Something Evil This Way Comes?

July 24, 2005
by Rixon Stewart
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=3391

Were the recent bombings in London part of a covert operation intended to pave the way for a totalitarian state? No matter how outlandish this may sound, and despite what the mainstream media may say, there is considerable evidence that this may indeed be the case.

The mainstream media first speculated that Muslim fundamentalists were behind the July 7 bombings, then Al-Qaeda was named as the guilty party along with the names of the alleged “suicide bombers”. Then police said that they had no hard evidence that the bombers were actually “suicide bombers” at all; “it is possible that they did not intend to die,” a Scotland Yard spokesman later admitted (1).

Adding to the confusion, Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, is on record as telling the Foreign Press Association: “Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working” (2).

Indeed the official version of events has changed so much that you could almost believe that a team of scriptwriters were rewriting an ongoing storyline – to keep a bewildered public in suspense and confound genuine investigators.

As if to underline the point, exactly two weeks after the first bombings a series of smaller explosions shook the capitol on July 21.

Yet reports coming in to the Seeker paint a very different picture of events to that being told by officialdom and the mainstream media. For its part the media has described how the four bombers rendezvoused at Luton Station on the morning of July 7, before dispersing to their designated targets. And substantiating this: how police found a car parked at Luton Station with explosives in it.

Adding to the spin the Sunday Times reported on July 16, that one of the alleged bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan, a 30-year-old teaching assistant from West Yorkshire, came under scrutiny last year but was not judged to be a threat by MI5.

Of course this tells us little and will only add to calls for a security clampdown and more powers for the security establishment.

Yet commuters who passed through Luton around the time the bombers were reported to have passed through, an hour before the actual bomb blasts, tell a very different story. Trains passing through Luton were being were being cancelled or sent back from whence they came, one correspondent reports: “the press says that the bombers left Luton at 7.40 but anyone who had been at the station at 7.40 will tell you that is just not possible.”

Bus service employees have also described as "rubbish" (3) claims by London Transport authorities that all 4 cameras on the bombed bus could have failed.

Now commuters who travelled through one of the underground stations attacked, Kings Cross, have emailed us describing scenes of chaos and confusion before the actual bombings, the result London Transport staff explained, of power surges and signal malfunctions.

One commuter explained that as she was about to board a train the public address system announced that commuters should leave the station immediately because of power surges. Instead, she jumped on the train and got off at the next station.

Had she not done so, she believes that she too might have ended up on the bombed bus, along with other commuters, as she left the station and boarded a number 30 bus instead.

Along with drills (4) to simulate bombings on the London Underground on the day of the actual bombings – reportedly carried out at the very stations that were bombed – the fact that the head of London’s transport system is a former Executive Assistant to the Director of the CIA (5), with extensive experience in false flag operations and warnings of attacks on London’s transport system from Israeli intelligence (or given to Israeli intelligence, depending on which version (6) you believe), all indications point to a covert black operation with the mainstream media playing its part by ignoring stories at odds with the official line.

There was even a precedent for the bombings, or depending on how you view it, trials were run. The northern city of Sheffield was buzzing with talk of bomb scares (7) on buses just two days before London was first bombed, however, this was all but ignored by the national media in the aftermath of the London attacks and remained confined to local news instead.

Also given very little prominence, were reports of the shooting of “suicide bombers” on London’s Canary Wharf on July 7th. According to a small inside page report in the New Zealand Herald: “A New Zealander working for Reuters in London said two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.”

The man who was not prepared to give his name said two English colleagues, whom he also refused to name “witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.”

Thereafter, the Herald reports that: “the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours…” (8)

“Stay away from widows?” So that they couldn’t see what was happening outside, perhaps? Could it be that the alleged “suicide bombers” didn’t die in the alleged “suicide” blasts but were shot down on Canary Wharf instead?

As it happens, there is evidence that the July 7th attacks were not "suicide" bombings at all. Bruce Lait who was in an underground train carriage near London's Aldgate East station when one of the bombs exploded, describes a scene that indicates that the bombs were planted, not carried by "suicide bombers".

According to Bruce, as they made their way out of the wrecked train carriage, 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. (9)

However, just as this and other questions about the attacks began to sizzle on the independent Internet, more blasts shook London’s transport network on July 21, silencing any further speculation, temporarily at least.

Coincidently, or maybe by design, the July 21st attacks occurred just as Tony Blair was meeting his security chiefs on new measures to fight terror. In fact the meeting itself was delayed as a result of the attacks. When it resumed, police chiefs and the heads of MI5 and MI6 recomended new laws allowing them to hold and interrogate suspects for up to 3 months, without charge.

As if to emphasise this, the following day police shot dead what was initially claimed to be “suicide bomber” at a south London underground station and unlike the Canary Wharf shooting, this received publicity. Hours after the shooting, Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the victim was 'directly linked' to the investigations into attacks on July 21 and July 7. But that changed after it became all too apparent that Jean Charles de Menezes was in no way linked to the blasts and the mainstream media conveniently forgot Sir Ian’s earlier claim (10).

Still the questions remain: what do the bombings actually signify and to what end were they carried out?

From Kings Cross to Armageddon?

The events of September 11th 2001 helped pave the way for the invasion of Afghanistan and that ultimately led to the current quagmire in Iraq and a whole raft of new security legislation. Right now we cannot say with any certainty where the events of July 7th are heading but something is definitely in the offing.

At the time of writing, residents near Wright Patterson Air Force Base in the US report tremendous activity there, far more so than usual. Coupled with this we are informed that all leave has been cancelled at some US military bases and with the construction of a huge US military base in Israel (11) scheduled to be operational by September, something big is looming in the months ahead.

So if something is looming, you might ask, where will it happen? Just as the events of 9/11 led to Afghanistan and Iraq, we would suggest that the bombings of July 7 and 21st, are intended to lead to another war somewhere in the Middle East. Like Saddam Hussein’s fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction, it would only require some “evidence” to be unearthed linking the bomb attacks in London with Iran or Syria, to see another chapter open in the “War on Terror”.

Yet even if this does not happen, it will almost certainly lead to more police powers and an ever-encroaching police state. As illustrated by the experiences of a professor of economics who had been visiting Stoke-on-Trent on Thursday, July 7, 2005. As he waited for his train, delayed by events in London, he related to railway staff how the events of that day could be equated to the events of 9/11. Moments later he was approached by two policemen who questioned him for nearly 20 minutes: what was he doing there, what did he do for a living, where did he live? Had he not obviously been a respectable member of the community, had he been a young Asian or Muslim cleric for example, then he might have ended up in police custody. As it was though, he was allowed to continue on his journey but it says something about where we are heading as a society.

It also says something about the dark and truly diabolical nature of these events and how they are the outcome of a longer-term agenda. Over the past few decades Britain has seen a massive influx of immigrants of various faiths and races, creating a truly multi-cultural society, almost by design. Having created a society comprised of various faiths and races, the powers that be are now ready to exploit those differences and further their own power through the principle of “divide and rule”. For this writer believes that the bombings in London were staged, in part, to foment antagonism between Britain’s large Muslim community and its indigenous population.

Adding to the notion that the bombings in London were part of a truly diabolical design, there is even some occult significance for July 7, 2005, a date with genuine numerological import (12).

What happens next is anyone’s guess but in the words of Sherman Skolnick, stay tuned.

References:

(1) The London Attacks – Latest
http://propagandamatrix.com/Pages/Jul05/190705attacks.html

(2) Cops: London Attacks Were Homicide Blasts
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162476,00.html

(3) London Stagecoach Employee Says Bus Bombing Suspicious
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm

(4) London Underground Bombing ‘Exercises’ Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

(5) London Transport Controlled by Former CIA Executive Director
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3350

(6) Was Israel Warned Ahead of First Blast?
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3313

(7) Bomb scare leads to city gridlock
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4654289.stm

(8) ‘Police shot bombers’ reports New Zealander
www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10334992

(9) "I was in tube bomb carriage - and survived"
www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf

(10) Jean Charles de Menezes
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/jean-charles-de-menezes.html

(11) American Base in Israel
www.thegoldenreport.com/asp/jerrysnewsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=928&print=yes

(12) Dark Secrets of the 7/7 Attacks
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3320

British Police Debate if London Plotters Were Suicide Bombers, or Dupes

July 27, 2005
by Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta Jr.
New York Times

LONDON, July 26 - Within hours of the July 7 attacks here, many British police and intelligence officials assumed that the four bombers had intended to die with their bombs.

But in recent days, some police officials are increasingly considering the possibility that the men did not plan to commit suicide and were duped into dying.

Investigators raising doubts about the suicide assumption have cited evidence to support this theory. Each of the four men who died in the July 7 attacks purchased round-trip railway tickets from Luton to London. Germaine Lindsay's rented car left in Luton had a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard.

A large quantity of explosives were stored in the trunk of that car, perhaps for another attack. Another bomber had just spent a large sum to repair his car. The men carried driver's licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers.

In addition, none left behind a note, videotape or Internet trail as suicide bombers have done in the past. And the bombers' families were baffled by what seemed to be their decisions to kill themselves.

While some of these clues could be seen as the work of men intent on covering their trail, some investigators increasingly believe that the men may have been conned into carrying the bombs onto the trains and leaving them, thinking they were going to explode minutes later.

There remains some evidence suggesting that these were suicide bombers, beyond the fact that all died in the blasts. Their bodies, all of which were recovered, were positioned in a way that led investigators to make a preliminary determination that these may have been suicide attacks.

One of the remaining mysteries that neither camp can explain away is that the attacker on the bus died 57 minutes after the blasts on the trains; witnesses saw him putting his hand in the backpack. The bus bomber could support either theory.

To further complicate the matter, there are conflicting witness accounts of the behavior of the July 21 attackers. Some fled after the bombs failed to explode; at least one, on the bus, was said to have left the scene before the failed detonation.

The suicide question has major implications not only for the investigation, but also for the assessment of the terrorist threat that London faces. If the attacks were a suicide mission, they would be the first suicide bombings on European soil, and signal a dangerous new threat. Suicide could indicate a higher level of commitment and point to the existence within Britain of extremists willing to die for a cause. If the men were not suicide bombers, some of the most basic assumptions of the investigation would change. On one level, the idea makes the plot less ominous. It is much easier to recruit "mules" who will carry and deposit explosives than people who are prepared to die.

Several senior officials say a lively debate is under way within the investigation and wider intelligence circles. Some say the initial hypothesis that the July 7 attacks were carried out by determined fanatics willing to die in the name of a radical interpretation of Islam may have been too simplistic.

"What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't appear to be so today," said one foreign corporate head and former senior defense official with access to police information. "There was the strong feeling after Attack One that these kids must have really been brainwashed to become suicide bombers. Then the botched Attack Two happens, and the question now is whether these were dedicated guys ready to die or stupid guys run by a smart group of people pulling the strings."

The notion makes it more likely that there is an unknown mastermind who might have organized both attacks, and could still be organizing others. The British police have been reluctant to publicly declare the July 7 bombings a suicide mission. Britain's top police officers - Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, and Peter Clarke, the head of Scotland Yard's antiterrorist branch - have steadfastly refused to call the men "suicide bombers" in public.

A senior official of a European intelligence agency said: "The British from the beginning have had some doubts about the suicide hypothesis and cannot say exactly whether it is true. Our own analysis is that we can say that it is not absolutely necessary that this was a suicide mission."

"Technically they're not suicide bombers," said one police officer familiar with the investigation. "Scotland Yard has not said they are. Even if we may think they probably were suicide bombers, the police have not said this outright."

A senior official of a European intelligence agency said: "The British from the beginning have had some doubts about the suicide hypothesis and cannot say exactly whether it is true. Our own analysis is that we can say that it is not absolutely necessary that this was a suicide mission."

The botched attacks of July 21 have made the debate more urgent. The July 21 team's lack of sophistication made some investigators reassess the July 7 bombing team's organization skills. Several investigators said the July 7 bombers, ranging in age from 18 to 30, might not have been sophisticated enough to plan a synchronized attack, with three bombs exploding in the London Underground within 45 seconds.

"I just have a hard time fathoming kids that young being that sophisticated," one senior intelligence official said.

Another theory, several intelligence and counterterrorism officials said, is that the men knew there were timers on the bombs, and were instructed to leave the explosives on the trains at a designated time, perhaps 9 a.m. "It is possible that they were told the bombs would blow up at 9:10 a.m. or 9:15 a.m., and they were to stay with them until 9 a.m.," another official said. The bombs went off at 8:50 a.m.

American investigators are convinced that several of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the so-called muscle who were recruited near the end of the operation, might not have been told that the four hijacked airplanes were intended to be used for suicide missions.

In a news conference the day after the first attacks, Sir Ian, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said: "There is nothing to suggest that there was a suicide bomber involved in this process. On the other hand, nothing can be ruled out."

Essentially, that view has not changed since then.

In his monthly news conference on Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair referred to the suicide issue, but as a sweeping hypothetical premise. "There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, in Iraq, in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere," he said at one point. At another point, he said, "Suicide bombing is wrong, whether it is in Israel, or London or New York."

A spokesperson at Downing Street said Mr. Blair's remarks were intended to be general comments about suicide bombings, not a confirmation that the police now believe that the July 7 attacks were indeed suicide bombings.

"I think he was speaking generally," the spokesperson said. "He has always said he would leave operational questions to the police to answer. I think this was a situation where he was asked a question and he was speaking quite generally about the subject."

The view that the four bombers might have been duped into carrying out their suicide missions is one that  is shared by family members of some of the men, who have said in interviews that they refuse to believe that they signed on to carry out a suicide mission.

Shehzad Tanweer's uncle, Bashir Ahmed, 65, said his family had no idea that the 22-year-old Leeds man who loved cricket and soccer was planning a suicide attack. "It must have been forces behind him," Mr. Ahmed said.

The family of Germaine Lindsay, 19, also said they were stunned. His wife, Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, said her late husband was "a loving husband and father" who had shown "absolutely no sign of doing this atrocious crime."

Ms. Lewthwaite added, "We are still in shock about the news we have been given and are trying to understand why anyone, never mind Germaine, would do such a thing."

Mark Baillie, the terror and defense expert at the Center for Defense and International Security Studies, said the debate about whether the July 7 bombers intended to die "is something that everybody is beginning to talk about."

"There are several anomalies that lead you to think that they were not suicide bombers," Mr. Baillie said. "It would have been very interesting if they were tricked."

Jonathan Allen and Hélène Fouquet contributed reporting for this article.