Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scott G

7/7 London bombings

33 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This message is in response to bee's message in another thread...

I don't know enough about that case to say whether the government was in any way involved. It's possible they weren't. The same can't be said about 7/7. You may want to look at this video for more information on that event:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

Scott.......that video you posted has NOTHING of substance regarding the actual 7/7 bombings.

The 7/7 'Inside Job' conspiracy is dead in the water.

It is a FAILED conspiracy....almost certainly invented and nurtured by armchair Islamic Jihadists

'working' on psychologically weakening 'the enemy' via the internet....IMO.

Mohammed Siddique Khan's 'martyrdom video'

Shehzad Tanweer's 'martyrdom video'

7/7 BOMBER MOHAMMED S. KAHN'S WIFE

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

The documentary that you feel has nothing of substance actually covers both of the alleged martyrdom videos and makes some salient points on them; for one, in neither of the videos does it mention that they were considering blowing themselves up. What's more, atleast one of the videos was apparently made years before the bombings. As to Mohammed Kahn's wife, if you saw the video, you'll see that said that she felt deceived. In other words, she didn't suspect that he'd do something like that. I don't know if Kahn was or wasn't involved in the bombing, but I believe there's a lot of evidence that suggests that the official story is wrong in many ways.

Alright, so that's the evidence you've presented for the official story regarding 7/7. Now for my argument against it. In the following few posts, I'll write what I've transcribed from "ludicrous diversions" as well as include a link that goes more in depth than the documentary regarding one of the witnesses.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ludicrous Diversions, Part II: The Narrative

Let's take a look at the Official Narrative, released by the Home Office on May 11, 2006. One thing that's immediately clear is that the author has not seen the raw source material for much of the evidence he cites. What we're being offered is at best, second hand information, at worst, deceptive hearsay.

Although the mainstream media have strangely refused to properly analyze the contents of the narrative, most of the issues raised by this document have been covered officially by the alternative media, so we will not go into detail about the items of interest that the narrative glosses over, or conveniently, does not mention at all. Like the fact that identifying documentation for Mohammad Sidique Khan was, for some reason, found at 3 out of the 4 bomb sites. Or the issue of what explosives were used, something that, incredibly, is described in the narrative as still under expert examination, more than a year after the attacks. Or the fake Al Qaeda confession, released on the internet a few hours after the attacks, through a server in Texas. Or the training exercises taking place in London that day, based on a scenario of bombs going off at the exact same times at the exact same stations as the attacks occurred.

Reporter:

"So you had to actually switch an exercise from fictional, to real."

Or the huge amount of money made in speculating the rise and fall of Sterling, the result of either foreknowledge of the event, or extraordinary luck. Or the arrest of Haroon Aswat, widely reported by the UK media as being the "mastermind behind the attacks", and by the US media as being "An agent for MI5". Or the strange mistake regarding the time of the train taken by the men from Luton that morning. The police, the press and the government narrative all reported that the men took the 7:40 departure. But as discovered by bloggers in the alternative media, the 7:40 was cancelled that day.

Instead, we will focus on the list of key evidence specifically cited in the narrative. DNA identified the 4 at separate bomb sites and damage to bodies suggest they were close to bombs. 3 of the men have been forensically linked to the bomb factory in Leeds. The car in which they travelled contained explosive devices. The 4 were identified on CCTV at various points on their journey. Witness accounts suggest 2 of the men were fiddling in their rucksacks. There is no evidence of remote detonation at the bomb sites. There is a video statement by Khan. Khan also left a last will and testament indicating his desire to martyr himself.

Let's go through these in reverse. Like most of the evidence reported to condemn these 4 men, Khan's will and testament has never been shown to the public, and has therefore never been scrutinized or confirmed to be real. Khan's video confession makes no actual reference to him blowing himself up. It is said by people who knew him to show him several years ago and has never been shown in its entirety.

Since the narrative's release, we've also seen a video by Shehzad Tanweer. Again, Tanweer makes no reference to his suicide and we have never seen the whole film. Even if these videos are genuine, they are not evidence that the men were responsible for the London bombings.

If there is no evidence of remote detonation at the bomb sites, why did the New York Police, based on what the British Police had told them, report at a conference [that] the bombs were set off using mobile phones; the same remote timing devices used in the Madrid bombings in 2004.

The eyewitness accounts of the bombers fiddling with their rucksacks are extremely dubious. The first, reported widely across the international press soon after the attack, came from a Mr. Richard Jones, who claims to have seen a man fiddling with his bag on the bottom floor of the number 30 bus. He described the man he saw as clean shaven, and wearing light brown trousers, and a light brown top, so obviously he wasn't talking about Hussain.

The second was Danny Biddle, badly injured in the Edgware Road bomb. 6 months after the attacks, he told a newspaper that he had actually seen Khan before he blew himself up. We are not suggesting that Biddle lied, but we are suggesting that someone who was paid to tell their story 6 months after the event, is not a reliable enough witness to be a central piece of evidence in the official government report concerning the attacks. [Note: Danny Biddle has actually said more now, things that contradict the official story; see more here: "]http://j7truth.blogs...-rucksack.html]

As for the CCTV recordings, where are they? No CCTV footage has been released to the public. All we have seen are 3 still images. One shows Hussain alone, entering the ticket hall of Luton station, inexplicably cropped so it does not show the other 3 men who should all be around him. The second shows Hussain, again, alone, outside booths in King's Cross station, apparently at 9am, 10 minutes after he was supposed to be dead, and at a time when King's Cross station was being evacuated. And the third shows 4 figures entering Luton station, 3 of whom have blurred faces, so only Hussain is actually identifiable. There are no images of the 4 men together in London. In fact, there are no images of any of the train bombers in London that day at all.

As the Police themselves emphasized, the men should have been filmed by CCTV cameras along the whole route, capturing literally thousands of images of their journey. Or perhaps, like the cameras on the number 30 bus, all those cameras just weren't working that day. The car in which they travelled to Luton is said to have contained explosive devices. But it's never been explained why the men would have left them there when embarking on a suicide mission. The devices were reportedly destroyed in controlled explosions. These photos appeared on ABC news in America, but for some reason, they were never officially released in the UK. And then, there is the forensic and DNA evidence, apparently identifying the 4 men at the bomb sites, which again, has never been presented to the public for proper scrutiny. And the fact that the police tell us that they have the evidence, and that it is convincing, unfortunately does not mean that they do, or, that it is.

Edited by Scott G
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ludicrous Diversions, Part III: Police Record

The past record of the british police in catching and honestly convicting the real perpetrators of bombings in the UK is appalling. Instead, in numerous cases, it has been shown that the police deliberately tampered with evidence, forced confessions out of suspects and withheld information that would clear them. You think we're exaggerating? Then go on the internet, and look up the following:

The Birmingham six

The Gilford four

The Maguire 7

Judith Ward

Danny McNamee

More recently, we have seen the police in action with the death of Jean Demenezez in Stockwell Station. Having killed an innocent man for no reason, other than they thought he was someone else, who they also should not have killed, they responded to the outcry with a string of lies and deception. And despite all the investigations, no police officer was charged or punished in any way for the murder.

And even more recently, we've seen another innocent man shot, this time as he came down the stairs in his pyjamas, after his house had been raided by 250 policemen, looking for chemical weapons that turned out not to be there, despite there being what the police later described as "compelling evidence"

So if you genuinely believed it was unlikely, or even impossible that the police would ever fabricate evidence in order to give the appearance of having solved a crime, it is time to reassess your belief. They have, they do, and they will again. If we learn one thing from these incidents, it is this: the police view themselves as above the law. And if we learn another thing, it is that they are.

Edited by Scott G
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ludicrous Diversions, Part IV: New Britain

In the wake of the bombs, Britain has been left a changed nation. Already the country with the most surveillance in the world, the UK is set to move further towards a literal Big Brother society. Tony Blair said at the 2005 Labour Party conference, "We know we need strict controls in a changing world." Really Tony? We know we need strict controls? Exactly who do you mean by we? The British Public? The government and police? Or you, and your friends? And how exactly are these strict controls going to stop potential terrorists being aggrieved by our foreign policy? And how would these controls have prevented the attacks in London?

We have just been fortunate enough to see these strict controls in their true light, during the latest terrorist threat, which played out across the UK like an Orwellian pantomime. On the 10th of August, 24 supposed terrorists were arrested. They were allegedly just about to blow up 10 planes in mid air, using liquid explosives, despite the fact [that] they had no bombs, no plane tickets, and several of them didn't even have passports.

With the threat apparently foiled, the terrorist alert level immediately went up to critical, indicating that a terrorist attack was still deemed imminent. In response to this insanity, the airports immediately introduced an absurd draconian policy regarding carry on luggage. No liquids could be carried on to the plane. Ipods, phones and even books were banned, and mothers were made to taste their baby milk to prove it wasn't explosive. Thankfully, our Prime Minister managed to depart for his family holiday in the Carribean before the airport clampdown occurred.

As Blair also helpfully explained at the Labour conference, ID cards, traditionally resisted by the public, would be introduced, again, because he says they are necessary in a changing world. But every one of the 4 alleged 7/7 bombers would have legally had one, so what are they hoping to achieve with them? ID cards would have the same effect on preventing terrorism as license plates in preventing car crashes. And there's now talk of introducing biometric identification, iris scans, and body scanners. Who is actually being watched here? The so called terrorists, or us?

MI 5 has boosted its numbers since the attacks by 25%. The Metropolitan Police has requested funding for an additional 1500 anti terrorist police, while police powers have risen considerably. These include the right to detention without trial. The UK is currently the only European Nation to have suspended Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents such detention.

How can a supposedly free, moral and rational society allow the imprisonment of human beings without having the evidence to actually charge them with wrongdoing? What happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? When was it decided that this no longer applied to every one of us, irrespective of race or background?

Consider the cases of the following terrorists:

Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old pensioner, removed from the Labour Party conference in September 2005, for heckling Jack Straw, and then, after he tried to gain re-entry, detained, under the terrorism act.

80 year old John Catt, stopped by police for wearing a t-shirt suggesting that Bush and Blair be tried for War Crimes; searched, under the terrorism act. Sally Cameron, arrested and held for 4 hours for walking on a cycle path in Dundee, under the terrorism act. Isabel Alice Cockrof, stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act, despite being eleven years old.

[Metropolitan Police Commissioner] Ian Blair said in a GMTV interview in february 2005: "I don't think people should distinguish to easily [between] crime and terrorism."

Think about those words, coming from the chief and police:

"I don't think people should distinguish to easily [between] crime and terrorism."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um... okay :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um... okay :blink:

:unsure2: What's that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I can just see the British Government and all the top Police Officers sitting round a table right now discussing who they should blow up next! I think it's ridiculous for anyone to accuse either the British or the American politicians/police of deliberately blowing up their own public. I say this because there would be too many people involved in those discussions and somebody would no doubt come forth at a later date and spill the beans either through guilt or for payment. Its human nature. This has never happened to my knowledge. No matter what the subject there is always somebody who shouts ''Conspiricy'' Unfortunately there are also those who believe them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I can just see the British Government and all the top Police Officers sitting round a table right now discussing who they should blow up next! I think it's ridiculous for anyone to accuse either the British or the American politicians/police of deliberately blowing up their own public. I say this because there would be too many people involved in those discussions

Talk is cheap. Can you prove that assertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk is cheap. Can you prove that assertion?

I can - in the Halls of Westminster, there's a room clearly marked "COBRA".

It's obvious that that's where the meet to receive instructions from the Commander.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk is cheap. Can you prove that assertion?

I have no need to prove anything. I merely gave an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with all these theories is that, in this case even more than 9/11 (where they did at least get two wars out of it), that the supposed responses for which this was the provocation, well, never really happened, or at any rate the supposed justification was wildly disproportionate. Mr. Tony Blair didn't give himself unlimited powers to allow him to remain in power indefinitely; he handed over power to his friend, mr. Gordon brown, who must have been a sad disappointment to anyone expecting a tyrant. And then New Labour were ousted from office and replaced by the other lot. If you wanted to look at anyone dictatorial, mr. David Cameron would be a better candidate. :hmm: Mr. Blair never declared martial law, and, just like the FEMA Camps, the disappearance of dissidents turned out to be a bit of a damp squid. It's not even as if they got an excuse for a War out of it, since they already had two to be going on with. Now Mr. David Cameron has even scrapped Mr. Tony Blair's ID Cards idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the following few posts, I'll write what I've transcribed from "ludicrous diversions" as well as include a link that goes more in depth than the documentary regarding one of the witnesses.

Scott......you needn't have troubled yourself, unless you don't mind 'beating a dead horse'.....

I would have thought you had enough on your plate defending the 9/11 Inside Job stuff without

trying to defend the weaker than weak London 7/7 I.J. one as well.....

Dead suicide terrorists don't get to go to court, but failed ones do.

Just two weeks after 7/7 we had the July 21st failed attacks...bad batch of explosives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings

On 21 July 2005, four attempted bomb attacks disrupted part of London's public transport system two weeks after the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The explosions occurred around midday at Shepherd's Bush, Warren Street and Oval stations on London Underground, and on a bus in Shoreditch. A fifth bomber dumped his device without attempting to set it off.[1]

[snip]

By 29 July, police had arrested all four of the main bombing suspects from 21 July attempted bombings. Yasin Hassan Omar was arrested by police on 27 July, in Birmingham. On 29 July, two more suspects were arrested in London. A fourth suspect, Osman Hussein, was arrested in Rome, Italy and later extradited to the UK.[5][6] Police also arrested numerous other people in the course of their investigations.

On 9 July 2007, four defendants, Muktar Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, and Hussain Osman, 28, were found guilty of conspiracy to murder.[7] The four attempted bombers were each sentenced to a minimum of 40 years' imprisonment.[8]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2048575.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion.... the London incident and the incident on the train in Spain were both conducted by God knows who to fan the flames of the PHONEY "war on terror" ... Same with the "ANTHRAX" scares. It would take very few people involved to carry out such events.

Public opinion and support had to be gained.. one way, or another.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion.... the London incident and the incident on the train in Spain were both conducted by God knows who to fan the flames of the PHONEY "war on terror" ... Same with the "ANTHRAX" scares. It would take very few people involved to carry out such events.

Public opinion and support had to be gained.. one way, or another.

Phoney war on terror? What, so terrorists wishing to blow up anyone who does not believe in their ''god' dont exist???? Just a big game is it??? I sincerely hope you are never caught up in one of these incidents.

sorry,,had to edit,,,I hate typos :)

Edited by Englishgent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the following few posts, I'll write what I've transcribed from "ludicrous diversions" as well as include a link that goes more in depth than the documentary regarding one of the witnesses.

Scott......you needn't have troubled yourself, unless you don't mind 'beating a dead horse'.....

I would have thought you had enough on your plate defending the 9/11 Inside Job stuff without

trying to defend the weaker than weak London 7/7 I.J. one as well.....

I certainly have taken a lot of time researching and writing about 9/11. But you live in England, not America, so I thought I'd do some research on one in England, perhaps in part for your sake. It's easy to dismiss claims bee. But I note that, even having transcribed many of the inconsistencies in the official story regarding 7/7, you still dismiss it in a casual manner. bee, it's so easy to wave the hand and say that something isn't true. What's much, much, harder, is to actually take the time to research the various claims. It took me hours to transcribe all that material. In general, I find it much easier to learn of a subject from someone who has clearly already spent a lot of time on a subject then it is to start from scratch. And it's also helpful to have a transcription of a video since many people usually like seeing a video then reading through the equivalent number of pages of text. So if they see the video, they can then comment on any individiual part of what was transcribed fairly easily. So that's why I did it. And yes, you can just casually dismiss the whole thing. But credibility requires doing the legwork; putting in the time to defend or refute the allegations. The director of "ludicrious diversions" took the time to refute the official story. During the course of the transcription, I looked at various parts of what he said (in particular anyone with a name, I wanted to get the names right) and his story checked out. I haven't seen you put in any time to refute his work. And you don't need to, ofcourse, but simply saying that there's "nothing of substance" in his work isn't very credible.

Just two weeks after 7/7 we had the July 21st failed attacks...bad batch of explosives

http://en.wikipedia....London_bombings

http://www.timesonli...icle2048575.ece

I looked it up; it didn't get as much press in conspiracy circles, probably because it failed. Nevertheless, I note that the jury failed to convict some of those alleged to be involved in the plot, so clearly not everyone agreed with the Crown's version of events. I notice that you don't mention another alleged failed instance that "ludicrous diversions" brings up. I'll quote it...

We have just been fortunate enough to see these strict controls in their true light, during the latest terrorist threat, which played out across the UK like an Orwellian pantomime. On the [9th] of August, 24 supposed terrorists were arrested. They were allegedly just about to blow up 10 planes in mid air, using liquid explosives, despite the fact [that] they had no bombs, no plane tickets, and several of them didn't even have passports.

But I know that you're not so impressed with that video, so I decided to go a bit further. I got the following from wikipedia (they do have some good stuff on occasion):

Skeptical responses to the arrests

Several commentators expressed scepticism over the allegations.[54][55][56] Many mentioned the Forest Gate raid, the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Iraq War, all based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong, as reasons for their doubts.[57][58] Muslim sections of the British population were also reportedly sceptical that the plot was carried out by other Muslims.[59]

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray was sceptical of the account of the plot. He based his criticism on the facts that "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports." He also suggested that suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf invented the plot under torture in Pakistan.[60]

The Register ran a story on the practicalities of producing TATP on board an airplane from constituent liquids and concluded that, while theoretically possible, the chances of success would be extremely low. Although following additional details revealed at the trial The Register wrote that the plot and bombing method chosen was viable [61]

On 18 September, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer with decades of anti-terror and explosives experience, declared the plot to be "fiction". He said the explosives in question could not possibly have been produced on the plane. "So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Not Al Qaeda for sure. It would not work. Bin Laden is interested in success not deterrence by failure," Wylde stated. He further suggested that the plot was an invention of the UK security services in order to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the Human Rights Act of 1998.[62] Due to the mountain of evidence, including forensic material, he expected the men to face "a very long trial of (between) five and eight months."[63]

Source: http://en.wikipedia...._to_the_arrests

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoney war on terror? What, so terrorists wishing to blow up anyone who does not believe in their ''god' dont exist???? Just a big game is it??? I sincerely hope you are never caught up in one of these incidents.

sorry,,had to edit,,,I hate typos :)

It's not so certain whether a Global Terror Network actually exists, though. Or if it does, whether it had any actual hands-on part more than just suggesting ideas. And futher from that, whether assassinating their "Leader", or his second in command... or another second in command... or another second in command... would actually make the slightest difference.

Have you noticed, incidentally, that Al Queada seem to have an unlimited number of Seconds in Command, and that it seems to be a job with a very rapid turnover? You're barely in the job for a couple of weeks before you're swatted with a Missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion.... the London incident and the incident on the train in Spain were both conducted by God knows who to fan the flames of the PHONEY "war on terror" ... Same with the "ANTHRAX" scares. It would take very few people involved to carry out such events.

Public opinion and support had to be gained.. one way, or another.

I haven't investigated the Madrid bombing, but for the 7/7 one, I think that someone within government had to be involved. The simultaneous exercises that were taking place that day, just as with 9/11, would have provided them with good cover as well. Here's an excerpt from article on the "Exercises":

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

London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack

Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of

Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

The transcript is as follows.

POWER: 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, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Click here for a clip of this dialogue. Click here for a longer clip where the comments can be heard in their full context.

The fact that the exercise mirrored the exact locations and times of the bombings is light years beyond a coincidence. Power said the drill focused around 'simultaneous bombings'. At first the bombings were thought to have been spread over an hour, but the

BBC reports just today that the bombings were in fact simultaneous.

090705power.jpg

Mr. Power (pictured above) and Visor Consultants need not have been 'in on the bombing' or anything of that nature for this to be of importance. The British government or one of their private company offshoots could have hired Visor to run the exercise for a number of purposes. We are not suggesting that Mr. Power had any knowledge of the real purpose of the exercise, and the open shock he exclaims in relating the story underlines this.

The exercise fulfills several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.

This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001. The CIA was

conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning. It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked. The Anglo-American establishment that controls the military-industrial complex of the West has been caught over a hundred times carrying out bombings and other terrorist attacks around the world to further their corporate aims and to blame their enemies. The US government has been caught planning to carry out attacks and carrying out attacks. The British government has been caught red-handed as well. Members of Vladimir Putin's FSB were caught planting bombs in a Russian apartment building in 1999 by the Moscow police.

090705madrid.jpg

The bombing in Bolognia was part of a CIA operation code named Gladio, where the US government would pay right-wing terrorists to carry out bombings to be blamed on leftists in Europe. All of this was blown wide open when two of the Bolognia bombers were convited in an Italian court, forcing them to spill their guts admitting that they were neo-fascists contracted by the CIA. Operation Gladio documents have since been declassified...

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

Source: http://www.prisonpla...ngexercises.htm

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7 July 2005 happened terrorist attack in London.

It was presented, that Al Qaeda executed the terrorist attack. In real, the terrorist attack did England government and announced that it was work of Iran in order to the England government could impose sanctions on Iran. England believes, that Iran is controled by mafia, which was damaged by sanctions. It‘s expected that tha mafia will send out assassin on person which was implicated into case. This person is protected by police. Assassin will get into trap, the police will catch him and uncover the mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Edited by JiriHelan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7 July 2005 happened terrorist attack in London.

It was presented, that Al Qaeda executed the terrorist attack. In real, the terrorist attack did England government and announced that it was work of Iran in order to the England government could impose sanctions on Iran. England believes, that Iran is controled by mafia, which was damaged by sanctions. It's expected that tha mafia will send out assassin on person which was implicated into case. This person is protected by police. Assassin will get into trap, the police will catch him and uncover the mafia.

Jiri, I agree that elements of the English government were responsible for the 7/7 bombings, which is different than saying that the entire government was involved. As to the motivations for the setup, as I've said in other posts, that's generally much more difficult to determine. Furthermore, there may be multiple motivations, further complicating things. That being said, if you have any evidence for the assertions that you're making in regards to the motivation for the attack, as well as this idea that the.. Iran mafia? is trying to get one of the people who carried out the 7/7 bombings, and you're willing to reveal it, please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This message above was published indirectly by police, in order to persuade iran mafia, to send out assassin. The police has means (mind control weapons) for uncovering mafia via this person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't investigated the Madrid bombing, but for the 7/7 one, I think that someone within government had to be involved. The simultaneous exercises that were taking place that day, just as with 9/11, would have provided them with good cover as well. Here's an excerpt from article on the "Exercises":

You may want to check your sources for 7/7 as well, as that article is inaccurate, makes incorrect assumptions and is written sensationally to make the story more suspicious than it actually is.

The exercise was not ‘1000-person strong’ – it was for a company that employed over a thousand people. It was not people in the underground, it was a room of managers playing out scenarios. And the company was a private company based in the City. So the idea it could have been some sort of cover for the event is ridiculous.

As for the exercise being “light years beyond a coincidence”, well a company performing crisis management exercises is extremely common. A London City company choosing bombs on the rail system as a scenario during a time of tension about terrorism is highly likely (as attacks had happened before). The ‘exact locations’ part of the quote Peter Power himself later clarified that they were only an underground and an overground station so the exact/precise nature is already lessened and if we assume Kings Cross and Liverpool Street were those stations, they are very likely choices as they are main hubs and have been bombed before. So we end up with a very likely exercise happening and it’s just the timing that is spooky. So nothing more than a coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 strong or not, the mere fact of a government training exercise with the very same scenario as what actually transpired that day makes the situation identical to the events of 11 September.

I'm willing to accept that coincidence CAN happen, but sometimes one must wonder.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 strong or not, the mere fact of a government training exercise with the very same scenario as what actually transpired that day makes the situation identical to the events of 11 September.

I'm willing to accept that coincidence CAN happen, but sometimes one must wonder.... :ph34r:

Except it was not a government training exercise, it was a private company. The company that I work for do multiple 'disaster' exercises every year. Even if a company does once such exercise a year, multiply that by the number of companies in the City and you get a lot of exercises.

And it was not the "very same scenario" either, it was an understandably similar scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, understandably similar is fine by me. :rolleyes:

That was all I meant.

Have you an opinion on what Ike's Farewell Address was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.