connected with the London bomb attacks on July 7, 2005
On May 6, 2004, a BBC Panorama program depicted a fictional terrorist attack involving four suicide bombs: three trains in the London Underground were blown up between 8-9 am, and one more explosion happened in a large street vehicle an hour or so later, in central London. The imaginary scenario was "set in the future - but only just". The program's transcript can be found on the BBC website at
On 7/7/2005, a year after the Panorama program was aired, an antiterrorism exercise based on the scenario depicted in the program was being conducted in London. We know this because on the morning of 7/7, Peter Power, the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a crisis management advice company, told in a BBC Radio Five interview that his company was engaged in such an exercise when things "went live":
"[A]t 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."
See, for example, http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=2927 and
(link to MP3 files of the interview)
The interviewer then asked Power if he had understood it correctly: that his company was "running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?", to which Power replied "Precisely", going on to confirm that the exercise had been taking place simultaneously with the real attacks. For more information, see
Thus, on the morning of 7/7/2005 there was an antiterrorism exercise going on in three London underground stations based on simultaneous bombs going off, and precisely the same thing happened in real life during the exercise. As if that wasn't enough, an hour later a bomb exploded in a large ground vehice (a bus), completing the match with the BBC Panorama program - in which, incidentally, Peter Power was also heavily featured.
Many statisticians have concluded that the probability for the exercises and the real events purely coinciding this way - temporally, locationally, and methodologically - is so small as to be nonexistent. This calls for an investigation into the relationship of these three events. A British friend of mine confirmed that there hasn't even been a public discussion about these fantastic coincidences! Nor has Mr Power been questioned about the exercise.
The BBC has completely neglected to conduct the investigative journalism that the above would require - despite the fact that the BBC's own program was intimately linked to what happened. As a public service company, the BBC needs to thoroughly investigate how and why real terrorist attacks mirrored - temporally, locationally and methodologically - the mock terrorist attacks, which in turn were based on a BBC program broadcast earlier. The fact that we're dealing here with the biggest terrorist attack on the British soil, which killed 56 people and injured 200, makes this a task of utmost importance.
* * * * *
On March 15, I received the following response from the BBC:
Thank you for your e-mail.
Due to the length of time that has passed since the original broadcast I'm
afraid there is very little I can say by way of response. Our complaints
process asks that viewers contact us within twelve weeks of transmission
and the programme you refer to was broadcast nearly four years ago. You
can find full details at our website:
Had the police or relevant authorities raised concerns with us following
the events of 7 July we would of course have looked into these as well at
Thank you again for contacting the BBC.
* * * * *
I then resubmitted my complaint, pointing out that it was not specifically about the Panorama program (and that I couldn't have foreseen within 13 weeks of the program that its content would be played out several months later). The response to the new complaint was largely similar. So, the BBC engages in investigative journalism only when the authorities indicate that something is amiss!
Some other reasons to be skeptical of the official narrative of the July 7 attacks include:
- The authorities maintained for over a year that the alleged suicide bombers had used the 7.40am train from Luton to London, although that train had been cancelled. The cancellation of the train had been found out by independent researchers soon after the attacks.
- In a city where there are probably more CCTV cameras than anywhere else, only three photographs of the alleged suicide bombers have been published. One of the three has been cropped so that it is not possible to know where it was captured.
- Blair refused a full public inquiry into the largest terrorist attack on British soil.
- The July 29 edition of FOX News Channel's Day Side programme revealed that the suspected mastermind of the 7/7 London Bombings, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British intelligence asset.
- Hasheeb Hussein took the number 91 bus from King's Cross Thameslink station to Euston station. There he boarded the number 30 bus, which would have run back along Euston Road to King's Cross Thameslink station - had it not been diverted to Tavistock Square! Furthermore, the number 91 bus went to Tavistock Square, so if Hussein had wanted to explode his bomb precisely in front of the British Medical Association (where the bomb did explode), he could have simply stayed on that bus. It is difficult to see why a real terrorist would have made such inane, time-consuming detours - including visiting McDonald's just before exploding himself.
The July 7 attacks have many of the marks of "false-flag" events familiar from history. A close precedent is Operation Gladio in the Cold War Europe, officially condemned by the EU in 1990, in which western intelligence agencies participated in the murder of hundreds of civilians in terrorist attacks blamed on the Left. Alas, as is also familiar from the history of false-flag events, the British mainstream media have shown total disinterest in any kind of investigative journalism vis-à-vis the glaring oddities in the official story.