| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
An extract from the Gas Limo's project file:
| The author of terror65-04gaslimos.pdf wrote: | | Perhaps the best example of how a building can be totally gutted by an inferno (blaze) and more was that of the WTC. Here the fire temperature due to the burning of kerosene became so hot that it caused an entire metal meltdown. |
And Al Q commissioned this guy to research a dastardly terror plot ?
I'd demand my money back.
http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/rhyme/terror65-04gaslimos.pdf
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Last edited by Mark Gobell on Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Well yes the Grauniad does make it all appear rather straightforward doesn't it. A genuine mistake or dis-info ?
The Met has it this way:
| The Metropolitan Police wrote: | | terror65-04gaslimos - known as the 'Gas Limos Project', found on a laptop computer during a search of a house in Gujurat, Pakistan. The basis of this project was to explode gas and explosives packed into limousines or other large vehicles in underground car parks in the UK in co-ordinated attacks. The document itself states that research for the project had taken over a year and it had been costed. The document also refers to the Madrid bombings of 11 March 2004 as a 'respectable project' that 'deserved to be emulated'. |
http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/rhyme/index.htm
No Rhyme of Reason why the Grauniad should have got this one wrong is there ? |
There seem to be a number of possibilities:
1. The Guardian reporter misunderstood and thought the laptop was found in the UK, and was Borat's.
2. The laptop found in Pakistan was Borat's.
3. The same information was on both Borat's home computer and the laptop in Pakistan.
4. The Guardian or the Met press office was given wrong information accidentally or deliberately.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big can of worms all round IMO.
At the time of the arrest of Dhiren Barot and the "Luton Cell" in August 2004 the MSM attributed the trigger to be intel provided by computers siezed when Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan was arrested. Allegedly he is Al Q's IT guru and "webmaster". He was picked up in Lahore on 13 July 2004.
The Met say they started watching DB on 15 June 2004 after receiving a tip off from Pakistan.
They may have their dates a little skewed here because they asked ASLEF to alert it's members to the name Dhiren Barot and ASLEF published that alert in a document dated 14 June 2005.
Khan was picked up after the arrest of Musaad Aruchi in Karachi on 12 June 2004. I haven't found any mention of computers in relation to Aruchi's arrest, only Khan's which is incorrectly reported, universally to have taken place in Karachi, hence the laptop in Karachi story.
Maybe everyone got mixed up, or Aruchi did have a laptop and they're just not telling us about it.
Anyway, the files in question were all found on Khan's PC's and dated from 2001.
Pakistan police "flipped" Khan so that he would continue as normal and provide them with further intel to catch even bigger fish.
That lasted until the end of July when the White House chose to make political capital out of the "major Al Q bust" by background briefing journos as justification for ramping up the terror threat assesment just in time to undermine John Kerry's election campaign.
Pakistan and UK intel services were furious with the White House, even Blunkett was said to be hopping mad that the newly acquired major asset Khan had his cover blown for political expediency by Bushco, to ramp up the terror threat on 3 year old intel.
The Khan bust was out by 1st August in Washington and published by the New York Times on August 2nd.
The next day Dhiren Barot and the Luton Cell were arrested.
Which is a story in itself given that the Met have said that they had lost the slippery professional anti-surveillance character Barot by the end of July. Yet, incredibly fortuitously they just happened to bump into him again on August 3 just at the right time before he could be alerted that Khan was now singing and likely to blow DB's cover.
Equally fortuitous is the fact the security savvy Barot should carelessly leave evidence laying around on hard drives in his garage which the Met have no trouble finding, yet which the Met are at pains to establish as having been worked as late as July 2004.
Must have been right before he gave them the slip then I guess.
Equally fortuitous is that the timing of a case was triggered by the political needs of the Bush election campaign in 2004 should conclude via a timely guilty plea, just in time for breakfast in the USA on the very day of another Bush election in 2006.
Interesting too that at the time of the arrests in August 2004 the Met publicly stated that the surveillance videos were acquired by DB and one other suspect on February 19 2001 which, coincidentally is the very day that the Terrorism Act 2000 became law, Section 58 of which made it an offence to posess or create electronic records that could be useful to a terrorist.
Since the earlier claim of Feb 19 2001 the video acquisition date has morphed into April 2001.
Maybe the PC clock was a little spurious.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: |
Equally fortuitous is the fact the security savvy Barot should carelessly leave evidence laying around on hard drives in his garage which the Met have no trouble finding, yet which the Met are at pains to establish as having been worked as late as July 2004.
|
That bit at least is easily explained, we are always being told that the masterminds of complex plots are liable to make careless errors. For instance it is said that Larry Silverstein carelessly mentioned pulling down WTC7, Rumsfeld carelessly let slip that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and the meticulous planning of 9/11 itself was let down by carelessly arranging the demolition of three buildings in such a way that anyone watching a video of it on a computer can immediately tell that the collapse was due to demolition charges and not to the fires. Carelessly failing to dispose of your old hard drives pales into insignificance.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course there is the possibility that DB was careless although it is not consistent with the picture painetd of him by the Met, this careful, surveillance and security aware character that managed to elude our "security" services just at the time when they wanted to watch him most.
This is a chap who allegedly travels from Swindon to London just to use the internet.
Also, the hard drives were not "old" as the Met claim the data on them was being worked on up until July 2004, shortly before DB is alleged to have given them the slip at the end of July and only one or two weeks before he was arrested.
Hardly "old" hard drives, very current I would say.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: Re: A number of reasons |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Are you doubting that Guy Fawkes was guilty? Will you start a campaign? I can see the banners now: Guy Fawkes is innocent - Bonfire Night a mistake!
The Birmingham Six did not plead guilty, in court they repudiated the confessions they said had been written by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and they had been forced to sign. In their third appeal, the court accepted that.
The answer to your question is that you are convicted with no evidence if you plead guilty, the prosecution then simply goes through what has been established about the crime.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. That is what he pleaded guilty to, no doubt because of the weight of evidence against him. |
If you pick up any Year 8 History book for 12 year olds, they also doubt it. But hey who cares about evidence when you have bonfires...
The Birmingham Six did plead guilty by your own admission. In court they repudiated pleading guilty but that did not get them off the hook. The court system goes on what you plead and in the case of a politically charged trial pleading guilty gets you done 9 times out of 10.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime ONLY when evidence is backed up by it. If no evidence is provided as news reports allege then it is a thought crime.
If I want to murder my wife, pay a hit man and something goes wrong along the way and I am caught in the preparotary stages, then with the evidence the police unearth I will be taken down for conspiracy to commit murder. I have motive. I have implements. And there is a witness, hitman.
What do we have with this bloke? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: A number of reasons |
|
|
| conspirator wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
Are you doubting that Guy Fawkes was guilty? Will you start a campaign? I can see the banners now: Guy Fawkes is innocent - Bonfire Night a mistake!
The Birmingham Six did not plead guilty, in court they repudiated the confessions they said had been written by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and they had been forced to sign. In their third appeal, the court accepted that.
The answer to your question is that you are convicted with no evidence if you plead guilty, the prosecution then simply goes through what has been established about the crime.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. That is what he pleaded guilty to, no doubt because of the weight of evidence against him. |
If you pick up any Year 8 History book for 12 year olds, they also doubt it. But hey who cares about evidence when you have bonfires...
The Birmingham Six did plead guilty by your own admission. In court they repudiated pleading guilty but that did not get them off the hook. The court system goes on what you plead and in the case of a politically charged trial pleading guilty gets you done 9 times out of 10.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime ONLY when evidence is backed up by it. If no evidence is provided as news reports allege then it is a thought crime.
If I want to murder my wife, pay a hit man and something goes wrong along the way and I am caught in the preparotary stages, then with the evidence the police unearth I will be taken down for conspiracy to commit murder. I have motive. I have implements. And there is a witness, hitman.
What do we have with this bloke? |
You appear to be a very muddled thinker, no wonder you are a conspiracist!
I doubt whether anyone seriously believes Guy Fawkes to be innocent, the questions are over how much Robert Cecil knew about the plot in advance, and whether indeed the plotters were entrapped.
Pleading guilty or not guilty is something that happens in court, not before.
Whether something is a crime does not depend on whether there is evidence or not.
If someone pleads guilty the court do not hear the evidence, because the accused has accepted that the prosecution case is correct. (If the accused pleads guilty but denies a substantive part of the prosecution case, then the court will hear evidence, but this is rare)
In this case, there was a plea of guilty with no reservation, so the accused accepted that everything the prosecution alleged was correct.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would anyone care to offer an opinion or interpretation of the following two descriptions of computer files presented by the Met as evidence found on Dhiren Barot's computer.
| Of File 1 - The Met Police wrote: | | terror5-04mas11 - known as 'final presentation' document and referred to author's research into the production of a radiation dispersal device (RDD) or, as they are referred to within the paper 'dirty bombs' |
and
| Of File 2 - The Met Police wrote: | | terror65-04mas12 - known as 'hazard' document. This is a similar document to 'Final Presentation' and represents the product of open source research into the use of radioactive materials for terrorist purposes. |
Comments please.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: A number of reasons |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
You appear to be a very muddled thinker, no wonder you are a conspiracist!
I doubt whether anyone seriously believes Guy Fawkes to be innocent, the questions are over how much Robert Cecil knew about the plot in advance, and whether indeed the plotters were entrapped.
Pleading guilty or not guilty is something that happens in court, not before.
Whether something is a crime does not depend on whether there is evidence or not.
If someone pleads guilty the court do not hear the evidence, because the accused has accepted that the prosecution case is correct. (If the accused pleads guilty but denies a substantive part of the prosecution case, then the court will hear evidence, but this is rare)
In this case, there was a plea of guilty with no reservation, so the accused accepted that everything the prosecution alleged was correct. |
Better than being a Bush conspiraloon pal.
Signing a statement in police custody of guilt happens prior to court appearance. This is usually produced after torture, pressure or death threats of yourself or family and friends.
Pleading guilty to a crime on the basis of no evidence provided by the prosecution isn't a normal judicial procedure. It is a kangaroo court
No wonder you love Guantanamo... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Would anyone care to offer an opinion or interpretation of the following two descriptions of computer files presented by the Met as evidence found on Dhiren Barot's computer.
| Of File 1 - The Met Police wrote: | | terror5-04mas11 - known as 'final presentation' document and referred to author's research into the production of a radiation dispersal device (RDD) or, as they are referred to within the paper 'dirty bombs' |
and
| Of File 2 - The Met Police wrote: | | terror65-04mas12 - known as 'hazard' document. This is a similar document to 'Final Presentation' and represents the product of open source research into the use of radioactive materials for terrorist purposes. |
Comments please. |
I know that it may seem a rather futile question to ask but there isa point to it being asked so I would really appreciate some comments on your interpretation of the file descriptions please folks.
Any and all are welcome.
Thanks.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sinclair
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 395
Location: La piscina de vivo
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark,
The descriptions appear to hint that the research of File 1 (terror5-04mas11) was not from an open source (as File 2 is described as 'the product of open source research').
However, from the article at the link below, it appears that this was not the case. The 'research' in the Radiation Dispersal Device Report file consisted of copying information from a January 2003 report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
See the article at the link below (in particular Comment #19)
Spy Blog - Dhiren Barot - life sentence for impractical "movie plot" terrorist plans ?
What's your take on the descriptions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Sinclair. The Spy Blog link confirms my own findings.
The fact that the Met described one file as "open source" and the other as "the authors research" inspired me to go and look for the sources.
I have found the exact same source as Spy Blog for the "Final Presentation" document.
The first source document is called:
Commercial Radioactive Sources: Surveying the Security Risks
and is in the public domain here http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op11
I have written a document that details the exact composition of the Final Presentation file alleged by the Met to have been discovered on Dhiren Barot's hard drive.
There is in fact one other source document for two paragraphs contained in the "Final Presentation" called Reducing RDD Concerns Related to Large Radiological Source Applications here: http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/labs/LAUR03-6%202.pdf
So, the "Final Presentation" document is also compiled from two open source documents.
I knew nothing about "dirty bombs" before I read all this stuff. I now know pretty much the scientific view on how practicable they are. For context I quote from the OP11.pdf source report:
Millions of smoke detectors would be required to gather enough Am-241 for a radiological weapon.
Interestingly I could now be arrested under Section 58 of the TACT 2000 for being in possession of and creating an electronic record that would be of use to terrorists.
The only defence allowed against that charge is for the accused to show they had good reason for it's possession.
Hence my post.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sinclair
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 395
Location: La piscina de vivo
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark,
Yep, the descriptions etc. and the thrust of the reporting of the case seems a contituent part of a veiled attack on Internet discussion board users/researchers and a move to bolster their case for longer pre-charge detention periods.
From the recent speech by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of Mi5: | Quote: | | "More and more people are moving from passive sympathy towards active terrorism through being radicalised or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organised training events here and overseas, by images on television, through chatrooms and websites on the internet." |
Newsnight & Radio4-File on 4 programmes tonight on (web-based) encouragement of 'Islamic Extremism' seemed to push the same line. Whilst puporting to target 'extremist' websites/discussion boards, I'm sure the sights are set upon those who express dissent, raise important geopolitical questions & question the Governments line on a range of issues... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:19 am Post subject: Re: A number of reasons |
|
|
| conspirator wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
You appear to be a very muddled thinker, no wonder you are a conspiracist!
I doubt whether anyone seriously believes Guy Fawkes to be innocent, the questions are over how much Robert Cecil knew about the plot in advance, and whether indeed the plotters were entrapped.
Pleading guilty or not guilty is something that happens in court, not before.
Whether something is a crime does not depend on whether there is evidence or not.
If someone pleads guilty the court do not hear the evidence, because the accused has accepted that the prosecution case is correct. (If the accused pleads guilty but denies a substantive part of the prosecution case, then the court will hear evidence, but this is rare)
In this case, there was a plea of guilty with no reservation, so the accused accepted that everything the prosecution alleged was correct. |
Better than being a Bush conspiraloon pal.
Signing a statement in police custody of guilt happens prior to court appearance. This is usually produced after torture, pressure or death threats of yourself or family and friends.
Pleading guilty to a crime on the basis of no evidence provided by the prosecution isn't a normal judicial procedure. It is a kangaroo court
No wonder you love Guantanamo... |
You clearly have no idea at all of what you are talking about. No court in the UK will hear evidence if the accused pleads guilty, with the exception I mentioned. Just check for yourself and stop talking out of your rear end.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed that the internet is going to come under increasing pressure and I have no doubt that the pressure will directly correlate with falling credibility of mainstream sources and the growth of truth movements rather than it's use by terrorists.
However, we are constantly regaled by tales of our spooks monitoring internet "chatter" that leads them to kindly warn us that we are about to be nuked so the medium serves their propaganda purposes well also.
Quite why any would be terrorist would use the internet for communication stretches my imagination somewhat, but then with such deep deep cover identities such as kewl-n-kinki@yahoo.co.uk nightwithkylie@yahoo.co.uk and bridgetjonesdiaries@yahoo.co.uk it is clear that 90 days pre charge detention is a must.
Are Yahoo web email addresses really "untraceable" ?
If so, how are they able to quote them and quote from their content?
Would a professional Al Q terrorist really need to urge his accomplice via an "untraceable" Yahoo email "not to bring a friend" to remind him not to be followed ?
The thing that is very worrying is the whole area of computer "forensics" and criminal evidence.
If somebody is arrested and their PC seized, it is then very very easy to place files on that PC to be used as "evidence".
The defence of "those files are not mine" I imagine would be almost impossible to prove unless of course you had seconded timely backups somewhere safe.
As an IT practitioner I am well aware of data security strategies and have implemented off site backups as part of Disaster Recovery contingencies.
The Met have greatly emphasised their claim that these files were live projects and had been worked upon up until July 2004.
To support this further they state that Barot’s fingerprints were found on a World Bank book for which they must have evidence to support their assertion as having been purchased from Borders bookshop in Charing Cross Road for £30 cash on 12th February 2003, thus demonstrating that the USA plans were still being developed then. Also, reference is made to the Madrid 3/11 bombings which further supports this assertion.
I can only imagine three ways in which a book, bought for cash can be traced back to it's vendor. One is that a receipt was found, the other is that the vendor either stamped the book or included some kind of traceable evidence like a bookmarker or compliments slip or if the outlet was an exclusive vendor of the book.
Either way, the notion that Al Q's main man in the UK whom the US authorities knew about since August 2003, who was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report and who is claimed to have been active since the 90's and who is characterised by our own Met police as being very security savvy and was so adept at anti surveillance measures that he managed to lose his spooky tail on July 28th 2004, is entirely inconsistent with the same character leaving incriminating evidence laying around on hard drives and cash sales receipts or other evidence laying around in a book and then returning to his own manor for a short back and sides at his preferred barbers.
Golden Touch indeed that was.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thought I'd heard about this chap before. he's much mentioned by Daniel Hopsicker and Atta's "girlfriend" as being Atta's buddy.
Homeland inSecurity have raised the terror alarm here http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2006/11/15/fbi-raises-terro r-alarm-over-flying-school/
Hardly an ideal place to train pilots on DC3's is it ?
I mean it has no airstrip and no electricity and hiding behind a bush on a tiny atoll in the Pacific Ocean might not be the best stratgey when the FEDs come knocking.
Is it a slow news day today ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just spoke with the manager of the Golden Touch barbers in Willesden High Street who confirms that a chap was arrested after running into the shop.
Smart move Mr Al Q UK.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Needless to say no terrorist has replied to my emails.
| Quote: | UK al-Qaeda cell members jailed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6755797.stm
Seven men have been jailed for up to 26 years over an al-Qaeda-linked plot to kill thousands in the UK and US.
Woolwich Crown Court heard they were in a "sleeper cell" led by Dhiren Barot, who is already serving a life sentence.
Barot planned attacks including blowing apart a London Underground tunnel and bombings using an explosives-packed limousine and a dirty radiation device.
Six of the men admitted conspiracy to cause explosions and a seventh was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.
Counter-surveillance
In the plot, countered by police in Operation Rhyme, the men played supporting roles to Barot whom prosecutors say had devised multiple bombing operations. These resembled professional business plans in their complexity and detail.
He also researched blowing apart a London Underground tunnel beneath the River Thames to drown hundreds of commuters.
Prosecutors said that Barot presented his meticulous plans to al-Qaeda figures hiding in Pakistan. He submitted detailed funding requirements and explained how the campaign would benefit their cause.
In pictures: Terror plans
Back in the UK, the seven men were vital for Barot to push ahead with the plots in the summer of 2004, playing roles as couriers, drivers and taking counter-surveillance measures in an attempt to throw the security services off the scent.
Barot sub-contracted key parts of his plotting to other members of his team, utilising their skills in devising false identities, as minders and researchers, prosecutors said.
The men who pleaded guilty admitted roles mostly confined to plotting against UK targets.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, said that although the seven did not instigate the planned attacks, Barot needed their help and expertise.
He added: "Dhiren Barot and his gang were determined terrorists who planned bombings on both sides of the Atlantic.
"The plans for a series of co-ordinated attacks in the United Kingdom included packing three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives before setting them off in underground car parks. This could have caused huge loss of life.
"The plans to set off a dirty bomb in this country would have caused fear, panic and widespread disruption."
Mr Clarke said the men were skilled in anti-surveillance techniques, with Feroze and Jalil having travelled hundreds of miles to use an internet cafe.
'Terrorist planning'
Each one of you was recruited by Barot and assisted him at his request
Mr Justice Butterfield
Mohammed Naveed Bhatti, 27, of Harrow in north London, was jailed for 20 years; Junade Feroze, 31, of Blackburn, received 22 years and Zia Ul Haq, 28, of Wembley in north London, got 18 years.
Abdul Aziz Jalil, 24, of Luton, was jailed for 26 years; Omar Abdur Rehman, 23 of Bushey in Hertfordshire, was jailed for 15 years and Nadeem Tarmohamed, 29 also of Wembley, received 20 years. Qaisar Shaffi, 28, of Willesden, north-west London, was sentenced to 15 years.
Sentencing the seven, Mr Justice Butterfield said anyone who participates in such a plan "will receive little sympathy from the courts"
He added: "Barot was the instigator of this terrorist planning, he was by some considerable distance the principal participant in the conspiracy.
"Each one of you was recruited by Barot and assisted him at his request."
The judge told the men the pain caused to their families as a result of their imprisonment "is but a tiny fraction of the suffering that would have been experienced had your plans been translated into reality".
Woolwich Crown Court was told that Bhatti used his first-class degree in engineering to research how the bombs could work. Feroze acted as a driver and led counter-surveillance checks - but also researched bomb parts in catalogues.
Ul Haq had a degree in architecture and acted as a "consultant" on the best way to bring down buildings. Jalil rented a safe-house for the men and researched radioactivity.
Rehman is said to have studied how to disable electronic security and fire control systems.
Shaffi was the only man to plead not guilty. He joined Barot on his US reconnaissance trip, although he was replaced by Tarmohamed in the States after falling ill.
Home Secretary John Reid said: "The outcome of this trial once again shows the extent of the very real and serious threat the UK faces from terrorism." |
Having roamed the world plannig Jihad and "reporting" to KSM, since well before 9/11, before quietly settling in Willesden . . . .
All were arrested on 3rd August 2004, having been grassed by Muhammed Naeem Khan "Mr Al Q IT Man" in Pakistan.
US indictments followed for Barot, Tarmohammed & Shaffi on 12th April 2005
Dhiren Barot, having refused to co-operate since his arrest and after being threatened by the judge with 80 years, pleads guilty on 12th October 2006, 9 months and 11 days into the year.
Dhiren Barot gets 40 years on 7th November 2006
Mohammed Naveed Bhatti pleads guilty on 20th April 2007
Feroze, Ul-Haq & Jalil & Rehman plead guilty on 25th April 2007
Nadeem Tarmohammed pleads guilty on 30th April 2007
Dhiren Barot, Mr "Al Q" UK had his sentence reduced to 30 years on 16th May 2007
Qaisar Shaffi pleaded not guilty but was found guilty on 13th June 2007
That's a wrap then.
If you are banged to rights, why plead guilty ?
Would Sir like a 20 or a 40 stretch ?
Or an unprecedented Judge delivered 80 or 40 stretch ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Howie
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6694385.stm
| Quote: | A driver was killed when a van carrying welding equipment exploded in a County Durham market town.
Windows in shops and homes were left shattered and wreckage was strewn across the centre of Wolsingham, near Bishop Auckland.
The 33-year-old local man, who worked as a welder near Durham, was in the van when the oxy-acetylene cylinders exploded. |
This didn't cause mass loss of life & only a few windows were blown out, no buildings collapsed
| Quote: | | "One of the cylinders is still in the market place and has to be cooled down for no less than 24 hours." |
The most ridiculous part of this story is their "demolition expert" being a chartered surveyor. 
_________________
www.911archive.info |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
