The July 7th London Bombings (Updated)

The Stepford Double-cross: turning every Muslim into a terror suspect
Karin Brothers

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

The official British story that native British Muslims committed the July 7, 2005 London bombings — not just as terrorists but as “suicide bombers”  — has been invoked throughout the world to demonize Muslims and even — shamefully, in a 2008 Toronto trial — to gain a terrorism conviction of a Canadian Muslim. 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 impact on Muslims, civil liberties and judicial due process cannot be overstated. While the four secular Muslims accused of blowing themselves up to “gain immortality” have been convicted in the media, there has been no trial or even any official inquiry; the evidence not only contradicts the government’s story about what happened but points in a far more ominous direction.

The background to the events of July 7, 2005

After 9/11, Britain became an even closer ally of the US; it participated in the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and designed repressive "anti-terror" legislation that surpassed even US “Patriot” legislation.  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".

On July 6th, Britain was the focus of world news, having just been chosen for the next Summer Olympics.  Also, world leaders were arriving there for the G8 conference in Scotland. Then it all began to happen.
On the morning of Thursday, July 7, 2005, four explosions ripped through three subway carriages and a bus in London, killing 56, injuring over 700, and shutting down the city;    
Two weeks later there were four copycat incidents in London involving North African would- be suicide bombers with dud bombs; and
The next day, a (white) Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, was executed by an elite British security team that claimed they had mistaken him for a North African suspect;
And finally, five weeks and one year after the July 7th events, two bizarre video tapes appeared that were claimed to provide a motive for the London bombings. 

Soon after the four accused were identified as “suicide bombers”, Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected an independent investigation into the London bombings, claiming that because they had been identified, any investigation would be a waste of money. Three convergent investigative reports on the July 7th explosions came out in 2006 — a BBC TV program in January and two government reports (from the Commons’ Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC, 2006)) and the government’s own official account  on May 11, 2006. (BBC, 5/2006).  Despite the fact that the official British version of events was contradictory and inconsistent with many of the known facts of the bombings, all of these reports
concluded that the four accused had chosen to become martyrs and had had no outside assistance.

What happened on July 7th, 2005?

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

Observers noted extraordinary coincidences:  There was a 1,000-person emergency-preparedness operation designed to simulate "multiple simultaneous subway bombings" at the three subway stations affected and at precisely the same time that these explosions actually happened. (Chossudovsky, 8/2005)  Peter Power (formerly connected to British intelligence) of Visor Consultants, the company that organized the operation, has refused to identify who commissioned it. [Note 1]

The northbound No. 30 bus, taking an unexplained southbound detour to Tavistock Square, exploded in front of the British Medical Association, where doctors rushed out to aid the injured.

In all, fifty-six were killed and about 700 hundred injured; the bombs caused a day-long disruption of London’s transport and mobile telecommunications infrastructure.  For most of the day, London was shut down to visitors.

Significantly, the Metropolitan Police (the “Met”) statements immediately claimed that "suicide bombing" could not be "confirmed", clearly suggesting that unlikely possibility. There was an assumption that the explosions "had to be" caused by al Qaida.  Two little-known groups claimed responsibility for the blasts. On the day of the explosions, a virtually-unheard-of organization called "the Secret Organisation Group of Al Qaida of Jihad Organisation in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility on the Internet.  This was later identified as the same name used by the group that had claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing of March 2004.  The web links led to Austin, Texas. 

Despite the lack of verified evidence, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke and Prime Minister Tony Blair took the claim at face value and declared that the bombing had been committed in the name of Islam. 

Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected calls for an independent inquiry, claiming that the effort would detract from the hunt for the terrorists.

Scotland Yard claimed that it had no information that would have led it to anticipate these bombs, but it was later revealed that not only had the British Government been warned by various sources, but they had received serious warnings of a Madrid-like attack on the London Underground to happen by July 2005!  (Ahmed, 2006, 138-141) Despite this, Scotland Yard reduced the alert level three weeks before the July attack deadline. 

Most damning of all is the claim that Scotland Yard warned the Mossad (rather than London subway riders) six minutes before the subway explosions, causing Benjamin Netanyahu  to cancel an appearance he was to have made at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange conference.  (Sheva, 2005)   The AP article was withdrawn hours later and despite the Israeli embassy’s subsequent denial of this embarrassing story, it was confirmed by a senior Israeli staffer.

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

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

Explosive placement:  It was not clear from the physical evidence at any of the blast sites who might have been responsible; even in the case of the bus bomb:  "Police do not know whether suicide bombers carried out the attacks or whether bombs had been left in packages on the Underground or in buses, according to Brian Paddick, Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner.  Paddick said it wasn’t clearwhether the bombswere on the trains or in the tunnels.   Eyewitness accounts indicated pre-planted explosives. One eyewitness saw no one with a backpack at the site of a train explosion, and Bruce Lait reported that carriage floors ripped upwards, indicating pre-planted explosives in the subway undercarriages. (Ahmed, 2006, 36-38)

Timed detonators: The early discovery of timed detonators in the trains’ wreckage led investigators to claim that these explosions could no longer be regarded as suicide bombings.  (ABC News, 2005)

CCTV evidence:  British public transit is covered by tens of thousands of closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras, so CCTV tapes were expected to be a major tool in identifying the perpetrators.  On July 11th, the Monday after the blasts, papers reported that 800 detectives had gathered to observe 2,500 CCTV tapes with the hope of picking out people who entered the stations with bags and exited without them.  The published estimate was at least two weeks to complete the task.  But the very next day, police claimed that the bombers had not only been identified from CCTV footage as four Pakistani-British men but they knew who they were; three or four were named in newspapers. The government would claim that they had CCTV footage as well as witnesses to prove that the four caught the 7:40 or 7:48 am train from Luton to London’s King’s Cross station, from where they took their ill-fated trips.

On the same day that the men were named, police claimed that they had located two cars associated with the men, one of which contained what police immediately described as homemade explosives. On the same day, police went to an address that they claimed was an “operational base” of the accused. After evacuating hundreds of residents, they claimed that they found a bathtub filled with what they described as homemade explosives.  The three or four named Muslims were immediately accused of being “suicide bombers” even though these men had not been identified as among the dead.

The response to “suicide bombers”  There was media outrage when the accused were declared to be "suicide bombers"; they along with their community were immediately branded as "terrorist".  Few journalists asked questions or reported evidence that challenged this assumption.  Media reports drew parallels between innocent Londoners and Israeli victims of terrorism. Blair went on an immediate offensive, using inflammatory language to lay the responsibility squarely on the Muslim community: "This is not an isolated criminal act," he said.  "It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam." He demanded that Muslims "root out the evil ideology" and report those with "extremist" views – which appeared to be defined only as anti-Israeli. He wanted to criminalize language that "glorified" or "rationalized" "terrorism" anywhere — which would have presumably included reports on the occupations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Referring to suicide bombers as "martyrs" would have been criminal, as well as explaining why one might be motivated to blow  oneself up.  Despite the immediate boost for Blair’s "anti-terror" agenda, this legislation was initially defeated.

The effect on the Muslim community was terrible. One Muslim man was kicked to death the day after the accused were named and papers across Britain were filled with stories of abuse of local Muslims.  Within two to three weeks, one in five British Muslims affirmed that either they or someone in their family had been abused or humiliated in public; two-thirds considered leaving Britain. The impact was even felt in Canada, where Muslims reported public humiliations and insults from strangers.

Police explanations for their fast identification of the alleged bombers

The so-called "lucky break" in the case reportedly came when the mother of Hasib Hussain called the police hotline on July 8th (along with 115,000 others) to report her son missing.  Police claimed that this was the break that put names to the four men with backpacks who they saw on CCTV footage, although the wife of Mohammad Sidique Khan had called the police within several hours to report him missing.  On the day of this announcement, police claimed that they not only had the names of three or four of the culprits (one was initially identified as the sometimes bleach-blonde Ejaz Fiaz rather than the muscular, Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay) but they even knew which route each had taken - without showing any evidence proving that the men were in London that day. 

While police would claim that they had no prior knowledge of these men, they had to admit later that Hussain was the only one of the four not previously known to them.

CCTV evidence showing the four men with backpacks on July 7th.  Verifiable closed-circuit television (CCTV) evidence appears to be virtually nonexistent, which is noteworthy, given the thousands of cameras used around London and in transit stations.  There was no CCTV evidence released before 2008 that convincingly showed any of the accused in London on July 7th; July 7th images released in August 2008 (BBC, 8/2008) lack critical time stamps and have been modified to blur the identities of surrounding people who might corroborate the timing.  The stills that have been released have no CCTV time stamps and/or contradict other July 7th evidence:

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

Five men were reportedly seen together on a 7:21 a.m. CCTV tape at suburban Luton Station, four of whom had identical backpacks resembling those used by British Infantry.  Police initially claimed that all of the men were of Pakistani origin. The shots released to the public are of very poor quality: the faces are difficult to make out, there are no other people in the background despite the rush hour. The Luton photo, supposedly taken early on July 7th, shows Hasib Hussain wearing a denim jacket, which contradicts the alleged missing person report, which has him wearing a distinctively- colored top.  Some claim that the image appears to have been modified, with images of handrails coming through the photos in suspicious ways. (WAG, 23/7/2005)

In September 2005, British police released June 28th photos of the accused at Luton station which they claimed showed a "trial run" despite the fact that the time of day was different and the men did not visit the stations where the July 7 explosions occurred. (BBC, 9/2005)

The Home Office claimed that the four were seen on unreleased CCTV and by witnesses boarding the 7:40 or the 7:48 am ‘Thameslink’ train to London, which would have taken them to King’s Cross Station by 8:26 am, where they were said to be seen on the station’s main concourse — again, with a fifth man — before entering the underground.

In the fall of 2005, researchers realized that this time line was an impossibility: on July 7th the 7:40 train was canceled and the 7:48 delayed! (J7 update, 2006) The accused could not have arrived in  London in time to board any of the bombed trains, thereby demolishing the entire case against them.  These timings also disprove the police account of how they came to identify the four accused through CCTV evidence.  When this discrepancy was brought to the attention of the government, the Home Office changed the account. A year later, on July 11, 2006, Home Secretary John Reid announced that the alleged bombers had actually taken the 7:25 am train.  He did not claim that this was verified by either CCTV or by witnesses.

The four accused were later claimed to be seen arriving around 8:26 a.m. at King’s Cross Station, again caught on an unpublished CCTV tape with a fifth man. (Fox, 2005) While Scotland Yard detectives claim that the CCTV tape that broke this case showed four or five men chatting and laughing easily together, this tape has not been shown to the public and its veracity is questionable because of the government’s changing claims about the train schedules. Film released in 2008 is missing the time stamps or identifiable people to prove the timing.

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

The immediate identification of "explosives"  in the rented car found at Luton reportedlyconnected to the accused was later reversed.  The fast identification through the claimed CCTV evidence and the missing-persons report seemed to be confirmed by the rapid identification of two cars connected to the accused.  It should be noted that these cars were in parking lots for five days after July 7th and that their supposed drivers were not alive to confirm or deny either their connection to these cars or the contents.  A tiny rental car at the Luton station parking lot was immediately reported to have homemade explosives in the trunk.  There were various claims about the number of bombs in the trunk of this Nissan Micra, although the identification of explosives was subsequently retracted and the material, as of 2006, unidentified. (Ahmed, 2006, 44,45)

The second car — with a valid parking ticket — had been inexplicably towed by the police from Luton to Leighton Buzzard just hours after the London explosions. This was found not to have explosives when police examined it five days later. (Ahmed, 2006, 42,43)

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

Identification papers were reportedly found "by their seats", so police implied that they knew where the accused were sitting in the trains! Police have not explained how ID cards from one or two of the accused men — Mohammad Sadique Khan and possibly Shehzad Tanweer — were reportedly found in more than one blast location.  While early stories reported that these men’s ID cards were found at various blast sites, it appears that at least Khan’s ID was found at the Edgware Road and Aldgate sites.  (BBC, 7/2005)  Khan was initially incorrectly identified as Rashid Facha, although his other identifying details were correct. Presumably other peoples’ identification was also located at the four blast sites. 

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

 Evidence related to Hasib Hussain and the No.  30 bus blast has never been producedWhile the CCTV equipment of British buses is reportedly not able to be switched off by the bus drivers, the CCTV of this No. 30 bus was never produced, so there has been no reliable, public record of who was on the bus or what happened.  One report claims that the hard drive of that CCTV was given to the Metropolitan Police. ( J7: Evidence)
From the initial evidence, it was not clear where the bus bomb even came from.  In a Timesonline article: "Forensic pathologists have been paying particular attention to the remains of two bodies found in the mangled wreckage of the double-decker.  A senior police source said: "There are two bodies which have to be examined in great detail because they appear to have been holding the bomb or sitting on top of it.  One of those might turn out to be the bomber.’" (Evans et al, 2005)  Hasib Hussain’s credit card was found in the bus, as was Tanweer’s.  (Herbert, 2005)

Despite the ambiguous physical evidence on the bus, police claimed that Hasib Hussain was the "suicide bomber" responsible for the bus explosion. 

According to the police reconstruction of events, Hussain would have tried to take the northern subway route from King’s Cross station which they claimed was closed the morning of July 7th.  London Transport’s denial of that closure (Bennetto et al, 2005)  should have changed the police theory.
There are various contradictory accounts of what Hussain was doing at 9 a.m., nine minutes after the 8:51 a.m. subway explosions: (J7 Profile: Hussain)

Police claim that mobile phone records showed that at 9 am Hussain made three calls to the others on his cell phone but got no response, (because the police had shut down the mobile phone system by then). He was reported to have been walking down a street while making the calls;

Hussain was reportedly seen on a McDonald’s CCTV camera (J7 Profile: Hussain) at 9 am ordering food.  He was also shown in a published CCTV image in front of a drug store at King’s Cross station with a time stamp of 9 am.  According to reports, King’s Cross was already being evacuated by 9 am on July 7th. (J7: Evidence) In 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 was supposed to have boarded the northbound No. 30 bus (possibly after taking a Bus. 91 in the opposite direction. (Muad’Dib, chap. 6 ). Given the hundreds of CCTV cameras that should have been in operation along Hussain’s route between King’s Cross and Euston, it is significant that none have been released.

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

The accused

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

Hasib Hussain, 18, (who police claim died in the bus) was called a "pillar of the community" by friends, who couldn’t believe such a gentle and apolitical person — who just talked about girls, sports and cars — could have been involved in any radical plot.  In the days before July 7th, he talked about a car he wanted to buy. Hussain was initially subjected to media smears about his educational background which turned out to be untrue.  He was looking forward to studying at Leeds Metropolitan University to do a business course; the day after the bombings the results came back that he had scored distinctions in four out of the five exams he had taken.  His family noted that his trip to Pakistan, where he met his fiancee, was to attend his brother’s wedding. His family believes evidence will eventually prove his innocence.
Germaine "Jamal" Lindsay was a handsome, highly intelligent man who "never got into any trouble".  He was married and had an 8-month old; his wife — who did not believe he could be connected to a plot — was expecting their second child at the time of these explosions.  From all reports, he was a gentle and apolitical person who abhorred violence.

Mohammad Sadique Khan, 30, whose identification was found at least at Edgware and Aldgate, was accused by official reports to be the "main" organizer of the blasts.  He was an outstanding counselor for the children of immigrants and the learning disabled and so highly respected that The Times of London had featured him in an educational supplement. (J7 Profile: Khan) His mother-in-law had received special recognition at Buckingham Palace for a life of progressive community work.  Khan himself had been friends with his Member of Parliament’s family for two decades.  He had a 14-month old daughter and his wife was experiencing problems with her second pregnancy. Despite reports about an alleged estrangement, his wife reported Khan missing within several hours of the explosions.  Friends describe Khan as a loving, exceptionally compassionate and peaceful person who would not have chosen to blow himself up — particularly with other innocent people — to prove any political point to the British public.  As a friend of his Member of Parliament, he would have known of more effective ways to communicate his sentiments.  While Khan had made a springtime trip to Pakistan; police found no evidence that this was anything more than a simple vacation.  In May 2007, police presented what they claimed was Khan’s will to his widow.  [See Appendix C for this story.]

Did any evidence point to suicides? Why do British officials insist that there were “suicide bombers” rather than just “terrorists”?

The personal evidence indicates that the four men did not know that they were to die.  Police claim that on the (unreleased) King’s Cross CCTV tape, they appeared to be laughing and chatting easily together.  Their families expected them home.  There were no suicide notes.  They had purchased return trip tickets.  The parked cars had days of parking prepaid.  At least three were carrying identification. Beyond the immediate evidence that there was no expectation of death, these four men had good lives and had no reason to die to make any political statement.  While much of the British Muslim community has high unemployment and reasons for despair, these men were respected in their community and had everything to live for.  None was believed capable of such a horrific act.  There was no case in which a close friend or relative acknowledged that such behaviour was conceivable from any of the accused.

The physical evidence from all of the explosions contradicts suicide bombings.  The evidence from the subway carriages showed that explosives were pre planted underneath the carriages for the floors to be blown upwards.  (Ahmed, 2006, 36-38) The relatively harmless placement of the bomb on the No. 30 bus also contradicts a suicide bombing, as maximum damage would have been caused by detonating it in the center of the lower level of the bus, rather than its minimal damage at the rear of the upper level.  Despite the published fact that Khan’s body was not found at any blast site, and the police announcement that all of the suicide bombers did not appear to have died at the blasts,  the British government continues to call these all  “suicide” bombingsWhy?

What did happen to them? How might the accused have actually died?

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

Bus schedules indicate that the distance between King’s Cross and Canary Wharf is approximately one hour.

Because police initially admitted that they did not have the bodies of all of the “suicide bombers”, the question of these bodies became an issue. While the bodies of the accused should have been the property of their families, police initially prevented the families from getting possession of them.  Police made the incredible claim in The Guardian of Aug. 24, 2005 — when the corpses would have been over six weeks old –  that they were in possession of all bodies of the [alleged] bombers, to reassemble their body parts to analyze their positions on the bombs’ detonations!  Khan’s family was clearly suspicious; The Telegraph reported on 29th October 2005, that Khan’s family had asked for a second post mortem to be carried out on his remains by an independent pathologist to confirm the cause of his death.  In October 2005, it was reported that Tanweer’s body had been taken to Pakistan for interment in a family grave; security personnel accompanied the body to Pakistan and guarded the site for days after the interment.

The MI5 whistle-blower David Shayler claimed that one of the accused was reported to have made it safely to Pakistan.  If true, this might have referred to Ejaz Fiaz, a man initially named as being one of the four  “suicide bombers”.

The Release of tapes of Khan and Tanweer

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 scarf like a bandana around his head, standing in front of a rug and stabbing the air with a pen when making a political statement warning the British of retaliation for their killing of Muslims.  In a portion of the tape that was released, Khan’s lip movements do not match the words spoken.  (J7:Evidence)  Although the tape did not mention any planned event, the implication was that this tape was to be taken as a copy of Palestinian suicide tapes, (not an Al Qaida practice) to "prove" Khan’s motive to kill himself.

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

Later, in September of 2005, Scotland Yard claimed that a similar tape existed of Tanweer.  About ten months later, on July 5, 2006, an ABC News reporter claimed that a tape of Tanweer would be shown on Al Jazeera the next day, which happened.  While this tape was portrayed as "coming from Al Qaida", no one actually knew what its origin was. The only people who appeared to know about it beforehand were British police and ABC News.

The video images of Khan and Tanweer dated from 2004 and had the same props.  Tanweer was wearing the same head scarf as Khan, with the identical background and making the same strange stabbing gestures with his hand.  As in the Khan tape, a clip of Al Zwahiri was edited into the tape, making it appear that the two men were associated with Al Qaida. In the Tanweer tape, there are additional shots of a  purported "training camp" with disembodied hands claimed to be "mixing chemicals" "igniting explosives" and circling Victoria Station on a map, all pictures that could have come from someone’s back yard.  While some may have found them laughable, the BBC presented them as  threatening.  Neither of the tapes have been seen publicly in their entirety.
A transcript of Tanweer’s video was made available, which included clips of Ayman al-Zawahiri and American al Qaida member "Adam Gadahn".  While Gadahn is also known to the FBI as "Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams and Yayah", his real name is Adam Pearlman and his grandfather was a member of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Orange Co. California.

None of Tanweer’s family or friends have volunteered their opinion of the veracity of this tape.  It is possible, noting current voice and image technology, that both the images and voices of the men could have been technically produced.

The tapes attempt to show that Khan and Tanweer were connected with Al Qaida; that they supported terrorism against their fellow citizens and were making the tapes as virtual suicide notes of their intentions.  But is it a coincidence that the images of Khan and Tanweer came from 2004, the year the police had them under surveillance?

Al Qaida had not been known to make suicide tapes; if they were associated with Al Qaida, why would such tapes have been created? And why would they not have been released immediately? Why would the professional Khan or Tanweer have made taped statements about their beliefs dressed up in  Palestinian scarves?  Since Palestinians have not been shown to be connected to al Qaida, why do the tapes attempt to make that connection? The question must be asked who would benefit from these contrived videos.

It is ironic that the British government maintains that these tapes prove motive while also claiming that the men acted independently.  If the accused acted alone and were not connected to a conspiracy, as officially claimed, who created these tapes and who released them two months and one year after the explosions?

The Copycat bombings and the murder of Jean Charles De Menezes

Two weeks after the July 7th explosions, events occurred that seem to be related to them, although the relationship is not clear.

On July 21st, four North African immigrants apparently tried to blow themselves up in what appeared to be July 7- copycat explosions, with three attempts on subway cars and one on a bus. The accounts of the dud bombs of July 21 were actually hilarious, with one "bomb" oozing out of a case like the bread dough that it was made from, since an active ingredient was chapatti flour.  The four men scattered in all directions with their identifying pictures caught on functioning CCTV tapes.  It was apparent that the four were of African descent. Three were quickly rounded up; the fourth, Hussein Osman, escaped to Italy where he was caught the following week.

 In Osman’s published Italian interviews, he claimed that he, along with the other (five) accused, were fed a steady diet of graphic films for some weeks that portrayed mutilated Iraqi victims of American and British military actions.  The men were reportedly told to keep quiet about these mysterious films, which reportedly came from the banned al Mouhajiroun, a group known to have links to British security services.  On July 21, four of the men were apparently ready to sacrifice themselves as a gesture of their horror at 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.  The men were diverse; the apparent ringleader had a background of petty crime, and at least Osman was secular.

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

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

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

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

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

"Despite the government’s official insistence that it had no prior knowledge of the attacks of 21 July 2005, anonymous British security sources revealed that Scotland Yard had obtained precise advanced warning of replica bomb attacks on the Tube network that would almost certainly be executed on Thursday of that week. . . Indeed, only two hours before the terrorist strikes, Home Secretary Charles Clarke ‘warned senior cabinet colleagues the capital could face another terror onslaught’ in a confidential briefing. … Most surprisingly, the Home Secretary had specifically ‘hinted at fears there could be copycat attacks in the wake of the July 7 atrocities’…. Indeed, police were racing on the morning of the 21 to locate at least one of the bomber suspects, several hours before the detonations … .’ At 9:29 a.m. an armed unit raced to Farrington station as they closed in on the suspected bomber — but narrowly missed him.’

The incident indicates the extent of the detail apparently available to the police.  How did they know 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)
In another 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 supposedly linked to the four originally accused.  Since it appears that British security services were the most likely source of the "homemade" material found after the July 7th explosions, it follows that they were also the most likely source of these dud "bombs".

The Execution of Jean Charles de Menezes
The supposed police chaos resulting from these abortive copycat attempts was given as an excuse for the execution the next morning of a Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes. On July 22, senior police officials from the Metropolitan police (“Met”) Gold Team oversaw and led elite military and police units to the brazen execution of the 27-year old immigrant in a Stockwell station subway train.  While this execution 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 — suggests the opposite. 

Questions continue to arise because of the extraordinary lengths police have taken to hide the facts around this execution, such as why police were staking out 21 Scotia Road in the first place.

The Stake Out at 21 Scotia Road: According to police testimony at the October 2007 trial, the chain of events started when police were examining Hussein Osman’s gym bag containing the bogus explosives. They claimed that at 4:30 am 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 Cressida Dick.  Dick called on the elite CO19 team to show up at Abdi Omar’s apartment building at 21 Scotia Road from 5 am onwards to check the identities of all those leaving the apartment building 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 Omar, so presumably would not have needed Omar’s card. Strangely, by the 2007 trial for the Met’s endangering the public by their execution of de Menezes, Omar’s name had disappeared from the story; it became only Osman who was "linked" to 21 Scotia Road. (BBC, 2007) and who police allegedly “confused” with the white de Menezes.

From 6 am onwards, the elite military team, the SRR, 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 30-minute stalk: According to the police  — who initially claimed that no video or CCTV footage existed of de Menezes’ killing — they were on the lookout for one of the two North Africans, when the order went out at 9:35 am to send  two SRR surveillance teams (one on foot, the other in a vehicle) to follow de Menezes, who was described from the onset as a "Northern European white male".  None of the six people leaving 21 Scotia Road before de Menezes that morning nor any of those leaving afterwards were either examined or followed.

The two teams followed de Menezes for 30 minutes, during which time the CCTV evidence shows that he boarded a bus, exited the bus to find that a subway station was closed, made a phone call (to his uncle from his cell phone, saying he’d be late meeting him for their job), turned around and walked back onto a bus continuing on the same route to the Stockwell station, where he picked up a newspaper, paid for his subway with his prepaid card, and strolled to the platform. CCTV tapes showed that De Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket and carrying no bags or backpack. Police initially claimed that de Menezes looked suspicious because he was wearing a "puffy jacket with wires hanging out" and “looked nervous”.

Police attempted to bolster their claim of misidentification at the October 2007 trial by creating a computer composite of the faces of de Menezes alongside that of Hussein Osman. It was noted that the face of de Menezes was clearly manipulated by police to support possible police confusion. (BBC, 10/2007) Ironically, at the de Menezes’ inquest in November 2008, police claimed that they had had no picture of 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 claim that they did not get a clear look at de Menezes’ face is not credible because de Menezes doubled back on his path when the first subway station was closed.  In somewhat deceptive October 2007 testimony, Cressida Dick claimed that she received "five positive" claims that de Menezes was Osman — neglecting to mention that all five positives came from only one agent– and that with this confidence, she gave an apparent “kill” command to stop de Menezes from entering the subway (which he had already done!)  Other testimony contradicted Dick’s assertion that she was convinced of the Osman identification because she also asked for identity confirmation as the agents were entering the Stockwell station, which they were unable to give at that point. 

Was de Menezes seen as a threat?  The surveillance units did not see de Menezes as a threat and allowed him to get onto 2 busses and a subway with other passengers, and openly directed the marksmen to him on the subway train, which could have allowed de Menezes to detonate anything if he had been armed.  At no time during the surveillance did Scotland Yard headquarters, which was directing the operation, ask whether de Menezes was carrying any bag or wearing padded clothing which might have hidden explosives.  One problem with the existing evidence was the illegal modification of the police log: agent “Owen” eliminated the fact that Dick knew that de Menezes was not carrying anything while agent  “Lawrence” made it impossible to tell whether agents did or did not identify de Menezes as Osman.

According to Ahmed, "the bulk of the evidence available in the public record strongly suggests that the threat perception of officers on the ground were manipulated by senior officers for reasons that so far remain difficult to fathom." (Ahmed, 2006, 119)

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

The police version of the execution:  The police claimed that a suspicious-looking Jean Charles de Menezes ran into the Stockwell subway station, apparently running to escape police following him. In the subway car where de Menezes was seated, a surveillance agent who had followed him into the car held the door open for the marksmen, stopping the subway door from closing. The agent pointed out de Menezes to the marksmen saying, "He’s here."  They claimed that they shouted that they were “police” to de Menezes (Hughes, 2008) who got up and threateningly moved towards them; so they shot him.

The eyewitness’ versions of the kill: The persistent pressure of the de Menezes’ family forced the government to hold an inquest into Jean Charles’ death in the fall of 2008. The witnesses’ testimony produced shocking new information related to his death and revealed the truth behind the police sleight-of-hand information.  The court gave fifty police witnesses identity protection, and allowed the killers to testify behind a screen; someone was arrested who tried to photograph one of the killers.

One of de Menezes’ killers, a member of Scotland Yard’s elite CO19 specialist firearms unit 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” “apologized” for the communications problems.  Brian Paddick, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police,indicated that under the circumstances, Ms Dick’s “hard stop” command would likely have been interpreted 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) He also noted that Dick was cool under pressure and unlikely to have been flustered into thoughtless action.

While the initial portrayal of the killing involved agents racing to catch a subway about to move, with closing doors forced open for them, 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.

According to subway car eye witness Anna Dunwoodie, who was seated two or three seats from de Menezes, she noticed another man seated near her (Morgan, Nov. 3/2008) — who was later identified as the surveillance agent described only as “Ivor” — because he appeared frightened or jumpy and had a bag full of something metallic. When the marksmen approached their car, Ivor ran to the door and pointed out de Menezes to them. While seven police witnesses — all identity protected — testified that de Menezes received their shouted warning, all 17 of the other eyewitnesses vehemently denied that police had identified themselves. They had thought that the police were out-of-control rowdys, frighteningly “hyped up” with adrenaline; none realized that they were plainclothes police.

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.

Police killers 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 based on his alleged aggressiveness to their warning. The eye witnesses claim that de Menezes seemed unperturbed at the police entrance and calmly questioning when surrounded by them. (Morgan, Nov. 3/2008)  Plainclothes agents identified only as "Hotel 1, Hotel 2 and Hotel 3” immediately pinned de Menezes down and  — in the 2008 inquest, agents identified only as “C2” and “C12” — 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 to have taken De Menezes’ mobile phone by then. 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 leapt over toll barriers and stumbled down the escalator trying to escape police.

Police were still looking for Abdi Omar, not Hussein Osman. Soon after the execution of de Menezes, police — supposedly still looking to question Abdi Omar, whose address had been at 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 the UK the previous week: his absence should have been apparent if his apartment had been the focus of SRR surveillance.  When Omar returned to the UK, he asked police if they wanted to speak to him: they didn’t.

The teams: 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 noted that at least one of the killers had trained in Israel.

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

The involvement of the particular elite units named as performing this execution raises questions about the claimed accidental nature of the murder.  Ahmed describes the background of the units in his book:

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

The connection to Prime Minister Tony Blair: Ahmed’s astute observation was confirmed by 2008 testimony at the de Menezes’ 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)

The de Menezes’ lawyer, 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 did not need orders to be able to kill without accountability.

While the timing of that meeting could lead to suspicions about the Prime Minister’s foreknowledge, Chief Inspector Stephen Costello, a post-incident manager at Scotland Yard, subsequently provided more direct evidence of the Prime Minister’s involvement. 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)

The betrayal of the public: The most ominous aspect to the inquest into de Menezes’ death, however, is not the confirmation of the targeting of de Menezes, but the demonstrated betrayal of public interest by not only the government and the police, but also by the judiciary and most disappointingly, by the media.

The police cover up: Police sprang into action to protect themselves soon after de Menezes’ death. Police not only produced a “disinformation campaign” of lies over virtually every fact of the killing, but evidence was missing, manipulated, hidden and distorted. One of the only legitimate pieces of information was that at least one of the police killers trained in Israel. 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 until the 2008 inquest.

Police continue to try to discredit de Menezes. Initially, they claimed that he was in Britain illegally, which did not appear to be true. At the 2007 trial, police continued to claim that he generated suspicion by retracing his steps when the first subway station was closed and “looking nervous”, which was contradicted by all video and eye witness testimony.  At the 2008 inquest, police suggested that de Menezes generated suspicion because he looked so innocent, while one doctor testifying for the police thought that a trace amount of cocaine might have caused him to act strangely.

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.

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, Crown Prosecution Services declared in July 2006 that no one would be held personally responsible for de Menezes’ death. Cressida Dick, the DSO, was specifically exonerated in an extraordinary statement at the Met’s 2007 trial and at the 2008 inquest.  In September 2006, 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. It remains to be seen whether other anonymous agents will be prosecuted for their admitted destruction of evidence or for their perjury. It seems unlikely that anyone will be charged for Jean Charles’ murder.

The judicial cover-up: The October 2007 Health and Safety trial and the autumn 2008 inquest increasingly demonstrated the role of the judiciary in protecting the police from accountability:

The 2007 Health and Safety trial of the Met:  After four hours of deliberations on October 31, 2007, an Old Bailey Central Criminal Court jury found the Metropolitan Police guilty of breaching health and safety laws by allowing a potential suicide bomber to access public transportation and by killing him in the presence of other passengers.  But in an extraordinary rider to their verdict they said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, who was in overall charge of the Gold Team operation, had "no personal culpability"! No pubic witnesses were called to testify.

The 2008 inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes: At the end of the inquest, some of 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 evidence presented.

The media cover-up:  That two of Britain’s most elite intelligence teams would confuse a “northern European white male” in full view, with a North African is not credible and should have raised questions.  That the subway was mysteriously stopped at a red light for over five minutes before de Menezes’ killing should have raised questions. That a marksman killer was waiting for de Menezes at the Stockwell Station before he arrived demonstrates that the police not only knew de Menezes’ identity but they also knew exactly where he was going. Brian Paddick’s comment about Cressida Dick’s coolness and redirecting traffic confirmed the police oversight and control of this entire operation. And why was the Prime Minister’s name used as the authority to prevent an immediate on-site investigation at the murder scene? Yet instead of demanding hard answers from the government and police, British newspapers astonishingly continue to include in virtually every article the unproven mantra that police had mistaken the white de Menezes for the black Hussein Osman (with no mention of Abdi Omar!).  They should be asking:

 Why did British security agencies target Jean Charles de Menezes for execution? De Menezes’ work as an independent electrician leads many to suspect a connection to the events of July 7th.  Did telephone surveillance show that de Menezes was about to confide something to his uncle?
Why was Tony Blair personally involved? He discussed giving police legal protection from killings of this description the day before the Menezes’ execution as well as allowing his name to be used in barring the IPCC from the scene of the murder. That this operation was important enough to involve the Prime Minister indicates not only the importance of this operation to his government but also the lengths that Blair was prepared to take to accomplish it.

Was the public execution also a warning? The very public execution could well have been a warning to those to whom he might have shared some information or suspicions. The Guardian reported in December 2008 that de Menezes’ friends are “terrified”; the confiscation of de Menezes’ cell phone may have allowed police to identify them.  These friends presumably have reason to be afraid; they should be aware that their lives may depend on speaking out while they are able to.

The betrayal of the public interest by the government, the police, the judiciary and the media serve to keep the truth about the London Bombings hidden.

What Really Happened on 7/7

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

It was apparent, from the strangely incorrect information that came out after the bombings, that the media were following a pre-written script that didn’t jibe with reality.  This is explained by the existence of a script that was supposed to have been followed, a script for the 1000-person emergency- preparedness operation, which was the cover for the real terrorism.

All early reports of the July 7th bombing included the comment that “suicide bombing” could not be “confirmed”.  The evidence of the pre-planted explosives and the timing detonators should have served to exclude “suicides”, but the official script claimed  that there were “suicide bombers.”

The “suicide bombers” claim was unchallenged even when at least one body was not found! The BBC reported that Khan’s body was not found at Edgware, where he was supposed to have blown himself up, (BBC, 7/2005) and on July 13, 2005, Peter Clarke was quoted in The Guardian as remarking that it was not clear if all of the “suicide bombers” had, indeed, even died! (Bennetto et al, 7/2005)  

There were initial claims that the men seen on CCTV with the British- military-looking rucksacks were obviously all of Pakistani descent.  The Times initially put out the names of four Pakistani-British men, the fourth being a man who sometimes bleached his hair blonde for parties.  If they had been looking at actual footage, they could not have mistaken the fourth accused, Germaine Lindsay, a large, muscular black man of Jamaican descent for a Pakistani. 

The official script claimed that the men were proven by CCTV and witnesses to be on the 7:40 or 7:44 am train to London, the latest trains that would get them to the exploding cars on time. When those July 7th trains could not get the men to their destinations, the script was no longer valid.  If the trains had operated as scheduled, the CCTVs would presumably have been in operation and would have shown the accused with their backpacks on their way to the ill-fated subway cars; it would have been very difficult to counter that evidence.

It appeared that the accused were supposed to sit in particular seats in particular subway cars  (Muad’Dib, chap. 4). Police reported, following the script, that the IDs of the accused were found “near their seats”; thus their IDs had been placed where they were supposed to have been sitting according to the emergency-planning script. It would have been difficult even if the men had been on the trains to have determined where they had been sitting; the fact that police claimed to know where they were supposed to have been sitting demonstrates the existence of a script. 

How did the ID papers of the accused get on the subway trains when they themselves couldn’t have?

Those running the operation must have realized that the Luton trains were canceled — very possibly, Khan would have notified them himself — because, incredibly, the mobile phone network in central London was shut down by police minutes after the train detonations. While the police initially denied that they had shut down the network, they had to acknowledge, in December 2005, that “the most senior officer”, a member of the Met’s Gold Team, had shut down the network. [That was the same team that was responsible, two weeks later, for directing the elite security teams’ stalking and execution of Jean Charles de Menezes.] News of the exploding trains did not come out until 9:20 a.m., half an hour after the explosions. The men could not have realized before then that their trains were rigged; they would only have realized by 10 a.m. that Hussain’s bus also exploded. The cell phone shut down meant that the three men could not easily communicate with anyone that they were still alive or report the double- cross. From various reports about police marksmen killing “suicide bombers”, the men seemed to have been killed half an hour later, at 10:30 a.m. There was a media shutdown after only one news broadcast on the story that “suicide bombers” had been killed by police marksmen at Canary Wharf.  Luckily, the men had gotten close enough to witnesses at media outlets who got this story out through the New Zealand Herald and Toronto’s Globe and Mail (where it can still be found on their website).         

Evidence of official British involvement in the London bombing events

Timing The timing of a terrorist act would be expected to benefit the perpetrators’ agenda. The London bombings were timely for the Prime Minister because of the crisis with his “anti- terror”  legislation. The overwhelming support after the explosions turned the tide of public opinion dramatically in his favor and is still serving to enable the passage of legislation that erodes British civil liberties.

The 1000-person emergency- preparedness operation cover for the explosions would have been commissioned by a government-related organization such as London Transport. While the operation may have been legitimate, there had to be some management link connected to the plot.

Evidence of British intelligence connections to the accused
No response to a report on Khan and Tanweer: In September 2005, a leaked document detailed plans by MI6 to infiltrate potential extremist groups. (J7 Profile: Khan)  There are indications that Khan might have been working for British intelligence in that capacity.  Former Hell’s Angel Martin Gilbertson, who worked in the Muslim bookstore Iqra, claimed that Khan was a link between various strata of Muslims who frequented the shop.  He claimed that he had tipped off police about "suspicious activities" by Khan and Shezad Tanweer in October 2003 and asked anti-terrorism officers to contact him.  He claimed that he sent a package of incriminating material to the police that showed that Khan and Tanweer were linked to extremist web sites.  While Gilbertson said he had received no response, a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC, 2006) revealed that Khan had come to the attention of MI5 "in the two years before July 7, [2005]." 

Undercover Iqra bookshop agent: It could have been that "anti-terrorism" officers had no need to contact Gilbertson.  An "ex-anti-terrorist" agent, Martin McDaid, who now calls himself Abdullah, says he worked several hours a week at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston which reportedly produced and distributed DVDs that juxtapose images from the Crusades with those of mutilated Muslims. McDaid admitted that he knew all of the four accused men as well as the Egyptian chemist who was accused of being implicated earlier [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)

Charles Shoebridge’s assessment: On the BBC Newshour programme Charles Shoebridge, a former detective with the Metropolitan Police, stated, "The amount of information coming out and the quality of information coming out. The fact that that has been so consistently overlooked it would appear by the security service MI5, to me suggests really only one of two options: either 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)

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

Scotland Yard’s connections with three of accused men: Despite Scotland Yard’s claim that they had had no connection with Khan or Tanweer, it turned out that both men were bugged and taped by British intelligence in 2004.  According to the July 7th Truth Campaign web site, " In October 2005, it emerged that Khan had been under surveillance in 2004, and just a few days after this, it was revealed that all four men had been tracked by the security services.  The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Report into The London Bombings (ISC, 2006) described Khan as being "peripheral" to previous surveillance, despite the fact that resources were devoted to photographing him, tracking his car and tapping his phone.  Interestingly, the  ISC was not permitted to view the transcripts of the taped telephone conversations, prompting accusations of a cover up by MI5."  

Former MI6 agent James Casbolt reported that the four accused were paid MI5 "stooges" who were told that they would be taking the role of simulated bombers as part of the emergency-preparedness operation.  The bus had explosives pre-planted in the seats and under the floor; the trains had pre-planted bombs as well as agents who planted bombs on the trains then exited before the explosions. The agents were connected to MI5, MI6 and formerly, SAS (Special Air Services). (Casbolt, 2007)

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

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

In an interview with Fox News of July 29, 2005, John Loftus, a terrorism expert and a former prosecutor for the US Justice Department, claimed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, as a  "mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings", was a British ‘Intelligence Asset’ with connections to the British Secret Service MI-6. (Chossudovsky, 8/2005) Loftus noted that Aswat was the assistant of the so-called "Captain Hook" — Abu Hamza al-Masri who was the imam of the Finsbury Mosque in London and head of the subsequently- outlawed Al-Muhajiroun. 

According to Nafeez Ahmed in The London Bombings, the leadership of the "al Qaida-linked" organizations in Britain — such as the Finsbury mosque and Al-Muhajiroun — as well as the Pakistani ISI, are connected to MI5 and MI6.  (Ahmed, 2006, 175) The London-based Al-Muhajiroun, which was formed during the Kosovo crisis, worked with MI6 to recruit first Pakistani British Muslims, then Somalis and Eritreans to fight for Muslim interests in Kosovo. While both the imam and the person under Aswat were later indicted, Aswat led a charmed existence, continually being freed in Britain and internationally after a variety of arrests.  In July, 2005, Loftus noted: "the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI-6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him…"  

Before Aswat’s August 2005 arrest, an informative Sunday Times article of July 31, 2005, documented astonishing official British protection of Aswat:  while acknowledging that there had been telephone calls between Aswat and those accused of the London bombings leading up to July 7th, "British investigators … caution that the calls may have been made to a phone linked to Aswat, rather than the man himself." (Woods et al, 2005)

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

Documented links to Al Qaida:  Links between Western intelligence and "Al Qaida" would explain the edited-in al Zwahiri sections to the Khan and Tanweer tapes. (See Appendix D)

The choice of secular Muslims as “terrorists” maximized the growth of the British security industry. The British operation chose "suicide bombers" from among the least likely Muslims to have committed such acts.  It might not have been by chance that the four accused Muslims were secular, westernized and patriotic, because it was that specific scenario that permitted the British government to clamp down on civil liberties and increase their security budget in order to institute a virtual witch hunt for hidden “extremism” throughout the Muslim community.

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

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

The connection to Prime Minister Tony Blair:  While the Prime Minister may have been ignorant about any specific operation when Met Chief Ian Blair met with him on the day before the de Menezes’ killing 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.
The absence of a serious governmental investigation:  Exactly one month before the London bombings, on June 7, 2005, the Inquiries Act became law, giving the Prime Minister complete control of all inquiries. Soon after the bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to permit an investigation, claiming it would be a waste of resources.  The official Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2005/6 that reported on the July 7th blasts (BBC, 5/2006) was highly self- serving to the security establishment. While praising security personnel for their work, it blamed intelligence failures on insufficient resources and recommended an expanded intelligence sector as the solution to future problems. While noting that the accused Muslims seemed normal, it assumed that they became "extremists" and incredibly, claimed that they had no accomplices, thus eliminating the need for any further investigation.

Judicial protection of police from responsibility for the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes has demonstrated the judiciary’s protection of police interests. It remains to be seen whether even police who perjured themselves or admitted destroying evidence at the 2008 inquest will ever be charged.

Coincidences of note: The Commissioner of London Transport, Bob Kiley, had been a former Manager of CIA Intelligence Operations and had served under Richard Helms as Executive Assistant to the Director of the CIA.  He is also a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kelly has been connected to former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani, presently a crisis consultant with his new firm Giuliani Partners, who was also in London on 7/7. Giuliani has also been connected to Visor Consultant’s Peter Powers.        

Who benefited from the London bombings as terrorism from respected citizens?

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

The American “War on Terror” agenda that Naomi Klein describes as “endless war for endless profit” by demonizing those against Israel, specifically, Muslims and Arabs..

Tony Blair’s national “anti-terror” legislative agenda went from being very unpopular to gaining immediate support and finally passed. The British public paid dearly for their belief that loyal citizens might mysteriously become “extremist” and  turn on their neighbors, with their resulting loss of civil liberties. The July 7 terrorism and associated official fear-mongering enabled the passage of legislation that eliminates freedom of speech and invades personal privacy. The criminalization of language gives the British government control over expression with punishment of up to seven years in prison. According to the Human Rights Watch Report of 2005, this legislation can criminalize support for any issue the government chooses (HRW, 2005), such as the environment, animal rights and even resistance to illegal occupations.

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

As an example, Project Rich Picture was set up "shortly after" July 7, 2005 to proactively identify "those who may be being groomed for terrorism", an estimated half of one percent of British Muslims, or potentially 8,000 "terror supporters".  According to the July 3, 2006 Independent ("MI5 conducts secret inquiry into 8,000 al-Qaida ’sympathisers’ "), "Undercover agents are gathering information from all over the country, including at colleges, mosques, and Internet web sites where extremists may try to radicalize those sympathetic to the aims of al-’Qa’ida."  The security services are concerned that the estimated 5 - 7 % of British Muslims who believe that the July 7th attacks were justified may be targeted by "Islamic extremists."  One year after the bombing, much of the work of Project Rich Picture is being carried out by MI5 officers working out of four new regional stations (Scotland, northwest, northeast and midlands) and aided by the eavesdropping facilities of GCHQ at Cheltenham; a further four stations (southwest, Wales, east and southeast) are to be operational by the end of 2006. (Bennetto, 2006)

The Home Office announced proposals in August 2008 that were first suggested as a result of 7/7, that would force all telecommunications companies to retain all Internet (including voice), text and e-mail communication for at least a month to allow all 1093 public bodies licensed under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) access to the information for any purpose. Legislation is expected in late 2008 that will facilitate police access to this information.  

Tony Blair’s international “anti-terrorism” agendabenefited from thesupposed Muslim transformation to “extremism.”  An address by Dr. Robin Niblett, Executive Vice President, & Director, Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), demonstrates the self-serving use Britain made of these events with the United States.  Dr. Niblett spoke to the American  Subcommittee European Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 5, 2006:

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

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

Who benefited from the belief that the London bombs were caused by “suicide bombers”?

The agenda of the Government of Israel: Since suicide bombers have been identified primarily (before Iraq!) as Palestinians attacking Israelis, this scenario would specifically have created sympathy for Israelis. The BBC and British newspapers quickly presented parallels between Israelis and London terror victims. Hours after the British Government declared that the London bombings were the result of suicide bombers, the BBC evening news ran a prepared story comparing Londoners and Israelis as innocent victims of suicide attacks. The extreme outpouring of British hatred on Muslims after this announcement implied increased sympathy for Israelis.

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s immediate response to the bombings was to denounce “extremism” — defined only as anti-Israeli attitudes — to denounce at least parts of the Muslim community, and to call for legislation that would criminalize language “supporting terrorism”. These proposals included criminalizing the term “martyr” as well as “rationales for terrorism”, which could be interpreted as condemnations of Israel’s illegal dispossessions of Palestinians and occupation of Palestinian territories, descriptions of Israeli oppression against Palestinians and even descriptions of laws that give Palestinians the right to bear arms for self-defense and their freedom. In short, Blair’s proposals to criminalize the use of language would very specifically have supported Israeli interests.

Israeli security services, one of Israel’s major export industries, received complimentary publicity when their role in advising Britain on suicide bombing (resulting in the British police’s protocol “Operation Kratos”) and their training of British security (the killers of Jean Charles de Menezes) became known.  The Israeli company Verint that runs the London CCTV system also received publicity.

The perpetrators, because there could be no trials where those accused could defend themselves.


The ferocity of the London bombings demonstrated a psychological operation (“psych-op”) that was designed to traumatize the British public into abandoning their civil liberties and to create enough suspicion of Muslims to support a perpetual police witch hunt throughout Britain’s Muslim communities. The raw power of British police and security forces was evident from the shutting down of the London phone network on July 7th to the public executions of the Canary Wharf “suicide bomber” pedestrians and Jean Charles de Menezes which were carried out with total impunity.  The 2008 inquest into the death of de Menezes revealed for the first time not only the relationship between the Prime Minister and the security forces connected to these events but, disappointingly, the shameful complicity of a media that refuses to ask questions that challenge the government and a judiciary that refuses to hold any member of the police forces accountable for even the relatively minor crimes of perjury and the destruction of police evidence. The British public has been left with the responsibility to protect its own interests.  It must find ways to:

I. Challenge the British Government to produce answers:Given the extraordinary impact of the July 7th bombings on British civil liberties, British citizens should be demanding that the government investigate and provide answers for important questions such as:

Who hired Visor Consultants to carry out the 1000-person emergency-preparedness operation cover? Given the suspicious nature of the coincidence, why has this information not been made public?
Why have police made no public attempt to locate and interview the man initially named as the fourth bomber, Ejaz "Jacksy" Fiaz?  Why did police arrest his brother when Ejaz was not confirmed as the fourth “suicide bomber”?
Where did the unusual variant of the military explosive C4 — that was identified at all of the blast sites — come from? Who provided it? Who set up the timed explosives in the four vehicles?

Who were the "fifth" men who were said to be seen with the accused on CCTV tapes of July 7th? Why have these photos not been shown so that the public might assist in the men’s identification?

Who was responsible for the killing of the men described as “suicide bombers” at Canary Wharf? The use of that description for pedestrians demonstrated inside knowledge of the bombing operation.
What was the role of Haroon Rachid Aswat and the British security organizations MI5 and MI6 in the London bombings? Why did police and British security organizations initially deny their knowledge about Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay, and what was the nature of these relationships?

Why did the Metropolitan police have Jean Charles de Menezes executed?  Why have the police continued to lie about the targeting of de Menezes? Given the 2008 inquest evidence, why have no police been charged with perjury, destruction of evidence or “unlawful killing”?
What was the Prime Minister’s role in the London bombings operation? Given the Prime Minister’s refusal to hold an investigation into 7/7 and his involvement in the barring of timely IPCC access to the de Menezes’ execution, it is evident that he was complicit.
Did Israel play a role in the planning and cover-up of these operations? Given the public Israeli foreknowledge, the connection to London’s surveillance system, and the extraordinary benefits the Israeli government received from the “suicide bombings”, some role would be expected.

There will be legal complications for any investigation even if the British Government were to consider a inquiry into the July 7th events; the June 7th, 2005 Inquiries Act gives the executive full control of all inquiries and makes any truly independent inquiry impossible.

II. Protect civil rights by challenging racism:  "Anti-terrorism" laws that are applied today against Muslims — or dissidents, or animal-rights activists, or environmentalists - will eliminate civil liberties that protect us all. To salvage as much as possible of freedoms, civil liberties, and judicial due process:
Challenge the insidious use of terms that are either undefined or defined by a political perspective such as "extremism".  Such terms must be exposed as eroding freedom of speech and of furthering the Anglo-American geopolitical agenda,
Protest language misrepresenting and/or marginalizing Muslims, such as the "clash of civilizations,": recognize it as implicitly racist and furthering the "war on terror" agenda;
Challenge the unacceptable assumption that terrorists tend to be Muslim: this assumption only serves the American agenda which is behind the labeling of those it targets; and  

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


Despite the fact that the British government’s official version of the July 7th terrorism continues to be contradicted by evidence, it is hard to find public acknowledgment of what should be exoneration of the four accused.

New information about police connections with Mohammad Sadique Khan and Shezad Tanweer have come out in the so-called "fertilizer plot" trial that are making earlier police disclaimers increasingly embarrassing.  Police have clearly been confused about how to explain the history of their contacts with these men.  The discovery of Germaine Lindsay’s phone number in a police phone book has also not been explained.

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

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

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan Police claimed that the recent [Operation Crevice] convictions showed the success of the "war on extremism"  and support the extension of "preemptive action to protect the public from the threat of terrorism."

In March 2003, MI5 started "to investigate" a British al Qaida- connected leader, Mohammad   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, (defense attorneys accused of him being a liar), the trial was marred when the defendants would not defend themselves because of alleged threats from Pakistani intelligence (ISI) against relatives in Pakistan. There was also the accusation that one of the defendants, Amin, was forced to make statements as a result of 10 months of MI5- related torture in Pakistan.  The lead prosecutor, David Waters, QC, had previously handled cases that involved covert operatives and the protection of damaging state secrets. Significantly, Mohammad Junaid Babar is to be sentenced only after the last of the related trials, that of Mohammad Momin Khawaja in Canada.

The quantity of evidence was clearly not compelling.  After almost three weeks of inconclusive deliberation, Judge Michael Astill allowed the jurors to decide by majority rather than by unanimity.  A week later — making this one of  the longest deliberations in U. K. history — Salahuddin Amin, Jawad  Akbar, Anthony Garcia, Omar  Khyam,  and Waheed Mahmood, were given life sentences, (extended by 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 Qaida, the evidence in its entirety could be consistent with Khan being used as an MI5 informer and then as a dupe: Khan visited Pakistan in 2003 and met with one of the defendants, where he is accused of attending a camp to learn how to create explosives; MI5 identified Khan on February 2, 2004 then bugged and photographed him and Tanweer throughout February and March of 2004, but refused to release Khan’s photograph(s) to the FBI that April to show to their cooperating witness Mohammad Junaid Babar. Babar claimed at the "fertilizer trial" that he could have identified Khan if he had been shown his photograph.  MI5 allegedly withheld Khan’s photos because of their poor quality, which was disputed by others who claim that Khan is identifiable in them.  MI5 also withheld 5 out of its 6 photos of Khan and Tanweer from the Commons’ ISC investigation, which Tony Blair claimed had seen "all relevant information."; MI5 also refused to show these withheld photographs to BBC’s Panorama.

In a bugged conversation between Khan and Omar Khyam in February 2004 Khan asks Khyam, "Are you really, seriously, a terrorist?" and then Khan asks Khyam who he works for — questions that a British agent would be expected to ask.  Khyam may have had his own links to British intelligence, because he then told Khan about the coming police raids the following month, (raids in which Khyam himself would be arrested!)

Could Khan and Tanweer’s 2004 connection with police explain the mysterious tapes, apparently created in 2004, that were released after their deaths, as well as the foreknowledge exhibited by Scotland Yard about the existence of the Tanweer tape?  Could an MI5 connection have been the reason for their creation? Charles Shoebridge’s surmising about an MI5 connection with Khan appears increasingly likely.

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


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.  While they were the first to be arrested on charges relating to the July 7th bombings, police claim that their extensive investigations have led them to others whom they plan to charge at a later date.

After a month of being held, the three 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. They 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.

July 7th victims and their relatives understood that inquests would be delayed as a result of the outcome of this case; a report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, that oversees MI5 and MI6, that was due in September 2008 was also expected to be delayed..

Karin Brothers is an Associate Member of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven   
August 18, 2008While the author retains copyright, this information may be used with attribution.


Chronology of events relating to the July 7th explosions

                September 20, 2004
Metronet Rail selected Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel’sComverse 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.

                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.

                8:30 am
Three of the men were then supposed to have taken trains going West, East and South of King’s’ Cross.
                8:45 am
Scotland Yard calls Israeli consulate to warn them of an impending event: (Netanyahu remains in hotel rather than appearing at a meeting near the Edgware station.)

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

                8:51 am
                London Underground and Metronet report a dangerous power surge (denied by National Grid)

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

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

                9:30 am
The Underground declares an emergency while a 1,000- person emergency- preparedness operation is taking place at these three subway sites.  (Scotland Yard is under the impression for a day or two that these 3 explosions were 45 min apart; news that they were almost simultaneous came out two days later on July 9th and July 10th British newspapers.)

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

                10:30 am
Up to three “suicide bombers” are reported to be killed by police marksmen at Canary Wharf: one at Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, the other one or two at HSBC tower.

Later that day

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

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

While Scotland Yard reports that the subway bombs occurred about 45 minutes apart, a July 7th article in the Jerusalem Post 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..

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

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

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

                Monday, July 11th
In the July 11th newspaper Le Monde, Christophe Chaboud, France’s anti terrorism coordinator called to London, claimed that the explosives used in the London bombings were military and specifically not homemade, a claim echoed by various munitions experts.

                Tuesday, July 12
The Guardian reported that detectives seized 2,500 CCTV tapes which "could take as little as two weeks" to find clues in; they are following up about 2,000 calls to the anti-terrorist hotline as well as 115,000 calls to the casualty bureau.

                Wednesday July 13th
Papers claimed that four British Muslims of Pakistani descent had been identified as the "suicide bombers"; most papers identified three men as Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.  The Times named the fourth as Ejaz (or Eliaz) Fiaz, who had dyed his hair blonde. The police claim did not jibe with the later identification of Germaine Lindsay, a large, muscular Jamaican-born man who would not have appeared to resemble those of Pakistani descent.  The men were said to have been identified from CCTV shots of the four together with their rucksacks, with the "lucky break" coming when the mother of Hussain reported him missing on the police hotline (which took 115,000 calls). DNA tests are allegedly conducted on the Piccadilly Line carriage to identify Lindsay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metropolitan police chief Ian Blair meets with Prime Minister Tony Blair about providing maximum legal protection to officers who shoot 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.

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 Firearms team briefed at a south London police station for a second time. Told they face determined suicide bombers, and  “must be up for it”: they are given special dum dum bullets.

9:33 a.m. De Menezes leaves 21 Scotia Road for work; two elite surveillance teams are dispatched by Met headquarters to follow him, one on foot, the other by car. He is immediately identified as a “Northern European white male”.  De Menezes takes a 30 minute journey, taking bus No. 2 to a subway station which is closed; retracing his steps to catch the next bus No. 2 to the next subway station, Stockwell, where marksman “C12” was waiting in an unmarked car.

10 a.m. Stockwell subway operator Quincy Akpesiri Oji gets into train to see that the light is red, which was unusual; the train doesn’t move.

 10.03 am De Menezes enters Stockwell tube station. Elite firearms unit is taken to "state red" with “hard stop” instruction from DSO Cressida Dick meaning they are to shoot the suspect.

 Passenger Anna Dunwoodie notes a disturbingly “hyped-up” man sitting near her who turned out to be surveillance agent “Ivor”.

 10.04 am C12 sprints into the station, vaulting ticket barriers;

“Ivor” goes to train door to greet C12 and marksmen who are entering the car with the message, “He’s here,” pointing to an unpreturbed de Menezes who was seated.

10:06 a.m. Agents pin de Menezes down and pump 11 special dum dum bullets into him at 3 second intervals. 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,. Police lead Pathologist Shorrock through the event at the scene, lying about de Menezes’ actions.

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 is arrested in UK on arrival reportedly from Zambia, where he had been detained.

                September 1, 2005
A mysterious tape surfaces of Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the four accused "suicide bombers", reportedly showing him as he appeared in 2004, with an edited-in clip of Al Qaida’s al Zwahiri.  Some of Khan’s mouth movements do not match the words and the full tape is not shown publicly.  Friends and neighbors of Khan’s claim the tape is a fraud from both the voice and the content..

                September 2005
Police claim that a similar tape of Tanweer exists.  Police release several June 28th, 2005 images of the four accused, which they claim show a "dry run" for the July 7 events.

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

                October 2005
The Guardian reports that Metropolitan police are holding the bodies of all of the alleged suicide bombers for reconstruction and analysis. [Tanweer’s body is later buried in a family plot in Pakistan; government security agents guard the grave for days.]

                January 6, 2006
BBC TV special investigative report claims that the bombings were done cheaply, that Khan and the other three were the sole perpetrators and that there were no accomplices.

                November 2005
 The Commissioner and Chairman of London Transport, the American Bob Kiley, formerly a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations and former CIA Manager of Intelligence Operations who served as Executive Assistant to the Director of US Intelligence, announced that he would leave his post in January, three years earlier than expected.  He was given a four-year contract in 2001.

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

                July 5, 2006
An American broadcaster claims that a tape of Shezad Tanweer, another of the four accused "suicide bombers", will appear the next day at Al Jazeera.

                July 6, 2006
A tape of Tanweer as he looked in 2004 and strikingly similar to the video of Khan, mysteriously appears at al Jazeera and is aired on the eve of the first anniversary of the July bombings.  It includes edited-in clips of al Zwahiri, a self-proclaimed American member of al Qaida, and various other footage purported to appear "terrorist."  The full tape is not shown publicly although there was a transcript..

                July 11, 2006
Home Secretary John Reid changes the time the Government claims the alleged  "suicide bombers" caught the train to London from 7:40 or 7:48 a.m. to 7:25 a.m. to fit with the discovery that they could not have made it onto the exploding cars with the July 7th trains they had been claimed to be on. He did not claim that this was corroborated by either CCTV tapes or witnesses.  Reid claimed that Scotland Yard had not been the source of their misinformation; Scotland Yard said that the official account had been produced by the Home Office.

                July 17, 2006
Crown Prosecution Service decides that no one will be held personally responsible for de Menezes’ death. (No criminal charges in De Menezes shooting

                September 2006
                The inquest is adjourned indefinitely.

                January 2007
BBC suddenly scraps 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".  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 present Khan’s widow with what they claimed to be Khan’s suicide note that they allegedly found “days after the attack”, along with 400 pounds Sterling “for the children.”  [Patel only had one child, suffering a miscarriage of a second after July 7, 2005.] Despite the fact that the contents of the letter exonerates Hasina Patel of any foreknowledge of July 7 bombings, police hold her for six days, claiming her DNA was at the Leeds “explosives”-in-a-bathtub apartment.  Lawyers for Mrs. Patel lodged a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which said it would supervise an investigation to be conducted by the Metropolitan police.

 They are all released with the exception of Khaliq, who is charged with an offense unrelated to the events of July 7th.  

A Metropolitan police spokesman "reissued an appeal for information about how the [alleged] bombers were motivated and financed", implicitly acknowledging stunning police ignorance on both accounts. 

It became evident that MI5 had withheld photographic evidence of Khan and Tanweer not only from the FBI request of April 2004, but also from the House of Commons’ Intelligence Service Committee’s investigation.  The ISC was given only 1 of at least 6 photos of Khan. MI5 refused to allow BBC’s Panorama to see this evidence.

                May 2007
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan Police claims that the recent convictions showed the success of the "war on extremism" and support the extension of "preemptive action to protect the public from the threat of terrorism."  Since 9/11, MI5 has doubled in size and now spies on 2,000.

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

                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 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, 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.

                November 13, 2007
 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, heir DNA was identified at the Leeds bathtub apartment. A retrial is expected.

                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 defendents 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 Shahzad 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, former High Court judge, Sir Michael Wright, instructed jurors that they will only be allowed to return a verdict of lawful killing or an “open” verdict; he ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing as "not justified". He also warned the 11 jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to [the responsible] individuals because “verdicts cannot be inconsistent with the outcome of the Metropolitan Police’s health and safety trial”, which spared Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick of personal blame. Wright indicated that police perjury may have been justifiable. He gave jurors yes/no questions to answer that police had used to rationalize the killing.
                December 12, 2008
Police, expecting an “unlawful” verdict, were pleasantly surprised when jurors obediently returned an “open” verdict on the de Menezes killing. The family 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.
                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. .

Notes and Appendices


1: The 1000-person emergency preparedness operation:

On July 7th, BBC-5 TV interviewed Peter Power of Visor Consultants who reported that his company had been hired to carry out the July 7th emergency preparedness operation with 1,000 people for multiple simultaneous subway bombs; the further coincidence was that this was to take place just when the bombs went off and at the exact three stations affected by the blasts. (Chossudovsky, 2005)  Powers, who had worked for Scotland Yard in the past and had been connected with British intelligence, refused to identify who ordered this operation. (Former MI5 agent and whistle blower David Shayler claimed that Rudi Giuliani, the mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, had been connected with Powers’ company) (Szymanski, 2005)

Coincidentally, Rudolf Giuliani, Mayor of New York on the September 11, 2001 attack , was in London, staying at the same hotel as Netanyahu near the Liverpool bomb site. At this time, both Giuliani and Powers were serving on the advisory board of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness ; both Guiliani and Partners and Visor Consulting specialise in security preparedness and mock terror drills.

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

Major References and Suggested Reading

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

The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed:  Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. 2006.  This contains information on the July 7th investigation, MI5 and MI6 links to radical  Muslims, as well as documentation linking British and western intelligence to " Al Quada- related" terrorism to control international resources.)

YouTube analyses of July 7th CCTV tapes; Http://
                                                                HYPERLINK "Http://" Http://

The web site includes links to DVDs on 7/7 including “7/7 Ripple Effect”.

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

The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism by Naomi Klein published  in 2007 in Canada by Alfred Knopf. Klein describes the underlying economic agenda behind  world events.


Appendix A:  Operation Kratos

Operation Kratos was initially claimed to be the protocol for Jean Charles de Menezes’ killing.  Although this was then denied in the 2007 police trial, it was again used as a rationale in the 2008 inquest into de Menezes’ death.

In 2005, the Metropolitan Police claimed that they had been preparing to counter the threat of suicide bombers in London since 9/11.  Operation Kratos, the Israeli-inspired policy they put in place to deal with suicide bombers, had been signed off operationally and legally on January 22 2003 at MI5 headquarters.  Many agencies became involved in the development of Kratos, including the Home Office, MI5, Special Forces, the MoD (Ministry of Defense), the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Treasury lawyers. Legal advice was crucial, as fatalities seemed likely; meeting minutes noted that the legal issues were "complex".

On July 22 Kratos policy covered only two narrow scenarios: "Kratos", a spontaneous event in which a potential suicide bomber is suddenly identified by, say, a member of the public and there is no prior intelligence; and "Clydesdale", where there is detailed intelligence about an attack on a specific target which means that the police have ample time to put their tactics in place. The situation on July 22 fell into neither category and was not one that had been planned for, according to Deputy assistant commissioner Barbara Wilding (now chief constable of South Wales) who became Chair of the Met’s suicide bomber working party.

Although senior officers claim that the final decision to use lethal force rests with the person who pulls the trigger, the ultimate responsibility may lie with the officer who gives permission for a killing.  Once a Kratos operation is under way, it is commanded by one of a number of specially trained officers at Scotland Yard known as "designated senior officers" situated in the Special Branch operations room at Scotland Yard.  The person in the most exposed position — who activated the CO19 unit — is Commander Cressida Dick, a highly regarded, Oxford- educated officer, who was DSO when De Menezes was killed.  It became apparent in the 2008 inquest into Jean Charles de Menezes’ death that Dick used language that would have been understood as authorising the use of lethal force.

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

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

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

"There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution.  We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.

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

"We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy.  There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, 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)                     

Appendix C:   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 DNA in the “bomb factory” with the tub.  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:
If a 30-year old professional were to make out an official will with appendices, he would presumably have typed this out on a computer, not have written it out by hand;
If police really had possessed this document that incriminated Khan and provided a motive, why did they wait almost two years to show it?  The police story of “suicide bombers” was weak because of the noted lack of any suicide notes, along with the explicit plans the men had for their futures, and the lack of any apparent motive. If police really had possessed this document “days after the attacks” why didn’t they make it public to dispel some of those challenging questions?

Why would police have kept a will and money belonging to Khan’s family for almost two years?

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 it was “to please Allah”;
Police were not even pretending to take this “will” seriously — that completely exonerated Hasina Patel — because they were supposedly arresting her for complicity.

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 laid.  The response was that it would supervise an investigation that would be conducted by the Metropolitan police!

Hasina Patel was interviewed 11 weeks later at Sky News.  She appeared to be very vulnerable and 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 recommences with 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 D What has the evidence been for "al Qaida"?  A Skeptic’s view

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

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

The Power of Nightmares stated that:
The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organised network of control.  He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name: "al-Qaeda".  It was a dramatic and powerful picture of bin Laden, but it bore little relationship to the truth.  The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy.  But there was no organisation.  These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance.  He was not their commander.  The documentary noted that there is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it.”  
Questions about the reliability of al-Fadl’s testimony have been raised by a number of sources because of his history of dishonesty and because he was delivering it as part of a plea bargain agreement after being convicted of conspiring to attack U..S.military establishments.  Sam Schmidt, a defense lawyer from the trial, had the following to say about al-Fadl’s testimony:
"‘There were selective portions of al-Fadl’s testimony that I believe was false, to help support the picture that he helped the Americans join together. I think he lied in a number of specific testimony about a unified image of what this organisation was.  It made al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists.  It made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easier to prosecute any person associated with al-Qaeda for any acts or statements made by bin Laden.’  (Schmidt, 2004)

The scarcity of al-Qaida members, despite many terrorism arrests, suggests that there is no such actual organization.  Only the definitions of al Qaida that describe philosophical connections rather than organizational connections appear to be valid.

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

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


ABC News, 2005. Officials: London Bus Body Could Be Bomber. 8 July. ABC News, retrieved June 20, 2008 at: Http://

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

Akleh, Elias. 2005 British Terrorism in Iraq. Global Research. September 30. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

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:

Awoken, 2004. Al-Qaeda is a US Intelligence Asset, Jan 11,  2004. Awoken.  retrieved June 20, 2008 at:

BBC, 7/2005. Police release bus bomber images. 14 July, 2005. BBC News. retrieved July 6, 2008 at:

BBC, 9/2005.  London bombers ‘did a trial run’.  20 September 2005. BBC. retrieved July 5, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

BBC. 2006. At-a-glance: 7 July reports. 12 May. BBC News. retrieved on June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

BBC, 10/2007.  Menezes picture ‘was manipulated’. 17 October 2007. BBC. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:

BBC, 2007. The Menezes Killing.  BBC News. undated images retrieved July 7, 2008 at: Http://

BBC, 8/2008.  Victims reflect on 7/7 bombings. Friday August 1. BBC, video retrieved August 12, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Bennetto, J, Herbert, I, 2005. The suicide bomb plot hatched in Yorkshire. 13 July. The Independent. Retrieved July 9, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

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://

Bennetto, Jason. 2006. “MI5 conducts secret inquiry into 8,000 al-Qa’ida ’sympathisers’”.  03 July. The Independent. Retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

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:HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

Chossudovsky, 2001. Chossudovsky, M.  Who Is Osama Bin Laden? 12 September 2001. Centre for Research on Globalisation. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""
Chossudovsky, 8/2005. Chossudovsky, M, London 7/7 Terror Suspect Linked to British Intelligence? HYPERLINK""August 1, 2005. Global Research, retrieved July 7, 2008 at:

Chossudovsky, Michel. 2005.  7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks? 8 Aug.  Global Research. Retrieved June 26, 2008 at:
Televised interview “Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal” at: HYPERLINK""

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:

 Cobain, I, Vasagar, J.2007HYPERLINK",,2069312,00.html/"Free - the man accused of being an al-Qaida leader, aka ‘Q’,  May 1. The Guardian.  retrieved July 7, 2008:  HYPERLINK",,2069312,00.html/",,2069312,00.html

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:

Evans, M., O’Neill, S. Webster, P, 2005. Terrorist gang ‘used military explosives’.  July 12. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: Http://

Fox, 2005.  Cops: London Attacks Were Homicide Blasts.  July 15, 2005. Fox News. retrieved June 20, 2008 at:  HYPERLINK",2933,162476,00.html/",2933,162476,00.html

Guardian, 2005.  The London Bombers Hussain at King’s Cross. July 18, 05. The Guardian Unlimited. image retrieved June 26, 2008 at HYPERLINK",8543,-10505241767,00.html/",8543,-10505241767,00.html

Halevi, E. 2005. Ex-Mossad Chief Calls For World War After London Attack. July 7. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

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: HYPERLINK""

HRW. 2005.  Backgrounders: Clause 1: Encouragement etc. Of Terrorism2005. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:HYPERLINK""

Hughes, Mark, 2008. De Menezes ‘was killed without warning’ October 31. The Independent. Retrieved on Nov. 3, 2008 at:

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: HYPERLINK"Http://,INTELLIGENCE+AND+SECURITY+COMMITTEE+REPORT+INTO+THE+LONDON+TERRORIST+ATTACKS+ON+7+JULY+2005.html/"Http://,INTELLIGENCE+AND+SECURITY+COMMITTEE+REPORT+INTO+THE+LONDON+TERRORIST+ATTACKS+ON+7+JULY+2005.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:  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

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:
J7 Profile: Hussain.  J7 Profile: Hasib Mir Hussain (Age: 18). J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. retrieved July 6, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

HYPERLINK""J7 Profile: Khan.  J7 Profile: Mohammad Sidique Khan (Age: 30). J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, retrieved July 5, 2008 at:

J7 Profile: Jamal/Germaine Lindsay (Age: 19). J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, 2006 retrieved July 6, 2008 at:    HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

J7 update, 2006. Update to “THE IMPOSSIBLE TRAIN JOURNEY”. 24 June 2006. J7: July 7th Truth Campaign Blog. Retrieved July 6, 2008 at:

Laville, Sandra, 2008. De Menezes police ‘had unclear orders’. November 6. The Guardian. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2008 at:  Http://

Loftus, 2005.  John Loftus On Fox TV Claims London Bombings ‘Mastermind’ Is MI6 Double Agent . July 29, 2005. retrieved July 7, 2008 at  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

Macintyre, Ben. 2005. Hitchhikers to Heaven who created Hell on Earth. July 16. The Times. Retrieved July 7, 2008 at

Margolis, Eric. Lies, More Lies, And Damn Lies. 18 July 2007. Information Clearing House.  Retrieved July 7, 2008 at:

Marsden, Chris. 2005. Unanswered questions in London bombings. 11 July 2005. World Socialist Web Site, retrieved June 2008 at:  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

McGrory, D. 2005. Anxious mother’s call led police to her bomber son.July 13. The Times.  retrieved June 26, 2008 at:  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

McGrory, D., and Evans, M. 2005. Hunt for the master of explosives. 13 July. The Times. retrieved June 26 at:  HYPERLINK",,22989-1692033,00.html/",,22989-1692033,00.html

Mitchell, P. Police Chief "Cleared" of De Menezes Killing. February 26th, 2007. Ukwatch. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Morgan, Tom and Davis, Margaret, 2008. Pathologist given false details over Menezes death, inquest told. November 5. The Independent retrieved Nov. 6, 2008 at:

Morgan, Tom, 2008. Police were out of control, says witness. November 3. The Independent. Retrieved on November 5, 2008 at:

Muad’Dib. Chapter 4: The Four Muslims: Actors or Patsies?. 7/7 Ripple Effect. retrieved August 18, 2008 at: and

Muad’Dib. Chapter 6: The Number 30 Bus.  7/7 Ripple Effect. retrieved July 8, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""    and

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:

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: HYPERLINK""

N Z Herald, 2005.  ‘Police shot bombers’ reports New Zealander. July 9, 2005. New Zealand Herald. retrieved on July 7, 2008 at  HYPERLINK""

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: HYPERLINK"Http://"

Norton-Taylor, R. 2005. New special forces unit tailed Brazilian. August 4. The Guardian retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

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://

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://

Sanderson, D. 2006. Police persecuted me, says De Menezes whistleblower.  May 8. The Times. retrieved June 26, 2008 at:  HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

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: HYPERLINK""

Shera, Arutz. 2005. Report: Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast.  7 July 2005. Propaganda Matrix.  retrieved July 6, 2008: Http://  

Shortnews, 2005.  ‘Suicide Bomber Neutralized’ in Canary Wharf, London. July 10, 2005. Shortnews. retrieved June 25, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Sky News, 2007.
Sky News exclusive interview with Hasina Patel, widow of Mohammad Sidique Khan. Friday July 27. Sky News. HYPERLINK"Http://"retrieved April 14, 2009 at 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:
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. HYPERLINK"" retrieved April 14, 2009 at

Smith, M. Could this ‘police officer’ be a soldier?  SAS Link. August 01, 2005. Intelligence. retrieved July 7, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Szymanski, Greg. Former MI5 Agent Says Bombings Look Like Inside Job. July 30, 2005.  Retrieved on July 7, 2008 at:

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., retrieved on July 6, 2008 at:HYPERLINK"–bombers-and-the-special-forces-soldier-name_page.html/"–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:

WAG, 21/7/2005. Was Bus Bomber Really Hasib Hussain? July 21, 2005. WAG News. retrieved June 26, 2008 at: HYPERLINK"Http://"Http://

WAG, 23/7/2005. Evidence Luton CCTV Image is Fake. 23 July 2005. WAG News. retrieved in June 2008 at:  HYPERLINK"Http://,/"Http:// 
And  video at YouTube: 77 London Bombing CCTV analysis British False Flag Op at:
Also:  Image at:

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: HYPERLINK""

Walker, Peter and agencies, 11/2008. Driver of De Menezes train thought police were terrorists. November 4. The Guardian. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Watson, 2005. Watson, PJ, London Bombing Aftermath: The Spin Continues, July 27, 2005. Prison Planet. retreived June 25, 2008 at:

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: HYPERLINK""

Watson, 2006. Watson, P.J., Terror Expert: London Bomber Was Working For MI5. June 27, 2006. Prison Planet. retrieved July 6, 2008 at: HYPERLINK""

Wikipedia, Project for the New American Century, 2008, retrieved July 5, 2008 at:

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:   HYPERLINK""

© 2003-2011 S.P.I.N.E.             Login