- This latest "attack" is supposed to correct
some faults in the first without causing further mayhem.
- What has given them the most trouble with the first attack?
Their choice of patsies.
- They assumed that a loose Muslim connection would be
enough to persuade everyone that these lads from Leeds were suicide bombers.
But rather than clinch it for the planners, it backfired and the most common
and reasonable question that everyone has about the suicide bomber fiction
was invoked: How could young men who were not religious fanatics, who were
educated, decent fellows, with loving families, and bright futures
how could they kill themselves and others?
- Another unforeseen problem was the effusive praise coming
from Efraim Halevi that described the London bombings as "near-perfect".
Too many people could not get a picture in their minds of four young men
with rucksacks able to so perfectly execute simultaneous bombings. It caused
doubts that have not been quelled. Too many people saw the hand of the
Mossad and its affiliates in the earlier bombing because the four "bombers
with rucksacks" did not evoke the necessary sophisticated timing,
operational capacity, and scope.
- The latest "attack" is supposed to reaffirm
that young men with rucksacks are perfectly capable of a simultaneous triggering
of devices, a demonstrable fearlessness in the face of death, and a disregard
for the lives of others, even women with babies.
- Because all four bombs malfunctioned this time round,
it tells us that the bombers are not the Mossad or any other intelligence
agency because 100% malfunction is very unprofessional, it may mean that
their first bombing was just good luck, not expertise.
- While the rucksacks in the first bombing have not turned
up, this new bombing tells us once again that four young men carried bomb-laden
packs aboard the trains and [would have] died when they detonated.
- The investigation has not proceeded methodically. The
whole question of how the bombing was done and who did it was effectively
squelched when they began looking for the needle in the haystack
the CCTV films. Without knowledge of the type of bombs, their power, placement,
and detonation, there could be absolutely no reason to begin looking at
CCTV tapes. They could not know what to look for without the certainty
that the bombs were carried on, and not placed beforehand.
- It is significant that of all the thousands of hours
of CCTV tape they have examined, the only tape they seem to have of the
young men from Leeds does not come from London at all! In the pictures
we have seen the lads are in Luton, 25 minutes away. Unless they can show
us the "bombers" going their separate ways and boarding three
or four different trains I will not believe that the young men ever made
it to London. Seeing them together at Luton means nothing if they cannot
be placed getting on the trains at exactly the right time to take them
the right distance from King's Cross before they explode.
- In the case of the 7/7 bombings, going straightaway to
the video tapes was very premature and irrational. It can only mean that
they knew what they would find because they had planted the "evidence".
It makes no sense to begin looking at thousands of hours of video tape
from as far away as Luton without any idea of what you are looking for.
What could it be? Rucksacks, packages, briefcases, baby strollers, gym
bags? Suspicous looking people of a certain race? And remember that the
first story was that at least 24 people had been involved.
- What would be the motivation to look at the tapes from
Luton? Did they also look at tapes from video cameras at the airports and
bus stations? It would seem to be just as reasonable to look at those tapes
as looking at Luton. And why is the Luton tape the only tape?
- Luton is interesting because an office of ICTS (the Israeli
security firm) is about a mile from a Thameslink station. ICTS is actually
located in the Luton and Dunstable NHS Hospital. It seems a little odd
that this firm that handles security for the Stansted airport would be
located at the Hospital.
- Just like the problem with 9/11 and Madrid - there were
no hijackers and no bombers to film. They tried to get around that on 7/7
by getting some patsies to photograph. They did not leave it to chance,
for those picked had to be disposed of as though they had been killed in
the blasts. Never Mind the "Evidence," Who Planted it? The "investigation"
that led to the Leeds four was not a real investigation because the videotape
evidence was "planted" and the investigation was "led"
to find it. People seem to overlook this fact and assume that there were
real clues that led the "investigators" to check the video cameras
in Luton. Luton is distant from London and a real investigation would have
no more reason to check those cameras than they would the cameras at Stansted
or Heathrow or the bus stations or Thameslink stations in other directions.
They vaguely justify looking northward and in Leeds because one mother
called about her missing son - one mother out of 120,000 calls!
- Just like the 19 photographs of the suicide hijackers,
we never ask where those came from and how the FBI got them. The FBI admits
there was not a single piece of paper to indicate the planning or knowledge
of 9/11 but we are to believe that pictures of 19 hijackers sort of "turn
up" very quickly after 9/11.
- But people seem to begin their questions too far down
the road, away from the initial and thoroughly incriminating points.
- Wherever there is "planted" evidence it means
the perpetrators have planted it to divert honest investigators. To investigate
the planted evidence as though it is real is to miss the opportunity of
catching the fix at the beginning. It is those who plant the evidence who
are responsible for the crime.
- The real perpetrators give themselves away by going directly
to Luton to find their video. What are the chances of that? They went to
Luton before there was any forensic investigation at the bomb sites. They
were off to Luton even before they had removed all the body parts from
the blasts - before they had any evidence that rucksacks were used to bring
the bombs onto the trains - they were on their way to Luton to find the
pictures of the lads carrying rucksacks and they found them.