NuLabour announcement (13 Dec 2005) that there will be no public inquiry into the 7/7 bombings has moved their contempt for the public on since Hutton.

Hutton produced an extraordinary whitewash in his report, but allowed
a
vast amount of embarrassing material to come out during the course of
the enquiry. NuLabour have decided this will never happen again.
Instead the public is to be fed the official version of the "truth". .

This is part of a general trend whereby the public are being further
and
further excluded from examining the covert behaviour of the state and
are left as prisoners of state propaganda . The absurd official claim
immediately after the beginning of Hemel oil fire that it was
definitely
not terrorism is another recent example of a refusal to honestly
address
matters of public interest.

What is a plausible explanation of the events of 7/7? I suggest this.
The
security services and/or the police knew about the bombers as Islamic
extremists before the event but failed to act - MI5 have admitted they
carried out some form of investigation of the alleged leader of the
bombers Mohammed Sidique Khan, but ended the investigation for some
unrevealed reason before the bombings. . Probably the bombers were
identified from CCTV records, ie, known suspects were seen on the
records.

The worst scenario is that the security services were tracking the
bombers but lost them shortly before the bombings. This raises an
interesting possibility. The general security status was lowered
shortly
before the bombings. No proper explanation has been given for this.
However, as the lowering of status happened just before the G8
meeting
in Scotland it is plausible that the security status was cynically
dropped to justify the removal to Scotland of much of the police
(including anti-terrorist officers) normally stationed in London. The
lowering of security status and the removal of officers to Scotland
may even have acted as a trigger for the bombers to act.

After the bombing the authorities had a choice: admit they had known
about the bombers and had failed to act or claim they were previously
unknown to the security services or police.

To do the former would have laid the security services and police open
to
accusations of direct incompetence and raise questions about what they
suspected and why they did not act. To do the latter would also raise
questions about the competence of the security services and police but
it
would be less direct and raise fewer questions.

The authorities decided to go for the latter as the simpler and less
damaging tactic. However, to rebuild the reputation of the security
services
and police, swift "identification" of the bombers was necessary.
Hence,
the bombers were "identified" within days and the public was fed the
wildly
implausible story that identifying documents had been found on their
bodies - the remains of Mohammed Sidique Khan was delivered to his
relatives in fifty bags, yet supposedly paper and plastic documents
survived the seat of the blast. Moreover, along the way a mistake was
made with the story about identifying documents with those for one of
the
bombers supposedly being found at two of the bomb sites, Liverpool
street
and Edgware Road. (M15 internal memo: 'Director ' to line manager: "
While not wishing to dampen the enthusiasm of agent ...., please ensure
that when planting false documents in future he plants them at only one
location".)


--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:  http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:  http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk