"AN electronic tracking device of the type used by police to monitor suspected terrorists was recovered from a car belonging to the leader of the London suicide bombers in the days following July 7, a senior security official has claimed.

The device is thought to have been placed inside Mohammad Sidique Khan’s car by Special Branch officers in a surveillance operation aimed at Islamic extremists in West Yorkshire.

The suggestion that police were monitoring Khan before the 7/7 attacks will fuel claims that the authorities may have missed intelligence that could have foiled the terrorists.

MI5 has already been criticised by victims’ relatives and opposition MPs for allegedly failing to act on clues about Khan’s activities before the attacks, in which 52 people and the four bombers died.

With the first anniversary of the bombings next week, the claim has reignited calls for a full public inquiry into what the security services and the police knew about the terrorists before the attacks."

Extract from the article:

"Police in New York have confirmed that they investigated the activities of the ringleader of the July 7 bomb attacks more than two years before the atrocities in London.

Mohammad Sidique Khan was implicated in a plot to blow up synagogues on America’s East Coast in March 2003 - and US officials who took part in the enquiry insist that British intelligence was aware of the operation.

MI5 have always denied knowing that the Yorkshire-born teaching assistant was a potential danger, although Khan’s name was reportedly placed on a US ‘No Fly’ list in 2003 and he was prevented from visiting New York.

Senior British security officials even claimed that Khan had never been under surveillance from any western intelligence agency before the London attacks.

When a new book by US author, Ron Suskind, serialised in The Times last week, disclosed that the CIA were aware of Khan after he made two trips to America in 2002 to contact local Islamic extremists, British security sources questioned whether US intelligence specialists may have confused two men with the family name of Khan."

Extract from the article:

"A computer expert who worked alongside two of the July 7 bombers claims today that he tried to warn the police about their activities almost two years before the suicide attacks.

Speaking for the first time about his work, Martin Gilbertson, 45, says he produced anti-western propaganda videos, secured websites and encrypted emails for Muslims who were involved in an Islamic bookshop and a youth centre attended by bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. Mr Gilbertson was also employed to establish firewalls that would safeguard both places from outside interference.

By October 2003, he says he was so alarmed by what he was producing in Beeston, West Yorkshire that he went to the local Holbeck police station, saying he had material and names he wanted to deliver to anti-terrorist officers. He was told to post his material, and did so, to West Yorkshire police headquarters in Wakefield. The package contained DVD material he had compiled for circulation by the bookshop, a list of names including Khan and Tanweer and a covering letter giving a contact telephone number.

He claims he heard nothing until he was interviewed three times by two officers from the Metropolitan police, having contacted them after the explosions.

"I wish I could have had some access to MI5," says Mr Gilbertson, "I probably could have got them in there, before the bombs went off"."

Of course they were tracking him
Who the hell is this Martin Gilbertson who has just crawled out of the woodwork
There is not a word to believed from this
They needed to be tracking Mohammed Siddique Khan to make sure these dupes were acting according to the scheme
See
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216

Lots of interesting articles here:

 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=26

'There is not a word to believed from this (sic)'

Would that be because it seems to piss on your 'inside job' fantasies. Ignore or deny awkward facts that counter your assumptions, draw incontrovertible conclusions based on no evidence - ah, the classic methodology of the conspiracy theorist.

We have two white Muslim converts who successfully helps to radicalise some of the bombers. One was a member of the Special Boat Service and the other fought with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

We are supposed to believe that these resourceful and clever, racist ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ bombers asked a white IT expert to make DVDs about violent jihad, and work with two white Muslim converts who were soldiers. This white IT expert was told how the bombers hated the West and the bombers tried to convert him to Islam. It slowly dawns on this IT expert that the bombers could be ‘fundamentalist Muslim terrorists’ and gets in touch with the police. When the police do nothing, he does nothing. This is a time when Blunkett is so worried about terrorism that he stations tanks at Heathrow Airport. He does not talk to his MP. He does not try to get in touch with MI5, the Home Office, nothing. He gets in touch with the police after 7/7 and again nothing happens. None of his evidence is included in the Government report on 7/7. Nothing about the two white converts to Islam is mentioned in the report. When friends and family of the 21/7 ‘failed bombers’ are put on trial, the white Muslim converts are not charged with anything. The IT expert keeps his mouth shut for months before going public. Haroon Aswat is reported to have telephoned some of the bombers in the run up to 7/7. He claims he was a former bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. The police are not interested in him and he is not mentioned in the report.

The bombers were racist because – according to the Khan confession video – they supported (the now dead) Zaraqwi, who hated Shia Muslims and wanted Iraqi Muslims to kill one another, but wanted to kill Westerns because they invaded Iraq. Yet, the bombers are evidence that hundreds of UK Muslims want to attack their country.

So, we have a MI5 bug in Khan's car, US warnings about Khan, an IT expert who warned the police about the bombers, and MI5 who did not regard Khan as a threat.

Anyone who thinks any of this is believable must be paranoid and deluded.

I have seen you use the term 'deluded' before, in particular, against the hundreds of people who clearly saw a plane fly into the Pentagon, who you have clearly chosen to completely ignore or dismiss when it suited your purpose, and yet, from whom you are happy to quote from if they happen to say something which you can take out of context to support your own arguments. I have seen no credible 'alternative explanation' of 7/7 (or 9/11 for that matter) and arguing an alternative scenario from a lack of evidence is disengenuous, rather like your 'I will quote from them only when it is convenient to my own pet theory' approach to eyewitness testimony.

..........on this topic.

For a fuller account from Martin Gilbortson:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1804930,00.html

For rebuttal of the claims made by Ron Suskind:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1804981,00.html

And for something indicative of the cavalier and sometimes overtly manipulative approach of so called '7/7 truth seekers' to 'evidence' and eye witness testimony surrounding the July bombings try:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1806794,00.html