7/7 On The Edge with Tom Secker

Filmmaker and Researcher Tom Secker on Edge Media's On the Edge show talking about the 7/7 Inquests. Recorded on June 2nd 2011. The discussion focused on problems with the Inquest diagrams of the bomb sites, strangely edited or absent CCTV, and numerous other anomalies and problems with the 7/7 official story.

For more information, analysis and coverage of the 7/7 Inquests, see the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

From J7....

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."

-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.

Onwards.

J7 Exclusive: Peter Power's CV Fakery

According to recent figures, approximately half of jobseekers tell lies on their CVs and the figure is up 10% on the results of a similar survey last year. So prevalent is the problem of CV lies that, in January, Channel 4 dumped their TV nanny, Claire Verity - previously accused by viewers of child cruelty, after she failed to prove that she hadn't faked her qualifications.

Following the events in New York on 11th September 2001, one woman, Tania Head, emerged from the debris with a distinctive tale of woe. Ms Head claimed to be on the 96th floor of the south tower when the first 'plane' struck. Her husband, Dave, was apparently on the 100th floor of the north tower. Head claims that the impact of the second 'plane' rendered her unconscious and badly burnt. Her account made her one of only 19 survivors who had been at or above the point of impact when the planes hit. In time, Head became no less than President of the World Trade Centre Survivors' Network.

Shortly after the 6th anniversary of the day that has come to be known as 9/11, the Telegraph announced that Tania Head, like half of all jobseekers, had lied on her CV:

"[For] it emerged yesterday that the big, bubbly lady with the brave smile and the most heart-rending of tales may have invented the entire story. Consciously or unconsciously, disaster victims will sometimes confuse a few details but the enormous question mark hanging over Head is whether she was ever in the Twin Towers at all when the planes struck.

Multiple inconsistencies in her story emerged after the New York Times said it tried to interview her in recent weeks about her experiences to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the attack."

When pressed, a lawyer hired by Ms Head said, "With regard to the veracity of my client's story, neither my client, nor I, have any comment", and the Telegraph article further noted:

"What became clear yesterday was that no one has ever bothered to verify the key details of Head's remarkable WTC story or asked her to elaborate on others...."

When an event of such significance occurs, the verification of key details is of the utmost importance. Yet, as the case of Tania Head amply demonstrates, this verification is not something that mainstream news and media organisations can be trusted to perform, not even with an event often billed as 'the day the world changed'. Consequently, a liar can become the president of a prominent survivors group, despite their story never having been verified by anyone, and with no questions being asked for a good number of years.

On 7th July 2005, London's transport network was rocked by what were reported to be a series of up to seven explosions staggered over the space of an hour. In time the number of explosions was reduced to four, three Underground (as opposed to six) and one on a bus (as opposed to the reports of three exploded buses) and the staggered Underground blast timings became, "almost simultaneous". It was a full two days before the story of staggered blast timings on the Underground morphed into "almost simultaneous" blasts.

Oddly, on the day of 7/7, two men were to introduce bouts of jarring cognitive dissonance into the proceedings.

One of these men was the ex-Chief of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, who published an article on 7th July 2005 in the Jerusalem Post which spoke of, "the multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system" with "near pefect execution". How Halevi knew of "multiple, simultaneous explosions" two days before the Metropolitan Police and the companies charged with running London's transportation network is still a mystery. Quite how he knew of the "near perfect execution" is also a mystery.

Another bout of cognitive dissonance came when another man announced on BBC Radio Five Live (MP3) that, at the time of the explosions, he was, "running an exercise" for "a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning". He later confirmed somewhat dismissively of his exercise, "it was based on bombs going off, to the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff." The source of these quotes was Peter Power, the Managing Director of a private 'crisis management' firm, Visor Consultants, and a former Metropolitan policeman for 19 years.

It now transpires that Mr Power has, like half of job applicants and the president of a prominent terrorist attack survivor group, been a little creative with the facts that constitute the truth of the matter. In the public domain there exists an overview of Mr Power's working history which goes a little like the one promulgated by the BBC as part of their London Under Attack Panorama programme:

PETER POWER
Crisis management specialist & government adviser
Visor consulting 1995- present
Director BET Group Security 1992-1994
Senior Officer Metropolitan Police 1971-1992

However, the sterling cooperative research efforts of the July 7th Truth Campaign have uncovered quite an anomaly in what would otherwise be a fairly standard CV for a senior Metropolitan Policeman.

The problem with the version of Mr Power's history is that between 1990 and 1993 Peter Power was working neither for the Metropolitan Police, nor for BET, but instead for the Dorset Police.

Ignoring for a moment the apparent sideways and backwards step to a rural police force from a prominent role with the Metropolitan Police, but pausing for a moment to reflect on why such a step may have occurred, one can only wonder why someone with a bent for shameless self-promotion might be so reticent about the three years of his career with the Dorset Police.

Perhaps it has something to do with the circumstances in which he left Dorset Police? After all, if your career history included you being suspended from your job as a policeman, for a period of six months, before you retired on the grounds and pension of "ill health" after a file about you, compiled during an 'internal investigation', had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, maybe you wouldn't want to make a song and dance about it either.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have the full details of Peter Power's CV Fakery here and here.

Additional commentary here and here.

---

Update: Some post-Valentine's Day love regarding the Peter Power Wikipedia WikiWar™ here. Watch real live Internet sock puppets, as opposed to the tired, old and worn very thin sock puppets in the press and on TV, on Peter Power's Wikipedia page.

Note: The New York Times says:

This digital-age deception has a name, “sock-puppeting,” and a precise definition — the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.

Funny that. Fake history, fake survivors and fake online identities, all in one story, all at the same time.

J7 interviewed on Channel 4 News

"These views can't be dismissed as belonging to a minority fringe of extremists or fantasists."

- Darshna Soni, Channel 4 News

For those that missed it when it aired, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign recently featured on Channnel 4 news in a report about a specially commissioned Channel 4 survey which showed that 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. The survey of 500 British Muslims, carried out by GFK NOP, found that nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks and 52% believe that the British security services have "made up" evidence to convict terrorist suspects.

Note: The CCTV footage shown in the video above, which shows three of the alleged perpetrators of 7/7 outside Luton Station, is in fact taken from 28th June 2005, not from the day of 7/7, as shown by the date-stamp in the top left hand corner of the CCTV footage. This footage has repeatedly and rather disingenuously been used by the media in coverage of stories about 7/7 so, as we approach the second anniversary of 7/7, watch out for this little visual deception in the stories that will no doubt materialise in the forthcoming weeks. No CCTV footage from 7/7 has ever been released, nor have any CCTV images showing all four of the accused actually in London on 7/7. In fact, in the only CCTV image ever released that purports to be from 7/7, three of the faces of the individuals in the CCTV frame are completely unidentifiable. See 7/7: The CCTV 'Evidence' deconstructed for further details.

You can read more about the Terror Exercise that was running on 7/7, as mentioned in the Channel 4 News report, here.

While the Channel 4 News survey focused on beliefs among the Muslim community, the J7 group of independent public researchers is comprised almost entirely of non-Muslims and includes people of all races, colours and creeds indicating that conducting such research among the non-Muslim community would be likely to yield similar results.

Indeed the comments submitted by Channel 4 News viewers who saw the piece would seem to further support this. Darshna Soni’s follow up blog makes the point, “But dozens of you pointed out that it isn’t just British Muslims who question the official narrative.”

A few of the non-Muslim commenters who are also sceptical about the official Home Office version of what happened on 7/7 include:

• "Well done Ch4 and thanks for bringing the survey and a number of important issues to the attention of the British public. Do bear in mind many British non-Muslims also question the official version of 7/7."

• “I am white and middle class, and I also think that the government has not told us the truth about 7/7.”

• "Why don't you ask the same question of non-Muslims? i.e. 'do you trust the authorities and the government?' - you might be surprised by the result, as its not only Muslims who no longer believe the Bliar government."

• “Why only ask Muslims about this? It isn’t only Muslims who believe this.”

• "I am a white female atheist and I don't believe the government has told us the whole truth about the 7/7 bombings. I don't believe the conspiracy theories either. So, for this survey you could also have asked Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and atheists what they thought. I'd be prepared to bet that the answer to the question 'has the government told the truth about 7/7' would be broadly similar in all of those."

• “You need to carry out a survey of non-Muslims - you might get a result that is not all that different.”

• “I think you’ll find the majority of non-Muslims living in Britain would give the same answers.”

• "The government and security services lied about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the reason for the war, and after the shooting of an innocent man on the tube, more lies were told. Is it any wonder that many Muslims do not believe the government?! So do many non-Muslims."

• "I think you have missed the point somewhat, as it is not only a view commonly held among Muslims but also among many English nationals and people around the world."

• "You will find massive support for the Muslim view, and not just from Muslims."

• “You don’t need to look only at the Muslims community to find people (a) believing in conspiracy surrounding that particular event or (b) feeling let down, manipulated and betrayed by their own government.”

Also worth looking at is the list of over 1300 signatories of the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition which, once again, seems to indicate quite clearly that it isn’t just Muslims who don’t believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. If you haven't yet signed the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition, please do so.

In another piece on the Channel 4 web site, Darshna Soni highlights a few of the more egregious errors and inconsistencies in the official Home Office report, something that hasn’t been done since the Guardian article by Mark Honigsbaum which featured J7 (the J7 response to Mark Honigsbaum's article can be read here).

Darshna Soni's original report can be found on the Channel 4 News web site, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7' here. Viewer comments on the piece can be read here and Darshna Soni's follow-up blog is here. See also 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the many anomalies in the official story and another Channel 4 News item Conspiracies and Cover-Ups.

Given the historical and widely accepted history of terrorism on the British mainland, particularly with regard to alleged instances of 'Irish terrorism', it would be unwise not to acknowledge the lessons learned from the cases of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny McNamee and Judith Ward, amongst others. All of these people were convicted of terrorist crimes for politically expedient purposes and served long prison sentences on the basis of State-manufactured evidence and the suppression by the State of evidence that proved their innocence.

The barbaric sentences handed out to five young men in the Crevice trial, based on the evidence of a Supergrass, the likely involvement of at least one intelligence services agent, as well as the use of forced confessions extracted under torture abroad are more recent examples of how similar tactics to those developed in Northern Ireland are now being used against British Muslim subjects, the perceived enemy of the day.

It will be interesting to see if and how Channel 4 follow up the piece.

Bob Monkhouse makes suicide bomber video from beyond the grave - Exclusive footage

Well, not quite a suicide bomber video, but he's been dead four years and is looking and sounding better than ever.

Home Office Official 7/7 Account "not fit for purpose"

On 14th December 2005, after once again denying everyone the right to a public inquiry, even under the flawed legislative framework of the Inquiries Act 2005 -- a piece of legislation which, handily for the State, came into force on 7th June 2005, exactly one month before the day that was to launch a thousand calls for a public inquiry -- Prime Minister Tony Blair said of the London bombings:

“I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do.... We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that people —the victims and others— can see exactly what happened..... we will publish a full account of all the information that we have.”

-- Tony Blair, Prime Minister
14th December 2005

On 11th May 2006, the Home Office published an anonymously penned document entitled, "Report of the Official Account of the Bombings London on 7th July 2005" which, apparently, was the Government's publication of "all the evidence" so "that people-the victims and others- can see exactly what happened". In other words, "a full account of all the information" the government had.

Within two months the report was discredited as a flawed and inaccurate version of events as the Home Secretary was forced to stand before Parliament and say:

“The official account that we provided to the House states that the train on which the bombers travelled left Luton station at 7.40 am. The police have now told us that that is incorrect—the train in fact left Luton station at 7.25 am. It did, however, arrive at Kings Cross at 8.23 am, as recorded in the official account. Although that does not appear to affect anything else in the official account, it is nevertheless an error, which is why I report it to the House. I can understand why this may be of concern to some. I have asked the police, as Members would expect, for a full report on how that discrepancy came about. I will ensure that the official account is amended and will write to the survivors and to the families of the victims on this matter.”

The information about the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train having been cancelled on 7th July 2005 was put into the public domain by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign in August 2005. Now, over a year on from the publication of the flawed Home Office narrative and the official account is yet to be amended.

By the end of August 2006, after having already acknowledged one major error in the Home Office account of the events, John Reid was forced to write to those directly affected by the events of 7/7 acknowledging another equally egregious error:

Those who attended the Edgware Road meeting believed that there was a possibility of a second error in the Official Account. They said that Mohammed Sidique Khan was by the second set of double doors in the tube carriage at the time of the attack, whereas the Official Account states that Khan was ''most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors.''

My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation.

The wording in the Official Account therefore accurately reflects the police's understanding of the initial examination of the scene. The preface of the Official Account makes it clear that ''the evidence is not yet the full picture'' because it was known at the time of writing that more evidence might emerge from the ongoing police investigation. To date, none of the forensic evidence suggests that the Official Account is incorrect in stating where Khan was ''most likely'' to have been located prior to the explosion. Should the police revise their initial conclusions in the light of further information, an update will be issued.

If it's "probably" indefinite articles you want, the "not fit for purpose" Home Office are "most likely" the people to call.

Needless to say, no further information appears to have come to light. Not about the location of the blast, nor the nature of the explosives used in the attack which to date have not been identified, nor have the explosives allegedly found in the cars at Luton about which the Home Office report states, "One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks." In total, that's two lots of explosives that the official conspiracy theory has thus far failed to identify, the train the accused are alleged to have caught, and the precise location of at least one of the blasts, and still the government endeavours to portray the report as a credible document rather than the insult to everyone's intelligence that it is.

In all these cases the required updates to the Official Account have not been made, nor explanations given, and in the interim John Reid has resigned quietly from his position as Home Secretary, just in case the news were to break in more than a local paper that his nephew was convicted of possessing two deadly weapons in public, but not before suggesting once more than human rights were standing in the way of the State doing whatever it pleases.

As the second anniversary of 7/7 fast approaches, the next Home Secretary is also going to have their work cut out in connection with the government's alleged publication of "all the information that [they] have" about the London bombings.

Quoting from the Home Office Report of the Official Account of the London Bombings on 7th July 2005 which now contains at least two officially acknowledged errors:

There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.

According to the government's official conspiracy of how 7/7 came to be there was no "5th bomber", nor a "5th man" involved, save for Naveed Fiaz (the "one man [who] was arrested") who was arrested shortly after 7/7 when his brother, Ejaz Fiaz (the man originally blamed for the Piccadilly Line incident, something we're all meant to have forgotten by now) was nowhere to be found. Naveed Fiaz was subsequently released without charge and remained the only person to be arrested in connection with 7/7 until Thursday 22nd March 2007. Meanwhile, another "5th bomber" who had been foisted upon the world by the self-proclaimed News of the World was charged with wasting police time in much the same way as the News of the World wastes everyone else's time. The resounding message from all of this is clear, there was no "5th bomber".

So, if there was indeed no "5th bomber" or "5th man" as the official conspiracy theory of 7/7 would have us believe, one might then be tempted to ask what the police are doing rounding up Mohammed Sidique Khan's extended and well-respected family almost two years after 7th July 2005 and repeatedly accusing at least one of them of being the "5th bomber".

Today's Guardian has an Ian Cobain interview with Imran Motala who was recently arrested in a blaze of publicity along with Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife and Motala's cousin, Hasina Patel, and her brother Arshad Patel. All three were released without charge after seven days of questioning about 7/7 while the fourth person arrested during the high-profile early morning raids, Khalid Kaliq, remains in custody.

A few quotes from Ian Cobain's Guardian interview with Imran Motala:

"If I had been the 'fifth bomber', I could have set off an explosion in August 2005,"
....
"They didn't just think I had with-held information about the bombings, they thought I was involved, that I was to have been the fifth bomber," he said. "They asked me: 'Are you the fifth bomber? Were you meant to be the fifth bomber? Did you bottle out in the end?'"

Mr Motala says police also suspect he was the unidentified male who bought the rucksacks which contained the bombs from a Millets store in Leeds six days before the bombings.

While in custody he learned that he had been under surveillance for a year: he and members of his family had been followed, all of his previous employers had been interviewed, and he strongly suspects that his family home in the Lozells area of Birmingham was bugged when West Midlands police raided the property last year, ostensibly looking for firearms. Despite the lengthy surveillance operation, no evidence was found that would justify charges against him.

When asked about 7/7, Motala replied:

"I said it was a cowardly act, that it did nobody any good, that it ruined many people's lives. I said that my way of fighting against the Iraq war was to join the march which was held in London. Suddenly there were a million and one questions about the war and why I opposed it."

Peaceful protest and terrorism, if you thought there was a difference, you were wrong. Hitting the ground running in his new role as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair pointed out to early morning TV viewers on Sunday 6th February 2005 that, "I don't think people should distinguish Crime and Terrorism too easily." If the crime is that of having a conscience, the peaceful protest that ensues from having a conscience and acting upon that conscience becomes both a crime and terrorism in one fell swoop. With the suspension of habeus corpus, the presumption of innocence all but annihilated and replaced with trial-by-media, and the almost complete lack of legal recourse to remedy any of this, the likes of the Queen, Tony Blair and all other representatives of the State, whose existence depends on trivialities and cowardly acts like butchering a million Iraqi civilians, Afghanis, and anyone else who happens to be sitting on some black gold, along with bringing prosecutions in this country that could never have been without the State being complicit in entrapment and torturing false confessions from the defendants, aren't kidding when they proclaim that everyone should know "that they will not change our way of life."

Before long Mr Motala was being given sleeping pills each night

When was mandatory drugging of innocent suspects added to the extensive list of crimes perpetrated by the State against the population of the UK? While Mr Motala was being fed sleeping pills during his extended period of detention and questioning, the public have been doped-up for a far longer time on placebos and some considerably more potent tranquilisers.

Luckily for all of us, the effects of all the sedatives are rapidly and irreversably wearing off and a long dormant public is waking up to the extensive list of deceptions and confidence tricks that have been played upon them, as well as all the legal measures and technologies of political control that the State has been putting in place to save itself from the consequences of its own fascistic actions.

Don't despair, sign the petition and organise!

Any answers?

No answers, but certainly a lot of questions even though Jonathan Dimbleby doesn't like them, as demonstrated by his defence of well documented examples of British State terrorism in Ireland. Enter stage right, Jonathan Evans, the new head of MI5 who cut his State-terror teeth just across the water.

Thanks to Postman for picking up the call to Radio 4 that the best efforts of the BBC didn't manage to screen and prevent from airing, and to Stef for putting words and pictures together.

Tom Griffin ties it all together with a few pertinent points about the Inquiries Act 2005, State terrorism in Ireland and the renewed calls by various groups for a public inquiry into 7/7.

Meanwhile, the media consensus manipulation machine, in collusion with individuals, groups and organisations, complete with kow-towing bloggers-a-plenty -- shame on them one and all -- are still calling for a public inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005, while either ignoring, being ignorant of, or simply refusing to address, the issue of the flawed, limiting and inadequate legislative framework imposed by the Inquiries Act 2005, despite the best and continuing efforts of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

Once again, under the Inquiries Act 2005, there can be no such thing as an 'independent' or 'public' inquiry so all the combined forces calling for one and who refuse to acknowledge the Inquiries Act 2005 are, without any shadow of a doubt, wasting their, and everyone else's time.

Operation Crevice trial ends and the cracks are showing

Below is a transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 (of 7) patsies men convicted in the Crevice trial:

I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:

In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."

And that's the end of the statement. Thank you.

Imran Khan, Nabeel Hussain (acquitted) & Michael Mansfield QC

An MP3 of Imran Khan's statement can be found here, courtesy of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

Those who are more than a little predictably getting all het-up and excited about the revelations-that-aren't of the Crevice trial wouldn't go amiss peering a little deeper into the Crevice before calling for a Public Inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005. They would also do well to understand the -- restrictive-to-the-point-of-futility -- legislative framework the State imposed on public inquiries via the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that was affectionately known as the "Public Inquiries Cover-up Bill" and which came into force on 7/6/2005, just in the nick of time. In summary, any Independent Public Inquiry is legally obliged to be neither 'independent', nor 'public' and the scope of its inquiry is determined by the very State into whose self-preserving interests a truly independent public inquiry would legitimately inquire. Simple enough?

As a point of fact, the July 7th Truth Campaign is the only grass-roots organisation to echo the sentiments of the Law Society of England & Wales, Amnesty International and Geraldine Finucane in calling on the judiciary to boycott any inquiry proposed under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. If the Inquiries Act 2005 is not fit for the purpose of investigating the killing of a Human Rights lawyer almost 20 years ago, it is most certainly not an acceptable piece of legislation under which to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of 56 people. Sign the petition.

Panorama is to be commended, for once, for venturing close to the brink of of the gaping Crevice chasm, but not for hiding the brief jaunt away among the usual old tosh that passes for investigative journalism these days. In addition to the litany of crimes referred to in Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the five men convicted of having comitted no crime, the State was forced to resort to relying on the testimony of an FBI informant, having the rules of the game of law changed and abandoning all notions of a unanimous verdict.

Desperate times, it seems, call for even more desperate measures and the precedents continue to be set. If it's 'justice' you want, you're increasingly unlikely to get it under a system of 'law'.

London 7/7: J7 goes historically contextual

For those still labouring under the misapprehension that the quest for truth about the events of 7th July 2005 is little more than a single issue campaign with single-issue politics not underpinned by real politics, the July 7th Truth Campaign have published not one, but two brand new articles dealing not with the specifics of what happened on 7/7 but instead the day itself in its historical context.

First up is, Capitalising on Terror - Who is really destroying our freedoms, an article that looks at how 7/7 has been used as the justification for the imposition of radical, reactionary and Draconian legislation that criminalises everyone as 'terrorists', yet the true story of what happened on 7/7 is still not known.

Given that there is not an official, accurate and coherent account of what happened on 7/7, how it happened and who was responsible for making it happen, only an official and highly flawed 'conspiracy theory', a fresh look needs to taken at the laws and technologies of political control that have been imposed upon an innocent and unsuspecting British public by an authoritarian regime that has legislated itself the right to indiscriminately take life, liberty, worldly goods, chattels and monies:

In less than two years the UK has descended into a police state. Taking photographs of landmarks is now classified as 'terrorist reconnaisance', being caught in possession of a map has been prosecuted as 'having information likely to be useful to a terrorist'. Protesting outside the people's Parliament is now a crime unless the state has first granted permission and you can be arrested for wearing a t-shirt a policeman doesn't like. Your DNA and fingerprints will be taken and stored indefinitely. Everyone from young children to old age pensioners are actively being targeted under anti-terrorist legislation and this legislation is being used to suppress dissent and opposition to the government, its policies and the way it enforces them. Blair has talked of implementing private police forces and police powers have been given to thousands of non-police entities including amongst others traffic wardens, landlords and council officials.

The primary justification, the driving force behind the implementation all new legislation and technologies of political control, is that 7th July 2005 happened according to the official conspiracy theory involving four young British Muslim men who conspired to kill themselves and others.

However, the government has already admitted that there are several critical flaws in the official Home Office report, flaws so crucial to the maintenance of the official story that the Home Office version of events cannot be what happened. So, if as admitted by the government, 7/7 didn't happen as per the Home Office account, there can be no justification for condemning the British public to laws and administration methods of a third-world dictatorship.

Read the full article here: Capitalising on Terror - Who is really destroying our freedoms?

The second J7 article, "The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained" published today and written specially for the July 7th Truth Campaign by writer, author and journalist, William Bowles, asks the question:

"If a country like the former Soviet Union, armed to the teeth and with the massive resources of the state could not achieve the alleged objective of overthrowing capitalism after seventy-five years, it is reasonable to ask the question, why has the British state embarked on a policy of creating a de facto police state replete with laws which have more than a passing similarity to those passed by both Hitler and Mussolini?"

The article examines how, 'following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.... A new climate of fear had to be engineered to justify imperialist wars of conquest'. A new common enemy created behind which Western capitalism could, can and does hide.

Above all therefore, what was needed were actual deeds with corpses and culprits, and what better than four ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ who conveniently perished in the carnage of 7 July 2005.

The contradictions and unanswered questions concerning the events of 7 July, 2005 are addressed elsewhere, suffice to say, there are so many holes in the official story that it’s no wonder the government has resisted all demands for a public inquiry, although if the Hutton Report is any measure of what an inquiry under the Blair government is worth, we would learn little of consequence from one and indeed, it can be argued that ‘public inquiries’ effectively quash further investigations by creating the illusion of an ‘independent investigation’.

Read the full William Bowles article, The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained, here.

For those with an interest in the detail and specifics of what happened on 7th July 2005, check out the J7 London Bombings Dossier. The 31 page J7 dossier was compiled by former National President of the MSF Union (now Amicus), David Minahan, who in his introduction to the dossier states of his findings:

"I am convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about this matter."

If links back to UK or US sources are revealed

"All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; each man in his time plays many parts."

- William Shakespeare

"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."

- William Ehrman
Director General (Defence & Intelligence), FCO

The stage for the the war on terror was once again set in that most unlikely of places, East London.

East London's Forest Gate recently featured in the news, as part of the global anti-Islamic witchhunt, when 250 of Reid's armed State bootboys raided the home of Abul Kahar Kalam and Abul Koyair Kalam, 'accidentally' shooting Abul Kahar Kalam in the chest while doing so. The raid had been instigated by 'intelligence' which even the 'torturers-R-US' 'intelligence' services in the United Mistakes of America would have discounted, owing to it having been passed by a mentally challenged MI5 informant with an IQ of just 69.

Both of the Kalam brothers have since been released without charge.

Today Leyton, less than a mile from the Forest Gate shooting, played host to the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, who made an appearance in order to 'challenge British Muslims to come forward with information about suspected terrorists', urging parents to "look for the tell-tale signs" of radicalisation in their children. Brainwashing against brainwashing.

Half way through Herr Dr Reid's speech and faux appeal - right on cue - a British Muslim, Trevor Brooks, now known as Abu Izzadeen - yet another in the long line of British converts to Islam that always rear their heads for the odd press and photo call - interrupted the Home Secretary with a tirade in defence of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state.

That Izzadeen even managed to find and attend the invite-only event at all, much less subvert Reid's 'security' as someone associated with two banned organisations, and interrupt it in such a manner, was rather an impressive feat being, as the event was reported to be by the Press Association, "at a secret location in Leyton".

"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?" Izzadeen said to Reid. "You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims, you are a tyrant. Shame on all of us for sitting down and listening to him."

For the record, of the over 1,000 Muslims that have been rounded up by the state, the majority are released without charge and, of those that are charged with anything at all, the charges are for petty crimes entirely unrelated to terrorism. The release without charge of innocent Muslims, however, is not something that receives much, if any, media coverage at all, especially in the face of such 'radical' outbursts as that by Brooks today.

Izzadeen continued with accusations against the Government of 'state terrorism' which, given the overt examples such as the illegality of the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing butchery of Iraqi civilians, in conjunction with the calls from wide cross sections of the community, including the likes of Military Families Against the War, for Tony Blair to stand trial for his war crimes at the International Criminal Court, are accusations that could be said to be not entirely unfounded, nor without considerable evidence to support an easy and successful prosecution.

Following his outburst, Izzadeen was ejected from the venue by the world's smallest policeman, but not before being allowed to utter some choice words in front of the assembled crowd, cameras and microphones, thereby making sure that everyone received the full weight of the not-quite-so subliminal messages being conveyed.

World's smallest policeman in action

Trevor Brooks aka Abu Izzadeen

Izzadeen just happened to be the latest leader of a group proscribed by The State, Al Ghurabaa (the strangers), an offshoot of another previously banned group, Al Mujahiroun, as led by Omar Bakri – the 'Islamic' radical who fled Britain after his work here was done, and just prior to being arrested. Quite how Omar Bakri might have known he was about to be arrested and quite how he made it out of the country despite the imminent arrest from which he was fleeing, is left as an exercise for the reader to fathom.

Abu Izzadeen was born in Hackney, East London, to a family originally from Jamaica, as Trevor Brooks, a communication engineer by profession, who converted to Islam at the age of 17. His conversion to Islam was influenced by his brother Abu Abdul Rahman, another convert to Islam.

Abu Izzadeen, or Trevor Brooks if you prefer, is no stranger to controversy. Shortly after the London bombings, Brooks told BBC2's Newsnight programme that the bombings were "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee." On the surface, his comments were sensational, unfounded and controversial. Beneath the surface, however, it would appear there is more truth to his allegations of the 'mujahideen activity' behind the London bombings than the controversy they provoked might suggest.


Afghanistan, the CIA and the London Bombings

On 17 January 1999, the Guardian published an article by Jason Burke in Peshawar, entitled, 'Frankenstein the CIA created'. The article was subtitled, 'Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports'. The article cited the estimations of American officials that, "from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up", and that $500 million poured into Afghanistan, directly from the CIA.

Two years later, in December 2001, Scottish born James McLintock, dubbed the 'Tartan Taliban', was arrested while trying to cross illegally from Pakistan to Afghanistan under the guise of being an 'aid worker'. At the time both Scotland Yard and Britain's Foreign Office declined to comment on McLintock's arrest but confirmed that anti-terrorist officers had flown out to Pakistan.

Confirmation of McLintock's arrest and detainment came instead from the concern of a Scottish Nationalist MP, Mike Weir, who wrote to the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, about the issue and who said of McLintock, "He has been held in Pakistan for almost a month and we're still not sure what, if anything, he's been charged with or what is to happen to him."

Regional home secretary for Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, Javed Iqbal also confirmed the story of McLintock's arrest and was quoted as saying: "We have not ruled out a link between this man and other al-Qaeda suspects. We are not happy with his story. Even if he has committed no other offence, it is a serious matter to cross the border at a no-entry point. He may be tried or deported."

Further confirmation of the arrest came from his wife, Shaffia McLintock, who eventually spoke publicly about her husband's plight. She described his arrest as a "huge mistake" and criticised the lack of action from the UK government to have him released.


James McLintock aka Mohammad Yacoub aka the 'Tartan Taliban' and 7/7

The 41-year-old Scot was born to two University of Dundee lecturers. His mother taught maths and his father was a chemistry lecturer, chemistry being a particularly useful skill in bomb-making. McLintock also speaks several languages including Arabic, Pashtu and Urdu although how, when and where he acquired such versatile linguistic skills is unknown.

The young James McLintock was raised as a Catholic and developed an interest in Islam while at university. He grew a beard, donned traditional Muslim clothing, dropped out of his university course in Zoology and began attending mosques in Dundee. So great was his apparent commitment to Islam, McLintock went on to fight against the Communists in Afghanistan with the CIA trained, armed and funded - to the tune of $500 million - mujahideen.

In the mid-1990s, James McLintock had moved to Bradford and in June 1995 married a Muslim woman, Shaffia Begum, now Shaffia McLintock, having taken McLintock's non-Islamic name, perhaps indicating the level of McLintock's committment to his new-found 'Islamic' persona. By 2000, McLintock was working at "Rays of Truth", an Islamic bookshop in Leeds, where one of his colleagues was Martin “Abdullah” McDaid, a fellow Muslim convert and former UK Special Forces operative who served in the elitest of British regiments, the Special Boat Service.

Martin "Abdullah" McDaid would later go on to work 'several hours a week' at the Iqra Islamic bookshop in Beeston, Leeds, at which it is alleged at least some of the alleged perpetrators of the London bombings were radicalised by extremist propaganda. This Jihadi material and 'extremist propaganda' was not produced by either McDaid, or McLintock, nor even by a British convert to Islam, but instead by a white, British former Hells Angel by the name of Martin Gilbertson.

When the Sunday Times approached Martin "Abdullah" McDaid about Mohammed Yacoub's involvement with the Iqra bookshop shortly after 7/7, McDaid responded with typical radical convert-to-Islam aplomb, “Whether he was at the Iqra bookstore or not is none of your business — you should fear Allah.”

Little has since been heard regarding the activities of James "Mohammed Yacoub" McLintock, but, given his history of fighting for the mujahideen, illegal border crossings, his connections to the Rays of Truth bookshop in the run up to the Bradford race riots of 7/7/2001, and his involvement with the government-funded Iqra bookshop that the alleged London bombers are meant to have attended, Abu Izzadeen's comments about 7/7 demonstrating 'mujahideen activity' appear to have rather more foundation in reality than anyone might have suspected.

Dr John Reid, Abu Izzadeen, 7/7 and "mujahideen activity"

Dr John Reid's appearance at the 'secret location' at which he patronised Muslims today, Izzadeen's amazing discovery of, and interruption at, the 'secret location', after circumventing the invite-only and on-site security, in conjunction with his outspoken comments about the 'mujahideen activity' that facilitated the planning and execution of the London bombings have indeed led a great number of people 'to wake up and smell' something.

The smell, however, is not of coffee, but rather the putrid stench of the now blown cover of radical conversions to Islam behind which British ex-special forces, ex-anti-terror operatives and CIA-trained militia-men have hidden themselves from public view.

At least some of William Ehrman's much feared 'links back to UK or US sources were revealed' and they provide, in part, the explanation for Abu Izzadeen's post-7/7 comments about the 'mujahideen activity' of the London bombings of 7 July 2005.

London 7/7: Ludicrous Diversion

It's Friday, it's a quarter past five and it's the start of the weekend. Time to put old media to shame. Again.

Ludicrous Diversion

On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?

If much of what The Antagonist has written about the events of July 7th 2005, the alleged perpetrators; the anti-terror rehearsal running that day; the evidence-free, nonsense-'narrative' that is the Official Report; the futile, oft-repeated and flogged-to-death calls for a public inquiry that ignore the issue of the Inquiries Act 2005, and the devastating consequences on life in the UK, were to manifest as a short documentary, it would probably look a little something like this.



The Antagonist may write more on this soon. In the meantime, tell everyone you know to dedicate half an hour to watching this little gem.

7/7/2005 Your time is gonna come soon....

Nobody, anywhere in the world, buys the lies about the terrorism of alleged 'Fascists' who allegedly 'hate our freedoms', as told by the world's biggest, provable, Fascists and terrorists, all of whom really do hate our freedoms so much that they will happily legislate them all away at a moments notice.

Even two Co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, don't buy the lies the American State and Administration spun about the 'new Pearl Harbour' that befell America on 11 September 2001, as reported on the Red, White and Blue News of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight.

Those responsible for the lies should be very afraid indeed. Below is a photograph of what happened to the lying Fascists, who hated our freedoms, when the plebs got their hands on them last time around.



This post has been brought to you by the letter 'J' and the number '7', in conjunction with dissident bloggers, Stef and dissident.

J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition

The July 7th Truth Campaign have launched a petition to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that conclusively proves beyond reasonable doubt the story outlined in the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005', as published by the 'not fit for purpose' Home Office on 11 May 2006.

If the government won't go the huge expense and diversion of resources that they have repeatedly claimed a full, independent public inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005 would be, surely they'll jump at the chance to avoid any such inquiry and choose instead to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE with suitable haste?

Sign the petition and tell everyone you know to do the same.

Release the Evidence

---

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

---

To: The British Government

On 11 May 2006 the Home Office published the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005'.

The official report has since been discredited owing to a factual inaccuracy, namely the departure time of the train the accused are alleged to have taken from Luton to Kings Cross. This error was announced to Parliament by the Home Secretary on 11 July 2006.

To date, only one piece of evidence has been placed in the public domain showing all four suspects - a single CCTV image, outside Luton station, in which three of the faces are unidentifiable.

No credible explanation has ever been given for the lack of CCTV footage from Luton and Kings Cross stations, despite there being numerous references to CCTV in the official report.

In the absence of a truly independent public inquiry, outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, we call on the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that conclusively proves the official report beyond reasonable doubt.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Click here to sign the Petition

---

Send this Petition to a friend

July 7th Truth Campaign Guardian G2 Interview - UPDATED

''Where the state's own authorities are concerned we must be as sure as we can of the truth'' -- Prime Minister Tony Blair on the need for a full-scale judicial inquiry into the killing by the army of 13 civilians on ''Bloody Sunday'' in 1972

Since the events of July 7th 2005, The Antagonist has had precious little time for the dead-tree and airwave-occupier media but sometimes, just sometimes, they redeem themselves in some small part (see today's print edition for the G2 article in all its technicolour glory).

What is most curious about the Mark Honigsbaum article in today's Guardian, apart from the fact such an article questioning the official narrative actually appeared in any mainstream media journal, is perhaps the fact that a mainstream media organ has picked up on something that even the much vaunted vanguard of dissident bloggers hasn't yet picked up on to any great degree, save for one or two notable exceptions.

Of those that have highlighted the many questions raised by the campaigners demanding that the authorities RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that supports their narrative, the fall-back position is limited to a demand for a Public Inquiry under the much ignored Inquiries Act 2005, passed specifically to limit the scope, capabilities and independence of any such Public Inquiry.

The Hutton Inquiry, widely regarded as a whitewash of the highest order, set the precedent for all future inquiries and that was without recourse to the new legislation. Thus far, the government has stated there will be no Public Inquiry, even under the new legislation, into the events of July 7th, July 21st - the day the bombers had no bombs, or the extra-judicial killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station.

Given the diversity of people and organisations from which calls for a Public Inquiry/Enquiry into July 7th are being repeatedly launched, or even the calls for an Independent Inquiry/Enquiry to which the public would not be privy, it should be of great concern to anyone with even a passing interest in truth and justice that there has been precious little discussion about the Inquiries Act 2005, the framework under which such an inquiry would be conducted, should such a thing ever be granted.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14 times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder, as well as allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion.

Amnesty International has called for the boycott of all inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, specifically with regard to the Finucane case and demanded that the act be repealed:

Amnesty International calls on all judges, whether in the United Kingdom (UK) or in other jurisdictions, to decline appointments as chairs or panel members to any inquiry established under the recently enacted Inquiries Act 2005, including an inquiry into allegations of state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane. The organization is also urging the Act's repeal.

Amnesty International supports the call of Geraldine Finucane, Patrick Finucane's widow, to all senior judges in England, Wales and Scotland not to serve on an inquiry into her husband's case held under the new legislation.

"By proposing to hold an inquiry into the Finucane case under the Inquiries Act 2005, the UK government is trying to eliminate independent scrutiny of the actions of its agents. Any judge sitting on such an inquiry would be presiding over a sham," Amnesty International said.

If The State will go to such great lengths to prevent an inquiry into one brutal killing 16 years ago, it may be sensible to consider to what lengths the state will go to prevent further inquiry into the brutal murders of 56 in London on July 7th 2005.

--

Update 01: The Guardian offered the July 7th Truth Campaign a right to reply to the Mark Honigsbaum J7 article, read it on Comment is Free.

Update 02: Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, admits that the Official Report of the London Bombings is wrong, before going on to rewrite history without missing a beat. Ananova runs with confirmation from Scotland Yard Polis HQ that the Home Office didn't get the wrong train time from them, or even any train time at all.

Sir Walter Scott said it best when he said:

“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive....”

London Assembly 7 July Review Committee Reports Released

The London Assembly 7 July Review Committee final reports have been released which discuss communication and response to the incidents that day.

• Vol1: Report of the 7 July Review Committee [PDF]
• Vol 2: Views & information from organisations [PDF]
• Vol 3: Views & information from individuals [PDF]

Meanwhile, Peter Power from Visor Consultants, the man responsible for running a terror rehearsal drill rehearsing simultaneous bombs going off in precisely the stations they did on the morning of July 7th, when it actually happened right in the middle of his rehearsal (who would credit such a thing if they hadn't previously seen Panorama back in May 2004 when Mr Power was at it again), was interviewed by BBC News 24 following Richard Barnes' press conference and noted, rather interestingly:

"Terror doesn't rely on the bang,
it relies on the fear of the bang."

Overcome the fear.

July 7th Narrative Day

The July 7th 'narrative' that Charles Clarke offered the British People instead of a full Independent Public Inquiry has been released.

The BBC, Sky News and Channel 4 are all rolling CCTV footage of the accused from 28th June 2005 as if it were from July 7th (indeed the BBC even cropped out the time and date stamp for the full brainwashing effect) when, of course, no footage has ever been released of the four accused of perpetrating the atrocities on July 7th in over ten months since the incidents occurred.

Nor has any evidence been released that could convinct anyone in a court of law for what happened.

Here are some reports:

• The official Home Office 'narrative' of events.
• ISC Report into the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005.
  
• The government response to the ISC report.

The BBC, true to form, is still using Mr Peter Power of Visor Consultants as an independent security consultant with no special connection to the events of July 7th, even though on the morning of July 7th he was rehearsing bombs going off in precisely the stations that they did.


When you're done reading the official confusions you'll find a lot of useful information about the events of July 7th at the July Seventh Truth Campaign web site and on their associated July 7th People's Investigation Forum.


Update: Read and join the J7 forum discussion highlighting the inaccuracies, anomalies and inconsistencies in the narrative.

Islam, Intelligence and Infiltration

"Whether the hunt for those behind the London bombers can prevail against [these] powerful political forces remains to be seen. Indeed it may depend on whether Scotland Yard, in its attempts to uncover the truth, can prevail over MI6, which is trying to cover its tracks and in practice has every opportunity to operate beyond the law under the cover of national security."

Source: MP Michael Meacher, The Guardian

Remember Abu Hamza, the former nightclub bouncer, who was sentenced last week to seven years in the midst of rather more overt propaganda than it seems most people noticed?

Yesterday's Observer carried the following story and introduction (complete with The Antagonist's emphasis on the key points):

Hamza set up terror camps with British ex-soldiers
US intelligence agencies reveal the jailed cleric's network of training facilities around UK
Jamie Doward and Diane Taylor
Sunday February 12, 2006
The Observer

Former British soldiers taught Abu Hamza's followers to use guns at a camp in Wales as part of an ad hoc terror training network set up by the jailed cleric, according to US intelligence agencies.

But the British security services were either unconcerned or ignorant about Hamza's activities, despite warnings that he was considered a risk from foreign governments and intelligence agencies as early as 1995.

Source: The Observer

Ex-British soldiers have been training up followers of Abu Hamza and we are all meant to believe that the British government was either 'ignorant' or 'unconcerned' that these ex-British soldiers - the Queen's finest white-water-rafters no doubt - were training the followers of someone who has for so long apparently been a thorn in the side of the state.

'Ignorant'? No chance. We're all under surveillance now.

'Unconcerned'? Of course, for it serves a very definite purpose to have an insignificant army of 'mad-mullah' followers, all trained to the highest standard by imperialism's ex-finest, in the event that one should ever need to create and assert the illusion, ad nauseam, that extremist Muslim terrorists have infiltrated quaint-old, rural-old, British country life.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince people he didn't exist. Oh, the sweet power of propaganda marketing and spin.

The news that ex-British army soldiers are involved in training the followers of Abu Hamza broke on the day that we could all happily watch footage of more of the Queen's finest rounding up, kicking and beating the shit out of defenceless Iraqi children while others of the Queen's finest look on, film proceedings for posterity and shout in delight. Now that's what I call terrorism!

It's time to for everyone to wake up.

The utterly pathetic and totally shameful British press and media whose coverage of July 7th is an insult to the dead, the injured, their families and all the rest of us would perhaps be better employed not espousing the finer points of 'feminist pole dancing', but instead dedicating a little time to investigating the activities of a few more ex-British army, ex-British special forces and ex-British anti-terrorist operatives, some of whom have apparently now eschewed all that defence of the realm nonsense, 'converted' to Islam, grown suitably long beards and ingratiated themselves into otherwise tightly knit and entirely peaceful Muslim communities around the country.

Remember the Hamara Youth Access Project (HYAP), set-up with around a million pounds of government money and from which the mosque opposite warned Muslims to stay away?

Remember the Iqra bookshop set-up with monies from the HYAP and run by Mohammad Tafazal, along with ex-special forces, ex-anti-terrorist operative and white, British Islam-convert Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid?

Remember the Fiaz brothers, especially Naveed, the fellow HYAP pioneer who was originally suspected to be one of the suicide bombers on July 7th?

Remember the man labelled the 'Tartan Taliban', one James McClintock, a Scot and white, British Islam-convert widely known to have fought with the Mujahedeen, also known by his Islamic handle, Mohammed Yacoub?

Remember Samantha Lewthwaite, the white, British convert to Islam, who met Germaine Lindsay (himself a convert to Islam) on the Internet, married him just minutes after meeting him in October 2002, and whose father is an ex-military man who served in Northern Ireland?

Remember the MI6 plan to win over the hearts and minds of muslims by infiltrating their communities?

No, of course you don't remember any of these things, because all of these things have been confined to the same July 7th memory hole as the driver of a second affected Piccadilly line train.

Here's a snippet from a letter about the infiltration of Islam plans which perhaps reveals the real reasons behind why the British media refuse to investigate ex-army, ex-special forces and ex-anti-terrorist operatives that crop up the minute you start researching the alleged suicide bombers on July 7th:

"Dealing with Islamist extremism, the messages are more complex, the constituencies we would aim at are more difficult to identify, and greater damage could be done to the overall effort if links back to UK or US sources were revealed."

William Ehrman
Director General (Defence & Intelligence), FCO

All of which goes to prove that you can be known as Abdullah, or Mohammed, but a new name, a new beard and a lot of government funding does not a true or convincing Muslim make, especially if you're not of ethnic origin.