JIM FETZER INTERVIEWS MUAD'DIB OF 7-7 RIPPLE EFFECT - MOSSAD-MI5 TERROR ON THE TUBE

 

My blog keeps being hacked!!!  All pictures have vanished!!!

Britain’s Largest Terror Attack Likely “Mossad/MI-5″ Operation

Anthony John Hill, “Maud dib” Found Not Guilty for Exposing 7/7 “Inside Job”

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

The story has been censored from the American media.  Few Americans know of or remember the “British 9/11.” Fewer still are aware that a powerful legal case has been made showing full government complicity in the planning and execution of the attack and the extent the British government has gone to in order to suppress information about one of the worst kept secrets in history.  The film “Ripple Effect,” considered a threat to British “security” led to one of the most incomprehensible criminal cases in recent years.
 

Anthony John Hill "NOT GUILTY"

On July 7, 2005, Britain suffered its largest terror attack, what they call “7/7,” their “9/11.”  However, a wealth of evidence, much incontrovertible, has shown these terror attacks to have been something else, “false flag” terror meant to support the Blair government’s policy of continuing and even expand its participation in the “Global War on Terror.” 

The 4 Muslim “suicide bombers” once believed responsible for the incident are now believed to have been recruited as part of a well documented mock terror drill scheduled for that day that included 1000 participants, some of them paid actors hired to carry dummy explosives.

• Latest Posts:
• Press TV: US, West Desperate for "Decency"
• Romney Leaks: Drugs, Blood Diamonds and a Cuban Mistress
• Press TV: US military planned mutiny on the Bounty to topple Obama

 

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 | Posted by Gordon Duff

Suppressed News: “False Flag” Whistleblower Acquitted in Britain

198

Britain’s Largest Terror Attack Likely “Mossad/MI-5″ Operation

Anthony John Hill, “Maud dib” Found Not Guilty for Exposing 7/7 “Inside Job”

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

The story has been censored from the American media.  Few Americans know of or remember the “British 9/11.” Fewer still are aware that a powerful legal case has been made showing full government complicity in the planning and execution of the attack and the extent the British government has gone to in order to suppress information about one of the worst kept secrets in history.  The film “Ripple Effect,” considered a threat to British “security” led to one of the most incomprehensible criminal cases in recent years.

Anthony John Hill "NOT GUILTY"

On July 7, 2005, Britain suffered its largest terror attack, what they call “7/7,” their “9/11.”  However, a wealth of evidence, much incontrovertible, has shown these terror attacks to have been something else, “false flag” terror meant to support the Blair government’s policy of continuing and even expand its participation in the “Global War on Terror.”
The 4 Muslim “suicide bombers” once believed responsible for the incident are now believed to have been recruited as part of a well documented mock terror drill scheduled for that day that included 1000 participants, some of them paid actors hired to carry dummy explosives.

YouTube - Veterans Today -
Nick Kollerstrom, author of Terror on the Tube writes:

It’s the opinion of Sheffield University social-sciences professor Ridley-Duff, that Mr Hill’s Ripple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible and better fits the facts than did the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files‘ program. His well-referenced study focussed very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet.

The new 3^rd edition of my book Terror on the Tube endorses this view. In contrast, the so-called ‘July 7^th Truth Campaign’ has scoffed at the Ripple narrative calling it ‘evidence-free conjecture,’ a quite breathtaking (and very revealing) remark.

As part of what has been called “the continuing coverup of 7/7,” Britain reached across international borders and extradited a journalist, attempting to impose a 20 year sentence for an alleged infraction of British law that happened in another country.
In doing so, Britain has claimed the right to censor any and all communication, print, video and internet in any country around the world that agrees support extradition under these circumstances.
One nation complied, Ireland.

After 151 days in dismal Wandsworth Prison, much of it in solitary confinement, John Anthony Hill is finally free. The crime he was accused of was the mailing of a “7/7 truther” DVD from Ireland to the United Kingdom.  Yes, you are hearing me right, he was extradited from Ireland for sending a copy of the film, “Ripple Effect,” which outlines complicity by the Blair government in terror attacks that killed 56 back in 2005, including 4 “suicide bombers” now believed by many to have been murdered in a bizarre plot.
More frightening still is the idea that mailing a DVD, available worldwide on Youtube to anyone, could be considered “perverting the course of justice.”

Kollerstrom’s  website, Terror on the Tube, describes the trial and acquittal:

Muad’Dib’s trial started on Monday 9^th May, with a challenge to the monarchy and, hence, the authority of the court. This was ruled ‘out of order’ by the judge. On Tuesday a jury were sworn in.
On Wednesday they watched all of his film, ‘The Ripple Effect’, in open court.
Over the Tuesday and Wednesday the jury heard in-depth discussions of both 7/7 and 9/11, with Mr Hill laying out clearly, and at his own leisurely pace under cross-examination, the reasons he believes that both these ‘attacks by terrorists’ were, in fact, false flag attacks by agencies of the state against its own people carried out with the purpose of providing a pretext for invasion of innocent countries in the middle east in order to control their natural resources.
This was surely the first ever fully-explored set of such allegations of false flag terror made against any state before an ordinary collection of the citizens of that state.
It is also clear from the verdict that, when such information is placed before such ordinary citizens the majority of them ‘get it.’ The jury had announced that it could not be unanimous, so the judge allowed a ‘majority verdict’, i.e. ten or more of the 12.

Hill was found not guilty, not because his actions were considered legal but rather because his testimony made a powerful case against the British government.  The jury was pressed to convict Hill but refused.  The 10 members who sided with Hill and refused the instructions of the Crown did so, out of utter shock at the powerful case Hill made demonstrating that, not only 7/7 was an “inside job” but 9/11 as well.  Hill took on both attacks and 10 of 12 jury members sided with what has been often called “conspiracy theory.”

BACKGROUND FOR “FALSE FLAG”
In a terror incident curiously time to support a political attack on the Blair government’s complicity in what has been increasingly characterized as an illegal attack on Iraq based on “sexed up” intelligence, now subject to one of the longest inquiries in British history, accusations have been made and strongly supported that place responsibility on British intelligence services aided by Israel.  Sources high in the Bush administration tell us that the 7/7 attacks were staged to coincide with a push to attack Iran from Iraq while troop levels were high.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were paid out to militia leaders and clerics in Iraq during what was called “the Sunni awakening” to temporarily end combat there to allow for staging of the Iran attack.  More “false flag” attacks were planned, this time on American forces in the Persian Gulf, to coincide with “7/7″ but were prevented by commanders in the region.  Since 2005, the groups funded by the American “payoffs” have reconstituted Saddam’s Baathist regime and have continued a reign of terror across Iraq that continues to this day.

MUAD ‘DIB
Kev Boyle, gives us the best look at Anthony John Hill, a man, as with so many, pushed into direct confrontation with a powerful government intent on crushing him (or her).  This was written prior to yesterday’s aquittal:

The first person to present an alternative and more credible narrative for 7/7 was Yorkshireman Anthony John Hill, in his documentary ‘7/7 The Ripple Effect’ (this is a must-see. Please watch if you don’t know the film). Hill, a very unusual character in many ways, has renamed himself Muad’Dib, after a character in Frank Herbert’s sci-fi epic ‘Dune’. It is his basically his interpretation of events that have been presented above, excepting that ‘Dib did not know of the pregnancy problems of Khan’s wife, nor about the 4.35 text-messages, nor Khan’s failure to contact his wife after leaving her on the evening of the 5th of July at the time of making his film.

 When a group of ‘Islamic terrorists’, allegedly associates of Khan, went on trial for offences in 2008 at Kingston Crown Court, Hill posted two copies of his DVD to the court. One envelope was addressed to the judge, the other to the foreman of the jury. Neither DVD reached its target but shortly afterwards a request for Hill to be extradited from Ireland (he lived in Kells, County Meath at the time) was sent to the Irish Ministry of Justice. The request was successful and Hill was collected by a British policeman, accompanied across the water and incarcerated in Wandsworth prison shortly before the start of the 7/7 Inquest.

Hill relates, amusingly, that he asked the policeman in whose charge he was placed, “Have you watched my film.” The constable replied, “Yes.” “What did you think of it?” asked Hill. The PC offered a look that was wide-eyed and grim. Hill asked him, “Shouldn’t you be arresting Tony Blair and not me?” and the policeman sheepishly went back to reading his newspaper.

Hill made immediate applications for bail but was only released once the Inquest was finished.
His documentary has been copied and handed out at mosques to thousands of Muslims in the UK. Most Muslims now believe ‘The Four’ to be innocent, largely because of ‘Dib’s work. The authorities were obviously determined he would not upset the 7/7 Inquest operation by getting his film into the hands of family members, press and God knows who else. This man scares them and has suffered accordingly.

RAMIFICATIONS
What Britain has done or has tried to do is beyond draconian.  By the standards that Britain is calling “justice,” their reach has no end and their arrogance no limits.
Nothing said, nothing written, nothing filmed, perhaps even nothing “thought’ is protected, any place on earth.
If a case can be made to put Bush and Blair on trial for terrorist acts, Britain’s actions against Anthony John Hill makes that case.

Related Posts:

• Norway’s 9/11
• Odd Connections: Murdoch, Wikileaks and Everything
• Iran and Libya: Musical Chairs, Enemy to Ally
• Exclusive: Stranger than Fiction, Debt Default In Gaddafi’s Hands
• The Floundering “Ship of State”

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=105252


 The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners. Legal Notice

Posted by Gordon Duff on May 18 2011, With 7351 Reads, Filed under 9/11, Editors Picks, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

1. stevor

   May 18, 2011 - 8:59 am

   Thanks for the video clips. By putting together all that I’ve seen, I’m coming to this conclusion:
   We’ve been prepared for a war with Pakistan, Iran, and probably more (WWIII). It’s likely to be nuclear. By being nuclear, it will “reduce” the population to a “manageable level” (“green”). This “war” will also screw up all governments except the USA. The USA government will not be screwed up but the USA, itself, will because there will be a False Flag operation (I figure it will be “rioting” but really the CIA “terrorists” posing as rioters) so Martial Law can be declared, the viability of the USA government could be questioned, the UN could “save” us, and the New World Order could take over.
   I think it’s also quite possible that Obummer will “admit” that he occupies the office illegally but nobody will want to change “presidents” (even an illegal one) during a “war” so that will help him point out how the Constitution is “out of date” (need to be “updated”), and they can throw the whole thing out and adopt some concoction from the UN.
   Oh yeah, I think it’s likely to happen before the 2012 election, that all the “leaders” have been clued in, and that nobody will really bother to put out energy to pretend to run against Obummer.
   
   

   Brian

   May 18, 2011 - 10:24 am

   I researched the 7/7 London attack a few years ago. It seems to me the Mossad is the most likely candidate for the false flag. Netanyahu receiving an advanced warning of the attack is very suspicious.
   Due to upload/download limits on my wireless Internet I can’t watch videos due their heavy data movement. Cable Internet is coming later this year to my area. Anyways, I don’t know if the videos cover the following intriguing information about Netanyhhu, the Mossad and the 7/7 London bombing. It’s from an unknown author but I’ve read other articles that supports his comments:
   
   For example, initial news reports on 7/7 stated that Israel’s (then) Finance Minister and former PM Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was warned in advance of the explosions [Ref. 6]. Netanyahu, scheduled to speak at the 4th annual Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) Investors Conference in the Great Eastern Hotel, arrived in London on Wednesday night and was staying at a Mayfair hotel. Original reports stated that warnings before the attacks prompted him to remain in his hotel room, and revised accounts held that he was “on his way to the hotel” when he was warned “after the first explosion”.
   
   It was necessary to explain why Netanyahu did not show up at the TASE conference. The original plan (of Israel and the mainstream media) was to report that Scotland Yard warned the security officer at the Israeli Embassy who in turn warned Netanyahu, a few minutes in advance of multiple simultaneous explosions on the London Underground, which were followed by a bus bombing. The simultaneity of the Tube bombings would “prove” that the attack had “all the hallmarks of al Qaeda”. When Scotland Yard refused to play along, Israel could not admit foreknowledge, leaving the original “warned by Scotland Yard before the attacks” claim dead in the water.
   
   Following negotiations, the UK authorities did agree to a minor rewriting of the script. A version where the three Tube explosions were spread over a period of 26 minutes, from 08:51 to 09:17 allowed the Netanyahu warning story to be revised to “after the first explosion”. With several detonations occurring after the warning, the decision to avoid the conference would have been vindicated. It was hoped that the warning story would be forgotten two days later, by which time the simultaneous Tube explosions account would be resurrected.
   
   Unfortunately, the new improved script still incriminated Israel. Until the bus bombing, almost an hour after the attack began, the British police believed that the incidents were related to “power surges” rather than bombs [Ref. 7] [cached]. In fact, the explosions caused power surges after rails were shorted out by metal debris.
   
   Efraim Halevi’s piece [Ref. 8], in the July 7 online edition of the Jerusalem Post, was obviously mostly written in advance. The two paragraphs about Russell Square and Great Russell Street were an ad hoc insertion on the day. Although the bus explosion actually took place at the junction of Tavistock Square and Upper Woburn Place, the remark about Russell Square and its being “within a stone’s throw” of 77 Great Russell Street is fair comment, since early reports did quote Russell Square as a blast site. The true historical irony was that if the bomb had exploded even closer to Great Russell Street and the bombers had been capable of time travel into the past, they might have bombed away the cause of their bombing. Fortunately, the laws of physics prohibit such time travel.
   
   But how did Halevi, a former head of the Mossad, know that the explosions were simultaneous, two days before the London police knew (if the official story is correct, Israel is innocent, and Israel-UK negotiations on the warning story didn’t take place as above)? This was a pre-written paragraph that should have been revised on the day, but wasn’t.
   
   The Netanyahu warning fiasco, and Halevi’s prior knowledge that the explosions were simultaneous, are also events that are correlated with the truth-value of Israel’s guilt. Over recent times, the world has consisted of approximately 200 countries. It is rather telling that the country whose intelligence services, famous characters and online messaging services have the most foreknowledge of terror attacks, and whose spies are caught in compromising circumstances with astonishing regularity, invariably turns out to be Israel. The latter has less than 0.1% of the world’s population, and is dwarfed by Iran, Syria, the Netherlands, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Indonesia, etc.
   
   There was also the report in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the Mossad office in London received advance notice of the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast [Ref. 9] (German) [Ref. 10] (English, Google translation works with Explorer 6.0). It might be thought that these three cases of foreknowledge are really just one case, since the parties would have been in contact with each other. But that would be the case if Israel is guilty. When we set the truth-value of the theory under test to false, i.e. if Israel is innocent, the events that had a causal link to the theory and hence were explainable become unexplained, unconnected, improbable coincidence. The likelihood of Israeli foreknowledge increases with the number of alternate Israeli characters or organizations reported as having prior knowledge.
   
   Another interesting test would be the nationality of the company that was selected by Metronet Rail to provide a “networked video solution” to be installed in the entire London Underground. The company is Verint Systems [Ref.12], previously known as Comverse Infosys (before February 1, 2002), and is a subsidiary of Israel’s Comverse Technology [Ref. 13]. Watch for incidents at Copenhagen Railway, Montreal Metro, the Bank of Montreal, Porto Portugal buses, Brazil’s Port of Santos, Washington Dulles airport, and Vancouver International airport, which have also selected Verint networked video. The Israeli security company’s control of the software and computers involved in Verint Systems’ “networked video solution” enable multiple ‘malfunctions’ to occur at the very times and places that a Mossad operation is in progress. Hence, a camera-free opportunity to install the 7/7 bombs. Along with a massive spy network, and puppet “leaders” of government and police etc who are either bribed, blackmailed, or brainwashed Masons, the Israelis have the means and opportunity.
   
   We conclude that Israel ordered the Mossad to carry out 7/7 with a high degree of certainty, with the odds against innocence being a minimum of tens of thousands to one.
   
   
    Another post
   

   May 19, 2011 - 12:57 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.
   leave\ arrive
   Luton\ Kings X
   7.04 7.40
   7.08 8.26
   7.16 8.18
   7.20 8.18
   7.24 8.20
   7.38 8.40
   cancelled
   cancelled
   7.58 8.43
   cancelled
   Thameslink supplied ‘Actual Train Times’ as opposed to Original Timetable.
   Netanyahu said 9/11 was good for Israel,the same could be said of 7/7.
   
   

   Friends of Muad'Dib

   May 19, 2011 - 8:45 am

   Gordon, we hope this finds you well and in good spirit. Thank you for this write-up and for helping alert American (and other) readers. Our website (Friends of Muad’Dib) compiled much information regarding Muad’Dib’s entire ordeal, including the evil, dirty tricks the establishment pulled, which readers may like to take a look at. In it, one will also find the Lawful reason why Elizabeth II is not the legitimate monarch of Great Britain and has no Lawful sovereignty, and why any of her (“Regina’s”) judges in countries belonging to the Commonwealth have no Lawful jurisdiction. The latter is vital info that needs highlighting and spreading. http://mtrial.org
   
    
   

   TJ Bronco

   May 19, 2011 - 8:22 pm

   Ripple Effect 7/7 is the ‘Loose Change’ of 911. – Same story , actions, Same outcomes. Lots of DEAD CITIIZENS, blamed on groups of four terrorists..( I know it has been said 19 Terrorists, -yet groups of four, then some five, Shut the EF up! Thank you, Sincerely.).Terrorists that can’t be traced to the action. BB, BULL, BULL NETAN YAHOO- The Cowboy with similar traits of DICK CHENEY, stated that 911 was good for Israel, 77(Not flight 77 by the way) also good for this terrorist in your country that day- Our country as well. Numerologists, Kabballists, Luciferian, Satanic worships…They need your BLOOD! The world needs to castrate this evil group. I don’t give an EF. I wake up, I dont!-Wake up to how they are.I have been familiar to this event for a while, because, I like you should look into events, and challenge your minds! Ask yourself poignant questions of yourself and the events, and see what you come up with.You agree, events don’t make sense…More another time.
   
   

   Louise

   May 19, 2011 - 8:25 pm

   I knew there would be a ‘terrorist’ attack on Britain because the British did not support the war in Afghanistan and they were against invading Iran. The attack was support to raise support for the ‘wars.’
   
   

   Marc C. Daniele

   May 21, 2011 - 10:09 pm

   Hey Gordon,
   I don’t know if you will actually get this or not, but I at least hope you will, and will know who I am! I am the one that has emailed you about “Homeland Security” coming to my home for some comments I had supposedly made eventhough I have done NOTHING WRONG!
   I have written you an email since your last reply, but have not heard anything back from you. Can you at least tell me if you got it or not, and if at all possible answer my questions please? The reason I ask this about you even receiving the email should be obvious, I would hope! I would like to know how Dr Sabrosky is doing, and why nothing has been done about what he has to say, if you can help me!
   I also wanted to let you know that I have tried to tell other American’s about what is going on about 9/11, etc. and the clear cut connections to Isreal! I did this on a MSN News Story recently about the Palestinians Peaceful Protest, and then how they were fired upon by IDF Forces, but as always I was attacked by “Trolls” that cannot dispute the facts about the King David Bombings, The USS Liberty, The Lavon Affair, Dr. Sabrosky, The Dancing Israeli’s, Building Seven, The owner of The World Trade Centers and his Insurance, all the ties to the US Government, etc., etc! They can ONLY attack me as a person! The next day I received an email from MSN about how my comments were inappropriate, and then deleted! Imagine that! I said nothing but the TRUTH, and I am deleted, and now at this time am unable to comment on ANY of their so-called stories, but this WILL NOT keep me from telling people the REAL TRUTH! I also mentioned VT in my comments for people to see some REAL facts etc. we are not told about in the bought and sold MSM in the US, and was told by one of the “trolls” that VT is only a Anti you know what website! We ALL know that is not true! I just thought you should know this!
   Please keep telling us the TRUTH about stories like this one, and other we will not hear about in our MSM BS!
   
   Thanks,
   
   US Army Veteran, and Proud American,
   Marc C. Daniele
   Herculaneum, Mo.
   
   
    David Williamson
   

   June 4, 2011 - 2:58 pm

   I’ve read Peter Power admitted in 2009 that the “trial” company was publishing group “Reed Elsevier”. If this is correct the links are scary. The Reed share of the publishing industry is Orwellian. (up there with Murdoch’s New’s Corp in their ability to control what we know about our world). Intrestingly enough Reed Elsevier purchased “Choicepoint” in 2008. Checkpoint is the company behind Jeb’s florida voting crime that got his brother Bush II elected. If you want to “write” global history as you go along what better organisation to ask than this? 7/7 is a mere citation for them. Ripple Effect is one history lesson I am giving my children.
   
    mullerohana
   

   June 8, 2011 - 11:24 am

   Gordon – very interesting (and suspicious) problem I’m having. I am a member of a British blog website. I am trying to share this link with my Brit friends there, and when I copy and paste the link, there are spaces that are automatically added to make the link disfunctional. When I try to edit out those spaces on the blog itself, the spaces aren’t shown. I had to explain to everyone on the blog what to delete to make the link functional. Are things that far gone already?!
   
    
   

   
   

   Join Our Daily Newsletter

   View Newsletter ARCHIVE

   WHAT'S HOT

   • Latest
   • Weekly Top 10
   • Opinions

   1. Judaism: A Threat to Humanity
   2. Canada: The Jonathan Kay “War on Truth”
   3. Press TV: US military planned mutiny on the Bounty to topple Obama
   4. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – October 31, 2012
   5. The Miracle Of Gratefulness
   6. Egypt’s president a 9/11 truther: less America-centrism offers hope for Truth movement
   7. Illuminati, Nazis and the Illegal State of Israel
   8. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – October 30, 2012
   9. Obama Rejects Palestinian Statehood
   10. Henry Waxman’s Legacy
   11. Reversal of Freedom-Fortunes on the Two Sides of the Florida Straits
   12. Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – October 29, 2012
   13. Legislation, community support help war vets tackle joblessness
   14. Paul Wellstone: Tenth Anniversary of His Assassination
   15. Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle
   16. Press TV: Netanyahu Blackmailing West Over Iran
   17. Voter Fraud Inevitable from Digital Elections
   18. Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?
   19. Presidential Debate
   20. The CIA’s Muslim “Outfit,” – The Muslim Brotherhood

   
   
   

   Authors

   • Alan Hart
   • Allen L Roland
   • Baron Baretzky
   • Bob Johnson
   • Bob Nichols
   • Col. Eugene Khrushchev
   • David Swanson
   • Dean Henderson
   • Dr. Ashraf Ezzat
   • Dr. Ismail Salami
   • Ed Mattson
   • Edwin Crosby III
   • F. William Engdahl
   • Gilad Atzmon
   • Gordon Duff
   • Jim Fetzer
   • Jim W. Dean
   • Johnny Punish
   • Kevin Barrett
   • Khalil Nouri
   • Kourosh Ziabari
   • Michael Farrell
   • Michael Shrimpton
   • Mike Stathis
   • Moti Nissani
   • Paul J. Balles
   • Paul V. Sheridan
   • Robert O'Dowd
   • Robert Rosebrock
   • Sami Jamil Jadallah
   • SARTRE
   • Sherwood Ross
   • Stephen Lendman
   • World News Tommorrow
   • Yanira Farray
   • Zaki Khalid

   
   

   
   SubscribeVT Radio Home Page

   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Hot Trends

   9/11 afghanistan Agent Orange aipac Allen L Roland bush cheney cia desert storm veterans dod dod contracts duff Egypt Gaza GI Bill gordon duff Gulf War Gulf War illness gulf war veterans Iran iraq israel jobs Libya Middle East military mossad obama pakistan palestine PTSD PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) Stephen Lendman Terrorism Top Ten va VA News Veterans Veterans' Affairs Veterans' Health Veterans' News Veterans Benefits Vietnam war zionism

   Archives

   TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK

   • Romney Leaks: Drugs, Blood Diamonds and a Cuban Mistress
   • Press TV: US military planned mutiny on the Bounty to topple Obama
   • Illuminati, Nazis and the Illegal State of Israel
   • Must Read: Illuminati Assassins
   • Mini-Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle
   • Benghazi Massacre: Fox/Huffington CIA Tale Nonsense
   • Judaism: A Threat to Humanity
   • UFO War: Chinese and US Navy off San Francisco
   • Who Killed Lucia and Leo Krim?
   • Press TV: Netanyahu Blackmailing West Over Iran
   • Mitt Romney Originally Planned to be in NYC on 9/11
   • Canada: The Jonathan Kay “War on Truth”
   • Finally: Barry Chamish Concedes Israel’s Involvement in 9/11
   • Paul Wellstone: Tenth Anniversary of His Assassination
   • The CIA’s Muslim “Outfit,” – The Muslim Brotherhood
   • Al-Qaeda operates on behalf of Israel, West (Press TV)
   • Press TV: Death Knells for US Colonial Adventurism in Mideast
   • Imran Khan Interviewed by “Nutcase” on CBC (Kanada video)
   • 1500%-too-Jewish Supreme Court: “US belongs to Israel”
   • Breaking: Romney’s “Bain Capital” Drug Front For Bush Cartel (Video)
   • Press TV: US – Israeli War and YouTube Exposed!
   • Egypt’s president a 9/11 truther: less America-centrism offers hope for Truth movement
   • Roadmap to Redressing Economic Terrorism in America
   • Reversal of Freedom-Fortunes on the Two Sides of the Florida Straits
   • British Ex-Envoy Told The Truth (for a change)

   • Hurricane Sandy and Elections Rigged for Romney
   • Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal
   • The Miracle Of Gratefulness
   • UFO Disclosure: Gordon Duff on Coast to Coast with George Noory
   • Obama Rejects Palestinian Statehood
   • What Americans Need To Know About Death Squads
   • Burma signs deal to recover buried WWII Spitfires
   • Rosie the Riveter, Face of World War II Poster, Dies in Michigan
   • Henry Waxman’s Legacy
   • LA Times: Romney’s a drug-money launderer
   • Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid
   • Romney’s “Mormon” Draft Deferment Not Legal
   • Jew-Ish
   • Top 10 Veterans Stories in Today’s News – October 31, 2012
   • Voter Fraud Inevitable from Digital Elections
   • Presidential Debate
   • The People’s Debate – Main Street Vs The Plutocracy
   • 9/11: Video of Missile Hitting Pentagon Leaked
   • VT’s 30 Day Old Story on Benghazi Had it Right
   • Def Leppard's Rick Allen drums up support for veterans
   • Remembering Russell Means
   • SBA Business Loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration
   • Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran
   • My friend Ed’s sleazeball brother, Tommy Thompson, a 9/11 perp?
   • Greek Whistleblower/Journalist Risks Imprisonment

Muad'Dib interviewed by Jim Fetzer on 17.07.09

created 21/07/2009 - 13:35, updated 14/08/2009 - 07:46

Download




Part 1:
(JIM): This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”, with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib, who has produced the video; sensational DVD may I say; “7/7 Ripple Effect”, about the attacks on the British subway-system and a double-decker bus on 7 July 2005. Muad’Dib, it’s a real pleasure to have you back on the show.
(MUAD’DIB): Thank-you. It’s good to be back with you again.
(JIM): Now, our last interview was divided into segments and is posted on YouTube. So anyone who would like to listen to our previous conversation, which was a two-hour interview, can find it there. And your video, your DVD, is available also on YouTube or Google Video - “7/7 Ripple Effect”. I must say, in my opinion this is a Masterpiece. In less than an hour, you explain how this whole event was planned, how it was staged, what went wrong, how the authorities sought to cover it up and the failure of the press to cover it adequately. I think it is as marvellous a microcosm for understanding the nature of inside-jobs as anyone has ever produced, so I must congratulate you and tell you how much I admire your work.
(MUAD’DIB): Thank you very much.
(JIM): Why don’t we give a little sketch for the audience here, during our first segment, about what you discovered in relation to 7/7, how you began to do research on this subject, and what you turned up? Because the whole “operation-going-live” was being masked or camouflaged by the claim that an anti-terrorist drill was going to take place in the vicinity of the exact same tube-stops, and even an additional complementary event that in fact played out in real life.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Well, after 911 happened and everybody started investigating that… once that set the ball rolling, really… for when 7/7 happened; that myself and some friends started to investigate the mainstream media articles, TV-reporting, etc. In fact, on the morning of 7/7, I received a call from a friend of mine who was in the U.K., in London, and he said, “Have you heard what’s happened?” So I said, “No, what’s going off?” So he said, “You need to turn the TV on and have a look at what’s going off, there’ve been some terrorist attacks in London.” So I turned on the TV and started watching it. We saw Peter Power come on the TV saying that he had been running a mock-terrorist-exercise that very same day, with the same scenario, the same tubes, etc… same time, same locations… and that stank. So we started to dig and dig and dig, and found more and more evidence of how the government’s story just didn’t add up at all. It was full of holes and contradictions. And we followed it over the following couple of years, with all the so-called new evidence that came out - an interview of the person they say was the ringleader’s, wife, (who) was interviewed on TV after she’d been released from police custody, having been arrested and kept in custody for six days, away from her young daughter… and all the rest of it. It’s just… there was a mountain of evidence that we collected, and so then I sat down, and started to look at all of the evidence, and started to put it in chronological order and striving to make sense of it all. And it then became plain; to me anyway; what had happened. And so I decided that we should make a film about it. I’d already watched a film about 911 that I felt was a good film, which was “911 Ripple Effect”, made by Dave von Kleist, in which you were featured quite heavily, and I liked the film. I liked the way it was made, the way it was presented. There was no hype, there was no sensationalising anything. It was just information from experts. So I decided that somebody needed to make one about 7/7, and so I set about doing it and wrote a script for it, laying out; using common-sense and Ockham’s Razor – Ockham’s Razor says that all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one; and looking at all of the evidence that we’d found and analysed… it became obvious that the story that I eventually wrote, the script that I wrote, seemed to be the only logical common-sense answer to all these different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. In reality it’s like a big jigsaw puzzle. You have to get all the pieces, and then you have to fit them all together. And that’s what I did… and came up with the film.
(JIM): And of course in relation to Ockham’s Razor; which I have discussed in my professional work as a philosopher of science; you prefer the simpler theory when it can also account for all of the available relevant evidence. So that a simpler theory per se, is not preferable unless it can account for all the available evidence, and in fact the simplest theory may well be one that is refuted by all of the available evidence, as would be the case here, if you presume that these “terrorists” actually performing the acts that were attributed to them as (being) the simplest theory, rather than that the government staged these events and framed these individuals, and subsequently as you discovered; shot them dead.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.
(JIM): Tell us about… it’s, you-know, to me… given my present familiarity with the case and being so appreciative of the marvellous study you’ve produced… is Peter Power coming on and saying it was on the same day and all that, was simply, you-know, confronting the most obvious refutation of the government’s account head-on, by trying to make it sound as though, you-know, this was some incredible coincidence, when in fact it was nothing of the sort, it was simply taking advantage of the planned drill to turn it “live”?
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. I’m not sure what you wanted me to come back on, on that.
(JIM): Oh, just that Peter Power was clearly trying to dismiss what would later be cited as the most obvious reason for believing it was an inside-job. By hitting it head-on and saying that it just happened to be on the very same day, at the very same tube-stops and so-forth, that this drill was taking place. I mean, this is a psychological operation trying to convince the audience that there’s nothing to it, because if later it turns out that it was the same time and so-forth, everyone would obviously smell a rat.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. It may be, even, that he was duped. The chances of it being coincidence are just not worth considering. I mean, it’s such a large number. It’s just… it’s not possible for it to have been a coincidence.
(JIM): I agree completely.
(MUAD’DIB): So one question that does sort of fit into this, is; if he was a dupe, he would have… and as he was a spokesman that all the TV companies; with these kind of things; they always used to rake him up and have him on air immediately, asking his opinion on everything… so it may be that he used that familiarity with the TV-stations to get out onto the air, his side (of the story), so that he wasn’t suspected afterwards.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): Because he had to get out there very, very quickly and make his statement, before the TV-companies or the censors would have any chance of stopping him from getting on and saying it.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): In other words, in order to cover himself… or C-Y-A I think you Americans call it.
(JIM): Yes, CYA indeed (laughing).  
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, so that’s a possibility. I mean, it may be, as I said in the film, I said was he a dupe or was he an accomplice? Because looking at the facts, he had to be one or the other.
(JIM): Yes. Yes. I think that’s exactly right. Now, if he was a dupe then you would think the more he learned about (this), the more outraged he’d become and he would go on an aggressive stance to expose what had happened, if he had been a dupe. But he hasn’t done that, has he?
(MUAD’DIB): No, he hasn’t, but you have to take into consideration that he would know THEY* would kill him, if he did that.
* THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You.
(JIM): Well, there’s some things worth dying for.
(MUAD’DIB): Of course.
(JIM): An outrage of this magnitude that’s been used to… you-know, it’s a terrorist-act performed by the British government on the British people that… he ought to be able to stand up for it, and once he makes his peace, the risk of killing him, I think, is dramatically reduced, because if they kill him it’s confirmation that what he was saying was true.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah but THEY don’t always act in such a logical manner. If you take the case of Dr David Kelly, he came out about the “dodgy dossier” as the justification for the invasion of Iraq and all of that. And, you-know, THEY passed it off as a suicide. But there are now thirteen highly qualified doctors who are saying that he could not have committed suicide, the way that THEY said he had committed suicide. He would not have died from loss of blood, from the type of wound that THEY say that he had.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): So they are demanding that there is a proper inquiry. Lord Hutton did an inquiry into it, a white-wash really, and everybody knows it was a white-wash. And most people in the U.K. believe that THEY did actually murder David Kelly, and make it look like a suicide. So this isn’t really a surprise to the British public, the same as the Lady Diana business, you-know, they did a survey shortly after she died in that car-crash in Paris and the results of the poll were that more than 98% of the population believe she was murdered.
(JIM): That case has troubled me too. I was a huge admirer of Princess Di and thought she was doing so much good for the world. Especially in her campaign against land-mines.
(MUAD’DIB): Exactly. And so, who would have the incentive to kill her?
(JIM): Obviously the military-industrial complex that produces them, that doesn’t want to lose their profits, and so forth.
(MUAD’DIB): Exactly. And they were being manufactured in France, in the U.K., and in America.
(JIM): It’s a terrible case.
(MUAD’DIB): So then think about the three secret services being involved in it. And the covering up of it.
(JIM): Yes. Well, returning to 7/7… four young men who were accused of these crimes, but it appears quite evident from your research that they could not possibly have committed it.
(MUAD’DIB): No, because they couldn’t have made it in time to catch those tube-trains. And you can be absolutely certain that if they had made it on time to catch those tube-trains, there would be loads of CCTV-footage showing them doing so.
(JIM): Yes. Why don’t you sketch the time-line here for the attacks, and when the bombs, the explosives, went off and so-forth, and relate it to their inability to make their appointed destinations on time?
(MUAD’DIB): Well, I don’t have all that information in front of me, and I don’t have it all in my head. But the train that they were… the official government story said that they caught the 7:40 AM train from Luton to Thameslink Station at King’s Cross.
(JIM): But ironically that train was cancelled.
(MUAD’DIB): Yes, and the next one was cancelled also.
(JIM): And the next one following that? So their fall-back to say they caught the next train, also wouldn’t do.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. So about a year or more after, the government had this pointed out to them, so then they had to come up with a new story, that: oh, they caught an earlier train. But everybody’s investigated that. They wouldn’t have had… if they were carrying highly volatile home-made explosives in their back-packs, they would be walking very carefully, very slowly, because it was so volatile. And so they couldn’t have made it from the photograph (which shows them) outside Luton Station, to the platform, buying tickets, getting to the platform carefully, walking very slowly. They would not have been able to catch even the earlier train that the government is now saying that they caught. Even if they did, that train was delayed and it didn’t get into Thameslink in time for them to make it from Thameslink to King’s Cross Mainline Station, and then down into the Underground, buying tickets… all the rest of it, and to get onto the platform to catch those three tube-trains. So whichever way they look at it, whichever way the government wants to try and argue it, it doesn’t work.
(JIM): You-know, it’s so shameful that the British government is being such a, you-know, lying so massively about this just as the American government has lied so massively about 911, and justifications for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that they commonly deceive the people, and that they are thieves, but they also turn out to be murderers even on a massive scale. I mean, that 911 was an inside-job, in the U.S.A., I think is beyond dispute.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.
(JIM): Of course, over three thousand persons, or around three thousand persons, were killed, most of them in New York. And what we’re talking about, in the U.K.; were there one hundred and twenty or so casualties?
(MUAD’DIB): There were fifty-six fatalities.
(JIM): Fifty-six fatalities.
(MUAD’DIB): Including the four patsies.
(JIM): Including the four patsies…
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. The government keeps putting out that there were fifty-two people killed, you-know, but they never seem to want to include these four patsies, because they were patsies. So there were actually fifty-six fatalities and there were, I think, seven hundred and eighty-something injuries.
(JIM): Seven hundred?!
(MUAD’DIB): Seven hundred and eighty-something… almost eight hundred people injured.
(JIM): My goodness. So it really was quite a large-scale event, because of-course it created a sensation in London, and there were a number of important figures who were in the vicinity, including no less than Benjamin Netanyahu, who was staying not far from Tavistock Square, as I understand it.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. And don’t forget Rudy Giuliani.
(JIM): You had Rudy Giuliani right there. My God, get him on the air so he can talk about terrorist-attacks…
(MUAD’DIB): Or should we give him his proper title?:- SIR Rudy Giuliani.
(JIM): Giuliani has been knighted?
(MUAD’DIB): I understand so, yeah.
(JIM): Oh, that’s an embarrassment! Listen, I noticed a report… one of the few that made it into the media here about 7/7, it’s entitled “7/7 Attacks Not Suicide Bombings”, by Rixon Stewart, that was published September 14th 2005. I’d like to read a few paragraphs from it, and then I’d invite your comments on it.
(MUAD’DIB): Okay.
(JIM): Well, the authorities have repeatedly claimed that suicide-bombers were behind the 7/7 attacks in London. Evidence to the contrary continues to mount, although the mainstream-media has largely ignored it. 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. Describing the immediate aftermath of the blast he said: “It was just the most awful scene of death and there were body-parts everywhere. There was something next to me. I was trying not to look. I couldn’t figure out what it was. A short while later, paramedics arrived and began attending to the dead and injured.” Crucially, however, as Bruce Lait made his way out of the wrecked train-carriage, a policeman pointed-out where the bomb had been, and Lait recalls: “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. In fact, the evidence, together with eye-witness testimony like Bruce Lait’s, indicates that some of the 7/7 explosions were the result of explosives that had been placed underneath the train-carriage, or at least under the train-carriage’s floor. And this seems to be perfectly consistent with all the research you’ve done, that the explosions blew the metal upward and into the compartment, indicating the explosives were beneath it, rather than downward and out, which would have even created such a tremendous blast that it ought to have taken the carriages off of the rails. Which in fact, did not happen.
(MUAD’DIB): Well, the trains were derailed.
(JIM): Oh they were derailed?
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, because the bomb was underneath and it lifted the train off the track.
(JIM): Yes that’s right, that’s to (what I meant to) say…
(MUAD’DIB): Oh okay.
(JIM): That they wouldn’t have been derailed had the explosive been inside…
(MUAD’DIB) … inside…
(JIM): … the compartment.
(MUAD’DIB): Correct. Correct, yeah.
(JIM): Well, Bruce Lait’s testimony seems to be consistent with that of others too, who reported that the metal was blown upward.
(MUAD’DIB): Yes, absolutely. And recently, very recently, there has been a photograph released of the King’s Cross tube-train, and that also appears to have the floor bent upwards. And this has only come out in the last couple of weeks.
(JIM): Really?
(MUAD’DIB): Well, in fact, since I was last on your program.
(JIM): Really?
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.
(JIM): And of course these four young men apparently learned about the explosion as they were still en-route to their destinations, so they decided to not keep their appointment with death and destruction, but instead sought to make some kind of escape, but they were trapped.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, they went to Canary Wharf. That’s where Reuters is, and a lot of the major print-media in the U.K. are stationed in Canary Wharf, which is in the Docklands, the East-End of London. And I’ve posited the theory that they went there, because they didn’t know what to do. They were like fish out of water. They were a long way from home. They didn’t know anybody. They didn’t know what to do… and it would make sense for them in that situation, and in a panic, to try to get some media-coverage to show that they were innocent, thinking that Reuters would probably, you-know, do the story, which I doubt very much because we know; well, I know; who owns Reuters. I don’t know if you do?
(JIM): No I don’t. Tell us more?
(MUAD’DIB): It’s owned by the Rothschild’s.
(JIM): Hmmm.
(MUAD’DIB): So yes, and then we have reports which I saw personally on the TV that morning… remember I said that someone had phoned me and told me to turn the TV on and told me all about this, and I was busy… unfortunately I can’t remember which station it was broadcast on, because I was busy flipping channels from one news program, from one channel to another, striving to get the maximum amount of information, because they all put out similar things, but each news (station) tries to have something unique in their report, that the others haven’t got. And so I was flipping the channels and I can’t remember which channel, but one of the channels; because I saw it myself; announced that some suicide-bombers had been shot and killed by the anti-terrorist squad of the police in Canary Wharf. And of course that really set the alarm-bells going, because later-on, when they started saying that: oh it was suicide-bombers, I thought well, you-know, that doesn’t make any sense. How can suicide-bombers who’d blown themselves up on three tube-trains, be in Canary Wharf to be shot by the anti-terrorist branch of the police? Didn’t make any sense. And all of the things… as I kept investigating, more and more information was coming out… and it just proved that the government story couldn’t possibly be true.
(JIM): Yeah. I think you have three crucial factors in your refutation of the official account. Number one - that they couldn’t have made it on time to their appointed destination. Number two - that the physical evidence of the explosions contradicts the bombs-having-come-from-inside-the-compartment-downward (idea), but instead is consistent with beneath-going-upward. And third – they survived the bombings and were shot dead in Canary Wharf, when they may very well have been seeking to gain some kind of media attention to their plight.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Also the explosives that were used… we were told that these were home-made explosives - TATP. And that they mixed it up in a bath in Leeds, and it’s very, very volatile. And then they managed to transport it, all the way from Leeds, to Luton. Then from Luton to Thameslink. and then onto the tubes and the bus, without it going off. This stuff is very, very volatile.
(JIM): It sounds like if it’s about as unstable as nitroglycerin.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. If not more so.
(JIM): Even more so. Remarkable.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. In fact, I was reading recently that they only use it as a detonator for other explosives, because it is so volatile, and so unstable.
(JIM): So there’s another gross implausibility in the official account, and not to mention of course, the over-riding consideration that it was going on at the same tube-stops in relation to this government terrorist drill. I mean, the whole situation is absurd.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. And the other thing about the explosives… I mean, it’s been admitted by the French anti-terrorist chief of the police in France, (who) came over to London to help the investigation, and he said that these were not just high-explosives; that they weren’t home-made. Not only were they high-explosives, but they were military-grade high-explosives, which is even more explosive and dangerous than ordinary high-explosives.
(JIM): How remarkable that three young, allegedly Muslim men, should have been seeking to perpetrate these crimes using military-grade explosives.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, which they would not have had access to. And the other thing is that they keep stressing that these young men mixed up this TATP explosive in a bath in Leeds, when we know that it was military-grade explosives. And we know from the results, that they were military-grade explosives, that they weren’t TATP, because TATP; when it explodes; there is no flame and there is no heat involved, unlike conventional explosives. Now, if we look at the injuries that were caused, and there’s a famous picture that most people, I think, have seen, of a woman being led across the street by a man and she’s wearing a white mask, a burns mask…
(JIM): … yes…
(MUAD’DIB): … okay? Now, how did she get burnt with TATP? There is no flame, there is no heat.
(JIM): Marvellous. Marvellous point. The effects couldn’t have been produced by the alleged mechanism used to blow up the trains.
(MUAD’DIB): Exactly.
(JIM): We’re going to take a brief break here, and return with Muad’Dib talking about 7/7, the events and the consequences. We’ll be right back.

Part 2:
(JIM): This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”, with my special guest today, Muad’Dib, discussing his research on 7/7, where it seems to me he has made an overwhelmingly compelling case for governmental-complicity and cover-up. I mean, the facts are so elementary here, and so devastating to the government’s account, that I find it difficult to believe that any rational mind exposed to the evidence could possibly believe what the British government has been saying about these events. But I take it it’s your view that there aren’t a lot of rational minds out there? That the government has so much influence on the media and the “tube” (TV) and so forth, that it’s difficult to find persons, whose minds are sufficiently open, to actually consider the evidence in an objective fashion?
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. That’s the sad reality, I’m afraid.
(JIM): Now, it’s very interesting to your present plight by virtue of being in Ireland, because the British government is trying to extradite you in order to prosecute you, for what? I mean, the fact is that some associates of these young men were being brought into court for collaboration with them, and you sent copies of your DVD to the barristers involved, and for that; for your efforts to expose them to the evidence and the truth about 7/7; they have come after you.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. They didn’t come after me for sending the DVDs to the barristers. They came after me for sending a copy of the DVD to the judge in the case, and five copies, addressed to the Court, but to the foreman of the jury, because the jury and the judge are the people who have to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. And the jury were being lied to. Important information was being withheld from the jury. They were misled both by the prosecution and by the judge, who told the jury-members that there was no doubt that the four original patsies had carried-out these horrendous crimes, when they’d never been found guilty in a court of law. All the evidence that I’d collected and put into the film proves that they were patsies and that they didn’t do it. So for the judge and the prosecution to be telling the jury that there was no doubt that these four original patsies had carried-out these crimes, forced me, really, to send the evidence that I had, to the court, to the judge. So that he could correct; if it was a genuine mistake that he’d made; that he could correct it and therefore prevent there being a miscarriage of justice. And prevent the prosecution from perverting the course of justice. Unfortunately what happened was that they did the opposite. Instead of accepting the evidence as an Amicus Curiae Brief, which is Latin for “Friend of the Court”, which is what I was striving to be, to help the court not to make a miscarriage of justice and make a grave error, and that these young men could get twenty, thirty, forty or whatever years, in prison, for something they couldn’t possibly have done, because if the four original patsies were innocent and didn’t do it, then these three who were being tried couldn’t possibly have helped them to do something that they didn’t do.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): And they should never have been put on trial in the first place. There was not enough evidence. There was nothing. I mean, they were eventually found not guilty. There was no evidence against these young men and it’s never been proved in a court of law that the four original ones did it, because it wouldn’t stand up in court. They didn’t do it.
(JIM): Would you have reason to believe that your intervention made a difference to the outcome of the trial?
(MUAD’DIB): Well, my DVDs… on the warrant that they sent to have me arrested it says that my DVDs never reached the judge or the jury, so unless, you-know, by the grassroots word-of-mouth on the street… the DVD had been on the Internet free for people to watch and download, for at least six months before the trial, so it’s possible that by other means it had an effect. I would hope that it possibly did.
(JIM): By the Crown’s own admission, your effort to serve in an Amicus Curiae role was frustrated… was defeated.
(MUAD’DIB): Yes. Exactly, yeah they said that they’d intercepted them and that they hadn’t handed them to the judge, or to the jury.
(JIM): So what offence are you alleged to have committed?
(MUAD’DIB): Well, they’ve now accused me of attempting to pervert the course of justice, in that particular trial. Whereas I was doing the opposite, I was striving to prevent them from perverting the course of justice and from having a miscarriage of justice.
(JIM): Have they acknowledged your role as an Amicus Curiae contributor? That, that was what you were seeking to do? Have they ever used that phrase?
(MUAD’DIB): No. No, not at all.
(JIM): The barrister representing you now in your efforts to defeat this extradition move, has he ever made the argument that you are serving in an Amicus Curiae role?
(MUAD’DIB): No.
(JIM): That seems to be crucial to understanding what you were seeking to do.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, absolutely.
(JIM): This troubles me about your representation, and the quality of your representation. It suggests you are not receiving competent counsel.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. I don’t know if eventually… because you’re going to load this up; hopefully anyway; onto the Internet… I would like to find a solicitor and a barrister in Ireland who believes, who’s seen the film and believes in what I did and is willing to represent me.
(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I think that’s devoutly to be wished. I think that’s extremely important that that should happen. Why were the young men acquitted? I mean, obviously the Crown couldn’t make its case.
(MUAD’DIB): Lack of evidence.
(JIM): Lack of evidence… (laughs)
(MUAD’DIB): Because they can’t… there is no evidence. I mean, how can they have evidence if they’re innocent? There is no evidence.
(JIM): They can fabricate evidence.
(MUAD’DIB): Oh yes. They could do that, yeah.
(JIM): In the case of Lee Oswald, the accused assassin of JFK, for example, they planted a weapon on him, they made a mistake because it wasn’t high-velocity, it could not have fired the bullets that killed the man. He was actually down on a second-floor lunch-room, where he was observed by co-workers at ten minutes to twelve, at twelve, at twelve-fifteen, as late as twelve-twenty-five… the assassination took place at twelve-thirty. And a motor-cycle patrolman confronted him there within 90 seconds afterwards, and he and his supervisor who identified him as an employee and explained how he should be there, both described in their hand-written statements that he wasn’t perspiring, he wasn’t agitated, he wasn’t acting at all suspicious, except Roy Truly; his supervisor; had a little startle perhaps, as someone might be to suddenly find an officer holding their revolver on you.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, of course.
(JIM): He was drinking a coke if you can believe that. The scenario the government would have us believe is quite absurd, as absurd as you find here. But they did manufacture, you-know, they faked photographs, they planted evidence, you-know, in lots of other ways they sought to incriminate him, even for the shooting of a policeman, where it’s rather evident that he was not involved. So, you-know, the fabrication of evidence can be massive and extensive when they want to frame somebody.
(MUAD’DIB): Oh yeah, yeah, I’m aware of that. I think the fact that I put the film out and there were other films out as well, and there were a lot of people who didn’t believe the official story… I think if they had gone to the extent of fabricating evidence against these young men, there would have been an outcry. I would hope there would have been an outcry anyway. I mean, I was moved to do what I did. I couldn’t sit back and not do what I did, because I could see that what was happening was totally unjust. But there were a lot of other people who’d seen my film, who could equally have sent it to the Court, and didn’t. There were a lot of people who knew, or were convinced, that the four original ones were patsies, who could have made approaches to the Court in the U.K., and who didn’t. Nobody seems to have lifted a finger to help these young men. Even their own barristers said to them that they shouldn’t dispute the official story because they might end-up with longer prison sentences. Well, I mean, that’s outrageous.
(JIM): That is outrageous. Trying to manipulate their own clients whose interests they are supposed to be representing, by actually dealing dirty with them.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, but you see, it’s all about money as well. Because if the barristers had used the DVDs that I sent to them, and they had told their clients to dispute the official story, then the trial wouldn’t have gone on for as long as it did, and they wouldn’t have made as much money as they did.
(JIM): Mmhm (chuckles)…
(MUAD’DIB): Because very quickly, they could have had the case thrown out of the Court, because they could have said: look, there is no proof; these original four have never been found guilty in a Court of law. They’ve only been given a trial by media and found guilty by the media. And so, in reality, as they’ve never been found guilty of this offence, in Court, then there is no basis for the charge against the other three. And it would have been thrown out of Court quite quickly. Especially if they had used the evidence that I gave them, on the DVD, in the film, to prove that these young men were innocent.
(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes.
(MUAD’DIB): But you see, the barristers are part of the system and they make their money… you-know, they work for the Crown, indirectly.
(JIM): Yeah. Let’s talk about what’s happened since you were last on this show. I know that it was divided into segments and posted on YouTube as I may have mentioned earlier, and there has been a great deal of discussion of your case on the continent, in England too I presume. I know Alex Jones had a segment devoted to it and there was at least one article that appeared in PrisonPlanet. Are you aware of other efforts on your behalf, or interest in this case, is it growing in your judgment?
(MUAD’DIB): It did immediately after we did the broadcast and it was uploaded, and people knew about it and watched it on YouTube and then Alex Jones picked up on it… but I haven’t really heard anything since, well, the last week or so… I’ve been watching the Internet, things have been pretty quiet really, in that respect, although I’m quite certain that the ripples are still rippling and probably accelerating. But the thing is, it needs more than ripples, it really needs a tidal-wave to wash away all this filth.
(JIM): Yes. Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I could not agree more. So where is your case currently standing, in relation to this attempt to extradite you to England, for trial?
(MUAD’DIB): Well, I’ve submitted an appeal on the grounds that it is a malicious-prosecution, and it is politically-motivated. And I’m waiting, really, for it to be processed and to go before the Supreme Court of Ireland. My barrister told me, at the original hearing here in Ireland; at the High Court; my barrister told me that I didn’t have grounds for an appeal, but I gave him written instructions that he was to appeal, on the grounds that I specified in that letter, which was that it was a malicious-prosecution and politically-motivated. So he didn’t think that I had grounds for an appeal, and that I should submit myself and go to the U.K., to fight the case. Well, when we went before the judge, the same judge who… (chuckles)… funnily enough the same judge whom my original hearing had been in front of, when the barrister wouldn’t present the case, the defence, that I had given him to present, and where I lost… we went before that judge again to re-apply for bail, because in the meantime I’d been locked up in prison again, and the barrister said that I wouldn’t get bail and I didn’t have grounds for an appeal, so I should just agree and to go to the U.K.. So I said, no, we won’t do that. I want to apply for bail and I want you to apply for an appeal on the grounds that I have given you. So he said: okay then, we’ll do our best, we’ll see what we can do. When we went before the judge again, for the bail-hearing; after I’d been locked up for twenty-three days; the judge asked me, personally, some questions, and he asked for a copy of the appeal and said that he would look at it and consider it, and we gave reasons why I should be granted bail, because I had previously been granted bail and I hadn’t run away; I’d fulfilled all the conditions of the bail, so there was no reason why I wouldn’t do that again. So the judge then needed a couple of days to decide what he was going to do with me, and we had to go back two days later, and in Court he said that I did have grounds for appeal, so the barrister that was representing me was wrong. And I got the impression that what he was signalling to the Court, was that if he had had the grounds that were on the appeal; which were originally in the defence I gave to the barrister; if he had seen those on the day of the hearing, that he would have thrown out the warrant against me. And so the barrister was a little bit embarrassed, to say the least, about all of this. And the judge granted me bail, he increased the amount of money that I had to pay, in bail; the bond, I think you call it; but he granted me bail, which the barrister said that I wouldn’t get. And he said that yes I did have grounds for appeal and that it should be processed and should go to the Supreme Court. So the barrister was wrong on both counts, which made me, you-know, wonder exactly what the barrister was up to.
(JIM): Well, I don’t think he’s representing your interests, Muad’Dib. I think he’s representing the interests of other entities involved in this case.
(MUAD’DIB): It would appear that way, I must admit.
(JIM): Very disturbing.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, so I would really like… the thing is, how do I find somebody who will represent me properly? If you find a solicitor and a barrister, and they say: oh yes, you-know, we’ve got a pretty good chance, and we’ll represent you… and then you go into Court; you’ve only got their word for it that they’re any good; and then when you get into Court, and you find out that they’re not, it’s too late. It’s all over and you’ve lost the case.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): So it’s a very, very difficult situation.
(JIM): Oh I think it is indeed. I only wish that when the police offered to find you a barrister, that you had not been in a position of being dependent upon them to locate him.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Because that’s what happened, the arresting officers asked me; at the time of the arrest; if I had a solicitor, and I said no, and they said, you-know, did I want them to get one for me? So I said, yes, I suppose you’d better do that and make it a good one.
(JIM): In retrospect, do you think perhaps the arresting officers had a conflict of interest?
(MUAD’DIB): Oh I would think so, yes.
(JIM): I mean, given that they were arresting you, they’d like to find their arrest was proper?
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, and their attitude… of the two plain-clothes ones who came from Dublin to arrest me, has been very strange. It’s been very… bad really.
(JIM): Tell me more about that?
(MUAD’DIB): It’s something I can’t really… just their attitude, something I can’t really explain, it’s just that, you-know, when people are dealing with you, they’re supposed to treat you as innocent until proven guilty.
(JIM): Right, of course.
(MUAD’DIB): And they’ve been treating me as though I was guilty.
(JIM): Yes. Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): Which is totally the wrong attitude. It’s not their job to decide that. It’s their job to have the information, to find evidence, or whatever, if they are the investigating officers, and to present that to the prosecution-services, etc, and to the Court. It’s not their job to decide whether somebody’s guilty or not. That’s the Court’s job.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): So they were, you-know, pretty anti-social, to put it mildly.
(JIM): Yes.
(MUAD’DIB): And, you-know, I mean, there was no violence or anything but… just their attitude was bad all the way through. And so the fact that they found me this particular solicitor and all of the things that have happened since, makes me wonder if they, you-know, work sort of in collusion. To just process people as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and make as much money as they can, and just, you-know, get people sent out of the country so it’s no longer their problem. And if that’s what they are doing, then that’s absolutely evil.
(JIM): Well, you seem to be confronting corruption at every level.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And then the judge, you-know… and the judge seemed to be a reasonable man, but he said he would watch the film and then he didn’t… I feel that he might be regretting the fact that he didn’t watch the film, since then, because when I went in front of him again for bail and for the appeal to the Supreme Court, he was much more mellow and he was much more… I can’t say friendly because that wouldn’t be right for him to be friendly, but he was much nicer.
(JIM): More receptive, more sympathetic, more patient, listening…
(MUAD’DIB): Yes. Yes. I think he’d realised that he should have let me speak that day at the hearing. And put forward my defence. I think he realised that if I had put forward what he then had in front of him at the second hearing, for the appeal, he would have thrown out the warrant. He would have quashed it. And then I would be free now to, you-know, continue my life. I think that’s what he was trying to put over to me, and to the Court. And that embarrassed the barrister. The barrister was very embarrassed after the hearing. So once this is put up onto the Internet, if there are any solicitors in Dublin, who; will watch the film; have heard the interviews, and are willing to do their best to defend me; please contact me.
(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes. Well, you’re as deserving a case as I can imagine. You’re standing up for human-rights, integrity of the judicial-system, you’re resisting harassing forms of prosecution which would actually constitute persecution on political grounds. It would seem to me that there are a lot of individuals of great integrity and legal standing who ought to have an interest in your case, Muad’Dib.
(MUAD’DIB): I would hope so. I really would hope so. The other thing as well, is that I’m on… on legal-aid, so there isn’t, you-know, I’m not wealthy and can’t afford to pay for a lawyer, so it would have to be someone not only with integrity and belief in the case, but also that is willing to work on legal-aid.
(JIM): Well, I think that, you-know, there are persons of great integrity in this world who ought to be interested in a political persecution of this character, especially when the stakes are so high and it represents, you-know… you are a seeker after truth, you have revealed so much about governmental-complicity in the events of 7/7. It’s part of a very elaborate charade to deceive the people, not just of Britain and of the United States, but the world, about these events, which are, in fact, terrorist-attacks performed by the governments of these nations, in order to instill fear into the population to manipulate us for political purposes. It’s truly disgusting… and on the highest order of evil.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, it is, and with that in mind; so that people might understand why all this evil is happening, and why everything is getting worse and it’s accelerating; I’d really like them to read a book that is available to be downloaded from the Internet, free, in PDF format. And the book is called “The Way home or face The Fire”, and the URL for it is http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net or http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.info . It’s on two different sites, one’s “dot net”, the other’s “dot info”. The book is called “The Way home or face The Fire”, and it will explain…
(JIM): … “The Way home or face The Fire”, and we can get it, obtain it, on the Internet and download it in a PDF form.
(MUAD’DIB): Yes. And perhaps then at some future date, we can do this again and discuss The Book.
(JIM): Muad’Dib, that’s a wonderful suggestion. I just want to tell you how much I admire you, for your courage and your integrity in speaking out against these political charades being perpetrated by; in this instance; the government and intelligence agencies of the U.K., and I can only hope that you are able to receive competent counsel from respected barristers in the near future, and that this whole matter can be straightened out to your benefit.
(MUAD’DIB): Thank-you. That’s very kind of you.
(JIM): Thank you so much for coming on the show again. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”. We’ll be right back.

• Introduction
• Muad'Dib
  
  
  • Who is Muad'Dib
  • Why the “Elite” fear Him
• Chronology
• 02.04.09 Verdict
• In The Media
• 7/7 Ripple Effect
• Call To Action

 

V for Vendetta or J for Justice?

Website: http://jforjustice.co.uk

Testimonials: http://jforjustice.co.uk/testimonials.html

Download the British Defense Website leaflet: British Defense Website.doc

(This message is directed at all British territories, which, if not yet enduring all the extreme state oppression underway in the U.K., will come to experience this soon if nothing is done about putting a stop to it.)

Sick of being lied to by the propaganda machinery, robbed by the head of state and her functionaries, including the Inland Revenue?
Want to fight back and put an end to this incessant legislated theft from your pocket?
Tired of politicians’ lies, living in a police-state, and being watched everywhere you go by CCTV cameras, and being prosecuted for victimless so-called/invented crimes, being fined/robbed and punished for harming no-one and thus really doing nothing wrong? Perhaps for possessing a weapon for self-defence, having harmed no-one.
Want to fight back against government tyranny, lies, abuse, theft and oppression? You CAN prove your innocence without relying on expensive lawyers, who are really only in it for the money and not for YOU.
Lost your driving license and/or been fined for victimless so-called traffic offences?
Would you like to defend and free yourself and others by putting an end to state daylight and highway robbery and the state terrorism that THEY* perpetrate (like 9-11, 7/7/2005** and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes) and use to keep you afraid, intimidated, compliant and in line? Want to avoid being branded a criminal by the state? Be aware that any convictions against you could have serious repercussions if you ever need to find work.
If so, I will provide you with a bullet-proof (if used properly) defence that you can use in court (if THEY* don’t immediately panic, get scared and drop all charges against you), in front of a jury of your peers, to clear yourself of all charges and bring down the evil system once and for all. Don't get mad, get determined!
To obtain this documentation and advice on how to fight against the evil police-state, including all necessary video and photographic evidence needed to clear yourself of all victimless charges, please send a donation of £100 sterling. We are so confident, that it works, that we will give you your donation back if it doesn't.
How much tax do you pay? Constantly rising council tax bills and costs of living, with the ever-decreasing value/purchasing-power of the money in your pocket, cannot possibly be met by your pension.
How much will the motoring fine be? How much is your driving license worth to you? How much will it cost you in higher insurance premiums, if you are convicted of a victimless crime and/or lose your license?
THEY* tell you to swear on the Bible, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. When they use lies and deceit to convict and steal from you. They are the spiritual wickedness in high places.
Threatened with court action, imprisonment? Worried you don't have a chance of beating the system? Well now you have that chance! Clear your name the only way possible. Gird your loins with TRUTH and put on the Breastplate of Righteousness and wield the Sword of the Spirit. Use God’s Perfect Laws of Liberty against them.
Please send your donation, only in cash, with your name and address, to:-
Muad’Dib,
c/o JAH Publications,
P. O. Box 2129,
Canvey Island,
England.  SS8 9UF
Muad-Dib@JforJustice.co.uk
* The Hierarchy Enslaving You – THEY. THEY also murdered Princess Di, Dodi al Fayed and Dr. David Kelly.
** Documentary films about 7/7/2005:- 7/7 Ripple Effect, Ludicrous Diversion, Mind the Gap
*** People confuse what the BBC reports with news - examination of the BBC.
Commentary about the recent MI5 revelations in The Independent about the modus operandi of MI and the U.K. police.

PETER POWER - Friday, 10 October 2008

7/7 exercise

There has been much nonsense written about why my company ran an exercise on 7 July 2005 that had very close parallels to the real thing that day. Since then I have made several attempts to add my own comments to numerous sites that seem to get increasingly excited about their own conspiracy theories and in the process exclude any rational debate. It seems those who occupy the world of finding conspiracy theories to replace just about any coincidence, do not want to have any dialogue with those offering a different view, but I have not yet given up hope. I am therefore hoping, perhaps naively, that someone might like to read an honest and factual account about a particular exercise my company ran in London three years ago.

Unfortunately, the BBC have just postponed a programme in their ‘conspiracy files’ series that would have done this. Our client three years ago agreed to be named in the BBC programme since the attitude of the producer and his team was very balanced (several conspiracy theorists were also invited to take part). We even allowed our complete exercise material to be made available to the BBC. Regrettably broadcasting it now might jeopardise an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to next year.

Early in 2005 Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London, asked us to help them prepare an effective crisis management plan and rehearse it before sign-off. Several draft scenarios were drawn up and the crisis team themselves set the exercise date and time: 9.00am on 7 July.

The test was planned as a table-top walk through for about six people (the CM team) in a lecture room with all injects simulated. Everything was on MS PowerPoint. The location of their Central London office near to Chancery Lane was chosen as one test site. With many staff travelling to work via the London underground system, the chosen exercise simulated incendiary devices on three trains, very similar to a real IRA attack in 1992, as well as other events.

As there had been eighteen terrorist bomb attacks on tube trains prior to 2005, choosing the London Underground was logical rather than just prescient. With this in mind it was hardly surprising that Deutsche Bank had run a similar exercise a few days before and, prior to that, a multi-agency (and much publicised) exercise code-named Osiris II had simulated a terrorist attack at Bank tube station. Moreover, I had also taken part in a BBC Panorama programme in 2004 as a panellist alongside Michael Portillo MP et al, in an unscripted debate (we had no idea at all what the scenario was to be?) on how London might once again, deal with terrorist attacks, only this time it was fictional (created entirely by the BBC).

In short, some of the research for our exercise had already been done. The scenario developed for our client even started by using fictitious news items from the Panorama programme then, as with any walk through exercise, events unfolded solely on a screen as dictated by the facilitator without any external injects or actions beyond the exercise room. Also factored into the scenario was to be an above ground fictitious bomb exploding not far from the head office of the protected Jewish Chronicle magazine where for exercise purposes, our imagined terrorists would have been aware that commuters would now be walking to work (past a building already considered a target) as some tube stations would have been closed.

Of just eight nearby tube stations that fell within possible exercise scope, three were chosen that, by coincidence, were involved in the awful drama that actually took place on 7 July 2005. A level of scenario validation that on this occasion, we could have done without.

An exercise that turns into the real thing is not that unusual. For example, in January 2003, thirty people were injured when a tube train derailed and hit a wall at speed. At the same time, the City of London Police were running an exercise for their central casualty bureau where the team quickly abandoned their plans and swung into action to cope with the real thing.

For a surprising number of people such coincidents cannot be accepted as such. There just has to be a conspiracy behind them, despite the obvious point that painstaking research will always identify probable above possible scenarios. By the way, the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of terrorism is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.

Peter Power

Visor Consultants

Posted by Peter Power Visor Consultants London at 04:46 1 comments

http://muhammad-ali-ben-marcus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/anthony-hill-freedom-of-speech-in-indo.html

Sunday, 31 October 2010

7_7 CANARY WHARF MURDERS CONFIRMED

New support for Canary Wharf story

October 22, 2010 NK 10 comments

On 11th October (the day the 7/7 Inquest began), ‘Huggles’ recalled how he had been at King’s Cross station when it all happened:

I was in Kings Cross right after the Piccadilly line blast and there was no problem calling into work to tell my boss that I would be late [a propos of whether mobile phones were working]. I then went into cafe to wait for the hubbub to die down. Over the radio we discovered that it was more than one bomb.
Just over an hour and a half later, there was a report on Radio 5 that some of the bombers were shot by armed response units in the Docklands. When I got home that evening, the news reports said that all the bombers died in the explosions.

The site owner Kevin Boyle asked him whether he had personally heard that Radio 5 news announcement, and ‘Huggles’ replied:

Kevin,
I heard it on the radio but when I got home and I sat in front of the tv for the rest of that evening, it was not repeated. It was in the cafe I heard the news report.

Is this the first mention of a Radio 5 news-announcement, on the 11 o’clock news that morning, of this shooting, at Canary Wharf in the Docklands, of maybe three young men? For comparison, British philosopher Rory Ridley-Duff at Sheffield compiled 17 accounts from the media of this event at Canary Wharf having happened. In addition there are a few more in Appendix 3 of my book. Does anyone else recall such a news-announcement that morning?
If you’re new to the Canary Wharf story, maybe watch the fifth chapter of Muad’Dib’s Ripple Effect. The story often comes with dramatic accounts of how the entire Wharf was ‘locked down’ and 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for ‘at least six hours.’ By the evening the police were trying to dismiss the whole thing.
For comparison, here is a fairly well-known version of the story, reported Down Under:

A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).

If it happened, it was an operation ‘Kratos’ job, whereby certain senior police officers are (shockingly) permitted to shoot a member of the public in the head, if they are deemed  to be a ‘suicide bomber’ and about to blow themselves up. Thus the above report has the two people shot because they were ‘wearing bombs’ – that judgement is necessary for a Kratos shooting to take place –  compare the De Menezes shooting where early accounts had him with a ‘bulging’ raincoat as if they were trying to make out they thought he might be ‘wearing bombs’ as their excuse for shooting him in the head on 22 July 2005 at Stockwell tube station.

Uncategorized none

Comments

Leave a comment Trackback

• 
  Written by graeme about 6 days ago. Reply
  

  I can confirm that I heard “suicide bombers” had been shot by anti-terrorist police at Canary Wharf on 7 July 2005. It was announced on BBC 24 Hour News. I cannot remember the exact time, but it was one hour either side of noon. ( note;- “suicide bombers” – definitely plural).
  I have studied the recent CCTV footage released from Luton Station and King’s Cross. A blurred man enters Luton Station just ahead of the four so-called bombers. He is seen again inside the station, holding a large mobile-phone with an aerial. At Kings Cross a different man with a blurred head, and hands in pockets, walks alongside the four young men – interesting/suspicious ?
• 
  Written by andy about 5 days ago. Reply
  

  I also heard on bbc news that marksmen had shot 3 or 4 terrorists by canary wharf if ican remember it was about an hr after the bombings 11ish and then the story vanished down the memory hole
• 
  Written by John D about 5 days ago. Reply
  

  I was working in New York that day. I was walking through the office reception when I noticed a crowd of people watching the big TV. I noticed that it was about a terrorist attack in London, but it went to a live report talking of terrorists running around Canary Wharf being chased by armed police. One of the terrorists was shot according to the reporter…it scared me a lot. I definately believe these guys were employed by our government, understood their situation when they missed the trains and then fled for safety…our armed cops were there to stop them from speaking. Sad story…
• 
  Written by Sharon B about 4 days ago. Reply
  

  I remember the day with extreme clarity (one of my daughters was working in Central London and I lost contact with her around 9am that morning) and I sat by the TV and flicked channels all morning. My daughter eventually phoned from a landline.
  Whilst watching the BBC news I saw the report coming in of 3 suspects having been ‘neutralized’ by police at Canary Wharf, they then confirmed 3 men had been shot. We were promised more updates on that ‘breaking news’ story but none were forthcoming.
  It appears Winston Smith is still working for BBC!
  • 
    Written by Eamonn Monaghan about 4 days ago. Reply
    

    Hello Sharon and the previous posters,
    I work at London University and I can confirm that I saw the same broadcast about suspected terrorists being ‘taken out’ or ‘neutralised’ near Credit Suisse and HSBC in that area.
    One of my friends worked at Credit Suisse, an IT DBA, at the time and was not allowed near windows or leave the building for several hours after.
    Eams
• Written by 7/7 Bombings: New support for Canary Wharf story : Infowars Ireland about 4 days ago. Reply
  

  [...] terroronthetube.co.uk October 22, 2010 [...]
• 
  Written by Sylvie about 4 days ago. Reply
  

  I was driving and heard over the radio that suspected bombers had been neutralised at Canary Wharf. Later that evening there was nothing else said about it on the evening news, which made you start to wonder if you’d imagined it, so never thought about after.
• 
  Written by Alfred about 3 days ago. Reply
  

  What happened to the dead bombers. Were they subject to a post-mortem? How were the corpses disposed of? Were any of them checked for bullet holes?
• Written by www.TheTruthHurts.co.uk » Blog Archive » New support for 7/7 Canary Wharf story about 2 days ago. Reply
  

  [...] New support for 7/7 Canary Wharf story [...]
• 
  Written by Steve.B about 15 hours ago. Reply
  

  I can confirm that on that day my wife was working at HSBC building and was told to stay away from the windows and not to go out

Posted by BASHEER AHMAD at Sunday, October 31, 2010 No comments:
Links to this post

Reactions: