by Home home
Just to state the proposition is to reveal its
absurdity.”
Perhaps Lady Justice Hallett was privy to information not
revealed at the inquest because the “utterly overwhelming”
evidence, proving the four alleged bomber's guilt, was
otherwise completely absent.
Based upon evidence that was actually presented at the
inquest, her findings appear to be little more than an
unsubstantiated 'conspiracy theory.' Lady Hallett was yet
another senior establishment figure keen to employ the
'conspiracy' label to fend off any criticism of the risible,
incoherent concoction that is the state's 'official' account of
the 7/7 bombings. One we are required to accept without
question.
Is it reasonable to ask for a further examination of the state’s
tale? Is there any justification to call for a review of the
evidence regarding the mass murder of 52 innocent people?
The biggest single terrorist atrocity ever to strike Britain.
Or, as David Cameron claimed, is anyone who asks these
questions really a non-violent extremist whose ideology of
hate shouldn't be tolerated, requiring the strongest possible
international response?
************************
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.”
[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
************************
253
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 13
The Success of Failure.
As with mainstream media coverage of 9/11,
exploration of 'what happened' on 7/7 was relatively brief.
The concept of the four suicide bombers was firmly
established in the public's imagination within the first week
or so of the attack. Rather than questioning official
statements or undertaking too much unnecessary
investigative journalism, on the whole, the MSM simply
parroted whatever the authorities told them.
Rather like his U.S. counterpart, on the day of the attacks,
then Prime Minister Tony Blair had the whole thing wrapped
up straight away. He made the following statement:[65]
“We know these people act in the name of
Islam but we also know the vast and
overwhelming majority of Muslims here and
abroad are decent and law-abiding people
who abhor this act of terrorism,”
254
A Dangerous Ideology
According to the official narrative, none of the terrorists were
known until the 12th, when they were first identified from
the CCTV footage from Kings Cross. How Tony Blair knew
the bombers were acting in the name of Islam on the 7th is
anyone's guess. A supposedly al Qaeda affiliated group had
initially claimed responsibility, but there was no evidence
they were behind it.[77]
Blair appeared to be repeating an earlier statement he made
at the G8 summit, which he subsequently credited to
Muslim Council of Great Britain.[66] Blair simply reissued
this later, and the media then printed his statement as if it
were fact.
Similarly, speaking on the day of the atrocity, then Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw said:
“There's an assumption that this is an al-
Qaida-based organisation. It has the
hallmarks of an al-Qaida-based
organisation and also its ruthlessness.”
Coincidentally, prior to 7/7, the ‘hallmarks’ phrase first
appeared in a fictional context. In May 2004 the BBC
televised a 'what if' scenario in a program they called
'London Under Attack.' In a mock report BBC presenter
Kirsty Lang quotes the UK Home Secretary as saying the
attack “bears all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda.” This was far
from the only spooky premonition contained in 'London
Under Attack.'
The phrase 'all the hallmarks of al Qaeda' really caught on
with the MSM. It initially appeared on 7/7 following an 11:32
BBC Radio London report.
Security correspondent Frank Gardener had received
intelligence from 'Arab sources' that al Qaeda were 'almost
certainly' behind the blasts. By 11.39 the BBC were
reporting it 'bore all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda attack.'
This phrase was later repeated by Jack Straw.
The use of the term wasn't based upon intelligence
assessments,
evidence,
surveillance
analysis,
communication intercepts or data retrieval, it was from a
255
A Dangerous Ideology
BBC journalists 'unnamed' source. Within hours, it had been
used by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, the
BBC evening news, Sky News, CNN, Ch4, NBC, Fox News,
The British Foreign Secretary and nearly every other
commentator, political spokesperson and Western MSM
outlet.
It became another unassailable fact in the minds of the
public. Four suicide bombers carried out a terrorist attack
which bore 'all the hallmarks of al Qaeda.' What else did
anyone need to know?
The problem was that the 7/7 bombings were not in keeping
with al Qaeda's previous attacks. Without a verifiable claim
of responsibility, there was no discernible al Qaeda
signature. It was suggested that the coordination of the
attacks was unique to al Qaeda but multiple, simultaneous
attacks had been used by a number of different terrorist
groups in the past.
Initially, al Qaeda attacks tended to be upon military or
commercial targets. For example, they had struck the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S Cole and the
Pentagon. Even the Twin Towers were commercial targets.
After 9/11, attacks upon civilian, or so called 'soft targets,'
increased. These included truck bombs, rocket attacks,
mass shootings, assassinations and suicide bombs. They
had also fought in numerous conflicts, ostensibly as a
conventional military force. It was difficult to see any distinct
'hallmark.' 7/7 was not a 'typical al Qaeda attack.' Not least
of all for the fact that it was in Britain. However, it was the
kind of attack frequently carried out by Operation Gladio
operatives.
While it is perfectly understandable that a journalist would
report upon information received from his sources, this was
simply adopted, without any critical thought, by the world's
media in a matter of hours. There was no fact checking or
further explorations of the evidence to support the
statement. What's worse is that it was also used by officials
upon whom the public have to rely for factual information.
This sound bite, repeated incessantly, effectively prepared
256
A Dangerous Ideology
those who didn't look far beyond the headlines to accept the
subsequent state narrative. When it was released, it
confirmed what they already 'knew.' Therefore, anyone who
challenged it clearly didn't understand the basic facts and
was either a loony 'conspiracy theorist' or politically
motivated 'extremist.'
/>
Once again, as with 9/11, the narrative given to the public
was served up without any scrutiny by our co called 'free
press.' It was then repeated 'ad nauseam' by the MSM, more
or less on an hourly basis in the 24 hour television news
cycle.
Other similarities with 9/11, beyond the awful carnage, were
evident. Prior to 7/7 the authorities ran a number of
exercises which closely mirrored aspects of the subsequent
attacks. For example, Operation Osiris II, in September
2003, envisaged a chemical attack on the London
underground. It allowed emergency services to train for the
mass evacuation of casualties from the London tube
network.[54]
Exercise Atlantic Blue was part of a large scale anti-terror
exercise run in April 2005 called 'TOPOFF 3.'[58] The joint
UK, U.S. and Canadian exercise was the largest anti-terror
exercise since 9/11.
The scenarios practised included responding to
simultaneous, multiple bombings on the London
underground and buses, just three months before 7/7. It
also, coincidentally, foresaw the attacks occurring during a
major summit. As they did in reality, on 7/7, while the G8
gathering was underway in Scotland.
The UK government can issue news editors with something
called a Defence and Security Media Advisory or DSMA
notice.[59] Commonly referred to as 'D-Notices.' These are
supposedly advisory only, and alert media editors of the need
to withhold information for reasons of national security. It is
possible that a D-Notice was issued in regard to Exercise
Atlantic Blue as there was next to no MSM coverage of this
massive, international exercise. The reports that did emerge
notably came from U.S. rather than UK sources.[58]
257
A Dangerous Ideology
Operation Hanover was a series of regular Metropolitan
Police response training exercises run by the Security Co-
ordinator’s office in the Anti-Terrorist Branch. Five days
before the 7/7 attack they ran a two-day drill based upon
three simultaneous bomb attacks on three London
Underground sites (Waterloo, Embankment and St James's
Park.)
The justice campaign group J7[55] highlighted the startling
similarities between the drill and the real event which
occurred within days of each other. Their submission to the
7/7 inquest,[56] based upon information then available in
the public domain, now remains one of the few available
records of Operation Hanover on the 1-2 July 2005.[57]
Chief Superintendent Peter Clarke, the head of Counter
Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard, recounted his
involvement in the Hanover exercise:[67]
“I spent the weekend before the London
bombings of July 7 2005 with my colleagues
in the anti-terrorism branch, working
through our response to the most difficult
scenario we could think of. The one we came
up with was multiple simultaneous attacks
on the Tube. Four days later, our musings
became a dreadful reality.”
On the morning of 7/7 a company called Visor
Consultants[60]
were running an emergency drill,
commissioned by Reed Elsevier (RELX)[61]. These also
corresponded closely to the attacks. Speaking to the BBC
later that day, in an interview that shaped many subsequent
'conspiracy theories,' the Managing Director of Visor, Peter
Power, said:
“… at half-past nine this morning we were
actually running an exercise for, er, over, 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
upright!”
258
A Dangerous Ideology
Initially it appeared the probability of this happening, by
pure coincidence, was so miniscule it was practically zero.
This prompted many overeager conspiracists to suspect
Power was complicit in the attacks. However, assuming
previous exercises were intelligence based, closer
examination makes the likelihood of Visor running an
exercise, which matched some aspects of the real events, far
greater than originally calculated.
Firstly, Power's own statement was a little misleading. His
mock exercise didn't “precisely” match real events . The three
bombings in his exercise did not include Edgware Road nor
any bus bombing.
Contrary to the speculation of many conspiracists, the
emergency plan he was running was entirely office based.
The terrorist scenarios were desk top presentations, and the
coordination of the emergency response was purely
administrative. Power had absolutely no influence over the
real crisis management operation underway during 7/7.
Power's description of the scenario he ran that morning
appeared to be similar to one he had previously taken part in
on national television. He was a panel member of a crisis
management team in a May 2004 episode of Panorama (a
long running BBC current affairs program). This was the
'London Under Attack' scenario previously mentioned.[62]
The BBC's mock terror event assumed three simultaneous
explosions on the London underground with bombs
detonating between 08:20 and 08:40 at Hyde Park, Oxford
Circus and Vauxhall, with a fourth explosion of a Chlorine
Gas Tanker in Shoreditch High Street at 10:10. A narrative
that closely resembled the one offered by the state, just a
year later.[63]
Power was invited to contribute due to his specialism in
crisis management and role as a government advisor. Visor
Consultants had also participated in Exercise Atlantic Blue
and were contracted to the British Government as part of
that training operation, among others.[64]
In the years between 9/11 and 7/7, the message from the
British government about the possibility of an al Qaeda
259
A Dangerous Ideology
inspired attack were consistently that it was a matter of
'when' not 'if.' Numerous TV and newspaper reports
speculated about when and where they would 'strike next.'
The vulnerability of the London Tube network was
discussed, most notably in the BBC's 'London Under Attack,'
and numerous exercises were run anticipating such an
event.
Power's Visor Consultants were involved in some of these
preparedness exercises. Far from an astronomical
improbability, the chances of him running a scenario similar
to the real world event were higher than originally thought.
The coincidence that it took place the same day is notable,
but Operation Hanover, which Peter Clarke participated in,
only preceded 7/7 by five days, so even the timing of Power's
drill wasn't particularly suggestive of any complicity.
He seems to have been following, rather than setting the
trend. Furthermo
re, no evidence has ever come to light
which suggests that either Visor, or their client RELX, had
any involvement in the London bombings or the emergency
response.
Power's exercise appears to have been an enticing 'rabbit
hole' many independent researchers, or 'conspiracy
theorists,' fell down. Given his startling revelation on
national television, on the day of the attacks, misdirection,
and 'controlled opposition,' remains a possibility.
Taken collectively, when we look at the predictions of the
various security services, independent analysts and the
media, they do appear to have been incredibly accurate. Like
those who ran training exercises which closely corresponded
to the 9/11 attacks, they seem to have foretold 7/7 with
great clarity.
We are often told about how many terrorist attacks the
security services protect us from,[68] and are frequently
reminded that we have the best security and intelligence
services in the world.[69] So it is extremely unfortunate they
couldn't detect an unfolding plot they had already
anticipated, and extensively and repeatedly prepared for.
Initially the government and the security services were
260
A Dangerous Ideology
adamant that all four alleged bombers were “clean
skins.” [70] People of whom the security services had no
knowledge whatsoever. This may have explained why the
four's alleged preparations, to make the well-known plan a
reality, went unnoticed.
The bereaved families and many others were keen to know
what happened and if anything could have been done to
prevent it. Many called for an independent public inquiry.
When the Conservative opposition leader Michael Howard
requested an inquiry in Parliament on the 10th, Downing
Street, and reportedly Tony Blair himself, considered
examining the evidence to be a “ludicrous diversion.” [71]
Government opposition to an inquiry was consistent. In
December 2005 the Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the
BBC the Government planned to produce a 'narrative of
events' instead.[72] The next day Tony Blair told Parliament:
[73]
“I do accept that people, of course, want to
know exactly what happened and we will
make sure that they do...........We will bring
together all the evidence that we have and
we will publish it so that people, the victims
