The London Tube Bombings 7th July 2005 (7/7)

On the 7th July 2005, one day after being surprisingly awarded the 2012 Olympic Games when Paris was the overwhelming favourite, London was rocked by a series of bomb blasts resulting in the deaths of more than fifty people. Not quite in the same league as 9/11 of course, well certainly not as regards loss of life, but more than sufficient to remind us all that we are extremely vulnerable and susceptible to attack by those who ‘envy our freedoms’, or so we are deceptively led to believe. Perhaps conveniently or even by explicit design, these incidents also coincided with the G8 summit of world ‘leaders’ which was in session in Scotland and which allowed a united front of condemnation to be forthcoming from the senior nations of the world all of whose presidents or prime ministers ‘just happened’ to be virtually ‘on the doorstep’ at the time.

Along with the 9/11 incident, the 7/7 attacks formed the second leg of a two-pronged attack on the freedoms of the people of the western world. Not at the hands of Muslim terrorists though, as they would have us all believe, but more at the hands of a local, home-grown variety of terrorist, better known as the British government in concert with MI5, the CIA and the Mossad (Israeli security services) and whom all have a much more credible vested interest in curbing our freedoms than do any so-called Muslim terrorist group.

The official story is that four disaffected British Muslim youths planned and carried out a sophisticated operation culminating in a simultaneous bombing attack on three London tube (subway) trains and a bus by virtue of the use of explosive devices carried in a backpack, killing themselves and fifty-plus others in the process.

As always in these cases, there are two directly competing and conflicting explanations for the 7/7 attacks. One is the ‘official’ version of events and the other is the ‘conspiracy theory’ version. Now let us examine all the facts and the evidence emanating from this day of infamy and let the reader decide for him or herself which is the more likely to be true and which the conspiracy.

In May 2004, an episode of the BBC ‘Panorama’ programme was aired during which a scenario was mooted whereby a bus and three tube trains would be attacked simultaneously by four suicide bombers during the morning rush hour. Is this starting to sound eerily familiar yet? The discussion panel included such notables as Michael Portillo, a former British government minister and a character by the name of Peter Power who just happens to be an ex-senior police officer (more of him shortly). The basis of the programme was a mock exercise in which the panel of ‘experts’ discussed how a terrorist attack on London would be handled and this was revealed gradually through faux news reports as the show progressed.

“No terrorist attack would be complete without the advance airing of a scenario docu-drama to provide the population with a conceptual scheme to help them understand the coming events in the sense intended by the oligarchy.” Webster Tarpley, historian and researcher, 2009

But for the moment, as promised, back to Peter Power. On the morning of 7/7, he and his training company were in the process of conducting an emergency terror drill that unbelievably almost exactly matched the real events unfolding around him in the city of London. The exact same three tube stations that were involved in the real world were the ones ‘co-incidentally’ being used by Power in his ‘drill’! On the afternoon of 7/7 he was interviewed on the BBC Radio 5 ‘Drivetime’ programme

“…at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!” Peter Power, CEO of Visor Consultants, a management training organisation

Yes we believe you, Peter. Of course we do – especially given your past background and your appearance in the 2004 docu-drama (above) and despite the odds against this scenario occurring by chance that have been independently calculated to be in the region of 14 billion to one. Was Power simply cleverly protecting himself by this announcement and thus ensuring that were he to become a statistic shortly afterwards, due to his ‘insider knowledge’ that there would almost certainly be questions asked regarding his death? If so, he would by no means be the first to use this tactic.

On the 5th-8th April 2005 a large scale terror-drill given the code name of ‘Atlantic Blue’ was undertaken involving the participation of many different facets of government. How interesting to note then that shortly after the 7th July 2005, the Independent newspaper reported that… “By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service – and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London.”

How the coincidences all pile up, all of course in close synergy with the story of 9/11. On the morning of 9/11, the security, emergency and rescue services were all hampered by the fact that there were several, not just one mind, but several simultaneous exercises taking place that almost exactly reflected the real world events occurring at that time.

In 2005, the Metropolitan Police exercise Operation Hanover just happened to be held on the 1st-2nd July and its theme was that of three simultaneous bomb attacks on three underground (tube) stations. The police have been extremely reluctant to discuss this amazing coincidence that occurred literally 5 days before the ‘real’ event. Why would this be? In fact this information only came to light in 2009, four years after the event.

Another virtually un-publicised fact that came to light during the 7/7 inquest was that no post-mortems were carried out on the bodies of the victims. This is most definitely against the law. All bodies believed to have suffered an un-natural death must by law undergo a post-mortem examination. In addition to this fact, would not a huge amount of information regarding the placement and composition of the bombs have been revealed by these examinations, had they taken place? Surely post-mortems would have revealed some definitive, incriminating information that would have provided clues to the many unexplained hows and whys of the tragedy. Indeed, what could possibly explain such a seemingly bizarre course of action other than of course the necessity of avoiding conflict with a completely fabricated narrative?

After the event, we were immediately informed that the explosives used were of military origin and as most people in the truth movement are well aware, the first reports are always the most revealing, but are often never heard again and suppressed once the powers that be realise that initial reports do not fit the concocted story at which they eventually arrive and which then becomes the de facto truth.

“The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying….the material used was not homemade but sophisticated military explosives …” Christophe Chaboud, chief of the French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation.

How, it is perhaps pertinent to ask, would four, to all intents and purposes, perfectly normal youths procure a substantial quantity of military grade explosive material? And also that being the case, why did the police several days later announce that they had found the homemade bomb ‘factory’ near the homes of three of the four alleged terrorists in Leeds, West Yorkshire? Surely an experienced, senior anti-terrorist officer such as M. Chaboud could not have made such a fundamental error could he?

“A bath filled with explosives has been found at a house in Leeds that was the ‘operational base’ for the London suicide bombers.” ‘The Independent’ newspaper, 14th July 2005

The newspaper went on to blithely state that the explosives were made of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide. The notion of heating up hydrogen peroxide in their bathroom to the point where it would make an explosive mix with black pepper is simply laughable, to say the very least, let alone that a rucksack could hold enough of such a concoction that if and when exploding could supply enough energy to bend and even break steel bars. Also, how could they possibly test that their ‘bombs’ were actually going to explode on demand. Were they simply all going to go tramping across the city with this allegedly lethal mixture swilling around in their backpacks? Indeed, has anyone ever successfully managed to construct a bomb from a few such household ingredients, let alone one capable of such devastation as was created on 7/7?

Another perhaps obvious question is why would terrorists who wished to avenge themselves upon the British people for the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, choose to kill themselves in the process? Surely on such crowded trains in rush-hour it would have been a simple task to set a timer to detonate the explosives and then quietly exit the trains, leaving their bags on the floor amongst the feet of hundreds of unsuspecting passengers. What would have been the risk involved there? Would not their cause have been better served by them living to ‘fight’ another day and possibly repeat the feat elsewhere? Suicide bombing is an expedient used only where smuggling explosives and leaving them in situ is impossible due to heavy security presence and not simply as a pointless statement of bravado, as the authors of this unlikely scenario would wish us to believe.

At the 7/7 Inquest in November 2010, Dr. Morgan Costello gave evidence that he was asked to attend two tube-stations, Edgware Road and Aldgate, for the ‘purposes of certifying the extinction of life’. He counted six bodies at Edgware Road and seven bodies at Aldgate and declared these as ‘life extinct’. The huge contradiction arising from this simple fact, completely unreported in the compliant media of course, was that the numbers should have been seven and eight respectively – that is of course if we count the bodies of the bombers. This is surely indicative of the fact that the alleged bombers were not on the trains at the time of the bombs exploding. No similar count seems to have been carried-out on the Russell Square train, but we do have certain information regarding the behaviour of the Russell Square bomber, Germaine Lindsay, immediately prior to his untimely death.

“A New Zealander working for Reuters in London said two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. The man who was not prepared to give his name said two English colleagues, whom he also refused to name ‘witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower’.” ‘The New Zealand Herald’, July 2005

There is plenty of eye-witness evidence available proving beyond reasonable doubt that the 7/7 attacks were not ‘suicide’ bombings at all. For example, Bruce Lait who was in a tube train carriage near London’s Aldgate East station when one of the bombs exploded described a scenario that absolutely confirms this fact without question.

According to Lait, as the survivors were being escorted from the wrecked train carriage by a police officer, he warned them… “…mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was”. The metal around the edge of the hole was pushed and twisted upwards exactly as though the bomb had been underneath the floor of the train. Surely if the bomb had exploded above floor level then the opposite effect should have been observed. Lait further commented that… “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,” he said. Very strange indeed.

On the 5th July 2005, one of the quartet, Mohammed Siddique Khan took his pregnant wife to Dewsbury Hospital in West Yorkshire with a suspected potential miscarriage. Upon returning home, Khan announced to her that he was ‘going to see his friends’ and this was the last time that his wife ever saw him. She miscarried on the 6th July.   Would Khan or anyone for that matter, really have abandoned his ailing wife for a whole day while she was in such a precarious condition? He was a highly respected member of his community, not just by the Asian element, but by all races alike in what is an extremely multi-cultural environment. He was also highly respected by the headmistress (principal) of the special school in which he worked as a classroom assistant. In addition, the police had used him to mediate between rival gangs in local disputes because simply put, he was trusted by all sides. The MP, Hilary Benn had taken Khan on a tour of the House of Commons and he was specifically regarded as being politically neutral, by no means an extremist and an upstanding citizen, protective of the good name of his community and was always seen to be keen to maintain amiable relations with the local white community.

I believe that the most likely scenario for the four hapless young men being embroiled in this situation in the first place was that they had naively (as it turned out) agreed to take part in what they thought was going to be an anti-terrorism exercise. The plan was that they would pose as terrorists and to make the scenario absolutely realistic and plausible it would have to be planned exactly like a precision military operation. Of course there were no live bombs in the rucksacks, just dummies, but the four did not realise of course that the real bombs were planted under the exact seats in the exact carriages in which they had no doubt been instructed to sit and in the case of Hussain, the bus. The best laid plans of mice and men… All was probably going exactly to plan until the 6th July…

The most likely explanation for Khan’s sudden disappearance on the 6th was that he informed his handler for the 7/7 exercise that he was not going to be able to meet his obligations due to his wife’s extreme ill health. He may then have been told to ensure that the others could make it without him because it was certain that the bombings were not going to be called-off but unfortunately he had now presented his handlers with a problem that had only one possible outcome and I do not believe that I actually need to spell this out.

Could this possibly also neatly explain why the attendant at the filling station where Tanweer filled his car and argued about the change he was given, stated categorically that he only saw one other person in Tanweer’s car, Hasib Hussain. Khan was almost certainly not there and probably unknown to Tanweer and Hussain, was already dead. This would also provide a reason that the now-suppressed BBC Radio 5 news reports from the morning of 7/7 reported that only two and not three ‘suspected terrorists’ had been shot at Canary Wharf and as seen by dozens of witnesses in the surrounding office buildings.

Anyway, on the morning of 7/7, Germaine Lindsay drove the relatively short distance from Aylesbury in nearby Buckinghamshire to meet the other so-called bombers at Luton railway station. He arrived too early and decided to take a short nap in his car before the others were due to rendezvous with him. Interestingly, he paid for a car park ticket for the full day but surely, had he been a real suicide bomber and not a patsy he would have known that he had only a few short hours left to live and this would then have rendered the purchase of a ticket totally unnecessary.

At the inquest, one of the station attendants, a Mr Patel, gave testimony to the Inquest to the effect that a man whom he identified from photographs as Germaine Lindsay, arrived on the concourse of King’s Cross station and immediately asked to speak urgently with ‘the Duty Manager’ and stated that it was ‘very important’. Mr Patel remembered Lindsay simply for the reason that it was extremely unusual for any member of the public to know the exact job title of the person in overall charge of the station. Usually people would ask for the ‘supervisor’ or simply the ‘manager’. By this time there was utter chaos on the station concourse. The metal grilles on the outer doors to the station had been lowered and locked shut and passengers were not being allowed through the barriers. A sizeable crowd had gathered and were starting to abuse staff in their frustration at being unable to enter the station concourse and several police community support personnel were trying to keep order. However when Patel managed to finally locate the Duty Manager, Germaine Lindsay had disappeared, as it turned out – forever.

The primary cause of Lindsay’s confusion was the fact that he was late for his date with destiny and events had already spiralled out of control for both the patsies and the real perpetrators, by this time. The train upon which the ‘bombers’ had been scheduled to travel from Luton to London King’s Cross station, the 7.40am, had been cancelled. The train that they eventually caught was also delayed by 23 minutes and so by the time the hapless foursome arrived in London using their ‘return’ tickets, yes return tickets note, the master-plan was already underway without them as they had all already missed their respective trains.

According to many people who visited the Leeds area they had spoken with several local residents and all were adamant that all three of Khan, Hussain and Tanweer had shown no inclination whatsoever in their communities towards political or religious radicalism.

In much the same vein as other inside-jobs or false flag events, there are so few videos or even still photographs of the quartet together. Even those that do exist could easily have been ‘photo-shopped’ with only a basic knowledge of this technique. In reality there should be dozens if not hundreds of pictures of these men at various stages of the plot. London is the most CCTV-intensive environment on the planet and so the pertinent question must be, why are there only two extremely poor, grainy, still pictures of the four, one at Luton station and one at Kings Cross, Thameslink station, the date and time stamps on which could have easily been faked. In fact I could probably have done it myself! Is it possible perchance that the photos of Khan have been dubbed-in from the ‘dummy run’ that the foursome carried out on the 29th June 2005, a mere eight days earlier?

The mobile phone evidence places them all on the correct train at the correct time, the Luton to Kings Cross train that is. However, there are three issues here worthy of note. Firstly, this is relatively new evidence that was not released in the previous, 2006 hearing. Why should this be? Is it an invented afterthought maybe, to lend greater credence to the official conspiracy theory? Secondly, is it really likely that the four men would have been texting each other on a train upon which they were all travelling together? And thirdly and perhaps most significant, this type of evidence is ridiculously easy to fake. It is after all simply a series of printed characters on an official-looking piece of paper.

It is worth at this juncture mentioning the famous ‘terror-warning’ videos made by Khan and Tanweer and which have been submitted as conclusive ‘proof’ of their radical or terrorist tendencies. Khan and Tanweer could easily have been coerced into making the Jihad-inciting videos that have played such a large part in convincing the public to accept their guilt. They were employees of the government for at least two days (possibly more) after all and probably very well-paid employees for the dry-run on the 29th June and the day of 7/7 itself. They would no doubt have been told that the exercise had to be completely realistic and were probably told that the film would be used by the station staff and other authorities to aid them in intercepting the four suspected ‘terrorists’. The ‘threats’ from Khan and Tanweer on the videos are totally vague and unspecific and unconvincing in the extreme. When Khan’s wife first saw the video it was reported that she said, “That’s not my husband.” Her brother however, said he believed it was Khan. I would surmise that it is most likely that her words were taken completely out of context and that she actually meant ‘that is not the husband I know as he would never say those things’.

Daniel Obachike is the most famous of the survivors of the bus blast in Tavistock Square, the ‘4th bomb’ as it has come to be known. Daniel’s experiences, terrible as they were on the day were also matched subsequently by the sheer terror he experienced by being subjected to several years of overt threats and surveillance by MI5. All he is guilty of is telling the truth as he saw it that day.

“I’m just a regular guy, I was born and bred and work in London and that day I was on my way to work in Old Street and there was some kind of disruption going on. We were told that it was a power surge on the underground and that’s how I came to be on the bus.” Daniel Obachike

He described in detail how he boarded the bus at Euston along with several dozen others who had all been denied access to the tube station as he thought that the bus was going in the direction he required. Shortly after the bus had started its journey, Daniel looked out of the window and saw two cars, a black Mercedes and a blue BMW blocking the road and their drivers directing the bus away from its normal route, towards Tavistock Square. It was in Tavistock Square where the bus exploded and this is where events took a distinctly sinister turn.

After the explosion, instinct took over and he just ran as fast as possible off the bus and away down the street in the direction the bus had just travelled in order to escape the scene. A few yards down the street, Daniel noticed that a man was actually filming him running away at which point he became confused and stopped. He looked around him and back in the direction of the bus which he could now see had the entire top-deck blown away by the blast

At this point his demeanour abruptly changed from fear to curiosity as he became aware that something strange was going on.

“I was looking at the people moving into the actual space on the square. There were guys who were hanging around. There was a row of policemen who were just standing there in yellow fluorescent jackets, they weren’t doing anything, they were just watching. There was this guy filming and I’m saying ‘what is going on here’. It didn’t feel right.”

Contrary to other witness’ statements, Daniel says he did not see any Asian-looking man on the lower deck of the bus, nor did he see an Asian man get on the bus at any time. The Metropolitan Police later changed their initial reports that the bomber was on the lower deck and instead placed him on the upper deck of the bus.

Daniel then described a man who he noticed after the blast, as he appeared to be injured but was acting very strangely. He (Daniel) went to help an injured woman and was assisting her down the street ahead of the bus towards a hotel where she could at least sit whilst waiting for medical attention and in doing so he passed a man who seemed to be injured himself as he was swathed in bandages. However, he was extremely confused by this because the man was forty or fifty metres ahead of the bus and the bomb blast had actually travelled backwards and had even killed a passer-by behind the bus. This person was making a lot of noise and generally creating a fuss by rolling around in the road which Daniel thought at the time was extremely strange behaviour, not to mention poor acting.

Do not forget that all this took place within a minute of the explosion and so how on earth had this man managed to gain medical assistance let alone be already sporting bandages?

In addition to this strange scenario, Daniel noticed that…

“Some people were running forward, the medical staff and the medical professionals, you could tell who they were because they were seeing what they could try and do for people. But then there were these other people who were just watching, taking notes, organising people, moving things around.”

Daniel then went on to say that he believed that this person whoever he was, had prior knowledge and prior intelligence and was placed at the scene for some ulterior purpose. He actually conducted his own search on the Internet after the event, because a few days after the event, his picture ‘was everywhere’ and yet has now been removed from Internet. The face of this man complete with bandaged head was all over the BBC and British news websites as well as most of the international ones too.

There were also four men in a blue uniform and who had rucksacks and also two or three people who were just standing in doorways watching the scene and there was another person who was controlling everything. He was in plain-clothes and was co-ordinating police activity once they had started to actually do something other than simply standing around.

Following the day of the attacks, Daniel made several attempts to contact the police to give his statement, but they simply did not want to talk to him. Eventually he gave up trying in frustration but soon noticed that he was under supposed covert surveillance. He also received several intimidating phone calls warning him to stop trying to make public his suspicions and knows that he was being followed for almost a year after the event.

Interestingly, it was later discovered that the day prior to the incident, this bus had been off the road all day for ‘maintenance’ work to be carried out. It is also noteworthy that both security cameras on the bus were ‘inoperative’ that day, despite the fact that the bus had just undergone a full maintenance check the previous day.   How convenient this is, but of course why would we expect them to change a successful cover-up strategy when it is proven to be effective in incident after incident, with never a query or even a passing comment from the lapdogs of the media, let alone the general public.

Daniel is absolutely 100% certain to this day that Hasib Hussain was not on the bus and did not carry out the bombing.

The four alleged terrorists all had four or more mobile phones each; one of their own private phones and at least three other ‘operational’ phones that they are supposed to have used to confound anyone who might attempt to track their communications and obstruct their diabolical plan. However, I believe it much more likely that these phones were supplied by their handlers and that their possession of them facilitated the tracking of their every movement. For example Tanweer and Lindsay were easily traced to Canary Wharf after they had panicked and gone on the run. They were presumably, naively hoping to tell their story to the British press before the security services caught up with them, an endeavour which to their great personal cost, ultimately failed miserably.

Anthony John Hill aka ‘Muad’Dib’ (named for a character in Frank Herbert’s sci-fi story ‘Dune’) produced an excellent video-film ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’ bringing much hitherto unknown information to the attention of the public and when in 2008 a group of ‘Islamic terrorists’, allegedly associates of Khan, were arraigned for trial at Kingston Crown Court, Hill mailed two copies of his DVD to the court. One envelope was addressed to the judge and the other to the foreman of the jury. Neither DVD reached its intended recipient but shortly afterwards a request for Hill to be extradited from Ireland (he lived in Kells, County Meath at the time) was sent to the Irish Ministry of Justice. The request was successful and Hill was arrested on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice by a British policeman, accompanied back to Britain and incarcerated in Wandsworth prison shortly before the start of the 7/7 Inquest. After much legal argument and a completely farcical and biased court case, Hill was eventually acquitted by a sympathetic jury much to the great chagrin of the presiding judge who had instructed them to find him guilty regardless of the fact that there was no evidence to support the Crown’s claims against him. Justice? What justice?

A tragic but nevertheless interesting postscript to this whole sorry incident was the shooting of the Brazilian man, Jean Charles de Menezes two weeks following 7/7. The official version of events was that he was thought by a group of armed policeman to be a terrorist as he was (according to them) wearing a large overcoat on a warm sunny day and appeared to be hiding something underneath it as well as having a ‘foreign’ appearance. According to the police account, he was spotted and chased, at which point he fled in panic, vaulted the barrier at Stockwell tube station and boarded a train in his futile attempts to avoid arrest. At this point the police caught him and held him down and simply shot him seven times in the head. Not once, but seven times.

Why would they do this when he was already under restraint? Again the official version stated that it was because they thought he had a bomb and was going to detonate it at any moment. Do they really think we are all so stupid? What purpose would shooting someone in the head seven times when already under restraint, serve? Why would simply handcuffing him not fulfil much the same purpose? There is no doubt in my mind that this action was taken in order to ensure that there was no way that de Menezes could survive and as with many aspects of this whole sorry story, there is far more to this particular incident than meets the eye.

For a start, it was subsequently proven that de Menezes was not wearing a large overcoat as the police had falsely claimed; he was wearing a t-shirt, lightweight jeans and a short, light denim jacket.   He had no bag with him and nor was he carrying anything else that could have been mistaken for a bomb or explosive device. In fact the whole story about him fleeing and the police giving chase into Stockwell tube station was a complete fabrication. Jean actually sauntered into the station, used his ‘Oyster’ pre-paid travel card in the normal fashion and headed for a train bound for his destination of North West London where he happened to be working at the time. Having disembarked from the escalator at the appropriate platform, a train was just arriving and so he jogged leisurely along the platform and boarded the train carriage. He sat down at a convenient seat and took out the newspaper he had with him, to read on the journey. At this point an undercover, plain-clothed police officer standing in the tube carriage identified Jean to nearby (similarly plain-clothed) officers at which point they raced onto the tube-train carriage, dragged him out of his seat, held him down and shot him as described previously, killing him instantly. Incidentally, the bullets used were known as ‘dum dum’ bullets which are particularly vicious, causing maximum possible damage to human flesh and bone. These bullets are ‘illegal’ in international warfare so it really does beg the question as to why the Metropolitan police were issued with them – or indeed was this a ‘special’ case that warranted their use?

Jean’s family were not informed about his killing until more than 24 hours after it happened despite the officers on the scene finding Jean’s wallet with his Brazilian driving licence inside it. The Metropolitan Police immediately began briefing the press with ‘off the record’ statements saying that Jean was a terrorist, that he was acting suspiciously, that he was wearing a bulky coat and that he was challenged but refused to co-operate. All of these statements have of course subsequently proven to be absolutely, totally false.

Usually in the event of a death at the hands of the police, an immediate investigation is begun by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). However, one hour after Jean was killed; the head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Iain Blair contacted the Home Office asking for the immediate suspension of any investigation by the IPCC. He ordered his officers to close Stockwell tube to any investigations and as a result of this it was six days before the IPCC could begin their investigations. This of course was six days during which vital evidence could have been fabricated or destroyed and a cover-up could have been instigated.

Five hours after de Menezes was murdered, Sir Iain Blair appeared on national television stating that the ‘incident’ at Stockwell tube was related to the anti-terrorism operations and that Jean was challenged and resisted (a blatant lie). He also claimed that he was not told until the next day that Jean had been an innocent man but this must be a blatant lie, I feel. Do they seriously expect us to believe that a man was shot to death in this brutal, illegal manner and yet the head of the force was not told about it until the next day? In any event it was subsequently discovered that Blair had contacted the Home Office regarding the matter, one hour after the incident.

The family of de Menezes firmly believe that the actions of police officers and of Sir Iain Blair constitute an attempted ‘cover-up’ operation. The disappearance of the CCTV from Stockwell tube (that old trick again), the attempt to block the IPCC from commencing their investigations, the tampering of the police records on the day, the police briefings suggesting Jean was acting suspiciously, all suggest that the police knew far more than they were admitting. To this day, no officer has yet been prosecuted or disciplined for the de Menezes killing, thus confirming the impression that the police in the UK are free to act with impunity and without consequence to their actions.

So, was this really all a huge mistake or could it have been something more sinister? The undercover police officers obviously knew where to find de Menezes on that day, unless we believe that they just happened to be loitering at Stockwell tube station, armed to the teeth, at that precise moment with nothing particularly better to do with their time. If this was not the case, then what was the reason for the elaborate cover-up and frantic attempts to cover their tracks? The primary justification from the police for de Menezes’ shooting was that they suspected him of being a terrorist simply because he was wearing a large coat which they ‘believed’ was concealing a bomb but as this has since been proved to be a gross lie, it also negates the excuse given for shooting him seven times in the head, which even assuming the police were telling the truth, was extremely flimsy at best. So what could the real motivation have been?

Jean Charles de Menezes was an electrician by trade, a fact never disclosed by the police at the time. In fact at one point in the aftermath of the event they actually point-blank refused to name his occupation. This I believe to be highly significant in the light of subsequent information I received.

Several years ago whilst in London at a conference, I happened to sit next to a local man who claimed that he had known him vaguely.  He told me that de Menezes’ occupation was electrical engineer and that he had been working as a contractor on the London tube immediately prior to 7/7. This person then told me that he strongly believed that de Menezes was brutally murdered not because he was mistaken as a terror suspect at all, but simply because he had been privy to aspects of the plot, in particular relating to the planting of the explosives under the floors of the trains which were detonated by means of ‘power surges’ and afterwards, despite serious threats against him and his family, he could not resist telling what really happened, to anyone who would listen.

This is complete speculation as I have no proof whatsoever that it is true but it does have a certain ‘ring of truth’ to it and would neatly explain the mystery.

However, no matter what the real truth, the fact remains that the illegal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was certainly no mistake and was, I am convinced, part of the cover-up operation of the 7/7 tragedy.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.