| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wakeymedia
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 Nov 2008
Posts: 222
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Good initiative re Tweets.
Another very suspicious 'convenient death' for the 'Evildoers'; that tweet business certainly seems 'suspicious'.
And I'll add my RIP to a brave, genuine, 'telling it like it is' gentleman.
Really sorry to see him leave the stage.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PRESS RELEASE
22 October 2015
MICHEAL MEACHER
Michael Meacher, who died yesterday, was in many ways the intellectual powerhouse behind the insurrection that saw Jeremy Corbyn elected leader of the Labour Party this summer.
He was one of the few politicians to attend the Parliamentary debate on money creation, he gave a stirring speech at the protests when UK hosted the secretive Bilderberg Group, and he was the only mainstream politician to raise questions about the 911 attacks, with a 2003 article in the Guardian headed "This War on Terrorism is Bogus".
His 911 stance led to an aggressive character assassination campaign by the US London Embasssy. Later, when he planned a showing of the 911 sceptic movie Loose Change in the House of Commons it was cancelled at the last moment while Michael said privately that he feared violent repercussions.
In recent weeks he was active again behind the scenes, supporting a 911 family member who is seeking a new inquest. At a private Commons meeting last autumn he seemed in excellent health. He said he did not feel anything like his age and might stand again for Parliament.
News reports have given no details of the cause of Michael's unexpected death beyond a statement from Peter Dean, his constituency office manager, who said: "We are extremely sad and it has been quite a short illness he has had and we just don't know the details at present".
Ian Henshall an organiser of Reinvestigate 911 said: "I hope that, to put to rest any lingering doubts, his aides will take a close look and divulge full details of what happened.
"Even more importantly, I hope the Corbyn leadership recognises the urgent need to replace Michael with someone who understands the big issues and is sceptical of the veracity of news reports in the Western media." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rolling my eyes somewhat that I wasn't at least emailed this 'press release', dated Thursday, which has no contact details for the press on it so can't be sent on, and still hasn't been sent to the UK 911 Truth list http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth by Ian Henshall or anyone else.
Neither is it currently available anywhere else online so far as I can see by searching for text within it.
The press 'traction' of the release has been zero.
God help any of us if we die in suspicious circumstances?!
But at least thanks to Ian Neal for posting it here.
Last twenty tweets of Michael's deleted twitter account restored
http://www.bilderberg.org/meacher_twitter.html
From a US geostrategic point of view, with Cameron looking increasingly shaky and a constitutional crisis looming over tax credit cuts its looking increasingly likely that Michael may have been murdered, or the proper term for a political killing is assassinated.
Also a shock and awe test (and kick in the teeth) for Seumas Milne immediately after he's appointed Labour head of Communications and Strategy if so.
The massive programme of gerrymandering and postal vote fraud the Tories and Establishment are conducting and drive over the last month to stop the press reporting or police investigating the VIPaedophile crimes put a potential assassination of Michael Meacher into context.
| Quote: |
This war on terrorism is bogus
Michael Meacher
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Saturday 6 September 2003 12.15 BST Last modified on Friday 3 October 2014 09.56 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course. |
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Last edited by TonyGosling on Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've also spoken to someone else who met Michael Meacher about 10 days before he died and assures me he was 100%, in the very best of health.
Was British MP Michael Meacher murdered to cover up 9/11?
By Kevin Barrett on October 24, 2015
Ex-Environment Minister and inspiration behind Corbyn had been pushing for a 9/11 official inquest
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/24/meacher/
Former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher
Michael Meacher, died 10/20/2015
Michael Meacher, a long-time MP and former Minister of the Environment, was one of the UK’s leading politicians. When he broke ranks with the liars and traitors back in 2003, and came out for 9/11 truth in the pages of The Guardian, the Deep State panicked – and Meacher was targeted for vilification and threats.
This week Meacher suddenly dropped dead “after quite a short illness.” He had been in perfect health, and was mounting a low-key campaign to open an official inquest into 9/11 on behalf of British victims’ family members.
Meacher’s death is just one of many – most notably that of WTC-7 demolition witness Barry Jennings – that were all-too-convenient for the forces behind the 9/11 cover-up.
List of apparently assassinated 9/11 witnesses
Along with these and other witnesses, a number of journalists appear to have been murdered, including Phillip Marshall and Hunter S. Thompson. Marshall, an ex-CIA drug pilot and author of The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror, was shot dead, along with his two children, in a fake murder-suicide designed to send a message to insiders, and perhaps to recover incriminating evidence. (Wayne Madsen says Marshall may have discovered evidence that airliners allegedly used in the 9/11 attacks are sitting at the “boneyard” in Pinal Air Park in Arizona.)
boneyard
High crimes of the Deep State are generally followed by bloodbaths. Witnesses and investigators who pose an “actionable threat” to the criminals are routinely slaughtered en masse. The JFK assassination, for example, led to the murder of hundreds of witnesses and investigators. At least fifty of those murders have been “solved” beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning they have been pinned decisively on the JFK-hit coverup crew.
9/11 was such a large, sprawling, messy operation that it must have given the “clean-up crew” fits. While many of those who knew too much were presumably ordered to report to a room in one of the Towers or WTC-7 early on the morning of 9/11 and then locked inside, numerous logistical glitches must have created a large number of inadvertent witnesses and actionable threats. VT sources state that hundreds of mostly-unknown patriots in the armed forces, the intelligence services and the NYPD have been murdered to keep a lid on 9/11.
By risking his life for 9/11 truth, and finally adding his name to the list of martyrs for truth and justice, Michael Meacher achieved what so few people in today’s world can even hope for: A meaningful death and with it, a meaningful life.
RIP, Michael Meacher. You stood up for what was right.
How many of us, in this culture of cowardice and mediocrity, will ever realize such a monumental achievement?
–Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IanFantom
Validated Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 296
Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: 3 Nov-London-Michael Meacher, a 'Non-Violent Extremist' |
|
|
Dear Colleagues,
Keep Talking meeting: Tuesday 3 November 2015
Topic: Michael Meacher, a 'Non-Violent Extremist'
Speaker: Ian Fantom
Times: 19:00 for 19:30 till 21:30 (room booked till 22:00)
I hadn't intended to give another talk this year, but the announcement of the sudden death of Michael Meacher, coupled with the lack of any explanation in the mainstream media as to the cause - other than 'a short illness' - aroused my curiosity. Michael Meacher had raised the issue of 9/11 and the Project for the New American Century in the House of Commons in 2003, shortly after having realised he had been conned by the Prime Minister. He unearthed a lot of the machinations of New Labour, and did a lot to reveal the bigger picture, of how the wars, and the deception that led to them, had been preplanned. He later went quiet, saying it was "too dangerous". Late in 2014 he resurfaced on the 9/11 issue, and was also a key figure in the emergence of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party. He had earlier explained how the Parliamentary Labour Party had come to be packed with Blairites, and the election of Jeremy Corbyn highlighted the fact that the PLP had become unrepresentative of the party as a whole. I think they are all aware of the 9/11 issues, but cannot speak out. Michael Meacher would certainly have been in mind when David Cameron gave his speech to the UN Security Council last year, identifying 9/11 truth campaigners as 'non-violent extremists', and he would have almost certainly have been subject to an Extremist Disruption Order had Tony Blair had access to the legislation which David Cameron is now proposing. At least, we can now review Michael Meacher's major contribution to 9/11 truth without putting him into further danger.
Entry: £4
Location: The Pimlico Room, St Saviour's Church, St George's Square, Lupus Street, London, SW1V 3QW (http://www.stsp.org.uk). There's a good pub (The Gallery) half way between Pimlico Underground Station and the Pimlico Room, for those who want to meet up beforehand or after the meeting. They serve food after 5pm.
The Pimlico Room is a 2 mins walk west of Pimlico Underground Station (Victoria Line, one stop from Victoria Underground, southbound), and 8 mins walk from Victoria Bus Station. The Pimlico Room is the building to the left of the church (if you're facing the church), running along the main road (Lupus Street). It's not the church hall, which is on the other side.
Map: http://www.stsp.org.uk/contact-us.html
Buses:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/maps/buses/pdf/pimlico-lupus-stree t-a4.pdf
The room is outside the congestion zone, and I understand that street parking is free on single yellow lines after 6pm. The room is fully 'disabled accessible', and a tea / coffee point is also available - and so will a collection box
If there are any problems on the night, please ring my mobile.
Best wishes and keep talking,
Ian
ian@fantom.org.uk
Landline: 01422 352153
Mobile: 07530 142609
http://berkshire911truth.blogspot.com/ (for older newsletters - but I'm now in West Yorkshire!)
Keep Talking runs an email discussion group on Google, '911KeepTalking'. If you would like to join, please send me an email.
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Life
Validated Poster
Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 558
Location: Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
A shame to hear about Michael. I had dealings with him in about 2006 over political corruption. He was a genuine man with courage...RIP Michael Meacher
_________________
KEEP IT REAL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MI5 and the cover-up over 7/7
April 30, 2009
Yesterday’s acquittal of 3 men from Bangladesh and Pakistan on charges of being involved in the 7 July 2005 bombings in London will have two dramatic consequences. It will allow the publication next month of a devastating report by the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which reveals how MI5 and the West Yorkshire police failed to follow up leads which could probably have prevented the suicide bombings. It shows that, contrary to the line put out initially by MI5 that these were ‘clean skins’ about whom nothing was previously known, in fact the security services knew a great deal about two of the bombers, whom they had extensively photographed and bugged. They also knew that these two bombers had attended training camps in Pakistan, but dropped them from surveillance when they returned to the UK. The report also shows the extraordinary incompetence of MI5 when its Director-General, Manningham-Buller, actually assured MPs only 24 hours before the bombings that there was no imminent threat to London. And even the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met has openly recognised that a public explanation needs to be given why MI5 monitoring of the bombers was dropped when it could well have prevented the killing of 52 innocent victims. But there are still other critical revelations which should now be opened up.
On 7 February 2008 I wrote to the ISC asking them to examine a number of unexplained issues which had either been raised with me personally or appeared in the media. The first concerns the fact that, astonishingly, an exercise was being run on 7 July 2005 by Peter Power, a former senior Scotland Yard official, who had worked at one time with the Anti-Terrorist Branch. This exercise involved a dry run to test the responses of the emergency services if the London Underground were bombed at the exact same locations and at the exact same times as then happened in real life. He stated this in an interview on Radio 5 less than an hour later on the same morning, and I included excerpts from the interview in my submission to the ISC. The question is: who commissioned this exercise by Visor Consultants whose MD is Peter Power?
I also sent a copy of a photo of the 4 bombers taken by CCTV as they entered Luton station on their way to London. It appeared in several newspapers, but is decidedly odd. It shows one of the bombers at the back in the middle who appears to have his head behind the top rail of a railing, but his body in front of the middle rail, and the lower part of his body behind the third rail. It cannot be a genuine photograph, and must have been doctored. But who did this, and why?
There is also one further dimension to this tragedy which has so far been concealed, but which urgently needs to be brought to light in the public inquiry which the families of those killed are now demanding.
The Saudi Government has made known that, prior to the 7 July bombings, they provided essential information concerning expected terrorist attacks in the UK. What exactly was this information, and on how many occasions was such information provided? I asked the UK Government to reveal this under Freedom of Information (FOI) provisions. The Government insisted it was protected from release by section 23 (1) of the FOI Act 2000 which provides for national security considerations as an exemption. Yet revealing this information cannot now in any way undermine national security nearly 4 years after the event. Moreover, in terms of trying to prevent any such bomb outrages ever happening again, it is clearly in the public interest that it should be known how such information was handled and what lessons should be learned.
I intend to raise these matters in the House next Thursday when the latest ISC report is being debated.
http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2009/04/mi5-and-the-cover-up-ove r-77/comment-page-1/
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aug 28 2016
#MichaelMeacher died suddenly, days after suggesting #PeterMandelson be expelled from #LabourParty for insurrection:
https://www.twitter.com/TIME_to_RESIST/status/769960299348762628
Can Mandelson actively advocating the ousting of the new leader remain a member of the Labour Party?
http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2015/09/can-mandelson-actively-a dvocating-the-ousting-of-the-new-leader-remain-a-member-of-the-labour- party/
September 27, 2015
It is one thing for those who opposed the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader to make their concerns and objections known and to argue for them within the Big Tent which is the Labour Party. It is quite another thing, when a new leader has just been elected with 60% of the vote (higher than Blair’s 57% in 1994), for a well-known Labour public figure to openly incite insurrection to have him promptly overthrown. When the party has spoken with such unprecedented decisiveness, such behaviour is coming close to traitorous. The Labour party has a rule, introduced by Blair himself, that anyone who brings the party into disrepute can be expelled. Many would think that Mandelson, who no doubt was deeply involved in the machinations behind the new rule designed to get rid of inconvenient left-wing activists, has now put himself in a position to be hoist on his own petard.
What is so objectionable about Mandelson’s pronouncements is that it betrays his view that the Labour party isn’t a democratic party at all, but simply an instrument for his own clique to gain power and retain power. He sees it as his own personal or factional fiefdom which somehow he has a God-given right to control as though that were the natural order of things. Any deviation from this is a perversion that is not acceptable. What is really ironic is that the Blairites have only themselves to blame because they were so confident of their impregnable dominance that they ceased to listen to the party and indeed regarded the party as an inconvenience except for money-[raising and door-knocking. Now they are in a state of denial. But what they cannot do, and Mandelson cannot do, is bring the party into disrepute because they cannot get their own way.
It is also worth noting that so much of the reporting since Corbyn’s elevation on the 12th has been misplaced. The media has framed the differences of policy between the leader and an opposed majority within the PLP as a contest in negotiation in which somehow the demands of the PLP will have to be satisfied. But that is not the role of the PLP at all. The members of the PLP are there to represent their constituents and party members, not to act as a force in their own right detached from the views of the wider party. That is not to say that there cannot be frank exchanges and impassioned argument on both policy and the democratic structures of the party, but once the party as a whole has spoken it does not give the right to the PLP to defy the leader and seek to enforce on him policies which have just weeks before been soundly rejected by the wider membership.
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
