NAFEEZ AHMED'S 7/7 BOOK, A REVIEW

[astro3]

THE LONDON BOMBINGS - AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY

- A Review of Nafeez Ahmed’s new book

‘7/7: The Inside Story of the London Bombings’ was the bold title of Mr Nafeez Ahmed’s public address given on August 16th in a London Muslim centre. It was ambitious, and indeed some were heard to murmur at the end that he had not really given any definite answers. Over central issues he remains agnostic. He summarised main themes of his book, which combines devastating critique of police obfuscation over the ‘clues’ and the incoherence of the story they have given, with a belief that somewhere out there, in Europe or maybe Pakistan, ‘Al-Qaeda’ elements plotted and masterminded the event.

But surely, one wants to cry out, if the bombs really were placed under the carriage, as he more than half suggests, and if the police have been telling us absolute baloney for a year over the trains which the four lads are alleged to have caught from Luton, then does not this argue for a source more within British intelligence for the event? He has clearly shown any discerning reader that all the competent bomb-experts in Europe and America first proclaimed (a) that remote-control detonators were used, and then (b) that military-grade explosives were used - and then in mid-July the story changed with no detonators and a home-made explosive called TATP brewed up in a bath, etc. as if all the former conclusions were simply ’inoperative.’ We surely expect Nafeez to conclude that someone is just making up the script on the hoof. But he doesn’t.

Nafeez uses the big words like ’Truth’ in his book titles, and I sometimes feel he writes his books a bit too quickly. Is he avoiding such conclusions merely because they would lose him his publisher? Surely not. Permit me to repeat, what he told Keith Mothersson, that he had wanted to put ‘alleged bombers’ in his book, but his publisher told him that he would not publish it if it had any finger of accusation pointed at British Intelligence. So the four accused became simply ’the bombers.’ He didn’t do this in his talk however, and the speech he read out has to be the best statement anyone has yet made on the subject of July 7th. (But, his book did do this for the July 21st suspects, who remain, thankfully, ‘the alleged bus bomber,’ etc).

The very second sentence of his book - gets it wrong. He has the first blast going off at 8.51 am, at Aldgate east station, whereas it was as far as one can ascertain, at 8.49 am. So why do two minutes matter? Eleven minutes to nine … but maybe that was just the kind of ‘conspiracy-theory’ Nafeez was concerned to avoid? The only possible response to this, is that a true book about July 7th is yet to be written. A member of our 9/11 group in the audience asked him, afterwards, about the terror-drill rehearsal conducted by Peter Powers: his talk had not mentioned it and neither had his book! We there get a hundred pages about terror-networks around the world (by brown-skinned persons) , but nothing about the centrally-relevant terror-drill performed on the morning of July 7th (by white-skinned persons) relating to the very same railway-stations as were attacked.

I’m tempted to say, that Nafeez needs to read Ruppert’s classic ’Crossing the Rubicon’ for the definitive account of how the war-games and terror drills of September 11th metamorphosed into the real thing, but am painfully aware that this might not help a young man into the 2nd year of his PhD and lecturing at Brighton on Political Science. I think (and hope) that he has got a big future, and, if the talk he gave did not quite satisfy anyone, he remains the one figure in the great debate who is respected by all the different sides. ‘Even minor details of the official account remain absurdly impossible’ (ie that released in May of this year) - but tell us Nafeez, why would they have mudded up all these details, if the truth is to be found in these far-flung international ’terror’ networks?

Public Enquiry
The most significant feature of his book may be its clear call for a public enquiry. We do here appreciate hearing the view of a Muslim intellectual. His presence at the CAMPAAC (Campaign Against Criminalizing Communities) group working towards a public enquiry, on which several members of our group are present, will surely help it to succeed. Persons with radically incompatible views are sitting round the same table, and Nafeez’ urbane presence helps to reassure the organisers that a balanced and scholarly view may prevail over invective.

After discussing the official reports from anonymous government sources released this summer, his book concludes: ‘These two documents are little more than an insult to the intelligence of the British people. More than ever, it proves beyond doubt that an independent public enquiry into the London bombings and the events surrounding them is absolutely essential to discovery precisely whet happened on 7/7, how and why; and to ensure that the fundamental reforms necessary to rehabilitate the British national security systems are implemented.’ Hear, hear! Let us hope that momentum towards such a non-partisan public enquiry can continue to develop, and it surely can provided that the factions with differing views can have the humility to acknowledge, like Nafeez, that none of us know exactly what happened on that day.

The Fiendish Threat
We learn about Muslim ‘terrorists’ dedicated to a ‘Jihad’ in which civilians including women and children are fair game, and who expected an event in the summer of 2005, though strangely they were not arrested by the police after their quite public proclamations. The trouble here, is that they did not have much to do with Leeds, and their connection was rather with the Finsbury Park mosque. The author assures us rather casually that Mohammed Khan ‘is known to have frequented’ this mosque. The dates of this are not made clear, but (p.82) a period prior to January 2003 seems indicated. Khan was then working full-time at Hillside Primary school, had just got married, was known as a very public figure in terms of his work for Hamara Healthy Living Centre (which Tony Benn had come up to visit not long before, to inaugurate), and with his pal Tanweer their ‘Mullah group’ was acquiring a local reputation for getting youngsters off narcotic-addiction, which involved organising outdoor expeditions such as boating and mountain-climbing. Is Nafeez sure that Khan would really have had the time or inclination to drive all the way down to Finsbury Park to listen to some ranting mullah? Can he reconcile that with one of the most marked characteristics of Khan as recalled by the many who knew him, namely his lack of interest in religion? The Radio 4 program ‘Biography of a Bomber’ was the most detailed investigation of Khan’s life we are likely to hear about, and none of the persons there interviewed gave any hint that Khan had commuted down to Finsbury Park. We require more corroboration than the mere word of a journalist, which is all that Nafeez offers us, before we will accept that the Leeds suspects were ever sitting in the Finsbury Park mosque.

Nafeez treats the ‘Al Qaeda terror network’ characters in great detail - the longest section of his book - and continually comes back to how they are employed by the MI5 or CIA: ‘Every leading member of al’Qaeda’s Finsbury division - Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada - has according to credible reports, a close relationship to Britain’s security services’ (p.175). A lot of this is of interest but rather doubtful relevance, as we have seen. Al-Zawahiri is the character who features on the Mohammed Khan video of September 2005, widely hyped as Bin Laden’s second-in-command. He was involved in the assassination of the Egyptian premier Anwar Sadat in 1981, after which he escaped safely to London, where the authorities refused pleas by Sadat’s family to have him extradited. He was recruited by the CIA in 1997 (p.203), appropriate for someone on the FBI‘s Most Wanted terror list.

Last year Blair justified the assault on Fallujah by explaining that ‘Zawahiri is operating there,’ i.e. his name had become a convenient one to conjure with. It’s a hall of mirrors. In the analysis of far-flung terrorist groups we learn told of certain persons who are even in touch with (gasp) Osama bin Laden. That ambiguous millionaire died in December 2001 in the Tora Bora mountains, and we do expect Nafeez to recognise lousy, fake, ISI-produced posthumous videos when he sees them.

The Joint Terrorism analysis Centre of MI5 did respond to any such assorted threats, by three weeks before 7/7 lowering their threat-risk assessment, because ‘At present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK’ This was necessary in order that (the language of intent is mine, not Nafeez‘s ) London would be left ‘virtually undefended as police officers were extracted out of London to Greneagles for the G-8 summit.’ (p142). The perps didn’t want ordinary bobbies snooping around. Intelligence expert Crispin Black asked, ‘What kind of pressure was at work on the JTAC when it lowered .. Its threat level on 2 June’? He, as Nafeez put it, unfortunately failed to answer that ‘critical question.’*

I had to laugh at his account of how ‘Hasib Hussein boarded the bus in a panicked last minute decision when the pre-planning was foiled by the suspension of the Northern line that morning.’ Not a word about the mysterious re-routing of this bus to Tavistock Square as the only one so diverted, nor how a London bus driver stopped his bus in order to ask someone the way (and was then startled to look round, and see its top blow off), nor all that marvellous theatrical blood spattered around the BMA’s door, nor that ‘Outright Terror, bold and Brilliant’ for all too see: no, all that constructed theatre somehow slides out of his view, and instead what he sees is a phantom: the image of ‘the bomber,’ unseen by a single credible witness.

Police Prescience
Nafeez does an excellent job of comparing the 21/7 and 7/7 events, with the Home Secretary Clarke warning about the 21/7 event a mere two hours before they happened, warning senior colleagues of ‘another terror onslaught’ in a confidential briefing. Why, how clever of him. Also Scotland Yard somehow knew that the next event would also be on a Thursday: police chiefs independently ‘deduced the attack would probably be on a Thursday.’ On the morning of 21st just before the event, armed police raced to Farringdon Station to close in on a suspected bomber but ‘alas’ narrowly missed - i.e. they knew where it would happen, as well as when. As Nafeez comments, if they had such detailed foreknowledge as to where and when the event would happen, why was the public not warned? Benjamin Netenyahu’s well-publicised foreknowledge (by six minutes) of the 7/7 event is here ascribed to a tip by Scotland Yard, so the police apparently knew when both events were going to happen. One feels they should be invited to say a bit more about this remarkable prescience.

In the Acknowledgements Nafeez alludes to Akeela ’for her love, which keeps me alive.’ Phew, do we get to meet this Akeela? But sorry, I digress. University political-science students are going to be using this book as a reference and it seems to be on course as the only volume on the topic of which this could be said. Let’s not even mention Milan Rai’s effort here, and any forthcoming opus on the subject by a member of our group may be finding the Truth but will inevitably lack a decent publisher. Nafeez’ book does not contain anything of substance that is as such untrue, and that may be important. As his first book was plugged by Gore Vidal, this one is hailed by John Pilger, and that is quite a track record to emulate.


………………………………................
* The book lacks both an index and a bibliography. Eg, ref. 270 is to 'Black, 7-7: What went wrong? Op. cit.’ and one has to comb through previous references to find this reference, which is stressful. Worse, chunks of references appear as deleted for legal reasons so it may not even be present.

[Kier]

This was interesting to read. I was not present at the meeting, but have heard bits and pieces from people who were. Judging from what they say, and also from Astro3's post here, I think I would have found it rather frustrating.

Astro3 wrote:

[alkmyst]

Part of the following was first posted on 4th July 2006

First Nafeez Ahmed attempts to portray the events of 9/11 as LIHOP, now his latest contribution attempts to present the mythical Al Qaeda as having thousands of supporters amongst the British Muslim community!

If this leap of faith isn't enough, he then prostitutes the basic tenets of empirical research by suggesting that despite the lack of evidence supporting the official version of what supposedly occurred on 7/7, "... on balance, ... they probably did it."

Nafeez Ahmed's latest work of intellectual dishonesty is yet another demonstration of the fact that nobody is ever awarded a Ph.D by disagreeing with the establishment.

Nafeez is apparently as much of an adherent to the basic principles of scientific investigation as Tony Blair is to transparency in Government.

Maybe once Nafeez is actually awarded his Ph.D, he might demonstrate a greater degree of intellectual honesty. In reality, as he is likely to pursue a career in academia and continue to remain reliant on State funding for his livlihood, this is an unlikely prospect.

Nafeez's prolific analyses of international affairs are about as meaningful and insightful as trying to portray Ariel Sharon as a misunderstood philanthropist.

Meanwhile, Nafeez & Milan Rai are two authors whose books reside on my 'Shelf of Shame'.

Nafeez appears to be trying to be all things to all men and is getting a reputation for agreeing with whomever he happens to be speaking with. From sharing a drink with the lovely Rachel North and reportedly agreeing with her concerns, vis a vis the conspiraloons; to telling Keith Mothersson that he wanted to use the term alleged bombers in his recent book, only to be over-ruled by his publishers!

Did the publishers also request that he remove any mention of Peter Power's co-incidental parallel exercise ...or any of the other glaring omissions of anything that might bring him into controversy with the 'Blowback' theory?

The bottom line is that just like Milan Rai before him, Nafeez does not include anything in his books which would initiate a process of metanoia. A practice which will certainly ensure that he is unlikely to endure the stress and trauma experienced by some of his more intellectually honest colleagues in stateside academia.

Meanwhile, I am left wondering who finances the Institute of Policy Research & Development? Whoever appointed Nafeez Ahmed as the Executive Director was apparently determined to ensure that the leadership of this organisation remains unencumbered by real experience or the application of critical thought!

One can only wonder if Nafeez is being groomed as the Noam Chomsky of the UK!

Al K Myst

[brian]

alkmyst, well said. I see no reason for pussy footing around the fact that Nafeez Ahmed has made himself part of the problem by giving credence to the blowback scenario.

[ian neal]

My two-penneth worth is that Alkmyst's analysis is harsh.

I give Nafeez the benefit of the doubt

On 9/11, the LIHOP/MIHOP schism started around the very public attacks of certain campaigners on the makers of '9/11 In plane site' and the 'disinfo' name calling of people who relied on the physical evidence.

To the best of my knowledge, Nafeez has never criticised other campaigners for their approach and has not and does not dismiss MIHOP. The fact that his War on Terror book focuses on the air defense and intelligence failures and the wider political picture is merely strategy to get the message out there as far as I can tell, since this evidence is extremely strong and verfiable in these areas.

I only wish that Chomsky was saying half what Nafeez is saying instead parroting back the 'official truth'.

As for the problems with his book on 7/7, factual errors should be acknowledged and corrected but again I can believe the reports that alleged bombers was changed to bombers on the publishers request. Having read the book I'm glad it is out there. Sure it may not please every one, but consider it a stalking horse paving the way for more definitive accounts.

This has led him to be described as LIHOP. But this LIHOP/MIHOP division is largely artificial since LIHOP means MIHOP: if the US authorities knew about and assisted in allowing 9/11 happen, this is equally damning as if they had planned and executed the whole thing.

There are many other far more prominent people on the progressive or left of politics whose position on 9/11 and 7/7 demands far harsher scrutiny and criticism: Tony Benn, John Pilger, the gorgeous one and so on

As for Rachel North's chat with Nafeez about the dangers of conspiraloons: take that with a big pinch of salt

[sonic]

I tend to support Alkymst's reasoning,

Peace,

Sonic.



Who will guard the guards?

[sonic]

What has John Pilger or Tony Ben ever said about 911 that is significant? as far as 911 or 7/7 are concerned, I would love to know. They have spoken on many other political issues, but on these I know of little.

These are two people greatly respected by many including myself, and I have read much of Pilger's work and articles, yet I don't hear him calling for a new investigation into 911 etc.

If anyone can enlighten me differently I would be happy to receive it?

Indeed the silence from such respected writers leaves one wondering...why???

Peace,

Sonic.

Who will guard the guards?

[scubadiver]

I am halfway through "The War on Truth" and most of the stuff in "The London Bombing" is in that book.

The one criticism I do have generally of Nafeez is that he tends to repeat lines often (maybe within the space of 2 or 3 paragraphs). Whether that is to drill the information into the reader I don't know but his writing style could improve a bit.

Having said that, his research is extremely thorough.


I think I will do a book review of "The War on Truth" for my work's internal newsletter - anonymously of course!

[numeral]

Ian Neal wrote "I can believe the reports that alleged bombers was changed to bombers on the publishers request."

Is not it strange that the suggestion that the four might not have been suicide bombers is so strongly resisted from diverse quarters? The issue to bang away at seems to me to be this.

[policyresearch]

hi there

someone kindly pointed out the existence of this discussion about my presentation. unfortunately i don't have time to contribute in any meaningful way.

but i will say that i'm disappointed at the resort of some to character assassination, simply because they disagree with me. A person's particular perspective of 7/7 or 9/11 truth is not a religious faith by which one can gauge moral integrity. it's a matter for constructive and critical debate. the bizarrely vitriolic attitude adopted by some here is a recipe for keeping your campaign movement as marginal as possible. if you can't stomach researchers like me, then how the hell are you going to deal with the vast majority of people whose knee-jerk reaction to these sorts of questions is to scream "conspiraloon" louder than you can say "inside job"?

disagreement is cool, and reasoned argument backed by actual evidence to show why i (or anyone else) is wrong on certain issues is welcome. but i'd kindly request people who have issues with my work to engage in a reasoned dialogue, and if possible to actually include me in it, rather than reacting with vitriolic paranoid speculation about as provable as the official narrative itself. unfortunately i can't promise to participate fully in these discussions, but i'm more likely to try if i'm not the subject of weird derogatory remarks!

as for the reservations and critical remarks of others made calmly and rationally, i welcome this sort of approach and would be happy to try, when i can, to engage in a fruitful exploration of these issues.

in any case, thought i'd attach the actual written paper which i used to give my talk so you guys can have something substantial to centre your critical discussion around. i've also cut and pasted below but the results have no formatting and no references, so you're better of looking at the attachment.

best
nafeez

===


7/7: The Inside Story of the London Bombings

What do Terrorist Extremists and Western Intelligence Services Have in Common?

© Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed


1. Introduction

Last year on 7th July 2005, bombs went off on three London Underground stations, and on a bus in Tavistock Square, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700. For anyone wanting to understand how and why this happened, we have basically the following three main sources of information in the public record.

1. The House of Commons Intelligence & Security Committee Report into the attacks.
2. The Whitehall “narrative” of events – both released on 11th May this year.
3. And we have the evidence from media reports, which are themselves based on the statements of government, security and police officials, as well as some press reports based on eyewitness accounts.

Together, these three sources of information make up the bulk of what we may call the “official narrative”, that is, the explanation and description of events related to 7/7 that has been released by the authorities.

Together, these sources of information converge on a single, central thesis: This was an attack by a cell of four home-grown terrorists. There is no evidence that they were connected to a wider network, no firm evidence that they were radicalized by anybody else, no evidence of any al-Qaeda connection. These people were, we are told, most probably self-radicalized. The attacks were planned in isolation and the method of the attacks was relatively unsophisticated. The implication is that anybody, in particular any British Muslim, could be similarly inspired to become a suicide bomber.

Apart from the sources mentioned, most of us aren’t privy to any further information. Impartial examination of these three main sources of information, however, reveals some startling things.

1. The two reports approved by the government are riddled with internal problems, consisting mainly of unresolved inconsistencies and inexplicable gaps.
2. The two reports are often contradictory to a wealth of other evidence in the public record, largely press reports, deriving also from official police and intelligence sources.
3. Finally, the evidence published by the media also suffers from unresolved anomalies, some of them quite trivial, and some of them very serious.

Now it is clear that in such a “multi-rolling news story”, there will inevitably be some contradictions and mistakes. However, detailed and precise analysis of exactly the kinds of contradictions we’re dealing with here shows that this is simply not a sufficient explanation. There is no single element of the official narrative of 7/7 that is free from reasonable contention on the basis of credible evidence in the public record.

These include firstly, technical-logistical aspects of the bombings; secondly, the social and ideological background of the four identified bombers; and thirdly, British intelligence and security policies toward these individuals and the networks they associated with.

What I’m now going to do is explore in some detail the nature of these problems with the official narrative. In doing so, it will become clear that the official narrative isn’t simply replete with random inconsistencies. On the contrary, a close inspection shows that the official narrative has undergone a number of marked shifts and breaks. These are so conspicuous that they require a full explanation from the government. That is simply not going to happen without an independent public inquiry.

2. Physical Anomalies

Let’s start with the first set of issues, technical-logistical. We have all sorts of anomalies about the types of explosives used in the attacks, the nature of the explosions, and even about the chronology of the movements of the bombers on the day, as well as other issues.

Military-grade explosives

I will start by addressing the issue of explosives. Within hours of the attacks, forensic experts were combing the bomb sites to find out precisely what had happened. One day after the attacks, Vincent Cannistaro, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism centre, told the Guardian that forensic investigators had discovered “mechanical timing devices” at the bomb scenes.

On the same day, British security officials told ABC News that:

Police also have recovered what they believe are the remnants of timing devices on the subway explosions, leading them to believe they were not suicide bombs but explosives planted in packages or bags and left behind. Officials now believe that all the bombs on subway cars were detonated by timing devices.

Based on this forensic discovery, police concluded that the bombs had been activated automatically to a pre-planned timescale.

Other reports in the ensuing week suggested that the bombs were of military origin. On 12th July 2005, Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of the French Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that, ‘The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying’. According to The Times, similar components from the explosive devices found at all four murder sites have led ‘detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans’.

Citing British forensic scientists involved in the investigation, The Times reported six days after the attacks, ‘Traces of military plastic explosive, more deadly and efficient than commercial varieties, are understood to have been found in the debris of the wrecked Underground carriages and the bus.’ According to one scientist, ‘You keep hearing that terrorists can easily make a bomb from using instructions on the internet. You can, but not of the design and sophistication of these devices. These were well put together, and it would appear the bomb-maker has highly developed skill’. Investigators also confirmed that the trigger device was ‘almost identical’ to those in the rucksack bombs used in the Madrid bombings in March 2004.

TATP

The coherent picture emerging consistently from independent sources involved directly in the investigation suggested that the attacks were a highly sophisticated and well-coordinated operation carried out by a veteran terrorist network with international dimensions, in particular with links to the Balkans. Indeed, it went beyond that. Early on, British investigators told the Sunday Herald that they had identified North Africa and Central Asia as key regions harbouring the masterminds and plotters linked to the 7/7 cell.

But in mid-July, the story suddenly shifted. Police said that they discovered homemade explosives made from acetone peroxide – known as TATP – in a house in Leeds described as a ‘bomb-making factory’. Somehow, the purported discovery of TATP residue in Leeds was portrayed as meaning that all the bombs detonated on 7 July 2005 were actually made from household chemicals.

By 22 July 2005, Janes Terrorism & Insurgency Centre alleged that ‘preliminary forensic testing’ at the Leeds property as well as at ‘the scenes of the 7 July terrorist attacks in London have identified traces of Triacetonetriperoxide (TATP), a powerful homemade explosive’ The Janes report, however, continued as follows, ‘Further testing by explosives forensic experts will still be necessary to confirm the presence of TATP’. So TATP had still not been confirmed. Similarly, a police source who told the Daily Mail that TATP was found in Leeds, also conceded that ‘police were still carrying out tests to establish its exact make-up and to see whether there was any link to the substance used by the four London bombers.’ . In other words, tests had not confirmed whether the substance was indeed TATP; nor that the substance was the same as that detected at the London blast sites.

If TATP had been found, why such vague statements? If the explosives used at the London Underground were made from household chemicals, why did the government’s forensic scientists confirm up to a week after the attacks that they were military-grade plastic explosives from the Balkans? How can we make sense of this inexplicable shift in official statements?



TATP Inconsistent with Bomb Blasts


The homemade TATP explosives theory seems to be physically inconsistent with the actual nature and impact of the four explosions on 7 July 2005. As the New Scientist observes, TATP is an explosive which “blows up without flames”, and “does not burn when it detonates.” Instead, its molecules ‘simply fall apart’ without producing heat. Research by scientist Ehud Keinan from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa proves that TATP’s explosive force ‘comes from a rapid release of gas rather than a burst of energy’.

Eyewitness testimony and the physical injuries sustained by victims prove that, to the contrary, the London bombs produced immense energy in the form of heat and flames in a manner that appears to be at odds with the properties of a putative TATP explosion. Jack Linton, who was on the Aldgate train, recalled that, ‘Twenty seconds after the train started, there was a massive blast – really, really loud. Outside, sparks and flames burnt up the side of the carriage.’ Survivors of the explosion at Edgeware Road described the bombed-out train carriage as ‘just black’ from burning. ‘It was charcoal.’ According to Alastair Wilson, clinical director of Royal London Hospital’s Accident & Emergency department, many victims suffered from burn injuries, ‘They were typical blast injuries, a lot of burns, burns in the lungs making it difficult for the patients to breathe.’


Bombs underneath carriages

The nature of the explosions is also contentious. A number of eyewitnesses who survived the train blasts, for instance, reported that they believed the explosions had occurred from underneath the train carriages. One of the most detailed testimonials in this regard came from Bruce Lait, a dancer who works in Cambridge, who miraculously survived the blast on the train near Aldgate East Station along with his dance partner, Crystal Main. Lait told the Cambridge Evening News that as they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been. ‘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.’ Lait and his dance partner were reportedly closest in the carriage to where the bomb had detonated.

An off-duty police officer, Lizzie Kenworthy, who survived the train blast at Aldgate, describes how among the victims of the explosion she saw ‘a woman… who was on her back trapped in the metal, which had twisted up through the middle of the carriage. The roof was still on, but the lining of the carriage had been blown off. The sides had also come off and there was a big hole in the floor.’

Sean Baran, who had trained as a rescue worker in the US after 9/11 and who helped injured blast victims after departing a bus near the station, recalled that, ‘One gentleman told me the floor of the train had blown up.’

The majority of the eyewitness accounts available in the public record are consistent with the notion that the explosions occurred from beneath the carriages. However, it is important to note that not all eyewitness accounts converge on this point. For example, Rachel North, who was on the Piccadilly Line train near Kings Cross, and who organised the survivor group Kings Cross United, says that the bomb was detonated inside the carriage. She confirms that many other survivors also believe this to be the case.

This leaves us with a significant difficulty. Eyewitness testimony can, of course, be wrong, either way. The problem is that the official narrative has shown no sign of having attempted to explain the discrepancies in these accounts, or even acknowledged that there are accounts contradicting the narrative.

Chronological Errors

Many of us will be aware that Home Secretary Dr. John Reid has now admitted in parliament that the government’s narrative of the attacks was incorrect on the chronology. He admitted that the narrative states wrongly that Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay left Luton station at 7.40am on 7th July last year to arrive in time to be photographed by CCTV in Kings Cross at 8:26AM. After the attacks, the police issued two mutually inconsistent stories to the media, both purporting to be based on material evidence. The first was that the four had taken the 7:40am train. The second story was that they had taken the 7:48am train. Police cited CCTV and eyewitness evidence as the basis for both findings. The Whitehall “narrative” published in May repeated the 7:40am account.

But both times are false. In reality, the 7:48 am train on 7th July 2005 was delayed and reached Kings Cross well after 8:26AM. The 7:40AM train was cancelled. As Dr. Reid now concedes, they could only have taken one earlier train from Luton which departed at 7:25AM and arrived in Kings Cross at 8:23AM.

Admitting that the error “may be of concern”, Dr Reid ordered a report from police into how this sort of inaccuracy was perpetuated for more than a year. So far we’ve had no further enlightenment on how that could happen, on such a seemingly trivial issue. However, trivial, its significance should not be understated – for more than a year, the police and the government had been propagating a chronologically impossible narrative of events. Moreover, they had repeatedly claimed to have physical evidence – CCTV footage and eyewitness testimony – in support of this impossible narrative.

This leaves us with a rather worrying question. What else about the narrative remains untrue or perhaps even impossible? Although the government has often cited compelling physical evidence to justify their claims, it is quite possible that either this evidence is mistaken, has been misinterpreted, or is simply non-existence.



Suicide Theory Undermined

One of the most central tenets of the official narrative, that this was a suicide bombing, is also questionable. Five days after the bombings, police officials declared – as quoted in The Guardian and elsewhere -- that: “The London terror bombings were the first suicide attacks on British soil and were carried out by home-grown terrorists.” But despite the official police position, four days after this announcement intelligence sources privately told the Mirror that they believed: “Whoever is behind this didn’t want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they’d walk away.” The evidence against the suicide theory, said the newspaper, is “compelling…

“The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry ‘Allah Akhbar!’ – ‘God is great’ - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb. Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material. Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again. Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.”

Further evidence seemingly undermining the official suicide theory emerged in leaks from MI5 sources in mid-May 2006. As the Sunday Times reported: “MI5 had secret tape recordings of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the gang leader, talking about how to build the device and then leave the country because there would be a lot of police activity.” The article raises significant questions. It suggests firstly that Khan was monitored quite closely by British intelligence, and secondly that he may not have intended to kill himself in the attack, but had instead contemplated leaving the country afterwards. Perhaps Khan changed his mind after the MI5 recording and decided to become a martyr. On the other hand, at face value the Times report suggests the possibility that the bombers were not necessarily aware of all aspects of the terrorist plot. The implication is that the government is trying to conceal the involvement of a wider veteran terrorist network.

Having surveyed so many major and minor anomalies in the government’s story of what happened on the day itself, we are left with very little that we can rely on with certainty. Although some of the 7/7 survivors are regularly briefed by police and security officials about the findings of the criminal investigation, the public at large do not have this opportunity; we are left in the dark to try and make some sense out of a pile of absurdities and anomalies. On this basis, some observers don’t feel confident at all about any element of the government’s story.

Take the statement of the late Professor John K. Galbraith, who was Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government & Business at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, and a senior scholar of the Levy Economics Institute. Three weeks after the attacks, Professor Galbraith wrote an article in American Prospect magazine, where he argued that reasonable doubt about the official story is not merely reasonable, but overwhelming. He went so far as to suggest that the evidence available in the public record would not stand in a court of law. I think it’s plain for us to see that he is probably right.


2. Social and Ideological Anomalies

What about the social and ideological background of Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay. The government’s account downplays the notion that these individuals operated as part of a wider al-Qaeda terrorist network, insisting that there “is as yet no firm evidence to corroborate this claim or the nature of Al Qaida support, if there was any.” Although speculating about the cursory liaison with al-Qaeda members during visits to Pakistan, the report focuses on the role of Mohamed Sidique Khan in indoctrinating and radicalizing the group.

The Biggest Terrorist Recruitment Drive in British History

In fact, all the evidence available in the public record shows that Khan and his colleagues were members of a UK-based al-Qaeda network. They were, for instance, according to reports in the Times and elsewhere, members of the extremist group known as al-Muhajiroun, headed by Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been exiled to Lebanon. Although officially banned and disbanded, al-Muhajiroun continues to operate in the UK to this day under different names, the Saved Sect and Al-Ghuraabah.

Numerous other al-Muhajiroun members and associates had repeatedly boasted in the years prior to the attacks that hundreds of them had undergone training in al-Qaeda camps with a view to return to Britain to carry out possible terrorist attacks against British targets.

British officials have often said that the number of Islamist terrorists or potential terrorists inside the UK is more than 1,000, and possibly up to 3,000. Out of these, they say, there is a hardcore group of about several hundred or so, actively involved in or planning terrorist activities both inside and outside Britain.

I am going to tell you that, for once, British officials are probably right. But you may wonder, how the hell do they know this, where does this figure comes from. I’ll tell you why – because they let it happen.

During the post-9/11 Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan, large numbers of British Muslims were radicalized by extremist preachers linked to the Finsbury Park mosque, most of whom were leading members of Omar Bakri’s al-Muhajiroun organization. These people were recruiting British Muslims to participate in training camps in pakistan and afghanistan (and elsehwere) to fight alongside the taliban and al-qaeda. Between late 2001 and early 2002, al-Muhajiroun leaders told the British newspapers that at least 1,000 people (probably more) were being trafficked through Pakistan to Afghanistan. They made no secret of what they were doing. The BBC, the Telegraph, the Evening Standard and independently corroborated the scale of the operation. Hassan Butt, for instance, warned that the British al-Qaeda volunteers “may return to Britain to launch terrorist attacks against government and military targets,” a veritable ‘ “new phase” of terrorism in their British homeland.’ In a BBC interview from Pakistan, he remarked, ‘If they do return, I do believe they will take military action within Britain,’ targeting ‘British military and government institutes, as well as British military and government individuals… I have always been in favour of this.’ Al-Muhajiroun, in other words, had coordinated an international terrorist training and recruitment drive on British soil, under the nose of British authorities, who simply refused to do anything about it despite overwhelming anti-terrorist powers.

When British military intelligence went to Afghanistan later on in 2002, they found the “names, addresses and other details” of these recruits during searches of the Tora Bora cave complex in Afghanistan. Apart from those who died in combat, the recruits ‘are now thought to have returned to Britain’, said the Telegraph. “Special Branch detectives fear that some of the men who cannot be traced could be plotting terrorist attacks in Britain.’ But what about those who could be traced? Inexplicably, British authorities have done little or nothing to interview or investigate – let alone arrest or charge and prosecute – these individuals.

The four identified bombers were members of this extremist network associated with al-Muhajiroun and overseen by Omar Bakri Mohammed. By the year 2003, a single network of extremists linked to al-Muhajiroun was in contact with a senior al-Qaeda operative, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, who was later arrested and detained in Pakistan in May 2005. US investigators called into interrogate him told the press that al-Libbi admitted that “the London mass transit system was a likely target for an attack.” He also confirmed that terrorists were planning to attack targets in the US.

Compelling evidence indicates that Bakri was personally involved, as he had advanced warning of al-Qaeda attack plans to target London. In April 2004, Bakri told a Portuguese newspaper that an organization called “al-Qaeda Europe” using a cell in London, was planning an imminent terrorist attack. This is utterly ignored by the government. Similarly ignored is the fact Khan and his colleagues were members of Bakri’s group, illustrating that Bakri may even have had a direct role in radicalizing the four and facilitating their activities. Similarly ignored is the fact that Omar Bakri told his followers over the internet in January 2005 that Britain was now a legitimate target of al-Qaeda terrorist activity due to the arrest of people like Abu Hamza, whose trial had been originally scheduled for 7th July 2005. Other evidence from a Times investigation shows that some of the four had attended Finsbury Park mosque and were inspired by Abu Hamza’s inflammatory preaching. Abu Hamza and Bakri cooperated closely to oversee UK extremism.

But the government has ignored and downplayed all mention of the role of Hamza, Bakri and other operatives in the Finsbury network, in relation to the 7/7 attacks. Despite Scotland Yard’s recent insistence that those who knew about the attacks might face prosecution, Bakri escaped investigation when the government decided to put him permanently outside of British jurisdiction.

All the evidence, in other words, strongly indicates that the government is not in the dark about the extremists operating in the UK, but is on the contrary well-acquainted with them, monitors them closely, and knows their leadership. So in that context, why is the government downplaying these issues? Why did the government allow Omar Bakri to facilitate the recruitment and terrorist training of over a thousand British Muslims? Why did it take measures that effectively protected Bakri from investigation, and avoided implicating Abu Hamza?

Three Terrorist-Extremist MI6 Informants

One of the close compadres of Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza is a man called Haroon Rashid Aswat. Aswat, who used to be Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard. He was believed by both British and US investigators to have been the key senior al-Qaeda operative who masterminded the London bombings. The connection was established through records of telephone conversations between Aswat and Sidique Khan, many of which occurred on the morning of 7th July 2005. Police officials described the contents of these conversations to the Times and other media in some detail, suggesting that Aswat had provided bomb-making expertise and other planning assistance. Suddently, US intelligence sources revealed that Haroon Aswat was an MI6 double agent. The revelation first came from former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus in an interview with FOX News. It was quickly corroborated by US and French investigators. Almost immediately, British authorities backtracked and began denying that Aswat had anything at all to do with 7/7. Meanwhile, the Americans and the French still describe Aswat as the chief suspected 7/7 mastermind.

Aswat is not the only one. John Loftus, supported by the statements of American and French intelligence officials, reports that Aswat’s colleagues, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri, were all used in an MI6 operation to recruit British Muslims to fight in Kosovo in the 1990s.


3. Collaboration with Islamist Extremists

And this is where we come to the biggest untold story behind 7th July 2005. It’s pretty well-known that the United States, Britain and some Western European powers funded, armed and trained bin Laden’s mujahideen, though our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But we are routinely told that after the Cold War, we had nothing more to do with bin Laden and his terror network. Now, Osama bin Laden is our enemy and we are at war with al-Qaeda.




Strategy of Destabilization

But abundant documentation based on intelligence sources shows that this is not the whole truth. After bin Laden had kicked the Soviets out, elements of the CIA recognized the value of his unique genius -- the ability to destabilize -- which could still be useful for US covert interests. As one CIA analyst told Swiss TV journalist Richard Labeviere, chief editor at Radio France International:

“The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.”

US military intelligence planners clearly saw remarkable potential for the bin Laden doctrine of Islamist destabilization to counter US rivals in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Central Asia. In all these regions, British and American intelligence in particular manipulated Islamist terrorist networks to control strategic resources, mainly oil and gas. Many of the networks supported abroad, however, have operatives residing inside the UK, who due to their utility to British foreign policy goals were and are protected.

Azerbaijan

In 1991, the first Bush administration wanted an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan, across the Caucasus, to Turkey. That year, three US Air Force officers, Richard Secord, Heinie Aderholt, and Ed Dearborn, landed in Baku, and set up a front company, “MEGA Oil.” They were frequently used by the CIA in covert operations, and were formerly active in Laos and later with Lt. Col. Oliver North’s Contra scandal. In Azerbaijan, they setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of al-Qaeda mujahedin from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan.

By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited 2,000 mujahideen, and armed them with thousands of dollars of weapons. The covert operation contributed to the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey in 1993, and installed US puppet Heidar Aliyev. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times confirmed that “two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC [Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium], are behind the coup d’etat.”

Bosnia

In the same year, al-Qaeda operatives bombed the World Trade Center. But that didn’t stop the US from applying the same principles elsewhere. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon, with active British complicity, flew thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. That process was documented in an Appendix to the official Dutch inquiry into the Srebrenica genocide, authored by Professor Cees Wiebes. The mujahideen were “accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment,” according to intelligence sources. Bin Laden’s mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon “to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives.”

The west was supposed to be involved on humanitarian grounds -- but the truth is that the mujahideen aggravated ethnic conflict and destabilized the former Yugoslavia into violent collapse. A horrified western public quickly approved NATO involvement, guaranteeing a US military presence on Russia’s doorstep.

Kosovo

The pattern extends to Kosovo, where ethnic violence broke out between Albanians and Serbs. Again, NATO had supposedly intervened on humanitarian grounds on behalf of Kosovan Albanians in March 1999. But as with Bosnia, the West escalated violence, again, using networks linked to al-Qaeda.

In 1998, the KLA was listed by the State Department as a “terrorist organization”, financed by bin Laden. US, Albanian and Macedonian intelligence reports prove that KLA fighters train in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and Albania, and sponsor border crossings into Kosovo from Albania, of hundreds of al-Qaeda mujahideen from Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan. Ralf Mutschke, Assistant Director of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Directorate, said that one KLA commander was an emissary of bin Laden himself, sent to lead “an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict”.

Despite this, British SAS and American Delta Force instructors were training KLA fighters as early as 1996. The CIA supplied military assistance up to and during the 1999 bombing campaign, including military training manuals and field advice, under the cover of OSCE ceasefire monitors.

In the same period, al-Qaeda pulled off the 1998 US embassy bombings in Keyna and Tanzania. One of the conspirators, former US Army Sergeant Ali Mohamed, was a close associate of bin Laden’s own right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Egyptian Islamic Jihad chief and al-Qaeda operations commander. Al-Zawahiri, we should note, is consistently spliced into the recently released al-Qaeda videotapes of the Khan and Tanweer. According to Yossef Bodansky, former Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, a CIA emissary identified only as “al-Amriki” (the American) approached al-Zawahiri in the first half of November 1997, offering him $50 million if he ensured that al-Qaeda protected US interests in the Balkans.

That unholy alliance was active during and after the 1998 terrorist attacks. What disturbed Bodanksy most about it was that the CIA was talking only about al-Zawahiri’s cooperation with US forces in the Balkans. “Nothing was said about transferring the Islamist Jihad to other ‘fronts’”, he said, such as “Egypt, Israel, or the heart of America, for that matter”. Or, we should add, to the heart of Britain.




Macedonia

When the KLA began operating in Macedonia under the banner of the “National Liberation Army” (NLA) its links with al-Qaeda were as strong as ever. US, Macedonian, Albanian and Yugoslav intelligence confirm that Bin Laden has personally overseen the establishment of NLA training camps, and sent hundreds of mujahideen to join the group.

Yet the NLA still receives US military assistance. Scott Taylor -- Canada’s top war reporter and former soldier -- after a visit to Tetovo in 2001, remarked: “there is no denying the massive amount of material and expertise supplied by NATO to the guerrillas.”

So why the Balkans? Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, then commander of NATO troops in the region, summed it up nicely in 1999: “We will certainly stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the safety of the energy corridors which cross Macedonia.” The General was talking about the Trans-Balkan pipeline passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania, planned to be the main route to the west for Central Asian oil and gas. NATO is thus playing the role of regional security firm for Anglo-American corporate energy interests; and al-Qaeda mujahideen are its willing salesmen.

The Insecurity System

Similar policies of collaboration with Islamist terrorism are active in many other regions as diverse as North Africa, the Caucasus, and Asia-Pacific. These have continued despite the terrible consequences having hit home repeatedly in 1993, 1998, 9/11, and 7/7.

As for Britain, our government’s foreign policy in the Balkans, North Africa and Central Asia toward extremist networks, meant that terrorists at home were given considerable latitude, and only this explains the reluctance of police and security services to prosecute individuals like Abu Hamza, as well as people who are still at large and liaise closely with Omar Bakri, like Abu Izzadeen.

The government does not want the public to know that 7/7 happened because the government actively collaborated with the same terrorist networks involved in the London bombings. The government does not want the public to realize that this system of collaboration gave and still gives safe haven to a huge network of terrorist-extremists overseen by Bakri from Lebanon even now. Those networks could be fundamentally undermined if the well-known extremist preachers and leaders directing them were arrested, charged and prosecuted. But the government refuses to do that, all the while blaming the British Muslim community for harbouring extremists.

To date, we still do not truly know what happened, how and why, on 7th July last year. The full story of the London bombings will not be fully told or understood in the absence of an independent public inquiry. The government fears that such an inquiry, revealing the extent to which state policy itself has undermined British national security, would irreparably damage its political agenda. Instead, the government wants to exploits this dangerous situation of its own making, to consolidate the unaccountable powers of a security bureaucracy that has been fatally, fundamentally politicized.

If the “War on Terror” is to end, it won’t be won by fighting the next futile oil war. It will be won at home: By holding the secretive structures of government to account, by prosecuting responsible officials for aiding and abetting terrorism -- whether knowingly or by criminal negligence -- and ultimately by restoring real democratic oversight over the conduct of covert operations which continue to foster the “enemy” we are supposed to be fighting.

[ian neal]

[Kier]

Nafeez,

As far as I am aware, I have not attacked your character; just expressed frustration at how parts of your book unquestioningly accepts tenuous aspects of the Official Report, such as Hasib Hussain's movements as I have outlined, when your book also acknowledges that the Official Report is flawed and that a lot of witness and forensic evidence contradicts it.

I did not address my post to you personally because at the time of writing you were not a member of this forum. I was not present at your talk, but my two colleagues were, and one made an attempt to talk to you personally, but was interrupted.

You say that all four men suspected of committing the atrocities of July 7th were members of an extremist network associated with al-Muhajiroun, but I can find no evidence to corroborate this. I have seen endless speculation over it by other sources but no concrete proof. Plenty of people are starting from the assumption that these men are guilty as 'charged' then working backwards. In the case of Germaine Lindsay, there is serious doubt over his identity as the man renting 18 Alexandra Grove, as we outlined here. When neighbours spoke of the man they would see coming and going at the flat, they describe a man of mediterranean appearance in his 30's. This does not match the description of Lindsay at all, yet the media reported this man as Lindsay. Furthermore, this other report in the same paper gives an identical physical description but is not referring to Lindsay. There appears to be no reports or investigation into who the man actually was, and what role he might have been playing. Since none of the neighbours of that flat have ever actually described seeing the four suspects there, why should anybody believe they were there?

It is immensely frustrating when what might seem like a triviality to some is completely overlooked. There are so many suspicious and odd aspects to 7/7, and I appreciate, like I said in my first post that you have at least addressed some of them, but I think it is a mistake to assume guilt before there is solid proof and before all the gaps in the account have been closed. I am also wary of assuming guilt on the basis of reports of 'terrorist connections' and videos put together by unlikely-sounding American Muslim converts that are widely accepted as 'confessions' but are in fact extremely ambiguous in content. I would rather see proof that the men were actually in London. We're told they were on the basis of some credit cards. There is not nearly enough witnesses to corroborate the Official Report. Only one man claims to have seen Khan and his testimony is not reported consistently. Nobody has reported seeing Tanweer; the Official Report even resorts to stating "He must have been there", the bus driver doesn't remember seeing Hasib Hussain get on the bus and no bus passengers have reported seeing anybody fitting his description. There are also no witnesses on public record who report seeing Lindsay that day. I would far rather the evidence was released which backs up the official report rather than sit here mired in hypotheses. That is why the July Seventh Truth Campaign launched our petition asking for this very thing.

Kier.

[paul wright]

In other words, nothing has been proved
The government, press,intelligence services,police are found severely wanting in the lack of evidence
In the end there is nothing there except assertion
No wonder an increasing number wanna right wrongs

[brian]

Nafeez, hi,

Personally I cannot undestand how after demonstrating how far fetched the official tale is you appear to conclude this may be explained by the governments reluctance to be seen as being partly responsible by its inaction.

You state -

"The government does not want the public to know that 7/7 happened because the government actively collaborated with the same terrorist networks involved in the London bombings."

What evidence can you provide to back up that any of the implied Islamic terrorist networks were involved? Your own analysis would seem to make that difficult.

Aswat as you say was a British double agent. He was on the terrorist watch list worldwide with the US actively seeking his capture but was, we were told, being protected by the British. He arrives in the UK unhindered and with no surveillance. Why? We were told scarce resources. He leaves unhindered so we can assume the UK authorities do not want him under arrest whilst our allies in the "war on terror" who have him as a dangerous individual were seeking his capture.

As you point out we were then told Aswat made numerous phone calls to the bombers making him a central figure but this all changed when Loftus exposed him as a British agent. To my mind it seems obvious that Aswat was to be the key "legend" free to roam with the protection of certain powerful elements of the UK intelligence. His connection to the bombers suggests he had a job to do which he had done and was free to go. His consequent flagging as the potential mastermind also suggests he was have the finger pointed as the organiser until the Loftus expose.

On this interpretation it has little or nothing to do with Islamic extremists but more a false flag operation conceived and orchestrated by these powerful elements, an operation in which we can only guess at the role of the so called London bombers or even if they themselves knowingly played one.

You state -

"Similar policies of collaboration with Islamist terrorism are active in many other regions as diverse as North Africa, the Caucasus, and Asia-Pacific. These have continued despite the terrible consequences having hit home repeatedly in 1993, 1998, 9/11, and 7/7."

Again this implies blowback - what evidence have you for this?

The FBIs critical involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing was admitted in court and the evidence that September 11 was an inside job is so conclusive it is no longer worth debate.

To my mind the evidence across the board shows clearly the war on terror is a lie and the major acts of this so called terror war have the hands of state agencies all over them. This is not to say there are no potential terrorists out there, given the current policy and actions how could that be, but simply that events such as those in New York, London, Madrid etc were contrived to underpin this lie.

I mean no disrespect but that is how I see it and I believe that giving credence to the blowback scenario is counterproductive to the truth movement.

[Ian T. Gaston]

If 7/7 was blowback from Iraq, what was 9/11, other than the fulfillment of the Neocon desire for a New Pearl Harbour?

[ian neal]

Whilst Milan Rai might argue that 7/7 was blowback for Iraq, but no one here supports such a theory?

[Kier]

Nafeez Ahmed supports the blowback theory. On page 19 of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry, he states:

"7/7 was blowback, not from earlier, discontinued collaboration with Islamists but from current policies" [Italic emphasis by Nafeez Ahmed]

The question of what 9/11 was 'blowback' from is an interesting one. Perhaps we should accept the government line that some Islamic entremists were "jealous of our freedoms"? We are told this regarding 7/7 also. The freedoms that we are continually having removed from us as a result, presumably. It is a situation I find ironic, and film director Alex Cox finds rather concerning.

Incidentally, in response to the issue of addressing questions to Nafeez personally, Nafeez joined our forum just before his book was released to tell us about it, and did come back and contribute to the discussion a couple of times, but then never returned, leaving some comments and questions unanswered. Nafeez was welcomed to the forum and addressed politely on all occasions. On that basis, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that Nafeez would not participate in this discussion, and that comments or criticisms would be made about him rather than to his face. This is, after all, a discussion forum and if people want to express opinions about Nafeez's work they are perfectly entitled to do it without being made to feel they should have sought Nafeez out personally.

I appreciate Nafeez taking the time to come and join discussions. When he came to our forum, I told him that I rated his book higher than others who claimed to give a definitive account with the minimum of research and I stand by that. Milan Rai could not even be bothered to go into the issue of the incorrect train time. In fact, when questioned about this, his response was that since a lot of media had given the train time as 0748, he saw no reason why he should not do the same. At least Nafeez bothered to highlight the anomaly. There are still anomalous details regarding the train, though. Despite the Home Office announcement that the incorrect time had been given and the men had actually taken the 0725, it is extremely odd that no witness claimed to see them on that train, and that this train time was never reported by any media. Even stranger, Scotland Yard claimed they had never given the Home Office the train time, blaming the error in the media and Official Reports on "erroneous first hand witness accounts". Yet with no witnesses, how can this be so? Where else could the Home Office have obtained the train time but from the police who were carrying out the investigation? Furthermore, since it was the police, in the end, according to reports, that draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this error, why did they wait to do it until over a year after the event, and two months after the Official Report's release? I know that you say you can't promise to fully participate in this discussion, but I would be interested to hear what you think about that, Nafeez.

Kier.

[ian neal]

This article explains what Nafeez's book is referring to when he describes blowback

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/08/asian-news-77-c***-up-or-conspiracy .html

Further detail is provided in his book. Whether this was the case with 7/7 is unknown as is so much else, but the relationships between western intelligence/security agencies and groups linked to 'militant islam' / terrorism and the tolerance and 'monitoring' by UK authorities of these groups is surely relevent to the context in which 7/7 took place

[insidejob]

I'm with Nafeez on this one. The fact that he doesn't endorse the inside job theory is an opportunity not a threat.

Nafeez looks at the facts and is willing to look at the criminal, duplicitous behaviour of Western governments that these facts suggests. This search for evidence is genuine. At the meeting, he said that there is insufficient evidence to convict the four ‘bombers’ and Al Qaida is a mercenary group working on behalf of Western geo-political interests. He distances himself from the inside job theory but doesn’t attack it. This is enough to turns on its head most people’s perspectives, which is in support the official theory.

We can come up with our own perspective on the inside job because Nafeez’s view, like ours, is supposition. Indeed, Nafeez admits some weaknesses in his view. He had no answer to the question of why are the Al Qaida mercenaries carrying out attacks, such as 7/7, against their paymasters.

Nafeez’s work is an opportunity precisely because he doesn’t believe the inside job theory. Nafeez is credible to the general, non-Muslim population because he doesn’t accept ‘conspiraloon’ arguments but in the minds of this population his arguments totally undermine the official conspiracy theory and opens them up to the possibility of an inside job. (I suspect that many UK Muslims would strongly argue against his scepticism about an inside job.) In fact, I think it would be good if Nafeez came up with genuine arguments against the inside job theory of 7/7. This website is often faced with pseudo-arguments against 911 that merely waste our time rather than challenge us.

insidejob

[andyb]

I think there is no point criticising anyone for holding a differing view to your own. Nafeez has at least written a book and got it published that will make people question the official narrative and should be applauded for that. Let's not forget that he is a highly respected academic and is highly unlikely to put his career on the line and risk being called a conspiriloon. Nobody really knows what happened and we should not let the MIHOP/LIHOP divisions effect us like thay have done in the US re 9/11. Most MIHOP'ers were LIHOP'ers anyway and should realise this.

I can guarantee you that if you go to someone who believes the offiical line and tell them it was an inside job you will not get anywhere. However if you raise the solid points about the official narrative inconsitencies you are much more likely to open peoples eyes to the need for a full independent inquiry. Nafeez's book and the great research done by the J7 team allow us this opportunity.

[Kier]

I have no opinion on the 'blowback' hypothesis other than what I stated above and to remember that it is, after all, a hypothesis and should never be stated as fact. Just as no hypothesis regarding 7/7 can expect to be accepted where there is no solid proof to back it up.

The idea that the four men accused of perpetrating the July 7th bombings were doing it in response to Western foreign policy appears to be based solely on two videos. One of Mohammad Sidique Khan and one of Shehzad Tanweer, both of them addressing 'us' as if we were citizens of a country foreign to them where they were unaware of the strength of feeling of the majority of the population regarding the Iraq war. They also, rather mystifyingly, both refer to the government of this country as representing the wishes of its people, when both of those men would have been completely aware of the electoral system of this country, having lived here all their lives. To therefore speak in such a way as they do on these videos is frankly absurd.

Omar Bakri Mohammed stated that no distinction is made between innocent and non-innocent, civilian and non-civilian, only between Muslim and non-Muslim. Yet Muslims were killed in the July 7th attacks. Furthermore, the 'you' both men refer to in these videos would also include their own families who were both Muslims and British citizens; the people both men in these videos claim are deserving of slaughter.

A commenter once wrote:

[andyb]

Kier,

I do not disagree, but(inevitable wasn't it) as a tool for campaigning for an inquiry the, Nafeez book is invaluable, as is all the research that has gone into J7!

Cheers
Andy

[Kier]

Hello Andyb,

I have never stated, either on this thread or any other, that Nafeez Ahmed's book does not ask important questions. I commended Nafeez when I first addressed him on the J7 forum for this.
My sole criticism of the book is that there are areas where Nafeez appears to be content to accept certain scenarios occurred on the basis of very flimsy - in some caes non-existent - evidence and does not apply the rigorous analysis he employs in some areas to other areas. I have also stated both in this thead and in the one on the J7 forum, that like you, I believe this book does a better job than the others. Anything that questions the flawed account of 7/7 is good.

One does not have to state that 7/7 was an 'inside job' in order to raise awareness of the many inconsistent and implausible accounts of it. The many anomalies surrounding 7/7 do an adequate job on their own without anybody needing to draw conclusions or force them to fit a hypothesis.

Kier.

[Leiff]

The identical synchronous terror drills (just like 9/11) being a compelling piece of evidence against 'blowback'!

[numeral]

[astro3]

We have a wide spectrum of debate here, from the scholarly comments by Mr Ahmed to those of Alkmyst, whose thought-processes resemble a flea flittering round the head.

Here I'd just like to comment on how Ahmed's recent evaluation of the 'ten planes' alleged terror plot (10th August) -
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/08/truth-about-terror-plot-and-new-pse udo.html
is helpful in directing us how to deconstruct this modern continuation of the 9/11 terror-myth. As he says, the story was initially fabricated under torture by Raschid Rauf in Pakistan, and the rest is just Zionist-media hogwash (sorry that is my comment not Nafeez's).

The suspects had not even bought air tickets, plus we hear of absurd chemistry of their mixing some peroxide with a 'sports drink' to make bombs. This is redolent of the 7/7 story, where amateur chemists were supposed to have brewed up unlikely bomb materials in a bath in Leeds. It is comparable to the July 21st bomb plot, two weeks later, where no bombs were found, nothing blew up, there were no casualties, and then four Muslims were put in jail with no opportunity to hear their view of what happened.

Ahmed's book spends a lot of time with detailed examination of how alleged 'Al-qaeda' terror networks were supported by the CIA and MI5; I suggest that his recent analysis of this contemporary 'hoax' event, for which real Muslims are being blamed, helps to show how this is relevant.

[ian neal]

[Leiff]

numeral

As far as I can tell there were exercises for each of the train explosions.
Check it out...

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=24 7

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/london_exercise_video.html

[Belinda]

I think Nafeez is actually being very shrewd in not presenting the whole truth about 7/7 which he surely privately knows. Nevertheless he has already got the truth movement a whole lot further on having raised strong doubts about the official scenario. His academic prestige is a precious resource which should be valued and protected at this early stage of our activity.

Once 9/11 ‘blows’ (as it’s about to) 7/7 won’t be far behind, hence I’d favour concentrating mightily on the earlier event for the moment. Which is not by any means to belittle the hugely important and very brave research already done by the July 7th people, and Nafeez’s own contribution to that.

Why don’t we talk to Nafeez directly rather than continuing with this oblique altercation via the forum. He’s surely very accessible, he’s been on 9/11 platforms several times. Could Nafeez address us at an informal in-house meeting where we can thrash out some of the points of contention and hear his response? Would you be up for that Nafeez? Hope at least we’ll see you at DRG on the 9th.

PS Bibbing in the pub with Rachel North does not constitute treachery IMO so much as keeping the lines of communication open and building bridges which is very useful, again Nafeez is in a better position to do that than some of us.

[ian neal]