Khan?updated-max=2011-02-18T14%3A22%3A00Z&max-results=20 and retrieved on July 4, 2013 at:
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/identification-of-mohammed-sidique-khan.html
J7 blogspot Tanweer. The July 7th Truth Campaign. Accessed July 28, 2011 at:
Http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/77-inquests-disintegration-of-shehzad.html
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
J7:Evidence. J7 7/7 CCTV ‘Evidence’ Analysis: The CCTV images deconstructed: ANALYSIS OF THE CCTV IMAGES RELEASED. n.d. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html
J7 Operation Crevice Information & Analysis. The Entrapment of Omar Khyam: Part Two. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved on August 25, 2012 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/crevice/entrapment-of-omar-khyam-part-2.html
J7 Profile: Hussain. J7 Profile: Hasib Mir Hussain (Age: 18). J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-hasib-mir-hussain.html
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
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
The July 7th Truth Campaign: Capitalizing on Terror: Who is really destroying our Freedoms? Feb. 25, 2007. Retrieved July 8, 2012 at: http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-article-capitalising-on-terror.html
.[ The July 7th Truth Campaign The 7/7 Terror Rehearsal Visor Consultants’ ‘simultaneous bombs’ rehearsal on 7 July 2005 [7.2.2008) http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html
J7 update, 2006. Update to “THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY”. 24 June 2006. J7: July 7th Truth Campaign Blog. Retrieved July 6, 2008 at: http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2006/06/update-to-impossible-train-journey_24.html
Jones, Sam. 2005. Aylesbury house is searched in effort to find associates. Thursday, July 14. The Guardian. Retrieved on July 28, 2011 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/14/july7.uksecurity11
Kollerstrom, Nick, 2011. 7/7 What went bang? Feb 12. Terror on the Tube. Accessed on Sept. 11, 2012 at: http://terroronthetube.co.uk/inquest-articles/77-what-went-bang/
Laville, Sandra, 2008. De Menezes police ‘had unclear orders’. November 6. The Guardian. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2008 at: Http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/06/menezes-inquest-paddick
Leppard, David. 2006. Police tracking bug found in 7/7 mastermind’s car. Sunday, June 25. The Sunday Times. Retrieved July 20, 2013 at: http://www.thedossier.info/news_articles/times_police-tracking-bug-found-in-7-7-masterminds-car.pdf
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 now at:
Watson, Steve. 2005. Terror Expert: 7/7 Mastermind was working for British intelligence. August 2. Infowars.net retrieved Sept. 25, 2012 at: http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/020805Aswat.html
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
Margolis, Eric. Lies, More Lies, And Damn Lies. 18 July 2007. Information Clearing House. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18032.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. 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
McGrory, D., and Evans, M. 2005. Hunt for the master of explosives. 13 July. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1692033,00.html
McVeigh, Karen. 2011. July 7 bomb factory revealed at inquest.Tuesday Feb.1. The Guardian. Retrieved on Sept. 10, 2012 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity
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%2526quot%3B_of_de_menezes_killing
Morgan, Tom and Davis, Margaret, 2008. Pathologist given false details over Menezes death, inquest told. November 5. The Independent retrieved Nov. 6, 2008 at: Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pathologist-given-false-details-over-menezes-death-inquest-told-993987.html
Morgan, Tom, 2008. Police were out of control, says witness. November 3. The Independent. Retrieved on November 5, 2008 at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/menezes-police-were-out-of-control-says-witness-988429.html
Muad’Dib. Chapter 4: The Four Muslims: Actors or Patsies?. 7/7 Ripple Effect. retrieved August 18, 2008 at: http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ and http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/#4
Muad’Dib. Chapter 6: The Number 30 Bus. 7/7 Ripple Effect. retrieved July 8, 2008 at: http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ and http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/#6
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
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
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
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/testimony/2006/NiblettTestimony060405.pdf+robin+niblett&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4
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
Pallister, David. 2005. UK-based dissident denies link to website that carried al-Qaida claim. The Guardian. Saturday July 9. Retrieved at July 28, 2011 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/09/july7.uksecurity11
Percival, Jenny, 10/2008. De Menezes police would have killed without orders, inquest hears. October 15. The Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2008 at: Http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/15/12
Percival, Jenny and agencies, 11/2008. Orders given to police who shot Jean Charles de Menezes were ‘ambiguous’ November 5. The Guardian retrieved Nov. 7, 2008 at: Http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/05/de-menezes-pathologist-inquest
Perlez, Jane. Sciolino, Elaine. 2007. 5 Britons Guilty in Bomb Plot; Tied to 2005 London Attackers. May 1. New York Times. Retrieved on August 25, 2012 at Http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/world/europe/01crevice.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp
Rook, Katie. 2005. A massive rush of policemen. July 7. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at: Http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050707.wcanar0707/PPVStory?URL_Article_ID=RTGAM.20050707.wcanar0707&DENIED=1
Saleh, H, Negus, S. , Burns, J. 2005. “Police continue to question scientist.” Monday, July 18, Financial Times, retrieved Sept. 10, 2005 at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9a8103c-f6f4-11d9-aeff-00000e2511c8.html#axzz2688SFgHH
Sanders, Richard, 2012. Israeli Spy Companies: Verint and Narus. Spring 2012. Press for Conversion! Issue # 66. Retrieved on July 1, 2013 at: Http://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/66/spy.pdf
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
Schmidt, 2004. Schmidt, S. quoted in Adam Curtis’s “The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear”.
2004. BBC DVD. retrieved July 8, 2008 at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
7/7: Seven Documents that Prove that the Official Story Cannot be True, 2012. June 30. Investigating the terror.com. Retrieved Sept. 25, 2012 at: www.investigatingtheterror.com/articles/7_7__seven__documents_that_prove_the_official_story_cannot_be_true.htm]
Sheva, 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.htm
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
Sky News, 2007.
Sky News exclusive interview with Hasina Patel, widow of Mohammad Sidique Khan. Friday July 27. Sky News. retrieved April 14, 2009 at http://www.skynewstranscripts.co.uk/transcript.asp?id=393 with embedded link to:
7/7 Killer’s Wife: ‘I Don’t Know Why He Did It’. video aired Fri. July 27 Sky News.. retrieved April 14, 2009 at: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641277316
Full Text Of July 7 Widow’s Interview With Sky: Here is the full transcript of Hasina Patel’s interview with Julie Etchingham. Friday July 27. Sky News. retrieved April 14, 2009 at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Full-Text-Of-July-7-Widows-Interview-With-Sky/Article/20070741277315
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_srr.html
Sparrow, Andrew. 2005. New law to stop flow of volunteers to terror camps. Sunday July 16, Daily Telegraph. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2012 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494129/New-law-to-stop-flow-of-volunteers-to-terror-camps.html
Szymanski, Greg. 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
Tarpley, 2005. Tarpley, Webster. 9/11Synthetic Terror. 2005. Progressive Press/Tree of Life Books. P 401
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=94762&headline=exclusive–bombers-and-the-special-forces-soldier-name_page.html
Tran, Mark and agencies, 2008. Mistakes ‘impossible to avoid’, former Met officer tells De Menezes inquest. November 6. The Guardian retrieved on Nov. 7, 2008 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/06/jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest-steve-swain
WAG, 21/7/2005. Was Bus Bomber Really Hasib Hussain? July 21, 2005. WAG News. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: Http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/was-bus-bomber-really-hasib-hussain.html
WAG, 23/7/2005. Evidence Luton CCTV Image is Fake. 23 July 2005. WAG News. retrieved in June 2008 at: Http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/evidence-luton-cctv-image-is-fake.html
And video at YouTube: 77 London Bombing CCTV analysis British False Flag Op at: Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdRhvnxcUv4, Image: http://www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/groupcctv.jpg
Walker, Peter and agencies, 10/2008. De Menezes marksman admits: I could have stopped him. October 27. The Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved Nov. 3, 2008 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/27/menezes-ukguns
Walker, Peter and agencies, 11/2008. Driver of De Menezes train thought police were terrorists. November 4. The Guardian. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2008 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/nov/04/menezes-police-terrorists-underground-driver
Watson, 2005. 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
Watson , Jones, 2005. Watson, PJ, Jones, A. 7/7 Bombings Final Word: Her Majesty’s Terrorist Network. August 7 2005. Infowars Network. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/7-7_final_word.htm
Watson, 2006. 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
Wikipedia, Project for the New American Century, 2008, retrieved July 5, 2008 at:
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
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
Wright, S, Williams, D, Sears, N. 2005. ‘Primed bombs’ could point to more suicide cells. July 18. Daily Mail. Retrieved on August 18, 2012 at: Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-356180/Primed-bombs-point-suicide-cells.html]
List of Members
Log in