Terror threats rising as FEMA orders $1 Billion in dehydrated food

examinor.com, Feb 24, 2011

FEMA Logo

Photo: Courtesy of FEMA

Terror threats appear to be on the rise as FEMA has rushed a $1 Billion order of dehydrated food in the event of attacks on domestic targets in the US.

This is also coming on the heels of one of the largest terror drills performed by the US Navy on American soil, as Operation Solid Curtain is taking place this week.

In an article Tuesday from the Beaufort Observer, many of the largest suppliers of dehydrated foods in the country are dropping their distributors and customers to dedicate their resources to supplying a billion dollar FEMA request and purchase.

One of the nation's largest suppliers of dehydrated food has cut loose 99% of their dealers and distributors. And it's not because of the poor economy. It's because this particular industry leader can no longer supply their regular distribution channels. Why not? Because they're using every bit of manufacturing capacity they have to fulfill massive new government contracts. Look, the government has always been a customer of the industry to some extent. But according to our sources, this latest development doesn't represent simply a change of vendor on the government's part. It's a whole new magnitude of business.

And that's not all.

Apparently, even though they've cut off their regular consumer markets, the industry leader I've just mentioned still can't produce enough survival food to meet the government's vast requirements. How do we know? Earlier this month, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) put out a Request for Proposal, or RFP, for even more dehydrated food. The RFP called for a 10-day supply of meals - for 14 million people. That's 420 million meals. Typically, FEMA maintains a stockpile of about 6 million meals. Why the sudden need to increase the stockpile by 420 million more? (And that's in addition to whatever our aforementioned industry leader is supplying.) It almost seems like they're trying to stock a modern day "Noah's Ark," doesn't it?

Single functions or events such as FEMA requesting a purchase of survival food might not stand out as peculiar when it is their responsibility to ensure they are mission ready for unforseen events in the US, but couple this with other pieces of the puzzle, such as the Navy drill of Solid Curtain, which is intended for:

...nationwide "drill" involving all military, and it's a drill based on a severe terrorist attack.

and the public had best be aware of something major potentially occurring on our soil in the near future. Global events across the world such as the revolutions and protests, the rising spike in oil, the falling dollar, food shortages, and unrest in Wisconsin and Ohio, are bringing us to the point where crisis may take place, whether from domestic or foreign sources.

Terror alerts have been raised by FEMA in the past month, and this new special order of dehydrated food, at the magnitude of $1 Billion dollars in taxpayer money, should be a call for everyone to prepare on your own for any potential crisis.

Source: www.examinor.com

Headley Saga: Mumbai attack was a joint IB-CIA-Mossad-RSS project

By Amaresh Misra, The Milli Gazette, 28 March 2010

With the row over India getting access to David Headley growing acrimonious each day, the CIA's double agent saga seems all set to open up a can of incredible worms.

First, the case unmasks the pro-US face of the Indian English media. When the Headley saga first came to light, Vir Sanghavi of the Hindustan Times carried an editorial piece claiming that if 'Headley is CIA, and knew about 26/11, the CIA knew about the attack.' In other words, Sanghavi accepted the 'conspiracy theory'–which in the eyes of the English media was 'peddled' by Aziz Burney and this author during the terrible aftermath of 26/11–that the event was a CIA/Mossad/RSS/ISI plot.

In November-December 2008, Vir Sanghavi and his cohorts in the English media attacked both Aziz Burney and this author for spelling forth the 'conspiracy theory'. Then after Headley's name surfaced, they changed tune, without of course admitting their debt to Mr. Burney or this author.

The fact of the matter is that in the 2009 Parliamentary elections, the English media was all set to project Lal Krishna Advani as India's next Prime Minister. It was the feverish anti-RSS, anti-Mossad work done by Aziz Burney and this author that went a long way in ensuring the victory of Congress and secular forces.

Now when the CIA hand behind 26/11 is slowly being unraveled, the English media is seeing red. It is again trying to portray Headley merely as a Lashkar operative, severing thus his links with the CIA.

This highlights the second point, that basically Headley and the CIA cannot be de-linked. Thank God the government of India put into place the NIA, a new National Investigative Agency. The NIA was set up, as the IB and other Indian agencies, especially the IB, had not only gone anti-Muslim-they had gone anti-India. This was proved in the case of Azamgarh boys picked up in and around the Batla House encounter on various bomb blasts charges. Most of the boys were products not of madarsas, but modern schools. They were youngsters in their teens; they had made a mark for themselves in professional courses and were holding jobs in the new, professional sector of the economy.

When Shri Digvijay Singh, the General Secretary AICC and the most secular leader of the India, went to Sanjarpur (under the banner of Anti-Communal Front) in Azamgarh to find out the facts for himself, he was shocked to find that Zeeshan, a boy from Azamgarh who on the fateful day of the Batala House encounter was giving his exams, had more than 50 cases slapped over him in more than three states–which meant that his parents could go on fighting cases for more than 100 years and yet Zeeshan would be in jail.

There are dozens and hundreds of Zeeshans from Azamgarh and other districts of UP, Gujarat and Maharashtra languishing in various Indian jails on unsubstantiated charges. This in fact is India's Guantanamo Bay story–that right here in the world's largest democracy the Indian security services like the IB have secret detention and torture centres where innocent Muslim youths are tortured and put to death. The IB today has been infiltrated heavily by RSS, Mossad and CIA. In fact, this one agency is an anti-national agency—it is obstructing the work of NIA and secular Indians like Shri Digvijay Singh. Soon, in India's interest, the IB will have to be closed down. All its communal officers will be hunted down and tried in a court of just law.

The IB knew about Headley—this is proved by the fact that the SIM cards used by the ten 26/11 terrorists were purchased by an Intelligence Bureau (India) (IB) informer. Till date, the investigations into the 26/11 case, which the IB is handling, have been unable to state as to how the ten terrorists got hold of the SIM cards.

The State IB chief of Maharashtra told a very senior Mumbai Police Officer just after 26/11 that he was ‘entirely in the dark about 26/11 investigations as Delhi (meaning the chief IB office) was handling it'. Basic information about 26/11 was not shared with secular Indian officers. The Headley lead would never have come to the fore had the NIA not stepped in.

IB training criminals [read here Charge-sheet against IB]
Now comes the news that the IB has set-up training camps in Gorakhpur, where it trains criminals–and then uses them to kill Muslim under-trials. The name of Chota Rajan is used as a convenient scapegoat. It is in this manner that dozens of accused in the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, several other such accused in other cases, Muslim businessmen and men of influence have been eliminated on a systematic basis in Maharashtra. The latest in the long list of victims killed allegedly by IB is Shahid Azmi, the lawyer defending the accused of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. Shahid had hit upon evidence which proved the innocence of the accused-and that is why he was bumped off, again by criminals with Nepal–Gorakhpur links!

In fact, the state of Maharashtra holds the dubious distinction of almost institutionalizing the extra-judicial killing of Muslim youth and personalities. Headley was in India months and years before the 26/11 attack; he even surveyed Pune where a blast took place as late as February 2010. It beats one’s imagination as to how the IB did not know about Headley and his movements. There can only be two scenarios: that the IB is totally incompetent–or that the IB is heavily infiltrated by CIA and Mossad: the agency knew about 26/11 and did nothing to stop it.

This places the IB at par with Headley, as executioners of 26/11 and mass murderers. There can be no other honest conclusion.

Headley holds the key to the fact that 26/11 was not just a mere Lashkar operation–that it was a joint Mossad-CIA operation, conducted with possible ISI and RSS help.

If the charge-sheet against Raj Kumar Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya, accused in the Malegaon and other blasts, is read, it is clear that there was always some sort of collusion between the RSS and the ISI. The so-called nationalists, the Hindutva forces, took money to the tune of crores of rupees from the ISI! The IB knows about this transaction but is keeping quiet!

The Headley saga has links to Abhinav Bharat and pro-Hindutva terror groups. The pro-Hindutva terror groups are widely believed to be behind the Pune blasts where a combination of RDX and Ammonium Nitrate was used. Right after the visit of Shri Digvijay Singh to Maharashtra in February 2010, the state home secretary spoke of the possibility of the involvement of Hindutva groups in the Pune blasts. Other officers, including the ATS chief Raghuvanshi, purported to be an RSS/opportunist also spoke of this possibility. But then RR Patil, the Maharashtra Home Minister whose role during 26/11 was disastrous and who was removed from his post in the wake of the attack on Mumbai (but who was restored after the 2009 assembly elections), made amazing statements ‘that those who take the name of Hindu organizations in the Pune blasts will be punished'!

How can a Home Minister make such a statement? Now we hear that Rakesh Maria, a notorious anti-Muslim officer, with pro-Israeli links, a man who has killed and tortured innocents, has been made the new ATS chief and Raguvanshi has been promoted! Secular organizations in Maharashtra were demanding that Raghuvanshi be removed and that an honest, secular officer be made the ATS chief so that Hemant Karkare's seminal work in cracking the shell of Hindutva communalism could be promoted!.

But Rakesh Maria is even worse than Raghuvanshi. It seems that the NCP in Maharashtra has taken a clear anti-Congress, anti-national line. RR Patil, who is a third grade, uncouth, thoroughly communal, NCP leader should be removed from his post. The Maharashtra chief minister should act, because if the NIA gets access to Headley, the latter's links with Hindutva organizations–and the whole RSS-Mossad-CIA-ISI-IB nexus–will be exposed. This nexus is working overtime to destabilize the Congress government and undo the commendable work done by the party under the secular leadership of Sonia Gandhi.

Amaresh Misra is a famed historian and chief of the Anti-Communal Front of the All India Congress Committee (AICC)

Mumbai Terrorist Was U.S. Agent

by Alex Newman, April 9, 2010, The John Birch Society

After terrorist conspirator and “former” U.S. government agent David Coleman Headley received promises of leniency and extradition protection from American prosecutors for his role in the 2008 Mumbai massacre, speculation about his true masters was set ablaze as outrage erupted across India.

Headley — a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent and the son of a Pakistani diplomat — pled guilty to various criminal charges on March 18 in connection with his terrorist activities in India, Pakistan and Denmark. He is reportedly “cooperating” with investigators.

In exchange, the government vowed not to allow foreign authorities to question him or subject him to trial. Prosecutors also agreed not seek the death penalty, and he may not even serve a life sentence. Links to U.S. intelligence agencies will remain classified. And his guilty plea ensures that there will be no drawn-out trial that could publicly reveal any relationships with various intelligence agencies — most notably, the Central Intelligence Agency-linked Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence.

Headley admitted in the plea bargain that he helped plan the bloody massacre by conducting surveillance and selecting targets, gathering GPS coordinates for the terrorist team’s boat landing along the coast, and more. He was also helping to plan an attack on a Danish cartoonist. And while the Federal Bureau of Investigation was given almost 10 hours to question the only surviving attacker in India, a team of Indian investigators who traveled to the U.S. to interrogate Headley was turned away.

The plea deal and the lack of American cooperation immediately sparked fury and despair in India, as the U.S. is reportedly bound by treaty to surrender Headley to Indian authorities. It also fueled accusations in the media that Headley still may have been linked to the American or Pakistani governments in some capacity. He began his terrorist training around the time that he was working for the U.S. government. But the connections, however, remain shrouded in mystery.

The terrorist group he was known to be working with —the ISI-linked Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba— carried out the devastating Mumbai attack in November of 2008 that dominated headlines around the world. The terrorists rampaged through the city with machine guns and grenades, leaving over 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. And as it turns out, the terrorist group was actually created with the help of Pakistan’s secret services, which have well-known ties to the American Central Intelligence Agency and other government agencies.

“The LeT’s close links with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are legion and it is inconceivable that such a massive operation — with huge international ramifications and the potential to trigger war with India – could have been undertaken without the knowledge of the ISI, headed by General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, the present army chief, from October 2004 until October 2007,” wrote M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian ambassador who served in Pakistan, the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, among other assignments.

Along with many prominent Indians, Bhadrakumar strongly condemned Headley’s plea agreement in the press. “The deal enables the US government to hold back from formally producing any evidence against Headley in a court of law that might have included details of his links with US intelligence,” he wrote in the article for Asia Times. “Headley’s links with the US intelligence will now remain classified information and the Pakistani nationals involved in the Mumbai attacks will get away scot-free.”

He also noted that the Obama administration was “behaving very strangely” and that it had something “extremely explosive” to hide. “The speculation gaining respectability in Delhi is that Washington knew in advance about the Mumbai attack and deliberately chose not to pass on details to Delhi,” the ambassador noted in the piece, entitled ‘A spy unsettles US-India ties.’ “Clearly, the Obama administration was apprehensive that Headley might spill the beans if the Indians got hold of him and the trail could then lead to his links with the CIA, the LeT and the Pakistani military.”

Headley’s involvement with the U.S. government began when he was caught trafficking heroin. To reduce his sentence, the DEA convinced him to work as an undercover agent in Pakistan. And in exchange for his cooperation, he only served two years. After 9/11, the agency worked closely with other government outfits, and they were forced to share information. So anti-terror operations had to have been aware of Headley’s activities. These facts have led Indians to conclude that he was, in fact, still working for American intelligence.

“Many Indians are convinced that Mr. Headley is a CIA agent, perhaps gone rogue, and that the U.S. intransigence represents an attempt to shield him and his past activities from scrutiny,” said writer Akash Kapur in a piece published by the New York Times. Another New York Times piece, entitled ‘American Scout for Mumbai Attacks Was Jokingly Called ‘Agent Headley’ by Friends,’ points out that Indians who knew Headley had long suspected that he worked for the CIA.

“I had a hunch then and I have a hunch now that he was an American agent of some sort,” Headley’s Indian friend Rahul Bhatt told Channel 4 News. “I nicknamed him Agent Headley. I thought, and I suggested to him, that he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, and he used to not like it.” Apparently, Headley even “begged” Bhatt to stop calling him “Agent Headley” in public.

An important former Indian government and counterterrorism official was blunt with his conclusions as well. “The mishandling by the US is due to its anxiety to prevent a public admission of the US intelligence community’s links with him and to protect Pakistan from the legal consequences of its role in the 26/11 terrorist strikes,” noted security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman, a former top counter-terrorism official with India’s foreign intelligence service.

“The plea bargain entered into by the FBI with Headley last week has created strong suspicions in India that the FBI wants to avoid a formal trial of Headley and was reluctant to allow Indian investigators to interrogate him because Headley was a deep penetration agent of the US intelligence,” he added. Raman explained that Headley “was not a double agent, but a quadruple agent.” He also allowed for the possibility that Headley may have gone horribly “out of control.”

Speculation about the U.S.-agent-turned terrorist continues to run rampant in the Indian press. But how much is really known? In court documents, Headley’s associates are referred to simply as A, B, C and D. So the truth about Headley may never be known to the public. And while that is a veritable tragedy, the truth must still be sought. The theories remain as varied as they are numerous, but the secrecy and strange deals seem to confirm people’s suspicions that their governments are totally out of control and out of touch with the citizenry. Pakistan and India have even moved their “proxy war” into U.S.-occupied Afghanistan, complicating matters even further.

But there are several lessons to be learned from the tragedy and its fallout. For the Indians, be much more careful when “cooperating” with “allies.” Also, examine your own government carefully — many of the theories surrounding the attack involve cooperation of at least some Indian officials.

Even more importantly, the government must respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The terrorists stormed through the city unhindered — slaughtering everyone in their path — for more than two days! As famed Indian pacifist Mohandas Gandhi wrote in his autobiography: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” And still, decades after independence, the government continues its counterproductive and dangerous policy of keeping law-abiding people disarmed, and therefore, easy targets.

For Americans, there are serious implications too. If the federal government would stick to the Constitution and quit meddling in foreign nations, these sorts of issues would not even crop up. The anti-American animosity and suspicion built up around the world would not exist. “Blowback” would not threaten American citizens and interests around the world. And the billions of dollars saved could be returned to the citizenry. So for the sake of U.S. taxpayers, victims of terrorism around the world and all of the casualties of the “war on terror,” it’s time for some serious changes in American foreign policy. The people must hold the government accountable, or the tragic consequences — death, oppression and confusion — will continue to mount.

Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America, Europe and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from the University of Florida, with emphasis on economics and international relations.

Source: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6149-mumbai-terrorist-was-us-agent

Yet Another Attempt To Manufacture Muslim ‘Terrorists’

By Mahta Alam, 22 December, 2010

TwoCircles.net

Ranchi: While news is coming from Hyderabad that, the AP govt. is ready to apologise to Muslim youth and the community for its role in Macca Masjid blast case of 2007, here in the capital city of Jhakhand, the leading newspapers are hell bent to manufacture Muslim ‘terrorists’. On 15th of December, almost all newspapers prominently published a news item, state’s Muslims’ link with terror groups, on their front page giving maximum possible space. It was banner news for Prabhat Khabar which reads, “Indian Mujahideen main do Baryatau ke bhi (Two of Indian Mujahideen’s are from Baryatu)”, with a slight difference, Dainik Jagaran’s headline, which was third lead news on the front page reads, “Indian Mujahadeen ke do Aatanki Baryatu ke (Two of Indian Mujahadeen’s terrorist hails from Baryatu), Dainik Bhaskar making it as second lead story on front page ‘revealed’, “Aatanki Dastak ( Terrorist’s Knock)”. Baryatu is a Muslim concentration area of Ranchi.

Police officials deny such info

“There are no such reports received by us, either from state or central intelligence agencies”, said K D Singh, SHO of Baryatu Police Station while taking to TwoCircles.net sitting at his chamber. “It is unfortunate and a very irresponsible attempt by media organisations,” he added. “It can breed terror and suspicion not only amongst Muslims but other communities,” he feared. Earlier, Director General of Police (DGP) of the state, Neyaz Ahmad has denied such information, in an interaction with a Hindi daily Hindusstan he said, “I don’t have any such information of Ranchi’s youth with terror link”. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ranchi, Praveen Kumar had also denied of any such information in recent days. “We had had correspondences with central home ministry regarding two local youth. But after then I have no such information,” he told a reporter.

Communal witch-hunt by newspapers

Though, the police officials of the state made it very clear on the very first day that, there are no such information but newspapers continued its utmost efforts to manufacture Muslim terrorists and malign the Muslim concentrated localities or cities and districts. Prabhat Khabar in its sub-heading wrote, “Millat Calony Baryatu ke rahane wale hain Danish aur Imtiyaz urf Immuddin” (Danish and Imtiyaz alias Immuddin are residents of Millat Colony, Baryatu). The newspaper claimed as pointers, “Jamtada main dikhe the Hyderabad main blats karne wale, Jamshedpur main pakdaye the do, Ajmer ghatna main Jamtada se giraftari, Hazaribagh main mare gaye the do” ( The bombers of Hyderabad were seen in Jamtada, Two were arrested from Jamshedpur, Arrest from Jamtada in Ajmer incident, Two were killed in Hazaribagh ). Dainik Bhaskar wrote, “Vanarasi Blast main wanted dono aatanki ke Ranchi wa Jamshedpur main chipe hone ki aashanka hai…inme ek ke Baryatu thana antargat chipe hone ki suchana hai” ( Both the terrorists wanted of Vanarasi blast case are likely to be hidden in Ranchi or Jamshedpur…one of them being reported to be hidden in Baryatu Police station area)The most important point to be noted here and disturbing aspect is that, all the places named above points the finger towards a particular community—Muslim as all the cities and district linked above are the Muslim concentrated areas of state. Next day, on December 16th, the media did the same kind of communal reporting. Prabhat Khabar, Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagran, The Pioneer, The Telegraph, Ranchi Express and all followed the pattern set on the previous day. While others only filed reports, Prabhat Khabar wrote an editorial with heading “Chote Shahar Main Aatanki” (Terrorists in small cities. However, Hindustan Hindi defying the pattern did a story on third page, which proved that all the claims have no substantial base.

Source of information?

When police officials are saying, there is no such information about any youth then what could be the source, one would certainly ask. The reporter who did the story using his byline in a Hindi daily told TwoCircles.net that, it came during the daily press briefing of special branch to selective reporters. “The news came from Delhi and we were asked to have a look of the union home ministry website where list of the Indian Mujahadeen and other people is available,” he added further, “and so on the basis of our conversation and reports available on the website, I did the story,” he added. But interestingly, when this writer tried searching the same on the official website of union home ministry, could not find anything on those lines.

Of terror and suspicion

Meanwhile, due to all the screaming headlines and baseless reportage of most of the media houses, there is an acute sense of terror and suspicion amongst the residents, youth of Muslim concentrated localities. In Baryatu, a Muslim concentrated area of Ranchi, not a single youth is willing to discuss this issue and identify them with the boys named in the newspapers though both the boys are from same locality. While Manzar works in the city itself, Danish is working in Hyderabad and keep visiting home during festivals. “The people of the locality are troubled by the baseless allegation by media and under shock,” said Maulana Asgar Misbahi, an eminent community leader of the city and Khateeb of Baryatu Jama Masjid. “It is really unfortunate creating suspicion about each other,” he added. In fact, this writer who lives in the same locality and a newcomer to the area is under suspicion. On Saturday, the ward commissioner of the locality whispered in his friend’s ears about me, “He seems to be from IB”, when I was clicking a picture of Muharram procession in the locality. People of other areas of the city have started viewing the area as ‘terror hub’.

Some hard questions

While it is important to ask how there are so many similarities in the news items including headines of many newspapers. Here another important question arises, if IB or Special Branch has had any such information then why did not it inform the police department? Was it not an irresponsible and careless behaviour by IB or Special Branch? Or was it, yet another attempt to manufacture Muslim ‘terrorist’ in association with the media houses?

( Mahtab Alam is a civil rights’ activist and Special Correspondent of TwoCircles.net, currently based at Ranchi. He can be reached at activist.journalist@gmail.com

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

by Michel Chossudovsky

"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldus Huxley)

Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.

Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.

The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

But there more than meets the eye.

Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledges that it was "founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".... [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: [Wikileaks will be] "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).

This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in June 2010 interview in the New Yorker:

"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. In an invitation to potential collaborators in 2006, he wrote, “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations...." (quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)

Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)

From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Central Asia was "appealing", i.e. consistent with US foreign policy.

The composition of the Wikileaks team, not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in line with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change".

The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The Economist and Time Magazine have also played an important role.

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)

This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.

The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?

What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?

Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?

If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation.

Julian Assange has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.

America's corporate media and more specifically the New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.

Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional media" to use Julian Assange's words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.

Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.

In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner, The New York Times which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” (WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:

"[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

Yet he also says later in the interview:

"It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government." (ibid)

"Do it independently of the government" while at the same time "asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest"?

David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission) (among other prominent establishment figures). (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).

Several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine's Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media. (Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)

The Embassy and State Department Cables

It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly "selective" dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support of al Qaeda, China's relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.

The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.

From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.

Iran's Nuclear Program

The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.

The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.

With the regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".

The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included "a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:

"In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.

The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005)

These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.

While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010)

The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":

In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead" of Iran's medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. ... The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)

David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks was also instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence.(Ibid)

While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.

In a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce Washington's claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source;

"Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).

These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).

Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World

The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:

"After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community." Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)

The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world.

"The Global War on Terrorism"

The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organization, a fact which is known and amply documented.

What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the "Global War on Terrorism", is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. REF These are covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

The use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tend to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison with their US intelligence counterparts.

"The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting." ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of Terror Groups - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News)

Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010

The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths:

1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security.

2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US States and its NATO allies.

The CIA and the Corporate Media

The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship with not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.

"Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.

The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:

[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. ... Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work....;

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein

Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress" (Ibid).

In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.

Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1950s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels:

"A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002)

Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the Global War on Terrorism and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics: "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, January 3, 2003).

Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question as to why the NYT would all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in "spreading the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.

On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks was a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media's cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.

Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage

Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.

The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has consistently supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972-1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.

The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?

Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.

Manufacturing Dissent

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:

"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition... To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010)

What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.

It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense "disposable". They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.

In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a databank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration.

All these facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.

While the numerous facts contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks databank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.

A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a reliable source, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.

Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: "We are against war but we support the "war on terrorism".

What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, --i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America's global military design.

In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

Magic Numbers and Synchronous Detonations rule out Suicide Bombers

Most informed people agree that ‘magic numbers’ are a Cabbalistic, not an Islamic phenomenon!

Several months ago, I wrote a piece on this blog titled "The Numerology of Disasters or coincidences?" enlisting a phenomena of how some cabbalistic numbers keep recurring in association with some of the disasters (terror attacks) that happened across the globe since the start of the new Millenium. This subject may sound quite strange to some people who still continues to actively buy into the 'War on Terror' garbage. But hang on! It's not just me who writes such 'nonsensical' thing but there are others who appear to share the same views. In fact, I'm sure there are many out there who knows a lot more about this phenomenon than I do and I confess that I'm just a toddler in these issues. The following is an article carried by "TERROR ON THE TUBE" about these 'magic numbers' and its association with the terror attacks like US 9/11, Madrid 3/11, London 7/7, Mumbai 7/11 etc.

Magic Numbers and Synchronous Detonations rule out Suicide Bombers
by Nick Kollerstrom, November 4, 2010

A major sequence of false-flag terror events has set the tone for this new millenium: 9/11 in 2001, the Bali bomb in 2002, Madrid in 2004, 7/7 in 2005 and then the Mumbai bombs in 2006 (There was an Istanbul blast in an empty British embassy in 2003, but this is not generally viewed as so important).

I suggest that none of these were what they appeared to be – and, all in some degree have number-symbolism in their timings. Thus, add one to each term of the 9/11 date, and you’ll get 12.10.2002, the date of the Bali bomb. Like 7/7, 9/11 was also a fourfold event, with three fairly close together and a fourth an hour later. The first plane impact on 9/11 was at a quarter to nine, not so different from the 7/7 timings. As four planes ostensibly crashed on 9/11, so were four trains bombed in Madrid (11/3 – 911 days after 9/11) and then again four trains in London on 7/7.

In Madrid, the prosecutor Olga Sánchez saw that 911-day interval as evidence of ‘un factor cabalistico.’ All of the blast times on the four trains in Madrid were within three minutes of each other.

The close synchrony of the Madrid bombs was evidence for remote detonation, and therefore no ‘suicide bombers’ were alleged.

A year after the London 7/7 event, in India at the Mumbai railway station, the bombs went off on the 11^th of July – 11/7. Quoting CNN news, ‘No group has claimed responsibility for the blasts, which came in a span of 11 minutes.’ Seven trains were bombed over a period of eleven minutes. Somebody seems to be playing number-games here, and is this a clue as to who is doing it? That discerning publisher John Leonard here took the view that: ‘Their little numerology game helps these psychopaths enjoy their work and laugh at us mere mortals.’

FIRST REPORTS ON THE LONDON EXPLOSIONS

On 7/7 in London, how likely is it that three young men, in the agony of terminating their own lives, and being far apart from each other, would choose or be able to ignite their bombs at the very same moments?

One of the first experts on the scene was Vincent Cannistro, former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism centre, and he told The Guardian that the police had discovered ‘mechanical timing devices’ at the bomb scenes; likewise ABC News at first reported, ‘Official now believe that all the bombs on subway cars were detonated by timing devices’ (8^th July).

This original story – with military-grade explosives, timing devices and synchronous detonations – mysteriously vanished once the suicide-bomber story appeared, but it makes a lot more sense.

7/7 SYNCHRONY (11 MINUTES TO 9)

Two days after July 7^th , we were informed that the three Underground blasts had been synchronous, with the first, at Aldwych, going off at 8.49 am. When I composed the J7 timeline (as in Ch.4 of my book) I inserted that time, because there was general agreement on it. The Westbound Circle Line train number 216 had left King’s Cross at 8.42, then blown up seven minutes later.

The present Inquest has now added precision to this timing – as Hugo Keith stated on the first day:

“The Circle Line, the westbound inner rail section, tripped at 08.49.00, that is to say the inner rail — not the outer rail where the explosion occurred, but the inner rail — but it can only have been tripped by force of the explosion on the other rail. So we can say with confidence that the explosion at Aldgate occurred at that moment, 08.49.00.

The Piccadilly Line westbound section tripped between Holloway Road and Russell Square at 08.49.48 and, two seconds later, the indicators in the control room that indicated that the track had current in it were also extinguished. The Circle Line tripped westbound between Baker Street and Bouverie Place, incorporating the section of the track where the explosion on the westbound Circle Line occurred, but no absolute time can be computed for that explosion because there is a variant of plus or minus 30 seconds or so in the process by which the printout in the control room prints out the time stamp of the moment of the trip. But the time was somewhere around 08.49.43. (Oct 11 pm 15:1-5)

Wikipedia puts the blasts one minute later at 8.50 am, which was the initially-reported time, and added: ‘Three bombs on the London Underground exploded within fifty seconds of each other’ .

J7 LOSE THE PLOT

The J7 people have now disagreed with this unanimity of informed opinion over five years, affirming that the Aldgate bomb went off three minutes earlier at 8.46.35. I haven’t noticed any compelling evidence for this, to convince us as to why they might know better than the authorities over this technical issue – e.g., they have cast doubt upon the following Inquest judgement concerning the first phone report:

at 08.47.38 [there was] a BTP (British transport Police) call from London Underground, but we know from the absolute time at which the explosion occurred, which was 08.49.00, that that call … must therefore be about one minute and 40 seconds out, and that is our best estimate as to the accuracy of those transcripts.(Hugo Keith comment)

Does this phone call apparently being timed a bit too early really argue that the bomb also went off earlier?

What on earth is going on with J7?

However else one may wish to disagree with the authorities about 7/7 – the times of the explosions recorded by mechanical equipment is something the authorities have got right. It is surely simpler to accept that the clock in question was a minute or so out – rather than follow J7’s harebrained new view (contradicting their own Timeline) of a blast-time which no authorities have ever accepted – and which destroys the general consensus of three-bomb synchrony.

I suggest to J7 that four-and-a-half minutes to get from King’s Cross to Aldgate is rather silly – and recommend they delete this whole section of their commentary before they suffer a major implosion of their credibility.

Or, if J7 do wish to make such a claim, I suggest they should first adjust the Timeline on their site that I gave them, which has averred for five years that the first bomb went off at 8.49.

ATOMIC TIME

The Inquest heard about how second-by-second precision was obtained, calibrating the very moments of catastrophe using atomic time:

Using Lextranet – the Metro’s data system – the times have been amended through the good offices of Transport for London to reflect a more accurate Atomic time rather than a time that the system recorded. Just after 08.49, just before 10 to 9, the Metropolitan Line controller called the eastern power desk at the London Underground power control room to report that all the lights at Aldgate had gone off and that the station was in sheer darkness. (Oct 11 pm 71: 9-16)

At that key moment, much of East London tube power went down. We surely ought to accept that the authorities know when this happened. They seem proud of using atomic-clock time, thereby adjusting a few seconds here and there – let’s accept this.

Notice that Hugo Keith does NOT surmise that this crucial moment might have been chosen within a second to make the link to 9/11 – he just says, “For some unknown reason — perhaps to cause maximum devastation in the morning rush hour — it seems that the bombers intended to explode all four bombs at the same time, namely, 49 minutes past the hour,” then he adds that the bus bomb went off one hour after these.

We may indeed feel a certain dislike for Mr Keith (he’s been described as ‘a state-sponsored legal hatchet man’) – but, I suggest it is quite mad to suggest he would want to adjust or prefer data (which is what J7 are averring) in order to get a 7/7 – 9/11 tie up. Most informed people agree that ‘magic numbers’ are a Cabbalistic, not an Islamic phenomenon! The mind can only boggle at seeing J7 making such a suggestion.

11 MINUTES TO 9 : ELECTRICAL EVENT, ELECTROCUTION OF ALDGATE VICTIMS AND TOTAL POWER BLACKOUT FOR EAST LONDON LINE

An astonishing Inquest session on 18^th October returned to this subject:

“The whole of the East London Line lost power, which affected nine stations in total from Shoreditch to New Cross.” The East London Line can be seen there [Hugo Keith explained]. “This was due to the temporary loss of the following power assets.” He then reads out a number of different power assets which I won’t trouble my Ladyship with. “There was a complete cessation of traction current and signal supplies to the entire East London Line which caused all trains to stall with only battery-powered lighting. There was also a cessation of all lifts and 16 escalator supplies in the affected stations on the East London Line and emergency lighting only was available.’ (Oct.18^th pm 4:8-18)

But, just before the blast:

[Damage to a feeder cable] caused the 11-kilovolt electrical feeder to trip at Moorgate substation at 08.48.40. This in turn caused the 22-kilovolt coupling transformers, which supply the Mansell Street distribution network, to trip at 08.49.02. This caused widespread power disruption to a significant area of the London Underground network. (18^th, 3:15-21).

- indicating an electrical blowout just before the bomb went off (Compare the experience of persons in the Aldgate coach which blew up, of being electrically frazzled during and just prior to the event.

The circle-line tube station at Moorgate is West of Aldgate, and there was a bit of a mystery as to how a big power-cable at Moorgate had fused. At 08.50, the London Underground Network Control Centre in Broadway in Victoria received a call to say that there had been a loss of traction current at Moorgate (Oct 18, 18: 23-25).

On the 18^th Mr Keith reiterated the exact blast times to within a second: “In summary, the times recorded by the power control room are 08.49 in respect of Aldgate East, 08.49.43 in respect of Edgware Road and 08.49.52 in respect of King’s Cross/Russell Square.” (18^th am 8:7-14)

I suggest we see reliable evidence here, most of which emerged immediately after the 7/7 events. These details did not (in contrast with much of the CCCTV and mobile phone ‘evidence’) emerge tortuously and unconvincingly years after the event, magically supporting the final version of a repeatedly-changed Official Narrative.

Here we see the False-Flag fingerprint (11 minutes to 9) … the carefully recorded, almost synchronous, remotely-triggered explosions … a major electrical event inside and outside of the devastated Aldgate carriage … an initial diagnosis of the use of military-grade explosive and remote timing devices …

… .every last detail contradicting the possibility of ‘suicide bombers’ being responsible for this crime.

It is a great puzzle to me that J7 can collect so much ‘Official Narrative’-denying evidence yet fail to draw the obvious conclusions towards which this and so much other evidence clearly points.