London Subway Bombings (7/7 Bombing). Were they false flag attacks in London meant to scapegoat Islamic people, terrorize Londoners, and allow draconian, new power measures while bolstering lagging support of the war in Iraq. Perhaps even served as a punitive strike, to punish Londoners for their lack of war support? There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.
Missing from the mainstream coverage is any mention of how flimsy and non-credible the official narrative of the events of the London Bombings are. You will hear constant talk of the ‘four terrorists’ or ‘suicide bombers’ or of the ‘radicalization of British Muslims’. What you won’t hear on any of the major networks’ coverage is any mention of the ‘Terror Drill’ that was going on on the morning of 7/7, any mention of the mysterious white van parked next to the exploded No.30 bus in Tavistock Square, any reference to the mysterious death of 35 year-old Richmal-Marie Oates-Whitehead from New Zealand, any reference to why it was that all of the CCTV for the London Underground on that morning was disabled, or any reference to the fact that it was literally *impossible* for any of the four ‘suicide bombers’ to have actually been on those exploding tube-trains on 7/7. We’ll discuss those anomalies in this article.
Mock “Terror Drill” Exercise BBC Broadcast One Year in Advance
More than a year before the 7/7/2005 attacks, on the 16th of May 2004, an edition of the BBC ONE Panorama program broadcasted a mock exercise, imagining what would happen if a terrorist-attack was executed in London.
Set in the NEAR FUTURE, the scenario consisted of three explosions on tube-trains in the London Underground, and one explosion on a road vehicle.
The following excerpt from a BBC transcript of the program, gives us a good idea of why this program was made…
“PRICE: If there are now bombs going off above ground, in this case a lorry being attacked, it could happen anywhere, so the potential for mass panic across not just the capital, but the whole country, is very much with us.
I think therefore we need to look at more serious measures.
We do have reserve powers in effect to take over the BBC if we were to wish to, and to get them to broadcast whatever we wanted them to broadcast.
Those powers are there in the Broadcasting Act.
My advice to the Prime Minister would be not to use those, but I think we should be talking to the broadcasters about having the Prime Minister on the air very quickly.
GILBERTSON: You wouldn’t disagree with that Michael at all?
PORTILLO: No, I entirely agree that the Prime Minister should be out there, and we shouldn’t be using the powers to bring in the BBC, but we should certainly be talking to the broadcasters, about the way in which the coverage is going to be organised.” (end quote)
Please note well that he said, “the coverage is going to be ORGANIZED.”
In other words, he was saying that they would write the script for, then edit and control, the media coverage of an event in which there were three explosions on London tube-trains, and one on a road vehicle, if such an event were to take place in the near future.
The question that begs to be asked is this: was that what they were actually in the process of planning, and precisely the reason for that program?
Gavin Esler: “This is the kind of terrorist attack the government repeatedly says is going to happen.”
March 2004 David Blunkett, Home Secretary: “We’ve been absolutely clear we can’t guarantee that there will never be an attack. It’s quite likely that they’re planning one now.”
Michael Portillo says, “I am wondering about the purpose and effect of this very program.”
This BBC Panorama program appears to have been used by those behind the 7/7/2005 attack, as the means by which the media’s response to the attack in the near future was studied, so it could be controlled and directed towards their own ends.
Mr. Price plays the “bad cop” and issues the threat of taking over control of the BBC, and then Mr. Portillo plays the “good cop” and says that there is no need to do that, as long as the BBC behaves itself, and broadcasts whatever they want them to.
The “good cop”, “bad cop” scenario is just theatre, to deceive the viewer.
The reality is that the BBC is a government propaganda machine and is already, and always has been, controlled and used by the government.
London Subway Bombing Terror Drill Goes Live
At the exact time of the terror bombings of the London Underground and a bus at Tavistock Square, a man named Peter Power was, with his crisis management company, Visor Consultants Ltd., conducting a terrorism drill for a mysterious un-named client. The Visor exercise was precisely identical to the bombings that occurred. Just how likely is such a coincidence?
Peter Power had previously worked at Scotland Yard, the Anti Terrorist Branch, and as a police superintendent in West Dorset, England. In 1993, Power was himself the subject of a criminal investigation which, in April 1993, led to his suspension and retirement from the police.
Superintendent Power was suspended following an internal police inquiry, which resulted in a file being submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution. Oddly, the details of the Power investigation have been kept classified. After a five-month investigation, Power retired from the police force in September 1993, at the age of forty-two, “on health grounds.”
PETER POWER – The July Seventh Truth Campaign in Britain has revealed Power’s troubled past and his links with previous terror incidents in Britain. But the details of the criminal investigation into Peter Power have been kept secret since 1993. What did he do in Dorset and who was the mysterious un-named company with whom he planned and conducted the terror exercise on July 7?
Just hours after the London bombings, Power explained the incredible coincidences with the drill his company was conducting in a radio interview with Peter Allen on BBC 5:
Power: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
Peter Allen: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
Power: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name but they’re listening and they’ll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers, for the first time they’d met, and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, “this is the real one” and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.
Even Peter Power himself admitted in a later interview that, in terms of the correlation between the staged drill and the actual terrorist attack, “our scenario was identical.” In another interview with Radio 5 Live on the day of 7/7, Mr Power refers to “simultaneous bombs going off”; yet it wasn’t until 9th July, two days after the incidents, that the explosions were starting to be talked about as having been ‘almost simultaneous’. At the time Mr Power was giving this interview, the official line didn’t include any reference to ‘simultaneous bombs going off’.
Ex-Mossad Chief, Efraim Halevi, also wrote in The Jerusalem Post on 7th July 2005 of “the multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system” with “near perfect execution”; again, this was astonishingly prescient, as the ‘simultaneous explosions’ verdict hadn’t been established by the authorities until two days later. Like Mr Power, Mr Halevi seemed to already know something that the investigators did not.
On 8th July 2005, the day after the destruction in London, another interview with Peter Power appeared on page 5 of the Manchester Evening News in which Mr Power revealed that, not only had he coincidentally been managing a terror rehearsal ‘based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened’ on 7th July, but had also organised a series of ‘mock broadcasts’ for the rehearsal operation – and that these were apparently so realistic that those participating in the exercise became (understandably) confused about what was real and what was simulation; just as was the case on 9/11. Power’s pre-planned fictional/drill scenario, as explained by the man himself on the day, bears a closer resemblance to the eventual story of 7/7 than it did to the actual story that had been presented to the public by the police and authorities at the time of his interview. But there is a broader, longer, context to this 7/7 ‘drill’ and to Power’s own involvement.
Failure of all relevant Surveillance, or CCTV, Cameras
All of the CCTV cameras at all four locations where the explosions went off that day were conveniently “not working” on 7/7/2005. Even if we were to believe it was just bad luck that the surveillance for the London Underground was switched off that morning, the security cameras for thebus that exploded in Tavistock Square are of course completely unrelated to the London Underground CCTV: who but the village idiot would believe that both surveillance systems would’ve been accidentally failing that morning?
The company responsible for CCTV surveillance on the London Underground is an Israeli firm called Verint Systems. No CCTV footage of the four alleged suicide-bombers has ever been released by Verint Systems. The reason? Verint claim that the cameras were not working that day. There remains, therefore, no proof whatsoever that the four British Muslim men were on the London Underground that day. Another Israeli company, transport security firm ‘ITCS’, has an office close to the Luton train station where the ‘suicide bombers’ set off to London from, and is suspected by some of being where the young men went to receive final instructions. John Hill, in his film Ripple Effect, suggests that this office might’ve been where the men went to confirm details on which trains to board, which carriages to get into, where to sit, which bus to catch and at what time – all under the misapprehension that they were merely taking part in the planned ‘terror drill’.
An employee of Stagecoach, the company responsible for the majority of London buses, confirmed that the driver of thebus had pointed out that this bus was the only one to be re-routed after the initial bombs went off in the London Underground: every other bus carried on its normal journey, but for some reason this one bus was diverted. Why? The CCTV on the buses is maintained at least two or three times a week and is able to digitally store up to two weeks worth of surveillance footage (done by a private contractor). So why was the CCTV disabled for that single bus… which also, again, happened to be the only London bus re-routed that morning?
And why was thebus driver, George Paradakis, taken into hiding by the police after the Tavistock explosion? Did they want to keep him quiet? As I said earlier, Mr Paradakis was so traumatized after the incident that he retired.
Why did none of the four CCTV cameras in thebus work on 7/7? Scotland Yard’s explanation that the bus driver might have forgotten to switch them on is nonsense, as according the bus company the cameras are always switched on.
Let’s talk now about the extremely dodgy CCTV images that were released and frequently shown across the media. Estimates about the proliferation of CCTV cameras around the world suggest that something like 20% of all CCTV cameras are located in just the UK, with London having the most: yet, to date, no CCTV images of the four alleged suicide bombers have ever been released showing all four of the accused in London on July 7th 2005. In fact, only one CCTV image has ever been released that purports to show all four of the accused together and it is outside Luton Station, some 30 miles from the scenes of the crimes; and even in this image, three of the four faces are entirely unidentifiable. There are numerous anomalies regarding the most famous image (the one that purports to show the group). Firstly, it is immediately peculiar that there is only this one still image as opposed to proper moving footage or a sequence of images.
Initially, only two images had been released, within a couple of days of each other; the first being an extremely (and suspiciously) closely-cropped still-image of 18 year-old Hasib Hussain. There is no explanation offered for why the photo was so ridiculously cropped in the manner shown, nor any explanation of where the other three men are. There is also no explanation for why all/any unique points of reference (that might indicate where the picture was taken) have been edited out of the image. This image of Hasib Hussain is utterly, utterly pointless. It offers no indication of where he is supposed to be nor of when it was taken. There is no time or date stamp. If I was asked to release the most unconvincing, comically inadequate, fake picture as a joke…then [lightbox full=”http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/images/Hussain.luton.740.cctv.jpg”]this image[/lightbox] of Hasib Hussain is what I would’ve come up with.
On September 21st 2005, another supposed piece of CCTV footage was released showing three of the four suspects at both Luton Thameslink station and Kings Cross, taken from June 28th 2005. This footage has repeatedly appeared in news coverage of the events of July 7th (minus the time and date stamps), giving the false impression that it might be footage of the accused on 7/7; but this is precisely how false perceptions are embedded into the viewing public’s consciousness by the corporate/mainstream media. It also shows only three of the men entering Luton station on June 28th 2005.
More importantly, as is noted by the July 7th Truth Campaign, ‘When the image from July 7th is overlaid with a still from the June 28th footage, even more oddities emerge. Lindsay is carrying exactly the same carrier bag in the same hand in both. Tanweer’s outfit on the 7th appears to be a negative image of what he was wearing on the 28th. Notice also how the kerb stones appear disjointed at the point where the vertical kerb arcs to the right in the image purporting to be from July 7th 2005…’
This site was one of the first to expose the fraud of the main CCTV image provided by authorities as ‘proof’ of the suicide-bombers. “At first, (almost) everything looks fine, but look closer… look at the guy with the white hat… check out his left arm (HIS left arm)…. the lower of the rails of the railing is IN FRONT of his left arm… where of course it shouldn’t be. This looks ridiculous. I’d say it´s a fake.” It continues, “The white-hatted man was apparently superimposed onto the photo. Not only is his arm ‘behind’ a railing that is supposedly several feet behind HIM, but also, upon magnification in Photoshop, part of the bar actually goes into his head. This was ‘touched-up,’ but pixels of his head mix unmistakably with pixels from the railing. Here is an enhancement of the picture. You can clearly see that the railing appears IN FRONT of the supposed bomber’s left arm. Not only this but there also seems to be a railing running through the man’s head. A further analysis clearly shows the railing continuously running visible through the man’s head.’
And from the same analysis of the image; ‘There is also a noticeable outline above the bomber’s cap and around his head, indicating the image has been “cut out” and superimposed onto the original.’
On October 2nd, three months after the London bombings, another still image was released of Hasib Hussain on his own. He is apparently exiting the Boots store at Kings Cross mainline station. Like the earlier image of him, there is no date or time-stamp on the image. Therefore, this image could have been produced at any time. The media stated that the image was captured at 9.00 am on 7/7 – however, by this time in the morning of 7/7, Kings Cross station was already being evacuated and there were reports of ‘pandemonium’. This picture of Hussain doesn’t depict any of that ‘pandemonium’, but appears to show a very normal environment.
Continued on next page…