» Monday, June 19, 2006

7/7 Bombings

Put that the Government had not had the "full picture" of what was known about the 7/7 bombers, as written in the Times today, and how had it responded to a new request for an independent inquiry, the PMOS replied that he did not do book reviews. There had been an objective independent scrutiny of the factors leading up to 7/7. That scrutiny was carried out by a body accountable to Parliament, which was the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). That committee had published its findings, and if people looked back at the time of publication, people recognised that it was a serious piece of work.

The PMOS said that the committee’s conclusions were that there was not an intelligence failure. The fact that there had been a serious piece of work into this area had to be balanced against the indisputable fact that a further inquiry would divert resources from the ongoing fight against terrorism. Therefore, the likely benefit had to be balances against very real cost. The Prime Minister’s view remained that since the independent ISC had looked at it, a further inquiry would be an unnecessary diversion of resources.

Asked if the Prime Minister had asked the ISC to look into events surrounding the Forest Gate raid, the PMOS said that the ISC decided what it did, and it was not a matter for the Prime Minister

Asked what the Downing Street view was about Sir Trevor Phillips’ words on Radio Four about rebalancing race relations, the PMOS said that recruitment for the Met was an operational matter.

Put that it was a policy matter, the PMOS said that we took into account the views of the Met. However, they had to make their operational assessment first.

Briefing took place at 9:00 | Search for related news


  1. I think what has happened was really sad and my heart goes out to all those people who were victims and the families of those who were lost. Those suicide bombers were heart less and evil, they killed innocent people for no reason.

    Comment by Reshma Patel — 7 Jul 2006 on 2:03 pm | Link
  2. While no-one would ever question the sentiments of Reshma Patel as far as the victims & their families, the perpetrators have not yet been definitively identified. We have the word of Tony Bliar and various other professional liars in government & the higher echelons of officialdom (remember Iraq, anyone?!?! Or how about Jean Charles Menezes?), that’s it – there is NO actual proof. None. A gigantic smokescreen on the scale of 9/11 – and people are falling for it because they can’t be arsed to dig beneath the surface & read anything that takes more than 30 seconds.

    If you never read anything else, read this – the testimony of the eyewitness no-one seems to want to speak to at any length, even though (or more likely because….) his testimony calls into question the very existence of those "suicide bombers".

    <a href="http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf">http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf</a&gt;

    "The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. 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.

    Read those words very carefully, from someone who was right there. And ask – WHY has no-one spoken to him? The implications are that there was no suicide bombers, and the attacks were instead deliberately pre-meditated. And when you take a close look at all the evidence & detail surrounding that day, you suddenly find that there is lots of other evidence which calls into question the official story.

    <a href="http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html">http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html</a&gt;

    And all of a sudden the cries for a full independent (yeah, right!!!) enquiry become more understandable – and yet we’ll never get one, of that you can be sure. There may be another enquiry, yes, simply as a sop to public opinion, but like the (let’s not beat about the bush) Hutton Farce, it certainly won’t be independent. And for those who question whether a government would be so brazen as to appoint a tame chairman of an "independent" enquiry, go take a look at the background of Dr. Philip D. Zelikow and his relationships with the Bush Admin (he even co-wrote a book with Kindasleazy Rice, for Gods sake!) – that didn’t stop Bush appointing him as chairman of the ridiculous 9/11 Commission. A commission whose "remit" was to leave no stone unturned, and yet, when explaining what happened to WTC 7 the Commission’s report said "We don’t know…" Literally. "That one’s beyond us!"

    Again, for anyone who needs a reminder, WTC WAS a 47-story steel-cored building across the compound from the Twin Towers which had sustained next to no damage and yet collapsed in freefall speed with no warning later on the 11 Sep 2001.

    <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html">http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html</a&gt;

    This of course, as we all know, suggests controlled demolition – a suspicion confirmed when the lease holder, Larry Silverstein, admitted on TV that the order had been given to "pull" WTC".

    <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk</a&gt;

    While the official counter to this is that Silverstein was talking about pulling the teams of firemen in WTC7, there WERE no firemen in that building.

    <a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html">http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/09/silversteins-first-public-pull-it.html</a&gt;

    Oh, and Larry made $3 BILLION on his $100 million investment in the WTC complex – and after only 3 months too. Not a bad days work. Some good does come out of tragedy, at least. Someone made some money. Lots of it. Come on!! Even the TV so many can’t tear their eyes away from for long enough to find out a few things for themselves insists that the one who stands to gain from a crime is often involved in that crime. How come we forgot that?!

    As far as 7/7 goes, the "who stands to gain" automatically points back at those who got they wanted from the "opportunities" presented that day. And as sad as that is for the poor unfortunates caught up in those attacks, the actual identity of the attackers, when one scratches beneath the surface a tiny bit, is not quite as firmly established as we’ve been led to believe. Independent enquiry, anyone?


    Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 8 Jul 2006 on 4:58 pm | Link
  3. To forestall any protests that the video released just the other day of Shehzad Tanweer PROVES who did it, ask yourself why it’s taken so long to release that video, when it was most likely made at the same time as the one released last year of Mohammad Sidique Khan.

    Comment by SmokeNMirrors — 8 Jul 2006 on 5:12 pm | Link
  4. bocliacel

    Comment by domrotrc — 12 Nov 2007 on 8:00 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


June 2006
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« May   Jul »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh