"now, i don't want to start another conspiracists v express-reading (did u see today's 'shoot all bombers' headline!) trolls argument here on indymedia (although i probably have!), but if anyone's got any sensible comments on these matters i'd love to hear them, and even better, any true eye-witnesses who can shed some light"

Overlooking the "trolls" swipe mate, the reason that you're not likely to get the kind of response you fear is that because you actually present a pretty cogent argument, free of the kind of knee-jerk sensationalist crap which so often pervades postings. If only all such discource on Indymedia was so measured.

We don't know anything really, of course, but my response is as follows:

1. They will have chosen the clearest pictures of the suspects to release to the press.

2. When I think about journeys through London I've made, even through the undergound, it's very rare that I've been completely surrounded on all sides. Next time you're on a train station, take a look around. People tend to stand in close knit groups where possible, rather than shoulder to shoulder. These pictures are often quite close-up, so they've zoomed in which excludes others.

3. The supects probably did keep apart from other people until on the trains.

4. Ever heard of photoshop? Other people may have been airbrushed out for obvious reasons.

5. In the picture of the Warren Street suspect, if you look at it, you can see the outlines of someone else on the left.

6. I'm very interested in the tendency of some people to try to deny the existence of autonomous terrorist radical groups who use elements of Islam as justification for the political objectives.

Chatterton

By the way, the only information we have on the bus bomber was that he *left* the bomb on the bus, and then got off - prior to it's failed detonation. So yeah, he waited until it was quiet, and got off the bus. Not intended to be a suicide attack, unlike some of the others, it seems.

That's what we've been told. I've not heard any credible alternative accounts.

Dan

Well you mention this ex cop Peter power but there seems to be a lot of ex cops floating about at the moment
on the news channels and as bosses of security companies. They all seem to be ready to cash in one way or another.

Your city is being used by the global elite as a voodoo doll pin cushion for its power maintence, consolidation and expansion agenda.

1st they scheduled a "terror drill" to smoke screen thier moves just like 911.
then they sent the met cops who would have smelled a rat to scotland to protect thier necks from protesters coming thru the wire. just like the fire fighters at the pentagon out chasing false alarms and the north american areospace defense system and FAA running hyjacking drills on 911
Then they hired a PR firm to manage the spin and fallout out if they screwed up and to keep the damage to a level to get what they wanted without going overboard and hurting profit continuity.

Word got around and the finiancial system manuvered into position for a killing.

Then they suckered in some patseys and inserted 4 live rounds into a "training" that was supposed to be with blanks.They brought the bus to a quiet location for a nice "money shot" to stick in everyones mind and get sympathy points for the israelis. Or mabey the israeils took advantage of the situation to tack on one(or four) of thier own.

They tied up a few lose ends and started blaring incessently 'it was the dirty muslims'

Even if protesters were to have completly overun gleneagles and chased the G8 into the sea they were in position to wipe it off the daily talk of the town. Bet your ass the bombs would have gone off sooner and bigger if needed. It wasnt "terrorism" it was perception mangement and behavior modification with a bang.

Now the troops in iraq have color photos to keep them going and thier commanders are out of the fraticide sights and can scream "london moms have more guts just going to the office then you near muntious want to go homeies. more folks have got blown up at home then this whole regiment has lost here so get out thier and kick some ass because intelligence has just spotted a map of the tube in a back pack on guy crossing the boarder into..( insert- pakistan, iran, syria, north africa, iraq, palestine, caspian pipelistan rebublic, enemy of israel) here.

Thier story wont stand the light of day so now they have to fill the sky (and tube) with smoke and TV screen with blood and keep the electric cattle prod of "arab terror" up everyones butts so people cant slow down long enough to realize theyve been had and who did it and why they did when they did it and when the are going to do it again.

i was beginning to think that I was alone in this one. All of my thoughts too, mr. rikki, regarding the CCtv pictures.It is as if the TV frames are chosen (or designed)to exclude any other citizens. At London rush hour you are never out of sight from other people once you enter the transport system. All of the photos are suspicious as f***. They are of such a consistently poor quality that even the mother of one of the youths could not recognise her son. Also, I called the BBC last weekend on Sat afternoon 16th, two weeks after the original bombs, to put the question..Where are the CCTV shot which 'cracked the case', the ones at the Kings Cross concourse, in which they are chatting and laughing together 30 mins before setting off the bombs. These imaginary images are, I have verified, giving rise to the phenomenon of people believing that the four youths have been seen together at Kings Cross, when in fact they have NOT YET been shown to have been there at all. I fear massive manipulation of the public mind. The reply from the BBC? 'oh yes we have seen them, but there are only three of the men in the shot' When pressed the BBC assistant could not exactly say where she had seen them. Help!

It would appear as if this past week's devices were intentionally not detonated, in order to provide investigators with an "Orgy of Evidence" with which those who planted them could guide their work in a desired direction, thus creating an "enemy" which does not exist.

It's no big secret the Israel is dismayed because the US/UK have been unable to carry out the military actions which were planned for June (as reported by Scott Ritter citing insiders, only covert activities are taking place), and I wouldn't be shocked if the explosives turned out to point to Syria, Iran, or some other PNAC target destination. (We're supposed to forget, of course, that the devices used on 7/7 contained military explosives ...)

Also, the Gov't/Media is being so very tight-lipped about just who exactly it was that pumped five rounds into the Brazilian man, after he had already been apprehended. It is possible that these were foreign operatives, protecting themselves from someone they thought had seen something he shouldn't have.

...with inferences without any solid evidence to back it up, 'it is possible' that the poor unfortunate Jean Menezes saw something he should not have done you state - yet you do not have a shread of evidence that this was the case, nor do you offer any proof that the four failed bombers were anything other than the would-be terrorists reported in the press

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1533421,00.html

You have also stated categorically that military explosvies were used in the original attacks even though no conclusive forensic evidence has been put forward to support any such an assertion. Your treatment of 'facts' and 'evidence' is very cavalier. You may want to portray me as a spook or someone who is spreading misinformation, but if you are going to profer alternative explanations for recent events, you need to do more than simply state 'cui bono', you have to back it up with real evidence.

"It is possible", to coin a phrase, that our daft rikki character is an MI5 invention seeking to sidetrack progressives into baseless conspiracy theories, so we can be portrayed at best as loonies and at worst as dangerous US-style anti-semitic right wing "black helicopter" types.

We have to make sure our politics is evidence-based, to avoid being discredited.

To "evidence", it is interesting that you come at me with this particular line of reasoning, yet do not treat the story being fed to you by proven LIARS in the same manner.

I am responding, actually, to the complete LACK of evidence to support the Government's Conspiracy Theory, and simply trying to fathom that if their story is NOT true - as the case would appear - then what would the most likely scenario then be, given the people we're dealing with, their histories, their known agenda, and what's happening.

Demanding Impossible Proofs is Disinformation, so no, I can't point you to forensic tests. What I'm commenting on is the Government's shifting position on the devices. They first claimed that international investigators (they never say where they're from) found military explosives, and the Bliar Regime then claimed that this was their 'al Qaeda link'.

Then, they claimed that an Egyptian had made the bombs. Then it turned out that the Egyptian in question was innocent, but of course, that news was quietly retracted, while the initial allegations were SHOUTED at the public, complete with pictures of an arrest. No doubt some still believe this to be the case, as I'm certain this was the reason for the charges in the first place.

Remember, these are the same people who swore on a stack of bibles that Saddam Hussein and his vast arsenal of WMD were a dire threat to Britain, the US, and ultimately, the world. All the while, they knew full well that their story was "bollocks".

It would also seem as if the explosives story had shifted because there was a plan in place to leave last week's devices behind, to provide investigators with the evidence they need to finger "ze terrorists", and wage war on more innocent people of Arab descent, as the wider PNAC agenda demands.

Well, my apologies if it appeared I was trolling you, Mr Psy-Ops, I will post no more on this subject. However, before I go I would like to highlight the unfortunate tendency on this site to assume that if you endorse any aspect of the so called official 'story' then you are, ipso facto, a reactionary. Indeed, some posters have responded to critical responses by asking 'why come here and post at all if you believe the 'official view'. But why is it a polemical either/or situation? Should people embrace an alternative view, simply because it is an alternative view, and therefore abandon any notion of questioning the proposed alternatives. I do not think so.

If you have no criteria about how to weigh evidence how can you ever make a judgement about anything. Personally, I do not see why people find it so hard to accept that there are people who harbour grievances against the UK for their actions in Iraq and elsewhere. People who are willing to commit acts of terrorism for their beliefs. Why is that far-fetched, whereas a highly organised state conspiracy to blow up its own citizens using secret service personnel and whole raft of supporting players who would inevitably have to be bought into the cover up - such as emergency services staff, firefighters, local plod, underground staff etc - is immediately more plausable? For one thing, the state is perceived as immediately brilliant and cunning in its execution and, at the same time, bungling and incompetant, by leaving around numorous basic clues that anyone can apparently spot. It does not add up.

I have always been a fan of Antonio Gramsci - whose sophisitcated Marxist analysis of the capitalist state is light years away from the hotbed of cartoon villains commonly portrayed here. At the end of the day, you beleive there has been a massive cover-up over the recentbombings, I am afraid I simply cannot accept that position on the evidence presented to me so far.

"However, before I go I would like to highlight the unfortunate tendency on this site to assume that if you endorse any aspect of the so called official 'story' then you are, ipso facto, a reactionary."

If your comments are genuine, and your intentions are good, then I do apologize. However, I've been doing this for some time, and have had several run-ins with positively ID'ed Spooks, working these sites professionally.

Your focus and the appearance of belligerence in your posts are what made me suspicious. I hope you understand ... This is something which only really became a concern after 2001.

"Should people embrace an alternative view, simply because it is an alternative view, and therefore abandon any notion of questioning the proposed alternatives. I do not think so."

I agree, however, the official Conspiracy Theory is being fed to us by proven LIARS, who've lied in order to slaughter innocent people, and make the most serious violations of International Law. Until they are able to support their tale with compelling evidence, they should be held in the utmost suspicion, and the available information at this point suggests that there is much more going on here than simple "terrorism".

"If you have no criteria about how to weigh evidence how can you ever make a judgement about anything."

But that's just it. Because of my background, I am qualified to weigh the evidence, as well as compare it to past events and patterns, and put it into the context of this group of Extremists & Criminals in positions of authority and power, what they've done in the past, what they're capable of, and their agenda of violent Neo-Fascism.

"Personally, I do not see why people find it so hard to accept that there are people who harbour grievances against the UK for their actions in Iraq and elsewhere."

I don't think people do. Overwhelmingly it seems that people understand this. But that, you see, is exactly why the attempts by Bush/Bliar/PNAC to manipulate these attacks like they did after 911, to gain support for policies that are indefensible, has failed.

Half of the people link this to the illegal war of aggression for profit in Iraq, and the other half see it for what it is, a False Flag Attack, carried out for these very reasons. There are patterns of Government manipulation and ommission of hard, key evidence here, and until they are addressed, I think your energy would be put to better use - assuming that your purpose is genuine - into attempting to prove the Government's Theory, based upon solid evidence.

I've tried, and can tell you that their fable thus far simply doesn't add up. Occam's Razor is leaning towards the False Flag explanation at this point, especially if you consider who's driving the official Theory.

"People who are willing to commit acts of terrorism for their beliefs."

I know there are, but I also acknowledge that this Extremism is much more prevalent amongst the Neo-Fascists who have hijacked the Governments of the USA, and as it appears, Britain as well. Their body count is only a distant, wet dream of the most hardcore radical fundamentalist "terror organization".

"Why is that far-fetched, whereas a highly organised state conspiracy to blow up its own citizens using secret service personnel and whole raft of supporting players who would inevitably have to be bought into the cover up (...) is immediately more plausable?"

Because of the hierarchy of all of those agencies you list (this is too common a Red Herring amongst critics & trolls ...), and the long and documented history of the groups we're dealing with, in power at this very moment and increasingly backed against a wall, and just these very types of actions.

"For one thing, the state is perceived as immediately brilliant and cunning"

As we're supposed to believe "ze terrorists" are, and moreso.

"at the same time, bungling and incompetant, by leaving around numorous basic clues that anyone can apparently spot."

Nobody can control all of the externalities. All they can do is adhere to positions of Plausible Deniability, control the flow of information, possibly execute undesired witnesses, and drive the investigations.

"It does not add up."

Most certainly it does, especially if you have any knowledge of intelligence organizations, how they relate to certain Governmental Ideologies, and the criminal backgrounds of nearly all of the major players at the moment.

It is the Official Conspiracy Theory, spoon-fed by the people who claimed that the threat posed by Saddam's vast arsenal of WMD justified a long-planned invasion - all the while knowing that the "facts were being fixed" - which does not add up.

Not when you consider the independently-verifiable evidence which should exist if their story is true, that they have been completely unable to present. Just like 911.

"from the hotbed of cartoon villains commonly portrayed here."

There isn't one single thing that is catoonish about these ruthless killers.

"At the end of the day, you beleive there has been a massive cover-up over the recentbombings"

Indeed, as there has been. If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you lay out YOUR case, for the evidence thus far, not mention Bliar's direct refusal to allow a probe into what happened, supports my position.

"I am afraid I simply cannot accept that position on the evidence presented to me so far."

Then I question either your sincerity, or your understanding of just what these crises are all about. I suggest you read the PNAC policy document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" written long before 911 and Bush was installed to the White House. It can be found at  http://www.newamericancentury.org

If you haven't read this already. I'm certain it will provide some new insight that you may profit from. You should also do some research into the people involved, especially their histories and connections to covert, illegal intelligence work, and what drove them to pursue such means.

...yes, I know I said I would not post any more but I had to respond to your previous post. Firstly, I am no spook, just an ordinary punter with a PHD in social history, so I would like to think I also have some degree of expertise in critically examining evidence. I also admit I do also like to play devil's advocate, so my apologies if some of my posts came across as beligerant. I am also somewhat embarrassed by the number of basic typos in many of my postings, a combination of a crap keyboard and the lack of an edit facility for these postings.

I can assure you I do examine mainstream reports critically, but I also think that the same critical approach should be applied to alternative theories. I have no belief in an organised Al Queda network. As an undergraduate I specialised in moral panics so I know one when I see one. However, I do not rule out the possibility of small groups of individuals occasionally pulling off successful terrorist attacks. I have to admit I am still not convinced by your counter theory. I am aware that it was a number of anomalies in traditional interpretations which eventually resulted in the paradigm shift away from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, but for every such case, there were a thousand 'counter theries' that went precisely nowhere. From what I have seen presented, there is still not enough here to convince me that the attacks were not carried out by a small group of ideologically committed individuals who wanted some payback for our governments involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know you have asked me to continue and argue the case for this position, but let's be honest, there are closed minds on both sides of this debate, and it can be quite hostile, so I am bowing out of this site now, and will let others carry on the debate (and I am aware that some people seem to think that any skeptical posting on this site actually originates from a single individual so if you think you find yourself arguing with me hiding behind some other pseudonym just ask them about the 'Prison Notebooks' or something. Good luck

"Firstly, I am no spook"

That's great. Positively ID'ed Spooks have said that, and spoken with much the same language. All I was saying. I wanted you to understand that.

"just an ordinary punter with a PHD in social history, so I would like to think I also have some degree of expertise in critically examining evidence."

And, I would think, some knowledge of what certain people/agencies are capable of, and have done in the past and why, which is why I question the fact that you are not more critical here.

"I can assure you I do examine mainstream reports critically, but I also think that the same critical approach should be applied to alternative theories."

Oh, I do agree. It's great for me to be questioned, because it makes me work to ensure that I'm NOT just talking out of my a**, and that I've investigated each piece as much as possible.

"I have no belief in an organised Al Queda network."

That is great. I take it a step further, however, in that while I acknowledge the real problem of Islamic Fundamentalism, I also recognize the consistent US support for it in the past, and believe that all "al Qaeda" actions are actually guided by Western/Israeli intelligence.

"However, I do not rule out the possibility of small groups of individuals occasionally pulling off successful terrorist attacks."

Nor do I. However, when key evidence is glaringly absent, my mind goes elsewhere, especially at a time in which the other side of the equation is increasingly under fire, as their Criminal activities come under closer scrutiny, and words such as "Impeachment, Investigation, and Prosecution" gain popularity and volume.

I simply do not see an intriguing motive, whereas the Government's is very obvious, made only moreso by their attempts to manipulate the public's fear for political gain.

"I have to admit I am still not convinced by your counter theory."

That is fine, so long as you do not discount it entirely, especially if this escalates into another "we must smite the evil-doers" situation, while the hard, key, independently-verifiable evidence is still absent.

"From what I have seen presented, there is still not enough here to convince me that the attacks were not carried out by a small group of ideologically committed individuals who wanted some payback for our governments involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Yes, that is an intriguing Cover, isn't it?

I hope you will also, then, acknowledge that there is not enough evidence to prove the Official Theory either. That is my biggest reason for questioning the official position, what ISN'T present amongst the evidence. Also, the claims which have been since been proven false (and traced to a Maryland company, no less!) leave a bad taste in the mouth. The FBI has stated several times over the past four years that claims from "previously unknown groups" are most often Intelligence Fronts.

Absent any real claim of responsibility, any real "expert" on Fourth Generation Warfare/Terrorism will tell you that this usually signals a covert operation, on behalf of an intelligence operation.

"I know you have asked me to continue and argue the case for this position"

I didn't mean you had to argue, but rather, investigate, for your own good.

"so I am bowing out of this site now, and will let others carry on the debate (and I am aware that some people seem to think that any skeptical posting on this site actually originates from a single individual so if you think you find yourself arguing with me hiding behind some other pseudonym just ask them about the 'Prison Notebooks' or something."

I just hope you understand that my reasoning for putting this idea forth is that I HAVE had several run-ins with posters - on several sites - who were later positively identified, through much frustrating, tedious work, as Government Agents, or Spooks, working certain sites with the aim of throwing wrenches into certain debates (Iraq, Bush, 911, Israel-Palestine, Zionism - their focus is very telling in itself!).

"Good luck"

And to you, sir ...

May Peace and Reason return in the days ahead.

Were their many more devices at many more underground locations than what we were told about? My security source tells me this is so. What do you all think or know about this? Remember we are dealing with a government that misleads the people for it's own ends.