September 16, 200619 yr 7/7 London Bombings - The other False Flag Operation Lots of evidence points towards another 'inside job' led by british Intelligence. So.....to start here's some info about why we need an independant investigation to find out what happened and not just an narritive put forward by the government. Videos Ludicrous Diversion http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719 Mind The Gap http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2627422049658027269 Websites July 7th Truth Campaign Official Confusion
September 16, 200619 yr Author http://www.aliensthetruth.com/ How come your such an idiot? Ignore him, he's trying to move away from the issue......this is why we are fucked.....becuase of people like him. Is it too much to ask to want to know what happened? This is a normal reaction, when did people become so sedated. All we want is truth and answers......all MrCool want's is a bit of a laugh. It's always the same.
September 17, 200619 yr How come your such an idiot? Ignore him, he's trying to move away from the issue......this is why we are fucked.....becuase of people like him. Is it too much to ask to want to know what happened? This is a normal reaction, when did people become so sedated. All we want is truth and answers......all MrCool want's is a bit of a laugh. It's always the same. No, im showing you proof of aliens and you ignore it you fool. when they come for us all its people like you who will die:laugh3: You cant be taken seriously, thats why i do it. you might as well put back on your tinfoil hat and shut up. or go drink some more kool aid
September 17, 200619 yr Well if London was an inside job then so has to be Madrid. Youve already stated in another thread that basically every islamic terror act has been done by the CIA. Why do you need to keep opening threads that say the same thing?
September 17, 200619 yr No, im showing you proof of aliens and you ignore it you fool. when they come for us all its people like you who will die:laugh3: Exactly!! Has he never seen shows like "Invasion" and "X Files"??:P
September 17, 200619 yr Author haha, I love the X-Files actually. But it's just a pretend TV show.......a good one though.
September 17, 200619 yr Author Well if London was an inside job then so has to be Madrid. Youve already stated in another thread that basically every islamic terror act has been done by the CIA. Why do you need to keep opening threads that say the same thing? The people of spain knew that their government wasn't to be trusted and they kicked them out of office.
September 17, 200619 yr http://www.aliensthetruth.com/ The prisonplanet.com of UFO's sightings! HAHAHA true.
September 17, 200619 yr Author I'm sure this wasn't a laughing matter until you jokers got involved. Please.
September 17, 200619 yr No, im showing you proof of aliens and you ignore it you fool. when they come for us all its people like you who will die:laugh3: :stunned: How can you say such thing?! Maybe they'll take you first!
September 18, 200619 yr :stunned: How can you say such thing?! Maybe they'll take you first! No, they;ll go after people like gareth.
January 18, 200719 yr Author '21st of July London bomb plot was just a hoax' BBC Thursday, January 18, 2007 One of the defendants in the London "bomb plot" trial, Hussein Osman, was arrested in Rome and interviewed at length by police. He is said to have told officers after his arrest he and his co-accused had been making a political point and the devices they carried were never meant to explode. Nigel Sweeney QC, prosecuting, told Woolwich Crown Court, Mr Osman had admitted to police that his real name was Hamdi Isaac and he was born in Ethiopia in 1978. Mr Osman was said to have told police he had moved to Italy in the early 1990s and to the UK in the late 1990s where he adopted the identity Hussein Osman. He also said he had pretended he was Somali because he thought it would make it easier to claim asylum. He said he met Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin Omar and Ramzi Mohammed at a mosque and had known them for two years, the court was told. They played football together and went on camping expeditions to Scotland and Kent and had been to Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park to talk about religion, Mr Osman is said to have told police. Explosives 'not real' Mr Sweeney said Mr Osman told police they first decided to carry out a "demonstration" about a week after the 7 July attacks on London. Mr Osman said they decided to take action against the background of what was happening in Iraq and the UK - and claimed that Muslim women being beaten up in the aftermath of the attacks. Mr Osman claimed that Mr Ibrahim had made the bombs, inserted the detonators and demonstrated how they would work, the court heard. But he is also said to have explained that Mr Ibrahim had told him the main charge was not real explosives at all but flour. The court heard that the men decided to meet at Mr Mohammed's home on 20 July. Mr Ibrahim, Mr Omar and Manfo Asiedu picked Mr Osman up on that day and took him to Mr Mohammed's address, he said. Mr Osman said it was only then they decided to carry out a fake attack the next day, Mr Sweeney told the jury. Shaved beard He is said to have told officers he knew the detonator was real and was designed to explode just to "frighten people". Mr Sweeney told the court that Mr Osman said they all made the bomb mixtures at Mr Mohammed's home on 20 July and he shaved his beard off. He is said to have told police he set off on the Tube eastbound and thought Mr Asiedu was going to White City on the Central Line. He allegedly told detectives there was no plan about what they were supposed to do afterwards but they decided not to meet each other again for safety reasons. Mr Sweeney told the court Mr Osman said he was "economical with the truth" when asked to explain how he escaped from Britain because he did not want to involve other people. He told officers he only decided to leave London after Jean Charles de Menezes was mistaken for a bomber and killed on 22 July, Mr Sweeney said.
January 24, 200719 yr Looks like youve been proved wrong again Gareth. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6291943.stm Oh yea, of course they were set up - thats why they acted like they did!!! When are you going to wake up? Just because you have a vendetta against Bush doesnt mean everything is a cover-up. These guys werent setup, they knew what they were doing.
January 24, 200719 yr Author Hey! I know. It does actually look like the 21st July 'attempt' was a genuine group. I really haven't talked about the 21st July here. Just because you have a vendetta against Bush He's an absolute bastard yes, but I don't see it solely against Bush - that's what idiots think, that it's just against Bush. So you get it me right first. The July 7th "attack" on the otherhand - british itel. led. And when are you going to wake up to that sir. Probably never. Right, off to watch the State Of The Union address........this should be "fun".
January 30, 200719 yr Author Infowars Exclusive: 7/7 Bus Bomb Survivor Describes "Agents" At Scene In Immediate Aftermath Witness claims a group of secret service operatives and intelligence officers were already inside the cordon before the bus arrived in Tavistock square. Steve Watson & Alex Jones Infowars.net Monday, January 29, 2007 Daniel Obachike, the man who was on the lower deck of the number thirty bus that exploded in Tavistock Square in London on 7/7/05, has exclusively provided Infowars with a preview of a new section of his soon to be published narrative, The 4th Bomb. Last month we detailed how Daniel's forthcoming book will claim that the Hackney bus was diverted to Tavistock Square by two unmarked cars which then left the scene at high speed after the drivers had conversed with police in the area. "Standing by the doors I see a blue BMW 5 series and black Mercedes squeal to a halt in front of the bus, halting its progress along Euston Road. 4 minutes passed then a police motorcyclist arrived at the blockage. The BMW driver said something to the cyclist who soon sped off. 90 seconds later the BMW suddenly drives off. The Mercedes waits till the bus diverts east into Upper Woburn Place towards Tavistock Square before it speeds away." Daniel claims that in the immediate seconds after the blast, a man dressed all in black was filming him with a hand held camera. He claims he was subjected to a program of surveillance and harassment for months by the police and was only asked to provide a witness statement 6 months after the event. In a section entitled The Angels And Agents Of Tavistock Square, Daniel details what and who he saw in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, including claims that operatives were pre positioned inside the square, ready to deal with the immediate aftermath. He says that amidst the chaos, he witnessed individuals calmly observing the events and activities, without any signs of grief or shock, as if they had "assigned tasks". Daniel states that these individuals proceeded "busily, workman like almost as if they’d already displayed their grief and horror prior to the explosion'. On his website he provides the following four images of an injured man whom he says was at least 45 metres ahead of the bus, despite the fact that images show the blast blew backwards. Indeed, the image further below shows that even people that were on the bus, at the front, were not killed or badly injured. So Daniel asks the question how is it that a man 45 metres in front of the bus was subject to blast injuries? It is possible that the man walked or ran away from the bus after the explosion, however, Daniel notes that he did not have a speck of victims blood on him, while others close to the blast were "showered". Daniel says that he remembers seeing both the bandage around the man's head, and a neat tear in his trouser leg within 60 seconds of the explosion and claims that this person was some kind of intelligence operative that was quickly whisked away after the bomb had gone off. When Daniel was finally asked to make a statement, police questioned him for 4 hours, a clip of the interview is on his website. They asked him to him mark points where he thought people were on a diagram of the bus layout that was totally wrong, which he believed would render his statement inadmissible. He claims he was then followed around by the same three operatives from Enfield Town Police Station, North London, for the following six months, saying that the surveillance was more overt than covert, they were letting him know that he was being watched 24-7. Clearly neither the claim of unmarked dark cars, nor operatives in the area can be verified, they are just that, claims. We merely report them here as a matter of public interest. They also serve as the testimony of a first hand witness to the bus blast. There are many more facts surrounding the events of 7/7 that have been verified and put the official narrative in severe doubt, showing that, at the very least, a public inquiry is needed. Check the London Bombings data page for further research. Here now is the section of Daniel Obachike's narrative as provided to Infowars: The Angels And Agents Of Tavistock Square by Daniel Obachike That morning many good human values immediately came to the fore, amidst evil in one of its purest forms. I’d hurriedly left the death strewn by the blast in my wake but was befuddled by what I saw ahead of me. I stopped, turned round and was even more dumbfounded by what I saw. Strangely I found myself drawn back to the scene of the crime and meandering between the angels and agents in Tavistock Square headed back towards the bus. The angels I refer to were the healthcare professionals and staff that were quickly on hand in such shocking circumstances, trying to do whatever they could despite initially being aghast at the dead pieces of human flesh and bodies littering the square. The agents on the other hand were conspicuous by the way they diligently adhered to their assigned tasks, proceeding busily, workman like almost as if they’d already displayed their grief and horror prior to the explosion. Apart from the obvious foot soldiers, (the blokes in blue) there were one or two more covert ones that stuck in my mind for differing reasons. Their cover was blown, not because of what they did, but because of what they didn’t do. Faced with such an unprecedented and horrendous event most reactions would come down to fight or flight. After my own flight and initial rage at all things and persons Transport For London (Bus drivers in particular), I turned to comfort a shocked victim showered with blood who had been walking alongside the bus at the time of the explosion. Those few who did neither were notable. They stood back, observing the events and activities in its entirety, positioned in the same spot. The man with the hat was one such individual but his case is particularly intriguing when compared to the plain intelligence officers and foot soldiers I referred to. I was going to make a point of highlighting him in my forthcoming novel: The 4th Bomb, but editorial considerations meant his 15 minutes is surplus to requirement. My editor felt that whilst interesting the section on him ‘acted as a diversion’ to the storyline. The irony is, a part of me thinks that is what he was doing there that morning. I present compelling evidence that the smartly dressed man in grey was fully aware of what was about to take place and was prepared to be part of the aftermath but got caught out because the bus blew up just a couple of meters into Tavistock Square while he was positioned 60 meters away further down from the blast. Images show the main force of the blast went backwards and one victim, a woman died because she crossed the road from the square behind the bus at the time of the explosion. So how can anyone 60 meters ahead of the bus to be hurled aside or sustain any kind of physical injuries. I knew his injuries were improvised, immediately putting 2 and 2 together when I saw his hat lying on the ground next to him. He wore a large bandage around his head and had a tear along one trouser leg that went neatly along the seam. The bandage 60 seconds after the blast. This was way too fast, long before any medical assistance had arrived. The blood on my own shirt is derived from a woman who was showered with the victim’s blood. She had been walking beside the bus at the time. The grey suited man had no blood on him at whatsoever indicating he was far from the bus. Even the African traffic warden on the opposite side of the road who the driver called out to said he had a piece of human flesh on his arm. We may never know his true purpose that day. But what it does do is single him out as someone who had prior knowledge. Who knew in advance? Only the perpetrators?
February 7, 200719 yr Author The 7/7 London Bombings: How to Set Up a Patsy A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th. ITV News interview with Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, and a former Scotland Yard official who worked at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.Video of interview - 2.3 MB WMV download POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company—bear in mind now that I'm in the private sector—and we sat everybody down in the city—1000 people involved in the whole organization—with the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was it was we based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time— INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario? POWER: Almost precisely. I was up to 2 o'clock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialize in helping people to get their crisis management response, how you jump from slow time thinking to quick time doing. And we chose a scenario with no assistance, which is based on a terrorist attack because they've been close to a property occupied by Jewish businessmen there in the city, and there are more American banks in this city than there are in the whole of New York—a logical thing to do. INTERVIEWER: How extraordinary today must feel for you as it unfolds. You mentioned a few moments ago there our experience with Irish Republican terrorism. And of course it was very different wasn't it because however perverted their behavior, the IRA believed itself to have some sort of code of honour, and tended to issue some kind of warnings, of course they often came too late to do any good. I got an email with an interesting rumor going around London that just before the attacks, someone was trying to hire Muslims to play terrorists for a terror drill, to try to sneak onto the trains and buses with fake bombs to test out the security. We know the terror drill was real. We know they were running the drill at the exact same stations the bombings actually occurred. We know that the accused bombers don't fit the profile of men ready to die for Allah. Indeed, it is reported that some of them were not particularly religious. Yet we are faced with the strange claim that these men, one of whom had a new family, and another whose wife was pregnant, carried bombs set on timers and stood there waiting for them explode. If these men thought they were committing suicide, why did they buy RETURN TICKETS ON THE TRAIN? Why did they pay for "pay and display" tickets for their cars at the parking area? This makes sense ONLY if they thought they were carrying fake bombs as part of a terror drill. This also explains the nervousness of the man on the bus who had probably just heard of the real explosions and was starting to suspect that the fake bomb he was carrying might not be fake after all. "Hey you, Muslim person. Wanna make a hundred pounds? You could use that kind of dough, with a new kid and all. We're running a terror drill, and all you gotta do is take this here harmless backpack with a fake bomb inside to work with you tomorrow, just to see if the subway guards catch you or not. Mum's the word, this is national security and all; you can't tell anyone!" ON 7/7 IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE 'SUPPOSED' LONDON BOMBERS TO BE FILMED AT 7.22 AM AT LUTON STATION AND ALSO CATCH A TRAIN WHICH ARRIVED AT KINGS CROSS PRIOR TO BEING FILMED AT 8.26 AM The London Police claim the bombers were photographed at the Luton station, then rode the 7:40 train to King's Cross, where they were photographed again. But according to the actual train timetable, the 7:40 train was cancelled that day and even had it not been cancelled, would not have arrived in time for the men to be photographed at King's Cross at 8:26. [Full details] Bruce Lait, in a tube carriage in which an explosion occurred: As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said. [Cambridge News] Are we to believe that a suicide bomber was strapped beneath the carriage when he detonated the explosives? Last, but not least, how did Mossad know the London bombings were going to happen?
October 29, 200718 yr Saudi king: UK ignored terrorism warning LONDON, England (CNN) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has stirred up controversy ahead of a rare visit to Britain which begins Monday, accusing British authorities of ignoring intelligence that could have prevented the 2005 London bombings King Abdullah accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation that aired on Monday, the Saudi king said Britain failed to act on information provided by Saudi security services ahead of the suicide bombings on London's transport network in July 2005, that killed 52 people and injured more than 770. "We sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist atrocities in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to avert the tragedy," the monarch told the BBC. King Abdullah's arrival in London on Monday will mark the first state visit by a Saudi monarch in 20 years. In the BBC interview, he refused to elaborate on the details of the intelligence, saying that disclosing specific information "may cause sensitivities" between the two countries' security services. However, he went on to say that Britain was among a number of countries that were not taking the issue of global terrorism seriously. A British Home Office spokesman strenuously denied that any intelligence from Saudi Arabia had been overlooked in the run-up to the atrocities and that information provided by the Saudis "was materially different from what actually occurred on 7 July and clearly not relevant to those acts." "We have made it clear that if we had intelligence that could have prevented the attacks we would have acted upon it," the spokesman told CNN. The spokesman said an investigation by the British Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) published last year found there was no evidence that intelligence passed on by the Saudis could have prevented the bombings. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband pulled out of a meeting with his Saudi Arabian counterpart in London Monday, but the Foreign Office insisted it was for personal reasons and not a snub. Miliband has just adopted a baby son and is taking time off to look after him, the British Foreign Office confirmed to CNN. The Foreign Office insisted Miliband's decision to pull out of the meeting with Saudi's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal was due to personal reasons and was in no way linked to King Abdullah's comments. Miliband's duties are being carried out by junior ministers in his absence.
November 2, 200718 yr London police found guilty in killing of innocent man The police force faces fines of almost $1.1 million for endangering the public in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, mistakenly believed to be a suicide bomber. By Arthur Brightfrom the November 3, 2007 edition A British court found London's police force guilty of health and safety violations in the July 2005 incident that saw officers kill Jean Charles de Menezes in a crowded subway station, after they mistakenly identified him as a suicide bomber. The verdict has brought police conduct into question, as well as elicited calls for the resignation of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. The Times (London) reports that the jury fined the London Metropolitan Police (Met) almost £600,000 ($1.1 million) for endangering the public in the incident that led to the shooting of Mr. Menezes, an innocent Brazilian national. [The jury] upheld a charge against the Met of breaching its duty to protect the public under health and safety legislation after prosecutors detailed a series of 19 alleged errors in the police operation on July 22, 2005. Mr. de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times by specialist firearms officers who followed him into Stockwell Tube station in South London, mistaking him for Hussain Osman, one of four men who had tried unsuccessfully to launch a suicide attack on London's transport system the day before. Menezes's death was the result of a chain of errors that the police made just a day after several men attempted to detonate suicide bombs on London buses and subways, reports Reuters. The failed attack was meant to replicate the 7/11 attacks that had killed 52 people in London two weeks before. De Menezes lived in the same block of flats as one of the failed bombers, Hussein Osman. Surveillance officers monitoring the building followed de Menezes on two bus rides without stopping him before he reached the underground train station. Specialist firearms officers were rushed to the station – after a four-hour delay – when senior officers wrongly became convinced de Menezes was Osman. "No explanation has been forthcoming other than a breakdown in communication. It's been clear from the evidence that the surveillance team never positively identified Mr. De Menezes as a suspect," said Judge Richard Henriques. Time Magazine writes that the case "highlights the dilemma facing authorities across the world responsible for confronting terror while protecting the rights of innocent citizens." Time adds that the court's ruling leaves unanswered questions of cause and responsibility for Menezes's death. Despite the verdict, the Brazilian's family and human rights campaigners say the trial failed to answer the question of why de Menezes was killed. The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to charge individual officers with the shooting, and instead brought a case under health and safety legislation on the surreal grounds that the police had "failed to provide for the health, safety and welfare" of de Menezes and other members of the public. The verdict, which laid no individual blame upon police officials, has focused attention upon Metropolitan Police Commissioner Blair, reports The Independent (London). But Blair said he will not step down. He told reporters outside the Old Bailey following the guilty verdict: "This case thus provides no evidence at all of systematic failure by the Metropolitan Police. And I therefore intend to continue to lead the Met in its increasingly successful efforts to reduce crime and deter and disrupt terrorist activities in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom." The police chief received the immediate backing of both Downing Street and the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who said that Sir Ian had her "full confidence". However, she added: "We will consider carefully the implications of the verdict with the police service." The Times (London) reports that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the two main opposition parties, both called for Blair's resignation. David Davis, the [Conservatives'] Shadow Home Secretary, said that the trial had shed light on "serial failures", adding: "They include failures of organisation, command and operations. The failures were systemic, falling within the clear responsibility of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police." His Liberal Democrat counterpart, Nick Clegg, also said that the guilty verdict made Sir Ian's resignation "unavoidable". He added: "The simple priority today is to show that we have a police force in London which is prepared to accept full responsibility for its actions." In an editorial, The Guardian noted the difficult situation the police faced in July 2005, and sympathized with their position. But the paper acknowledged that Blair may not be able to continue to oversee the force. The police, hunting for four suicide bombers, were under intense pressure. They acted in what they thought were the interests of public safety. How would the public have reacted, had the operation prevented a terrorist attack? Yet the fact remains: yesterday's verdict dealt a serious blow to the Metropolitan police. ... [blair's] decision to fight for his job may be noble in some regards, but it carries with it a mulish disregard for the opinions of others. Even those who agree with his aims for London's police, including this paper, recognise that Sir Ian may no longer be in a position to put them into effect. Meanwhile, an editorial in The Daily Telegraph asked, "Who's responsible for shooting de Menezes?" And suggested that the answer is Blair. Yesterday's trial verdict should be viewed alongside the report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, published in August, which examined the way the Met dealt with Mr de Menezes's killing. That offered a deeply unflattering picture of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, who was revealed as being kept out of the loop as his officers learnt the dreadful truth that an innocent man had been shot dead. Taking that into consideration with yesterday's guilty verdict, one could be forgiven for assuming the position of the man at the top to be untenable.
Create an account or sign in to comment