CRUCIAL VIDEO: "7/7 Ripple Effect"

Here's an excellent account of the London bombings of July 7, 2005 -- a vitally important and often overlooked specimen of state-sponsored false-flag terror at its worst.

I remember it all so well ... I was in a high-pressure blogging situation at the time, pulling double duty and desperate for something to write about. As a story, for somebody like me, it was a gift from Heaven. Right from the very beginning it had all the signs of a black op, and I said so at the time.

The attacks were even more opportune for some others. They occurred at a time when the run of news stories -- and of events -- was against the other puppets of the ruling class, especially in the U.K., as the British had nearly been pushed out of Iraq, the rich countries had been pushed to at least talk about helping the poor ones at the G8 summit, and Tony Blair was wilting under pressure. It all seemed just too convenient, as I wrote at the tim.

Rudy Giuliani was there. Benyamin Netanyahu was there -- and Netanyahu was warned not to leave his hotel, just a few minutes before a bomb exploded in the nearest tube station.

Peter Power explained that his consulting firm was involved in a terrorism-preparedness drill working with the exact scenario that transpired -- four explosions: three on trains and one on a bus ... and in exactly the same locations, too!

Think about that for a moment -- how far beyond coincidental can you get? This was treason of the highest order, and at the very top of the government.

Ever since I started blogging I've been trying to place terror in the context of government, in a deeper and more meaningful way than the approach followed by some more mainstream reporters such as Rolling Stone and Keith Olbermann, who draw connections between bogus terror alerts and political crises, but don't talk about how actual governments in search of ever-increasing power have participated in actual terror attacks which have killed hundreds or thousands or even more actual innocent people.

The London bombings of 7/7/2005 provided as clear an example of such a government in action as we are ever likely to see -- with the Mayor of 9/11 and a former Israeli Defense Minister right in the middle of it.

This video, "7/7 Ripple Effect", goes way beyond my quick and relatively simple analysis, and most of it makes perfect sense to me. It gets two minor details wrong, as far as I know, but neither makes any difference to any of the main points.

There are a few small bits that I still don't understand, but nothing that shocks me very much. I've reported on bogus-terror entrapment scams so often that most of my regular readers will be able to see the parallels in this case ... and if they don't, they'll probably ask questions!

Thanks to J for Justice dot Co dot UK for putting this video together, and a tip of the frozen cap to Sea Dreamer.

7/7 Press For Truth Begins

Survivors and families of the victims of the 7/7 London subway bombings "began legal action on Thursday to force the British government to hold an independent inquiry" according to a report from Reuters, which says:

The group argues official accounts of the suicide bombings on London's transport system carried out by four young British Islamists have been insufficient, inaccurate and misleading.
...

The 7/7 inquiry group, made up of bereaved relatives and those who escaped the bombings, says the refusal to hold a public inquiry breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and intends to seek a judicial review of that decision.

Lawyers for the group said the papers were being served at the High Court on Thursday.

As some of us remember, the bombings happened more than two years ago and there has never even been the pretense of an investigation.

The attacks were transparently bogus at the time, so I beg to disagree with Cliff Tibber on one point:

"Firstly we say that the decision of the former Home Secretary (interior minister) not to order an inquiry was irrational," Cliff Tibber, head of litigation at Oury Clark, told Reuters.

Deciding not to order an inquiry after a blatantly false-flag attack is anything but irrational. It's deliberate obstruction of justice. But Cliff Tibber is exactly right on this point:

"Secondly there is a positive duty under article 2 of the Human Rights Act in these circumstances to order an inquiry." The first hearing at the High Court is unlikely to take place until October.

The British government's so-called "justification" for refusing to investigate is as lame as you can possibly imagine:

The government has rejected demands for an independent review of the bombings, which opposition politicians have also called for. It says an inquiry would distract stretched security services when Britain is at serious risk of attack.

"As we have consistently maintained, experience has shown that a fuller public inquiry can take years and divert huge resources," a Home Office spokeswoman said earlier this month.

We can spend billions and kill thousands in a war on terror to avenge this crime and prevent further such events, but we don't have the time or the money to find out what actually happened? It's rubbish, of course, and it smells just like the 9/11 variety, doesn't it?

The alleged suicide bombers allegedy put their bombs in their packs and carried them aboard the trains and buses they rode, and which then blew up. But pictures of the damage seemed to show the undercarriages blasted up rather than down. Oops! Better get rid of those pictures!

The 7/7 inquiry group says there are vital unanswered questions that need to be addressed, particularly how much the authorities knew about two of the bombers, ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, before the attacks.

They were photographed, recorded and followed by intelligence operatives several times in early 2004 in the company of plotters who have since been jailed for planning attacks using fertilizer-based bombs.

The government said in the aftermath of the July 7 strikes that all the bombers were "clean skins" who had not previously crossed the authorities' radar.

The group says that means an inquiry is needed to determine whether the government had failed in its duty to protect life.

Reuters casts these questions -- questions surrounding the two alleged bombers the government allegedly knew about -- as if they were the heart of the matter. But they're only the beginning of it.

"We would very much like answers to the questions we have raised. We don't understand why we haven't received them," Jacqui Putnam, who was on board the train blown up by Khan, told Reuters.

Maybe distance is important, or maybe background, or maybe both ... but I do understand why they haven't received any answers. It's because the known facts don't fit the official fiction.

Why were there drills going on in the exact same stations at the exact same times as the bombs went off? Because that's the way false-flag attacks are organized. The drills provide cover for anyone who needs it.

Why was Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Finance Minister and former Prime Minister, warned to stay in his hotel that morning, and who from Scotland Yard told him not to board the train in the nearby station which was about to explode? Why were reports of this incident available on the morning of 7/7 but not later -- how did they all suddenly disappear?

If you want more questions, watch this video.

Ludicrous Diversion

Then watch this one:

Mind The Gap

And now, if you want some answers, look here (or here).

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | July 13 2005

1) Hire a Crisis Management firm to set up an exercise that parallels the terrorist attack you are going to carry out. Have them run the exercise at the precise locations and at the very same time as the attack. If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.

2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly.

3) Tell four Arabs to meet up at London Underground and disperse, each getting on a different train. Make sure Arabs meet in a location where you can get a good mug shot of them all on CCTV which you can later endlessly repeat to drooling masses on television.

Paul nails it! You can read the rest (and click the links) here (or here).

Just in case you needed a reminder, this is it: 9/11 wasn't the only bogus terror attack.

Every large-scale attack underpinning the GWOT is full of fishy holes, just like this one.

And that's why refusing to hold an inquiry was the most rational thing the British authorities could have done.

It's Just Too Convenient

Did anyone else happen to notice that the timing of the explosions in London on Thursday morning was Just A Shade Too Convenient? Or was I the only one who thought "Gladio Smites Britannia" as soon as I heard the news?

No, it turns out that I wasn't the only one at all. Far from it, in fact. Psst! Keep this quiet, will you? We've been whispering about it all day.

One of the others who was thinking along the same lines was Anthony Wade:
Cui bono? Stupidity Versus Logic in the Latest "Terror" Attack

July 7, 2005

Wow, al Qaeda must be the stupidest terrorists, no wait, stupidest people period, on this entire planet. Their purported goal is to shake the will of the western powers that have invaded Iraq, and to drive them out, no? Then can someone please explain to me the logic of the London bombings? No seriously, it is time to apply logic to these events. Please do not hand me the nonsense about these people being "killers" who do not apply logic. You do not become the number one terrorist organization without having some logic, no? We are expected to swallow that these people were smart enough to circumvent our billion dollar intelligence and air defense systems with box cutters, but they cannot play coherent cause-effect scenarios out in their mind prior to carrying out terrorist activities? I doubt that very much.

Just this week, it was reported that England had drafted plans to pull out their troops, gone, see you later, victory for al Qaeda, right? So we are to believe then that the orchestrated response to these plans was to blow up a double decker bus, in England. Now, can you guess what the most likely response to such an event would be:

1) Pull the troops out faster
2) Galvanize public support, thus keeping the troops in Iraq
...
So, al Qaeda carried out the attacks for the massacres committed by the British troops, which are miniscule in comparison to the US. They further carried out the attacks in complete obliviousness to the news of the imminent British troop pullout. They further carried out these attacks despite the fact that Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and heading lower, leading to a possibility of impeachment. They further carried out these attacks even though the media had finally begun to cover the stories that could be potentially damaging to the entire war machine that they are fighting against. Wow, they are some stupid terrorists.

The level of stupidity is equal to when Osama bin Laden released his latest hit video, four days before the Presidential election. Surely he must have realized that would have only aided Bush, yet there he was providing America with a little fear before the election, a move that only could have helped Bush. Today, here is his little outfit, al Qaeda, once again coming to the aide of his alleged arch-nemesis Bush.

Cui bono is a Latin phrase which simply means, "Who benefits?" and it is the question we need to be asking ourselves. What does al Qaeda gain from this attack? The only logical answer can be, NOTHING. It will instill fear in the populace which could lead to a galvanizing of public support for the war they are fighting. It may lead to England changing their plans about pulling out their troops. It will give the US corporate media an excuse to not cover the stories that had been corroding the support for Bush. Instead of the potential impeachment, treason by Karl Rove, and the Downing Street Memos, the corporate media will be hammering the story about the terror attacks in England and how they show the need for this continuous war. I am sorry but when asking cui bono, it is clear that al Qaeda does not benefit from this attack, as it undermines everything they are working toward.
...
Bush was faced with the prospect of his war not continuing and his staunchest ally, England announced their plans for pulling troops out just as George was saying what a mistake it would be to make such plans. The morale in the al Qaeda camp must have been at an all time high. Their efforts in the war were finally paying off. Bush was losing his public support and his own country was beginning to speak about removing him from office. His top aide was under investigation for possible treason. England had started to make plans to pull out their troops.

So ... we are to believe that an organization smart enough to pull off 9/11, decided to throw away all the progress mentioned above, to frighten a people whose government only has 5% of the current troops in the war on terror, and had just decided to pull those troops out? The word stupidity would not cover this decision. It is unfathomable in its illogic.

I understand this raises things we do not want to consider. Well, consider this. In the early 1960's your government considered operations that would sacrifice innocent, civilian American lives in order to start a war with Cuba. I will not rehash Operation Northwoods here except to point out that it is horribly naive to assume people in power would not seek to abuse that power for their own ends. If this was true in 1962, it is even truer in 2005.

We see the images of terror on the television and we remember our fear, just like we were supposed to. Our President will use this attack to rebuild all he has lost in support and we cannot allow that to happen. This attack does not change the fact that George Bush started his war 6 months prior to obtaining Congressional approval. It does not change the fact that he knowingly lied to Congress to go to war, fitting his intelligence around his policy. It does not change the fact that Karl Rove apparently may have committed treason against the United States. Don't let him use this tragic event to sway us from pursuing the truth. Don't let him.

Cui bono America, Cui bono.

Psst! Keep this quiet, too, will you?

Another such person was William Bowles:
al-Qu'eda or al-a'diversion?

Of course it's too early to say with any certainty who set off the four bombs that caused death and chaos in London today but predictably Tony Blair says "they were obviously designed to coincide with the G8 summit". Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.

My immediate reaction is to be suspicious not about the timing of the bombs, this is the most obvious aspect, but who exactly is behind them.

It's been almost four years since 9/11 without a single bombing in the UK (the police say they've foiled attempts but have given out no details) but with dire warnings being handed out at regular intervals -- "not if but when" etc.

And with hundreds arrested under anti-terror laws but not a single conviction of anyone actually proved as being a member of al-Qu'eda or even being caught red-handed with a bomb, it's safe to assume that it's unlikely that al-Qu'eda actually exists as an effective organisation, let alone operates an "international terror network".

And given Osama bin Laden's proven connection to the CIA as a paid "asset" for at least ten years prior to 9/11 coupled to the fact even after years of chasing him up hill and down dale without so much as a sighting, it's pretty obvious that the US have no intention of actually catching the bugger.

Instead, we get handed a new bogeyman in the form of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who predictably proves to be as elusive as the fabled Osama. Is it just me, or do I see a pattern here?

After all, consider the implications of catching a man (if he actually exists) who is in all likelihood (still) an "asset" of the CIA? What tales would such a man have to tell about his paymasters (if he lived long enough to tell his tale that is)?
...
Of course it can't be proved that the people who set these bombs are the paid agents of the British or US state, anymore than the state can prove that al-Zarqawi exists, but the inability of the most sophisticated intelligence/security agencies on the planet to catch them; their chosen targets -- never agents of the state, always civilians; and in Iraq, almost always Iraqi civilians -- points to the work of agent provocateurs in the classic mould.

As I've pointed out many times before, the Websites that are the convenient mouthpiece for the various "Islamist" organisations, are extremely easy to trace, yet mysteriously, even when they have registered offices in the heart of London, the police never inquire. It's all just to easy, just too pat and when the prepared handouts from the state propagandists are accepted without question by the corporate/state media, we have a ready-made recipe for repression.

Today's blasts have been claimed by yet another, previously unknown "Islamist" organisation. The bottom line is that as long the state defines the terrain of struggle -- the war on terror -- the losers will be us, punters on the way to work and the poor of the planet who dare defy the imperium.

There will be those of course who will brand me a conspiracist, it's surely outrageous to claim that our government would conspire to murder its own citizens but consider that it conspired with the US government to invade and occupy Iraq, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and all done on the basis of lies and of a set of fabricated documents and the statements of people who were paid to incriminate the government of Iraq (one of whom, Ahmed Chalabi is under indictment for precisely this), so what's a few dozen or even a few hundred innocent people here in the UK, in Spain, as well as the thousands who have been murdered in Iraq by "al-Qu'eda"? When set in this context, there is surely nothing far-fetched about the British state conspiring to bomb the tube here in the heart of London, there's an awful lot at stake, not the least the future of the capitalist state. Think about it�

There's more. There's a lot more. But this is a good place to stop. For now.

Wednesday night I was looking for something to blog about. Thursday morning four bombs exploded in London. Isn't that just a bit too convenient??9