'HOMEGROWN' TERRORISTS - PERPETRATORS OR PATSIES?
After the murders of Princess Diana and David Kelly, as well as Blair's criminal support for the bombing of Serbia and the war in Iraq, I am extremely sceptical about everything we are reading now about the London bombings. Here I present a list of salient questions with possible answers. I find very little about the official story satisfying.
THE ALLEGED PERPS
1. The one and only eyewitness report of one of the four alleged bombers conspicuously failed to provide a description of the individual. But now - a few days later - an interview with the witness, computer programmer Richard Jones, includes the description: 'about 6-feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing tight, light brown trousers and a light brown top.' (Jones also used the adjective 'young.') Q: Why was this description initially withheld? Wouldn't releasing a description have helped the public identify the man, if he had escaped the explosion? A: Since there is no way for members of the general public to corroborate Jones's claim that he had been travelling on the doomed bus, or that he is just an ordinary computer programmer (rather than, say, an employee of Visor Consulting, the firm carrying out the terrorist drill that morning), he could well be a planted witness, providing details as needed. Presumably, at the early stage it was felt best to leave out a description until the alleged perpetrators had been identified. Then, once the patsy scenario had been fleshed out, Jones could reappear for another interview, this time helpfully providing a description of the appropriate patsy (officially identified as Hasib Hussain, who is known to have been 'very tall.'). Note also that because all four CCTV cameras aboard the bus weren't working, it is impossible to verify Jones's description of the young man.
PROBLEM: We now know that Hasib Hussain had a beard, but Jones specifically states that the man was clean-shaven. Also, the CCTV frame showing Hussain at Luton station (although, frankly, this picture is so closely-cropped that it could have been taken anywhere) shows that he was not wearing brown clothing. Unless he changed his clothes and shaved on the train from Luton to London, Hussain was obviously not the man Jones saw. Although it is clearly a circumstance in favour of the authenticity of Jones's testimony that he did not see a man identifiable as Hussain, which would have been all too convenient, the CCTV image raises the question of whether Hussain was on the bus at all. Certainly, he wa not the man Jones saw fiddling nervously with his bag. If the man Jones saw was the bomber - which would seem likely - then we are some way towards understanding why the CCTV cameras had been disabled. (We now know that the cameras went through a 20-hour long 'inspection' on the weekend before the bombings.) So it looks to me that the CCTV cameras were turned off to conceal the fact that Hussain would not be on the bus, although someone would have the job of planting his personal documents there. And, on the subject of the no. 30 bus, it is worth noting that it was a Stagecoach bus - Stagecoach being the company run by a truly nasty individual, Brian Souter. It is easy to imagine such a character putting his company at the service of the evil minds behind the bombings.
2. We are told that three of the four bombers were British males of Pakistani origin. Q: Isn't this fast work? A: Allegedly, the men were identified on the basis of ID documents such as credit cards found at the explosion sites.
3. We are told that 'Personal documents have been found at all four bomb scenes.' For example, 'Hussain's driving licence and credit cards were found in the wreckage of the No 30 bus.' Q: Is this likely? A: It is impossible to believe that such documents would have survived such terrific explosions. Jon Rappoport doesn't believe it, I don't believe it and neither should anybody else. In particular, I have a problem believing that, as the Guardian reports, 'The documents of the 30-year-old, whose body was found at Edgware Road station, were discovered both at the scene of that explosion and at the Aldgate bomb scene, where another of the four dead suspects' remains were found.' Why would his documents appear at two separate locations? Q: Even if they did, why would you make it easy for the authorities to identify you? These 'terrorists' seem to have been extremely interested in ensuring that the subsequent investigation made rapid progress, don't you think? A: According to Sky News terror expert Steve Park, the documents may have been deliberately planted to "send police the wrong way". NB: It is apparently not true that documents have been found for all four men. According to a recent report, 'Police believe that the fourth person's remains and documents may still be trapped in the rubble below Russell Square and are hoping they may find those today.'
4. We are told that the four alleged bombers were captured on CCTV at 8.30am. Q: If the men involved have been conclusively identified, why hasn't the CCTV footage been released? It's not as if there's going to be a trial. A: Digital images are easily tampered with and fakery virtually impossible to detect. The footage may be being withheld until the faces of the four young Muslims have been incorporated. (Fintan Dunne has removed the four men from the Luton CCTV image to produce a photo of a deserted station entrance that looks completely authentic:
If figures can be taken out, then of course they can be also be put back in.) If the work doesn't go too well, we can expect to see no more than a couple of still frames, as was done with the 9-11 footage of Atta and Aziz going through security at Portland airport.
UPDATE: Ten days after the first version of this post was first written the CCTV footage from Kings Cross station STILL hasn't been released and all we've seen are two images from Luton, which doesn't exactly place them anywhere near the crime scenes. The work must be going very badly indeed.
5. We are told that 'The four travelled by car from West Yorkshire to Luton and then by train to Kings Cross station shortly before the attacks were launched on Thursday morning, ... Their images were captured by CCTV cameras - one police source said the men were chatting "as though they were going on a hiking holiday". Ditto: 'According to one senior security source who viewed the footage, you would never have known the four were about to blow fellow commuters - and probably themselves - to smithereens. "They were chatting. You would think they were going on a hiking holiday," the source is reported to have said.' Q: Is such behaviour consistent with the theory that they were the perpetrators of the bombings? A: Perhaps they were really going on holiday. There are many possible reasons why they might have come to London that day. The most likely is that they had been hired to play the role of the terrorists in the Visor Consulting counter-terrorism training exercise.
For a scenario showing how the four British Muslims could have been set up this way, see "How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps" by Paul Joseph Watson. Watson points out how a counter-terrorism exercise provides perfect cover for a real terrorist attack. In particular, it provides a plausible explanation should things go wrong: 'If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.'
6. We are told that the breakthrough came 'at 8pm on Monday when detectives found a CCTV picture of the four bombers at King's Cross station 20 minutes before they blew themselves up.' Q: How did the detectives know that these were the four men involved? A: First, they would have been conspicuous because each was 'carrying an infantry-style rucksack.' (SOURCE) Second, 'the CCTV at King's Cross showed the four young men setting off in different directions.' (SOURCE) These two considerations taken together would seem to make the four men readily distinguishable from other groups of travellers. However, if the CCTV footage showed the four suspects together, I tend to wonder why it wasn't promptly released as a means of identifying the fourth alleged bomber, whose identity was only established a few days after the other three. If the footage had been released, it would have enabled members of the public who recognized him to come forward. The fact that the CCTV footage STILL hasn't been released is incredibly suspicious, since it is the lynchpin of the whole case against the four individuals named as the bombers this week.
7. We are told about one of the four men reportedly involved (Shahzad Tanweer): 'It's impossible. It's not in his nature to do something like this, he's the type of guy who would condemn things like that.' Ditto: "He is sound as a pound," said Azi Mohammed, a close friend. "The idea that he was involved in terrorism or extremism is ridiculous. The idea that he went down to London and exploded a bomb is unbelievable. ... I only played cricket in the park with him around 10 days ago. He is not interested in politics." Q: How come Islamic fundo terrorists never seem to behave like ones? A: This is yet another clue that the Muslims from Leeds are being set up.
8. We are told that 'At least two of the men - Shahzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain - British-born Muslims with jobs, hobbies and respectable parents were, it seems, living a double life'. Q: In view of the suspicious circumstances, which include intriguing relationships between Peter Power of Visor Consulting, Rudi Giuliani and Richard Scheirer discussed here, isn't it much more likely that they were set up?
9. We are told that the bodies of all four individuals have been found at the crime scenes. Q: Why would they all commit suicide? A: Mike Rivero: 'It is one thing to use oneself as a human guided missile to deliver a bomb, but these bombs are already at the target, and already counting down. There is no purpose to sticking around to be blown up with the bomb, and every reason to leave and plan more bombings.'
10. We are told here that the military used military-style explosives to gain access to one suspect's property: 'The military, including a bomb squad, carried out the controlled explosion at the row house at 11:30 a.m. so detectives could enter the home in Burley.' Q: Why not just break down the door? A: Mike Rivero of What Really Happened seems on the ball once again: doing so contaminates 'the entire crime scene with the very same explosives that were apparently used in the bombings.'
11. We are told that because the bombers were allegedly all British, everything has to change: ' The realisation that British nationals are prepared to make suicide attacks has transformed the way the country will have to view security. "What we considered normal has changed forever," said a senior security source. Security measures at all public places will have to be rethought. Tough new security laws are also expected to be introduced to try to combat the threat.' Q: Since Blair and the U.K. government have been trying to get 'tough new security laws' for a long time now, isn't the identification of British nationals as the allegedly bombers too convenient? A: Exactly. Here we have a motive for why the government would carry out an attack on its own citizens and choose particular patsies to serve that purpose.
12. We are told that 'The men are known to have been missing since last week.' Q: Could they have been abducted? A: Without seeing the CCTV footage, it is impossible to say whether the four men allegedly involved are the four men 'known to have been missing since last week.' If the unedited footage is made public, it would be a strong argument in favour of the voluntary nature of their presence in London. If the footage is never made public, or only presented in an edited way, as for example in still frames, then the possibility would exist that coercion of some kind was involved - or that the men were not involved at all. Certainly if the footage is never made public, I would be tempted to draw the conclusion that the men were simply abducted and murdered, while their ID papers were planted at the explosion sites.
13. According to The Times, 'The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area.' Q: Do you believe a man with an eight-month old child would kill himself? A: Absolutely not.
THE ABANDONED CAR(S)
14. We are told that 'Police were alerted to the Luton car after a member of the public reported seeing four men getting out of it on Thursday morning.' Q: Why would you report a car to the police simply because you had seen four people getting out of it on Thursday morning? A: You wouldn't. This is possibly a planted story - part of an intrigue for the purpose of framing the occupants.
15. We are told that the attention of the 'member of the public' was attracted by the sight of four men getting out of the car. Q: Since it's now reported that two cars have been found at Luton, wouldn't it make sense that two people got out of one car and the other two got out of the other?
16. We are told that 'explosives have been found in an abandoned car linked to the attacks at Luton railway station.' Q: Why would you leave explosives in the car? A: You wouldn't. This is the pretext for the car's subsequent destruction.
17. We are told that 'Four controlled explosions were carried out on the car after a 100-yard cordon was placed around the station and its car park.' Ditto: 'The car was blown up in four controlled explosions.' Q: Why would you blow up the car? A: To destroy it as a source of forensic evidence.
18. We are now told that two cars were found at Luton, that one or both contained explosives, and one or both were destroyed by controlled demolitions. (HERE and HERE) Q: Isn't that a tad convenient? A: Sure is. Now there is no way of telling whether the cars were really cars belonging to the young Muslim men from Leeds or whether they had really contained explosives or any other incriminating material. Destruction of a car linked to a crime amounts to the destruction of a significant portion of the evidence.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED
19. Peter Power of Visor Consulting has declined to reveal the identity of the client for whom the counter-terrorist exercise was being carried out. Q: Wouldn't Transport for London be a likely client? A: Yes. And, as Mike Rivero points out, the Commissioner for Transport for London is an ex-CIA man who is also a member of the Council for Foreign Relations, Bob Kiley. See his short biography here.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND
20. 'There are as yet no indications that any of the four left behind any message about their intentions.' (SOURCE) Q: Why, if you were going to conduct a series of bombings and you were not going to attempt to disguise your identity (you even leave incriminating explosives in your car), would you not also leave a statement of your motives? Why not take the opportunity to denounce Bush, Blair & Co.? After all, for a few days you would have the attention of the whole of Britain and much of the world.
UPDATE: An impressive critique of Richard Jones's problematic eyewitness account is found here. It proves beyond a doubt that his story is complete and utter balderdash. Because Jones did not describe a man on the bus who resembled Hussain, I no longer incline to the view that he was a planted witness. We seem to have a plain old-fashioned liar.
THE ALLEGED PERPS
1. The one and only eyewitness report of one of the four alleged bombers conspicuously failed to provide a description of the individual. But now - a few days later - an interview with the witness, computer programmer Richard Jones, includes the description: 'about 6-feet tall, olive-skinned and clean-shaven, wearing tight, light brown trousers and a light brown top.' (Jones also used the adjective 'young.') Q: Why was this description initially withheld? Wouldn't releasing a description have helped the public identify the man, if he had escaped the explosion? A: Since there is no way for members of the general public to corroborate Jones's claim that he had been travelling on the doomed bus, or that he is just an ordinary computer programmer (rather than, say, an employee of Visor Consulting, the firm carrying out the terrorist drill that morning), he could well be a planted witness, providing details as needed. Presumably, at the early stage it was felt best to leave out a description until the alleged perpetrators had been identified. Then, once the patsy scenario had been fleshed out, Jones could reappear for another interview, this time helpfully providing a description of the appropriate patsy (officially identified as Hasib Hussain, who is known to have been 'very tall.'). Note also that because all four CCTV cameras aboard the bus weren't working, it is impossible to verify Jones's description of the young man.
PROBLEM: We now know that Hasib Hussain had a beard, but Jones specifically states that the man was clean-shaven. Also, the CCTV frame showing Hussain at Luton station (although, frankly, this picture is so closely-cropped that it could have been taken anywhere) shows that he was not wearing brown clothing. Unless he changed his clothes and shaved on the train from Luton to London, Hussain was obviously not the man Jones saw. Although it is clearly a circumstance in favour of the authenticity of Jones's testimony that he did not see a man identifiable as Hussain, which would have been all too convenient, the CCTV image raises the question of whether Hussain was on the bus at all. Certainly, he wa not the man Jones saw fiddling nervously with his bag. If the man Jones saw was the bomber - which would seem likely - then we are some way towards understanding why the CCTV cameras had been disabled. (We now know that the cameras went through a 20-hour long 'inspection' on the weekend before the bombings.) So it looks to me that the CCTV cameras were turned off to conceal the fact that Hussain would not be on the bus, although someone would have the job of planting his personal documents there. And, on the subject of the no. 30 bus, it is worth noting that it was a Stagecoach bus - Stagecoach being the company run by a truly nasty individual, Brian Souter. It is easy to imagine such a character putting his company at the service of the evil minds behind the bombings.
2. We are told that three of the four bombers were British males of Pakistani origin. Q: Isn't this fast work? A: Allegedly, the men were identified on the basis of ID documents such as credit cards found at the explosion sites.
3. We are told that 'Personal documents have been found at all four bomb scenes.' For example, 'Hussain's driving licence and credit cards were found in the wreckage of the No 30 bus.' Q: Is this likely? A: It is impossible to believe that such documents would have survived such terrific explosions. Jon Rappoport doesn't believe it, I don't believe it and neither should anybody else. In particular, I have a problem believing that, as the Guardian reports, 'The documents of the 30-year-old, whose body was found at Edgware Road station, were discovered both at the scene of that explosion and at the Aldgate bomb scene, where another of the four dead suspects' remains were found.' Why would his documents appear at two separate locations? Q: Even if they did, why would you make it easy for the authorities to identify you? These 'terrorists' seem to have been extremely interested in ensuring that the subsequent investigation made rapid progress, don't you think? A: According to Sky News terror expert Steve Park, the documents may have been deliberately planted to "send police the wrong way". NB: It is apparently not true that documents have been found for all four men. According to a recent report, 'Police believe that the fourth person's remains and documents may still be trapped in the rubble below Russell Square and are hoping they may find those today.'
4. We are told that the four alleged bombers were captured on CCTV at 8.30am. Q: If the men involved have been conclusively identified, why hasn't the CCTV footage been released? It's not as if there's going to be a trial. A: Digital images are easily tampered with and fakery virtually impossible to detect. The footage may be being withheld until the faces of the four young Muslims have been incorporated. (Fintan Dunne has removed the four men from the Luton CCTV image to produce a photo of a deserted station entrance that looks completely authentic:
If figures can be taken out, then of course they can be also be put back in.) If the work doesn't go too well, we can expect to see no more than a couple of still frames, as was done with the 9-11 footage of Atta and Aziz going through security at Portland airport.
UPDATE: Ten days after the first version of this post was first written the CCTV footage from Kings Cross station STILL hasn't been released and all we've seen are two images from Luton, which doesn't exactly place them anywhere near the crime scenes. The work must be going very badly indeed.
5. We are told that 'The four travelled by car from West Yorkshire to Luton and then by train to Kings Cross station shortly before the attacks were launched on Thursday morning, ... Their images were captured by CCTV cameras - one police source said the men were chatting "as though they were going on a hiking holiday". Ditto: 'According to one senior security source who viewed the footage, you would never have known the four were about to blow fellow commuters - and probably themselves - to smithereens. "They were chatting. You would think they were going on a hiking holiday," the source is reported to have said.' Q: Is such behaviour consistent with the theory that they were the perpetrators of the bombings? A: Perhaps they were really going on holiday. There are many possible reasons why they might have come to London that day. The most likely is that they had been hired to play the role of the terrorists in the Visor Consulting counter-terrorism training exercise.
For a scenario showing how the four British Muslims could have been set up this way, see "How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps" by Paul Joseph Watson. Watson points out how a counter-terrorism exercise provides perfect cover for a real terrorist attack. In particular, it provides a plausible explanation should things go wrong: 'If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.'
6. We are told that the breakthrough came 'at 8pm on Monday when detectives found a CCTV picture of the four bombers at King's Cross station 20 minutes before they blew themselves up.' Q: How did the detectives know that these were the four men involved? A: First, they would have been conspicuous because each was 'carrying an infantry-style rucksack.' (SOURCE) Second, 'the CCTV at King's Cross showed the four young men setting off in different directions.' (SOURCE) These two considerations taken together would seem to make the four men readily distinguishable from other groups of travellers. However, if the CCTV footage showed the four suspects together, I tend to wonder why it wasn't promptly released as a means of identifying the fourth alleged bomber, whose identity was only established a few days after the other three. If the footage had been released, it would have enabled members of the public who recognized him to come forward. The fact that the CCTV footage STILL hasn't been released is incredibly suspicious, since it is the lynchpin of the whole case against the four individuals named as the bombers this week.
7. We are told about one of the four men reportedly involved (Shahzad Tanweer): 'It's impossible. It's not in his nature to do something like this, he's the type of guy who would condemn things like that.' Ditto: "He is sound as a pound," said Azi Mohammed, a close friend. "The idea that he was involved in terrorism or extremism is ridiculous. The idea that he went down to London and exploded a bomb is unbelievable. ... I only played cricket in the park with him around 10 days ago. He is not interested in politics." Q: How come Islamic fundo terrorists never seem to behave like ones? A: This is yet another clue that the Muslims from Leeds are being set up.
8. We are told that 'At least two of the men - Shahzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain - British-born Muslims with jobs, hobbies and respectable parents were, it seems, living a double life'. Q: In view of the suspicious circumstances, which include intriguing relationships between Peter Power of Visor Consulting, Rudi Giuliani and Richard Scheirer discussed here, isn't it much more likely that they were set up?
9. We are told that the bodies of all four individuals have been found at the crime scenes. Q: Why would they all commit suicide? A: Mike Rivero: 'It is one thing to use oneself as a human guided missile to deliver a bomb, but these bombs are already at the target, and already counting down. There is no purpose to sticking around to be blown up with the bomb, and every reason to leave and plan more bombings.'
10. We are told here that the military used military-style explosives to gain access to one suspect's property: 'The military, including a bomb squad, carried out the controlled explosion at the row house at 11:30 a.m. so detectives could enter the home in Burley.' Q: Why not just break down the door? A: Mike Rivero of What Really Happened seems on the ball once again: doing so contaminates 'the entire crime scene with the very same explosives that were apparently used in the bombings.'
11. We are told that because the bombers were allegedly all British, everything has to change: ' The realisation that British nationals are prepared to make suicide attacks has transformed the way the country will have to view security. "What we considered normal has changed forever," said a senior security source. Security measures at all public places will have to be rethought. Tough new security laws are also expected to be introduced to try to combat the threat.' Q: Since Blair and the U.K. government have been trying to get 'tough new security laws' for a long time now, isn't the identification of British nationals as the allegedly bombers too convenient? A: Exactly. Here we have a motive for why the government would carry out an attack on its own citizens and choose particular patsies to serve that purpose.
12. We are told that 'The men are known to have been missing since last week.' Q: Could they have been abducted? A: Without seeing the CCTV footage, it is impossible to say whether the four men allegedly involved are the four men 'known to have been missing since last week.' If the unedited footage is made public, it would be a strong argument in favour of the voluntary nature of their presence in London. If the footage is never made public, or only presented in an edited way, as for example in still frames, then the possibility would exist that coercion of some kind was involved - or that the men were not involved at all. Certainly if the footage is never made public, I would be tempted to draw the conclusion that the men were simply abducted and murdered, while their ID papers were planted at the explosion sites.
13. According to The Times, 'The man who planted the bomb at Edgware Road was named last night as Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, the married father of an eight-month-old baby, who is believed to have come from the Leeds area.' Q: Do you believe a man with an eight-month old child would kill himself? A: Absolutely not.
THE ABANDONED CAR(S)
14. We are told that 'Police were alerted to the Luton car after a member of the public reported seeing four men getting out of it on Thursday morning.' Q: Why would you report a car to the police simply because you had seen four people getting out of it on Thursday morning? A: You wouldn't. This is possibly a planted story - part of an intrigue for the purpose of framing the occupants.
15. We are told that the attention of the 'member of the public' was attracted by the sight of four men getting out of the car. Q: Since it's now reported that two cars have been found at Luton, wouldn't it make sense that two people got out of one car and the other two got out of the other?
16. We are told that 'explosives have been found in an abandoned car linked to the attacks at Luton railway station.' Q: Why would you leave explosives in the car? A: You wouldn't. This is the pretext for the car's subsequent destruction.
17. We are told that 'Four controlled explosions were carried out on the car after a 100-yard cordon was placed around the station and its car park.' Ditto: 'The car was blown up in four controlled explosions.' Q: Why would you blow up the car? A: To destroy it as a source of forensic evidence.
18. We are now told that two cars were found at Luton, that one or both contained explosives, and one or both were destroyed by controlled demolitions. (HERE and HERE) Q: Isn't that a tad convenient? A: Sure is. Now there is no way of telling whether the cars were really cars belonging to the young Muslim men from Leeds or whether they had really contained explosives or any other incriminating material. Destruction of a car linked to a crime amounts to the destruction of a significant portion of the evidence.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED
19. Peter Power of Visor Consulting has declined to reveal the identity of the client for whom the counter-terrorist exercise was being carried out. Q: Wouldn't Transport for London be a likely client? A: Yes. And, as Mike Rivero points out, the Commissioner for Transport for London is an ex-CIA man who is also a member of the Council for Foreign Relations, Bob Kiley. See his short biography here.
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND
20. 'There are as yet no indications that any of the four left behind any message about their intentions.' (SOURCE) Q: Why, if you were going to conduct a series of bombings and you were not going to attempt to disguise your identity (you even leave incriminating explosives in your car), would you not also leave a statement of your motives? Why not take the opportunity to denounce Bush, Blair & Co.? After all, for a few days you would have the attention of the whole of Britain and much of the world.
UPDATE: An impressive critique of Richard Jones's problematic eyewitness account is found here. It proves beyond a doubt that his story is complete and utter balderdash. Because Jones did not describe a man on the bus who resembled Hussain, I no longer incline to the view that he was a planted witness. We seem to have a plain old-fashioned liar.
