London, dis-information and confusion?

Ok, after reading alot of posts on these forums, many with scattered and confusing evidence and reports I decided to collate what I find the most interesting and most compelling. You've probably read most of the info here in various posts and reports around the internet but I felt a collection would be most appropriate.

Advanced Intelligence:

The first inconsistency to emerge, and to date the most compelling, is that of advance warning and prior knowledge. The police and the government have said unequivocally that there was no advance warning or indicative intelligence and that the attacks came "out of the blue". Yet early AP and Israeli radio reports clearly stated that Scotland Yard had given warning to the Israeli Embassy in London that an attack was imminent BEFORE any explosions had taken place.

www.israelnationalnews.com...

The Israeli National News quickly went off-line completely after the publication of this story, but has since returned with the original article still available.

The Embassy warned Finance Minister and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to stay inside his London hotel. For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight? The same thing happened on 9/11 with the first plane strike.

Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.

Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.

About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. Haaretz is now reporting the same thing. It seems as if they are scrambling to coordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.

Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

London Bombing Excersise:

BBC5 Live Interview
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for 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 up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely.

Official Email Response
"Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows.

It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.

Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic)."

Also try this groups.yahoo.com...

Now this begs the question as to why Power is now downplaying the significance of these excersises. Initially he claimed they coincided EXACTLY with what happened in the Underground at the EXACT same time. Now his official email response claims it was only 2 events what were SIMILAR. Personally I cannot draw any conclusions from this or find any reason for him having to change his story so quickly. Interested to know what people think about this.

In both the ITN TV interview and the BBC radio interview Peter Power makes it clear that the team of crisis managers who were overseeing the drill quickly switched from exercise planning to real time management of the actual bombing itself.

"We had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real," stated Power in his TV interview.

The company that Visor were running the exercise for is not named by Power (He said for obvious reasons, what obvious reasons?). If Visor switched to real time management of the bombings, who else could the company be but London Underground or one of their affiliates?

If this were a strategy session for a completely unaffiliated company to London Underground, the meeting would have been cancelled and the participants would have gone home as soon as they were aware of the fact that a real attack was taking place.

Only if the exercise was being conducted for London Underground or a group responsible for part of a command structure in the aftermath of the attack would 'real time crisis management' of the event take place.

So why does Power make mention of the company being close to a property occupied by Jewish businessmen? He then makes reference to American banks. If the exercise was being coordinated on behalf of a bank then why was there a need for Visor Consultants to actively 'manage' the bombings after they had taken place and what were they managing precisely?

The Actual Explosive Material:

London Independant July 12th 2005
The bombs used in Thursday's terrorist attacks were of "military origin" , according to a senior French policeman sent to London to help in what has become the biggest criminal investigation in British history.

Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, told Le Monde newspaper that the explosives used in the bombings were of " military origin", which he described as "very worrying". " We're more used to cells making home-made explosives with chemicals," he said. "How did they get them? Either by trafficking, for example, in the Balkans, or they had someone on the inside who enabled them to get out of the military establishment."

He added that the victims' wounds suggested that the explosives, which were " not heavy but powerful", had been placed on the ground, perhaps underneath seats.

So an anti-terrorism expert claims the explosives used were of military origin yet the british press are now claiming that after police raids in leeds they found chemicals and equiptment used for making the explosives. They claim they were used household chemicals to create the explosives. So what do we believe? Military grade explosives or home made? And if these guys were suicide bombers why weren't they carrying the bombs? Instead the evidence suggests they placed them on the ground or even under the seats?

BBC News
Explosives found in a house in Leeds are said to be similar to those used in al-Qaeda attacks and made from ingredients available in high-street chemists.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Mobile Network Shutdown?

The Police have said today that the mobile phone networks were not shut down as this would have caused public panic. (The Madrid Bombings were coordinated with the use of mobile phones). "We did consider it. We do have that ability, Blair said. But he said commanders considered how that would affect public confidence, and decided not to do it.

OK so why is the British media reporting that networks were shut down under a program called Access Overload Control, and why could I not make any calls for at least two hours, my parents live in London and I was trying to get through to them for quite some time? When the network is busy you get told that it is busy, my calls were instantly intercepted and failed immediately with no such message. For an example of this wait until New Years eve and try making a call at mid-night.

How Many Bombs?

Initial reports suggested there were up to 8 bombs on the underground and 3 on buses. This was later scaled back to 3 on the underground and one on a bus. So there were 7 incidents that never actually happened. Police have said that this confusion can be attributed to the fact that people were coming out of different stations. Furthermore the other bus incidents were "controlled explosions". Controlled explosions of what?

The Bombers

It is "highly likely" one of the Tube bombers died in the attacks on the Underground network, police say.

The suspected bombers travelled down from the West Yorkshire and met at Kings Cross station shortly before the attacks were launched on Thursday morning, police said at a press conference.

Their images were captured by CCTV cameras.

Personal documents have been found at all four bomb scenes and although the four attackers are thought to have died police were careful not to say whether Britain had suffered its first suicide bomb strike.

Anti-terror police said they had traced the bombers and six arrest warrants have been issued for addresses in West Yorkshire.

Police said there was forensic evidence that meant it was "very likely" the bomber responsible for the train explosion at Aldgate died there.

One of the four men had been reported missing by his family on the day of the attacks and his property was found at the bus blast scene. The second man's property was found at the scene of the Aldgate blast and the third man's property at both the Aldgate and Edgware Road blasts.

One man has just been arrested in west Yorkshire in connection with the attacks. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland's Yard anti-terrorist branch, said: "The investigation quite early led us to have concerns about the movement and activities of four men, three of whom came from the West Yorkshire area. "We are trying to establish their movements in the run-up to last week's attack and specifically to establish whether they all died in the explosions. We executed six warrants under the Terrorism Act at premises in the West Yorkshire area."

These included the home addresses of three of the four men. A detailed forensic examination will now follow and this is likely to take time to complete."

He continued: "We know that all four of these arrived in London by train on the morning. We have identified CCTV footage showing the four men at King's Cross Station shortly before 8.30am on that morning, July 7.

"One of them who had set out from West Yorkshire was reported missing by his family to the casualty bureau on July 7. We have been able to establish that he was joined on his journey to London by three other men. We have since found personal documents bearing the names of three of those four men close to the seats of three of the explosions." As regards to the man who is missing, some of his property was found on the route 30 bus in Tavistock Square. Property of a second man was found at the scene of the Aldgate bomb and in relation to a third man property with his name was found at the Aldgate and Edgware Road bombs." We have strong forensic evidence that it is very likely that one of the men from West Yorkshire died at the explosion at Aldgate."

Sky News terror expert Steve Park said the documents may have been deliberately planted to "send police the wrong way".

The news comes as armed police search a house in Leeds after the Army used a controlled explosion to get in.

It was the discovery that the bus bomber was likely to have died in the blasts that triggered the raids. Hundreds of people were evacuated from the area around Hyde Park Road, Burley.

No one was in the house at the time but armed officers had been used as a precaution. Five other homes in Leeds had earlier been raided by police hunting the terrorists behind last week's attacks.

Neighbours at one of the addresses said a 22-year-old man who lived there with his family had gone missing. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the raids were "directly connected" to Thursday's atrocity.

Hours later, police evacuated Luton railway station and car park to recover a vehicle suspected of being linked with the terrorist attacks. The car was blown up in two controlled explosions.

So why do we never get any details of what exactly they blew up, or what they thought they were blowing up. Is it just me or do the police seem to blowing up all their evidence? And they found the bombers IDs and other documents. I didn't think suicide bombers carried around ID. This also doesn't explain why their IDs were still intact.

Please feel free to correct anything I may have gotten wrong or add anything you wish.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not shouting conspiracy. I'm mearly displaying the facts and mis-information presented by numerous reports so far as to try and understand exactly what happened.

*edit: Screwed up the quote code. Fixed.

[edit on 16/7/05 by Creative_Seeker]

Initial reports suggested there were up to 8 bombs on the underground and 3 on buses. This was later scaled back to 3 on the underground and one on a bus. So there were 7 incidents that never actually happened. Police have said that this confusion can be attributed to the fact that people were coming out of different stations. Furthermore the other bus incidents were "controlled explosions". Controlled explosions of what?

Well, i dont know what media source you have been looking at, but none suggested 3 on buses, two controlled explosions were carried out, but that doesnt mean explosives. If the bomb squad see something suspicious, they'll blow it up to be on the safe side.

As for the underground, numerous people were running at of different stations which lead the police to believe that they were more incidents on the underground. This is where the reports of 6 incidents on the underground came from, but it was only 3. The underground computer system clearly shows only 3 incidents.

The Embassy warned Finance Minister and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to stay inside his London hotel

This was AFTER the underground explosion. The foreign minister for Israel stated there was no warning at all. It was a rumour that went around, just like the one that a suicide bomber was shot dead.

So an anti-terrorism expert claims the explosives used were of military origin yet the british press are now claiming that after police raids in leeds they found chemicals and equiptment used for making the explosives

Yes, but that was before the investigation even started. Thats before the house was searched. How can they tell what explosives were used without investigating the scene of the crime?

The media in Britian has come under fire because Scotland Yard asked them not to jump to conclusions and the media basically have. The media screamed suicide bombers even before Scotland Yard confirmed any of them died at the scene.

So why do we never get any details of what exactly they blew up, or what they thought they were blowing up. Is it just me or do the police seem to blowing up all their evidence? And they found the bombers IDs and other documents. I didn't think suicide bombers carried around ID. This also doesn't explain why their IDs were still intact.

Scotland Yard believed the bombers were mislead because all four brought returns from Luton station, none of them shouted "allah akhbar", which most suicide bombers have said before blowing themselves up, and the bombs were not on their body. Meaning, who ever planned the attack told them that there was enough time to escape.

But thats just a theory by Scotland yard, that the media have reported (could be false also)

[edit on 16-7-2005 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite

Initial reports suggested there were up to 8 bombs on the underground and 3 on buses. This was later scaled back to 3 on the underground and one on a bus. So there were 7 incidents that never actually happened. Police have said that this confusion can be attributed to the fact that people were coming out of different stations. Furthermore the other bus incidents were "controlled explosions". Controlled explosions of what?

Well, i dont know what media source you have been looking at, but none suggested 3 on buses, two controlled explosions were carried out, but that doesnt mean explosives. If the bomb squad see something suspicious, they'll blow it up to be on the safe side.

As for the underground, numerous people were running at of different stations which lead the police to believe that they were more incidents on the underground. This is where the reports of 6 incidents on the underground came from, but it was only 3. The underground computer system clearly shows only 3 incidents.

I was watching the events unfold on the BBC website. Their first reports where of 8 bombs on the tube system and 3 on the buses. This was later scaled down to the 3 on the tube and one on the bus. My post gives the same reasoning you do for the claim of 8 bombs on the tube and 3 on the buses.

As i previously stated my post is for info only and not accusations of a conspiracy.

Thanks for the updated info on the updated info on the other points though.

Originally posted by infinite
Well, i dont know what media source you have been looking at, but none suggested 3 on buses, two controlled explosions were carried out, but that doesnt mean explosives. If the bomb squad see something suspicious, they'll blow it up to be on the safe side.
[edit on 16-7-2005 by infinite]

Watcha all.. long time no type.

I was with a friend from the BBC that morning, and can personally confirm that there were stories of three bus bombs going round the bbc newsroom. There were also apparently eyewitness reports of two people being shot on canary wharf. This was around 10:30 that morning (my friend was talking to the office on his mobile as we drove to an 11 am appointment).

Can't vouch for the veracity of the rumours, but they were at least taken seriously at the BBC for a time, indicating they weren't internet based speculation.

You have to remember, the media goes off rumours and once they are confirmed and the facts are presented, it becomes a full story.

I know you don't want to hear it but most of these reports are from the confusion that comes with an attack and reporters rushing to get a story.

With survivors coming out of multiple tubes, it is easy to think and report that more bombs went off than actually did.

I've heard that the bombs appeared to be "Shaped Charges" which are commonly used by the military and leads to that assumption. But Shaped Charges can also be made with any explosive, including homemade chemical explosives. Until the crime scene is investigated, you can not tell what type of explosive was used.

In my opinion the media is probably more guilty of dis-information than anyone else. They are always so eager to be the first with a story they barely bother to get any facts straight before plastering it all over the screen. They get in these 'terror experts' with their speculations as to what happened and it quickly gets passed around like it could be fact.

If the authorities and people at the scene don't know what is happening, then what special 'gift' does the media have that allows them to know so much? Perhaps they should lend their talents to the investigation, or maybe they staged the whole thing?
And how come these 'terror experts', if they are so amazing, arn't too busy in an emergancy meeting to be on the air spouting off their opinion.
And how come they have more knowledge on explosives then proper explosive experts? Their idea of 'military grade' is probably something that let's off a bigger bang than a firecracker!

If the Israelie chap had actually been told in advance, who the hell would pass this information onto the media anyway?

In these situations there is so much confusion no-one knows what is happening properly and the old 'chinese whispers' effect is in it's element.
It is only after time has passed and the information been assessed that things come to light and even then there is the odd discrepecy, this is normal.

Originally posted by Qwas
I know you don't want to hear it but most of these reports are from the confusion that comes with an attack and reporters rushing to get a story.

That was the whole point of this post. To show how much the 'facts' differ compared to what source you're looking at and to discern between the incorrect and the correct accounts.

Originally posted by Creative_Seeker
Ok, after reading alot of posts on these forums, many with scattered and confusing evidence and reports I decided to collate what I find the most interesting and most compelling. You've probably read most of the info here in various posts and reports around the internet but I felt a collection would be most appropriate.

Nearly all of these points have already been dispelled in the other posts, and there's nothing in them.

So far, the only things that raise suspicions based upon fact are that the bombers

* Bought return train tickets
* Bought a car parking ticket
* Had more bombs back in the car
* Had more bombs back at a flat
* The bombs were placed in bags and not on their body
* They all still had ID on them when the bombs went off.

From that, you'd think that one or more of the bombers expected to get away for another day, and so could have been set-up by the people above them in the chain.

In addition

* The bombs coincided with the G8 summit, and the timing gave Bush the ideal platform to push ahead with his war on terror, flanked by the other G8 leaders.

So far, that's about as far as we've got towards any conspiracy theory.

Now we have to look at the next layer up from the bombers. This could be the guy in Egypt, but it is also thought that another suspect entered the UK on a ferry, and then left from Heathrow a few hours before the bombs went off.

And when we have the next layer, we start looking for the one above that, and so on.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by tommyc]

I've been working with Explosive Trace Detectors for many years now, and you would be surprised at how many normal every day products will set off the machine. Many of them for "military type explosives". There's so much confusion going on initially, that someone hears something that someone heard from someone at the scene and suddenly you have a full blown story making the rounds that later turns out to be wrong.

Seems someone made economical gain... Hmmm I wonder if we'll ever know.

Who Shorted the British Pound?

The fall did not go unnoticed by investigators, who are wondering whether the terrorist masterminds behind the attacks decided to make some money on their action or whether other investors with inside information about possible attacks took advantage of that knowledge.

Who else stands to gain from this? Lets see....

BBC News Website
Providing or receiving terrorist training could be outlawed under planned new anti-terror laws.
New offences could cover people going to terrorist camps overseas or finding out how to build a bomb through the internet, said the Home Office.

Other proposals include making it illegal to incite terrorism indirectly by "glorifying" bombings.

The Home Office stresses the plans were in train before the London bombs. It will consult opposition MPs next week.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Ok, maybe the new proposed laws mention in that article aren't really that bad but now Blair has a nice little persuasive arguement to pass any law he wants.

Originally posted by infinite
You have to remember, the media goes off rumours and once they are confirmed and the facts are presented, it becomes a full story.

That's a load of BS. How many stories have you seen/heard where they quote "unamed sources"? There's often no confirmation before stories are run.

Jeez, none of you conspiracy theorists can come up with the very real scenario where the muslim terrorists were (and still are) deliberately feeding the media with a bunch of disinformation to try and cause confusion, and this is what they always do, try to blame Israel or the victims themselves?

Or maybe you conspiracy theorists are part of all this terror yourselves, and your job is to spread disinformation among the world's naive and foolish.