De Menezes trial

November 4, 2007

David I couldn't find backing for your claim in the supplied link.

It is there, Len. Go to the July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 2 and scroll down to the sub heading "THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS". You can read about it there.

Davio

November 4, 2007

Let’s try and think about this logically.
The only information that we have that there was any correspondence between the stations bombed and those in the exercise is Powers himself. I’ve seen no independent indication of where they were being held or any names mentioned. Now if the exercise indicated foreknowledge presumably he would have been “in on it” why then would he have blabbed about this not once but twice?

This is true. Powell is the only source of the story. On the other hand there has been no denial of what he said. Anywhere or by anyone. Secondly, one might argue that he didn't have to know what may have been planned on the back of his exercise and that it was merely sufficient for him to initiate that exercise -- and proceed to implement it in reality, which is what I understand he did.

That others knew of the exercise is implicit in the story he told: a Jewish-American bank. Odd sort of client for commissioning a terrorist exercise on the London Underground don't you think? For London Underground to have commissioned a terrorist exercise I can understand. But not a bank. To me it doesn't make any sort of sense. None at all. And, therefore, stands out starkly.

We might also remember that Mayor Ken Livingstone's Transport Czar, Bob Kiley, was a former CIA officer prior to being appointed as Commissioner of Transport for London in 2001 under a four-year contract. Kiley was not merely an Agency analyst, but was on the dirty-hands side of things as Manager of Inteligence Operations with a remit to roam the world on anti-Communist activities. Doubtless, he continues to have contacts in Langley. Undoubtedly, he, as the Mayor's Transport Czar, would have been privy to the planned exercise -- stangely financed and commissioned by a Jewish American bank.

David

Len Colby · November 4, 2007

Unlike the link I posted above which led to your sarcastic comment, your link in no way refuted the link it was posted in response to. If posting a link that refutes a previous once doesn’t constitute “research” how then should we classify one that doesn’t?

I thought you might pick up on my sarcasm, but apparently not. Let me break it down for you, Len.

[…]

You can bet I was aware of that other exchange you reproduced. I thought you might be perceptive enough to recognize satire when you see it.

I was wrong.

Oh I get it when I do something it’s ‘poor research’ but when you do the exact same thing it’s satire? Might it rather be something which closely follows ‘hypochondriac’ in the dictionary? I’m not sure I buy your rationalization it’s reminiscent of someone in the early stages of memory failure claiming they were ‘joking’ after they realize they’ve said something nonsequitous or otherwise nonsensical. But let’s say I give you the benefit of the doubt, was the problem my lack or ‘perception’ or your lack of wit? I had an English teacher in high school who complained we (his students) didn’t have a sense of humor because we didn’t laugh at his jokes but later I found out his wife didn’t laugh at them either.

You repeated your worn out tactic of supplying the 911myth link, which didn't even directly address the point David Guyatt was making. It was discussing the odds, not the event itself.

You make it sound like one has nothing to do with the other. The whole point of bringing up the exercise (see Peter’s post that David was replying to) was the supposed improbability of the supposed coincidence with the real event.

In response, I posted a link with no commentary, just as you did to demonstrate your penchant for posting the 911myth link as if it were somehow valid. I was mocking that practice of yours, Len. Do you get it now?

“repeated”, “worn out tactic”, “penchant” (2x), “practice of yours”

LOL you used five words/frases to indicate that I frequently post links from 911myths “with no commentary” “as if it somehow magically rebuts what someone else is saying”, but is that the case? Empirical analysis indicates it isn’t. This post will be my 2018th on this forum. A search of all my posts that contain the keyword “911myths.com” returns 3 pages of hits. each page contains a max of 25 hits so we are talking a max of 75 cases (i.e. less than 4% of my posts), but in the vast majority of those cases I didn’t provide the link with little or no commentary, I’ve done this maybe 10 times which would come out to about 1 in 200 posts.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...hs.com&st=0

Every time you post that 911myth link as if it somehow magically rebuts what someone else is saying, adding NO commentary of your own, you satisfy yourself but few others.

So you now presume to speak for the vast majority of people who read this part of the forum? I imagine that most of them are perceptive enough to figure out my point when I provide a link with little or no commentary. I am hardly the only member of this forum to do so in fact you do so quite frequently yourself*, which brings us back to the ‘hypochondriac’ page of the dictionary. I suppose when you and others do so you and they make the same presumption I do. I am however the only member of the forum who has someone who ‘gets on his case’ for doing so.

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...2Bhttp%3A%2F%2F

Len Colby · November 4, 2007

David I couldn't find backing for your claim in the supplied link.

It is there, Len. Go to the July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 2 and scroll down to the sub heading "THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTACKS". You can read about it there.

OK so I had to click on a link on that page that lead to another page on the same site which contained a quote from an Israeli newspaper quoting a German newspaper quoting an unnamed Israeli embassy employee as saying the were warned a few minutes ahead of time but makes no mention of Netanyahu. I think when most people think of “prior knowledge” they understand it to mean more than five minutes beforehand.

It turns out you were right and wrong at the same time. It seems like Netanyahu stayed in his hotel because Scotland Yard “told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...=va&aid=657

Let’s try and think about this logically.
The only information that we have that there was any correspondence between the stations bombed and those in the exercise is Powers himself. I’ve seen no independent indication of where they were being held or any names mentioned. Now if the exercise indicated foreknowledge presumably he would have been “in on it” why then would he have blabbed about this not once but twice?

This is true. Powell is the only source of the story. On the other hand there has been no denial of what he said. Anywhere or by anyone.

I’m not suggesting it’s totally incorrect but rather wondered why he would be talking about it if he had foreknowledge.

It’s not quite correct to say there’s been no denial if you went to the 911myths link I provided you’d have seen that Power said the stations were “almost precisely” the same and further indicated more than two exercises were scheduled for that morning one of which predicted “simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station" which would indicated the exercise was going on at two stations one of them a mainline one when all the stations attacked were on the underground. So out of four targets hit (3 underground trains and a bus) he might have predicted one and perhaps a mainline station with the same name as one of the underground stations. Since the explosions took place between stations (see map in BBC link below) be had six chances for his 1 or 2 “hits”.

Power was incorrect in saying that the drill and attacks happened at the same time, the attacks took place at 8:50 and he said the drill was to begin at 9:30.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666591.stm

Secondly, one might argue that he didn't have to know what may have been planned on the back of his exercise and that it was merely sufficient for him to initiate that exercise -- and proceed to implement it in reality, which is what I understand he did.

I doubt it he is (was) the managing director of the company. From his comments it sounds like he was involved in setting up the scenarios. I have yet to see a rational explanation of how a drill being scheduled to take place 40 minutes AFTER the attacks at one of the stations would further the goals of the plotters.

That others knew of the exercise is implicit in the story he told: a Jewish-American bank. Odd sort of client for commissioning a terrorist exercise on the London Underground don't you think?

Do you have a source for this claim? Would you find it less odd if it were a “Christian-American” bank? What exactly is a “Jewish-American bank?” Are all the workers/customers Jewish? Do you think the “Jewish-American” bankers were in on it?

For London Underground to have commissioned a terrorist exercise I can understand. But not a bank. To me it doesn't make any sort of sense. None at all. And, therefore, stands out starkly.

If true not that odd presumably the stations involved in the exercise would be the ones most likely to be used by the bank’s employees, American’s who already paranoid about terrorism before 9/11 became even more so afterwards.

We might also remember that Mayor Ken Livingstone's Transport Czar, Bob Kiley, was a former CIA officer prior to being appointed as Commissioner of Transport for London in 2001 under a four-year contract. Kiley was not merely an Agency analyst, but was on the dirty-hands side of things as Manager of Inteligence Operations with a remit to roam the world on anti-Communist activities. Doubtless, he continues to have contacts in Langley. Undoubtedly, he, as the Mayor's Transport Czar, would have been privy to the planned exercise -- stangely financed and commissioned by a Jewish American bank.

Can I assume you have citations for your claims? Do you suspect Kiley was “in on it”? What about Livingstone a vocally anti-Blair, anti-Bush Labour dissident? Why is the religion/ethnicity of the people running the bank such an issue for you?

Michael Hogan · November 4, 2007

Oh I get it when I do something it’s ‘poor research’ but when you do the exact same thing it’s satire?

In this instance, yes.

You make it sound like one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes.

LOL you used five words/frases (sic) to indicate that I frequently post links from 911myths “with no commentary” “as if it somehow magically rebuts what someone else is saying”, but is that the case?

Yes.

So you now presume to speak for the vast majority of people who read this part of the forum?

In this instance, yes.

November 5, 2007

Bless me, you’ve made this one of your debunking projects haven’t you, Len.

But please calm down about the link on the July7th website. You sound all defensive and agitated. It’s no big deal. It was a long report and I understand why you didn’t spot the section I mentioned.

On Netanyahu, this is what I said earlier in this thread:

Quote:

… the former Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who was due to give a speech in the City at the time the bombs went off, was earlier warned by the Israeli Embassy to remain in his hotel room.

Unquote

Now allow me to quote the relevant paragraph in the story carried by IsraeliNationalNews.com:

Quote:

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

Unquote

So, it is completely disingenuous of you to say that I was “right and wrong at the same time”. Netanyahu was informed by the Israeli Embassy. Period. That is precisely what I stated. Nothing less, nothing more. That Scotland Yard informed the Israeli Embassy, is an additional piece of information that doesn’t alter the accuracy of the quote I gave.

Then, of course, there was a report out of India that it was Israel who originally warned the UK about the possibility of the bombings. All very curious – with a hint of shifting intelligence priorities:

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3489.asp

This angle, that Israel warned the UK was published by Stratfor.com in a piece entitled: Israel warned UK about possible attacks" (July 7).

Likewise, you saying that Scotland Yard had prior knowledge “five minutes beforehand”. This is not what the report said. What it said was that “Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.” How long is a piece of string? A short time beforehand could be hours.

FYI, I didn’t go to the 911myths link as I sort of took the trouble to access information more directly, by going to the various news media stories themselves. But Len, you’re right one thing. The words “almost precisely” are wrong. “Precisely” is correct. I should have been more bullish, I know but I kind of tend towards caution.

But as far as the words “precise” as used by Peter Power, let me quote to you Power speaking live on the BBC Radio Five Live broadcast on precisely the same morning as 7/7 and at precisely the same time as it was broadcast.

Precisely transcribed by my fair precise hand from the interview (an audio file of which I still have). The things I do for you Len to ensure accuracy, eh.

Quote:

Power: “…at half past nine this morning, we were actually running an exercise for a company of a thousand people in London, based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened this morning.

Interviewer: “Let me 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. And it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don’t want to reveal their name but if they’re listening they’ll know it. We had a room full of crisis managers for the first time we’d met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision this was the real one…”

Power, meanwhile, let slip an important titbit of information that was not placed in the public domain until 9th July 2005, two days later. That was the fact that the 7/7 bombs were set off simultaneously. Which may only indicate he still has good contacts with Inspector Knacker of the Yard.

On the ITV News 7/7 Vision broadcast at 20:20, Porker revealed some additional information about the exact same event (the following I lifted from www.julyseventh.co.uk to save the effort transcribing the broadcast):

POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time -

INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

POWER: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....

Unquote

And Len, let’s not take this to the Jews did it scenario. That was not my intention in quoting that, as I think you very well know. However, I was wrong to say Jewish bank when it seems it was a bank located close to property owned by “Jewish businessmen”. My mistake.

On Bob Kiley, you can assume that I have citations for my claims. But if you wish to avoid having to ask me for them, you might simply Google his name and read the various stories for yourself.

Len Colby · November 5, 2007

Bless me, you’ve made this one of your debunking projects haven’t you, Len.
But please calm down about the link on the July7th website. You sound all defensive and agitated. It’s no big deal. It was a long report and I understand why you didn’t spot the section I mentioned.

On Netanyahu, this is what I said earlier in this thread:

Quote:

… the former Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who was due to give a speech in the City at the time the bombs went off, was earlier warned by the Israeli Embassy to remain in his hotel room.

Unquote

Now allow me to quote the relevant paragraph in the story carried by IsraeliNationalNews.com:

Quote:

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

Unquote

So, it is completely disingenuous of you to say that I was “right and wrong at the same time”. Netanyahu was informed by the Israeli Embassy. Period. That is precisely what I stated. Nothing less, nothing more. That Scotland Yard informed the Israeli Embassy, is an additional piece of information that doesn’t alter the accuracy of the quote I gave.

If anyone is being disingenuous it’s not me, you said

“…the former Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who was due to give a spech in the City at the time the bombs went off, was earlier warned by the Israeli Embassy to remain in his hotel room. Curiously though, according to all the post events news stories, the bombing came as a complete and utter surprise to one and all.

So how come the Israeli's knew?”

1st it was inaccurate because numerous “post events news stories” reported the warning, you even quoted one yourself. I think most people would consider a warning being received shortly beforehand that terrorist were about to strike somewhere in London (or Britain) doesn’t contradict describing the bombings as “a complete and utter surprise to one and all.”

2nd it was misleading what you wrote implied/insinuated the Israelis knew but didn’t tell anyone and that how they came to know was a mystery.

Then, of course, there was a report out of India that it was Israel who originally warned the UK about the possibility of the bombings. All very curious – with a hint of shifting intelligence priorities:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3489.asp

The paper cited no sources and said this was “an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles”

This angle, that Israel warned the UK was published by Stratfor.com in a piece entitled: Israel warned UK about possible attacks" (July 7).

LOL did you actually read what they said or did you depend on a CT site’s twist? They used the exact same language as the Indian publication attributing it to “an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles” and that British authorities (again according to unconfirmed rumor) had been warned by the Israelis a few days earlier but “Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.”

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stratfor-london.html

Both stories came out the same day from the same city and reported similar information and often used identical language they don’t confirm each other one was obviously the source of the other.

Likewise, you saying that Scotland Yard had prior knowledge “five minutes beforehand”. This is not what the report said. What it said was that “Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.” How long is a piece of string? A short time beforehand could be hours.

I was referring to the Israelis various reports indicated Scotland Yard only gave them a few minutes notice.

FYI, I didn’t go to the 911myths link as I sort of took the trouble to access information more directly, by going to the various news media stories themselves. But Len, you’re right one thing. The words “almost precisely” are wrong. “Precisely” is correct. I should have been more bullish, I know but I kind of tend towards caution.
But as far as the words “precise” as used by Peter Power, let me quote to you Power speaking live on the BBC Radio Five Live broadcast on precisely the same morning as 7/7 and at precisely the same time as it was broadcast.

Precisely transcribed by my fair precise hand from the interview (an audio file of which I still have). The things I do for you Len to ensure accuracy, eh.

OK you’re right he said “precisely” and “almost precisely referred to the “scenario” not the stations but his own words in the same interview show that not quite true he also said “we based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station.” I.E. it entailed two stations being attacked 1 mainline station and 1 underground station however three underground trains were bombed no mainline trains or stations were attacked and he seems to have missed that a bus would be attacked. Power’s own words indicate the his scenario didn’t “precisely” match what happen in time or place. Transcript here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/london_exercise_video.html

On the ITV News 7/7 Vision broadcast at 20:20, Porker revealed some additional information about the exact same event (the following I lifted from www.julyseventh.co.uk to save the effort transcribing the broadcast):
POWER: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....

Unquote

And Len, let’s not take this to the Jews did it scenario. That was not my intention in quoting that, as I think you very well know. However, I was wrong to say Jewish bank when it seems it was a bank located close to property owned by “Jewish businessmen”. My mistake.

You still haven’t explained why it seemed so significant to you that it was a “Jewish” bank you seem to insinuate they were "in on it".

On Bob Kiley, you can assume that I have citations for my claims. But if you wish to avoid having to ask me for them, you might simply Google his name and read the various stories for yourself.

You’re correct “Early in his career, he was with the CIA, where he served as Manager of Intelligence Operations and then as Executive Assistant to the Director.” But he also held numerous positions which highly qualified him for his job

“Prior to his appointment as Commissioner of Transport for London in January 2001, Robert Kiley served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York City Partnership. The Partnership, the city's leading business and civic organisation, improves the city's economic climate through advocacy and public-private initiatives in education, job creation, affordable housing, and neighbourhood development. Its membership reflects the impressive breadth of the city's private, non-profit and civic leadership.

From 1991 to 1994 he was President of Fischbach Corporation, a major New York-based construction and engineering company, and in 1994 became its Chairman until assuming his position at the New York City Partnership in 1995.

From 1983 until 1990, he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). At the MTA he was responsible for five transportation agencies serving the New York Metropolitan Region where he directed the rebuilding of New York's public transportation system and restructured its management. He led successful efforts to obtain more than $16 billion from the New York State legislature for capital improvements to the city's subways and buses, commuter railroads, tunnels and bridges in the MTA region.

Robert Kiley has consulted with corporations and public agencies at the Management Analysis Center (now Cap Gemini) then headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the 1970s he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in Boston and served as Deputy Mayor of the City of Boston.”

http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_at...er_high_cia.htm

It seems like he left the CIA “In the late '60s” http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w0405/kiley.html This would have made it 32 - 35 years prior to getting his London job, do you think the leftist mayor was "in on it too"? What evidence do you have he was involved in "dirty-hands side of things"?

Edited November 5, 2007 by Len Colby

Len Colby · November 5, 2007

Oh I get it when I do something it’s ‘poor research’ but when you do the exact same thing it’s satire?

In this instance, yes.

What do you call it the other times you've posted links with little or no commentary?

You make it sound like one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes.

Brilliant retort!! You completely debunked my explanation that indicated otherwise.

LOL you used five words/frases (sic) to indicate that I frequently post links from 911myths “with no commentary” “as if it somehow magically rebuts what someone else is saying”, but is that the case?

Yes.

Unfortunately for you empirical evidence indicates otherwise unless you define less than 1% of the time as frequent. By that logic you could say Americans frequently elect Catholic presidents since they've do so once in 55 elections

So you now presume to speak for the vast majority of people who read this part of the forum?

In this instance, yes.

Then you must be psychic or rather arrogant

November 5, 2007

Len, please…. tuck your ego away for a moment and think about it. By “a complete and utter surprise to one and all”, I was referring to us uninformed and unwashed members of the public.

What is known at government level is almost certainly entirely different to what is known (or guessed) by us lot. To get and idea, just start digging into the “military grade” explosive angle that began to circulate but was replaced by the home-made bomb version that has become the official account of events.

The official storyline proclaims that the bombing came as a complete surprise to the authorities. I can personally attest to that perspective as I listened to it being rammed down everyone’s (that is to say the public) gullets day after day. But as we can see, the authorities did know and had time to warn a VIP to steer clear. If they can do that they can warn the public too. Or is that me being unreasonable…

There were general warnings of terrorist and bombings attacks coming in all the while. Post 911 it had been chaotic in regard to terror threats. This is nothing new, either. Bomb threats and bombings have happened over here as long as I can reasonably remember.

But a specific warning is different and in this case led to Netanyahu staying in his hotel room. Leaving un-warned members of the public creeping around Underground stations with things going “bang” in the dark.

Come on, you’re being obtuse. How on earth do I know how the Israeli’s knew in advance? What I did was post a link to a website that has this information on it. You couldn’t find that section and now you’re saying I’m being coy with the truth? You’re dribbling over detail, Len, and wriggling to avoid facts that don’t fit your self-assumed debunkers mantle.

It’ll do me no good to go over the Jewish angle again simply because you insist on attributing to me something I didn’t mean or intend. For the record, my emphasis was not on the Jewishness, or not, but on the bankiness or not. But hey, you go ahead and fabricate in your mind whatever motive you wish to believe I had.

Now forgive me if I leave you to play with words, but I really have other stuff to do that is less focused on silly pettiness. Sorry.

David

Michael Hogan · November 6, 2007

What do you call it the other times you've posted links with little or no commentary?

I guess I call it posting links. I sure as hell don't post links to an unaccredited website and call it research or rebuttal like you repeatedly do. I don't have the same agenda that you do.

Brilliant retort!! You completely debunked my explanation that indicated otherwise.

You "debunked" yourself.

Unfortunately for you empirical evidence indicates otherwise unless you define less than 1% of the time as frequent. By that logic you could say Americans frequently elect Catholic presidents since they've do (sic) so once in 55 elections

If you persist in equating your brand of logic with empirical evidence, that's unfortunate for you.

Then you must be psychic or rather arrogant

Actually neither, Len. Just accurate.

November 6, 2007

Peter, I would imagine that the amount of people who know of the exercise are relatively miniscule. There probably are a lot more in the Muslim community are aware, these days. Those who are aware their was a parallel exercise going on probably wouldn't have put two and two together either and regard it as just a phenomenal coincidence.

Few people over here trust politicians...but there is still a very substantial backing for the police and other services and it is just not recognised that the police force has become (if not completely) politicised.

That's my take on it anyway.

David

November 6, 2007

The below report is, I believe, very interesting. It was after this that, according to one report I read, that the houses of the four alleged bombers were raided and acetone peroxide was found in one of them. Thereafter, the military grade story .... went away. Amazing.

But it is as well to keep in mind that if the police were to raid my house, then they'd likely find acetone peroxide here, as it is fairly common component of numerous household items. Although I have to say that I don't keep any nail polish on the premises :-)

That being the case one has to wonder what really was going on? The military grade story was global with some very interesting quotes by named intelligence experts. It's not the sort of thing that is made up by a journo or two seeking a frontpage for their fabrication.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the non-existant military grade explosives were traced (I understand that it is fairly easy to accomplish this) and that this led to some rather embarassing questions being asked - with uncomfortable answers carried on the wind?

David

**

The NY Times

Bombs in London Are Now Called Military Quality

Top of Form 1

Bottom of Form 1

Published: July 12, 2005

LONDON, July 11 - British investigators believe that the 10-pound bombs used in the coordinated terrorist attacks here contained "military quality" high-grade explosives, British and European counterterrorism officials said Monday.

Investigators said they still did not know whether the explosives contained plastic materials, or were made some other way. But they said the material used in the bombs was similar to the kind manufactured for military use or made for highly technical commercial purposes, such as dynamite used for precision explosions to demolish buildings or in mining.

Because of the small size of the bombs, some investigators initially said last week that they were relatively crude.

On Monday, a senior European-based counterterrorism official with access to intelligence reports said the new information on the material indicated that the bombs were "technically advanced." The official added: "There seems to be a mastery of the method of doing explosions. This was not rudimentary. It required great organization and was well put together."

Counterterrorism and law enforcement officials interviewed for this article said they would only speak on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the investigation. They said it was still unclear whether the attacks were carried out by local terrorists, a group from outside Britain or a combination of the two.

The quality of the explosives has led many investigators to theorize that the bombs were assembled by at least one technically savvy bomb maker, who might have come to Britain to build the devices for use by a local "sleeper cell," officials said.

"People assume you can look up a bomb-making design on the Internet and put one together without any training," said one senior counter terrorism official based in Europe. "But it's not that simple or easy."

Investigators say determining the physical origin of the explosives is crucial to helping them determine the origin of the bombs that tore apart three trains in the London Underground and the No. 30 bus in central London during the morning rush hour last Thursday. It was the worst terrorist attack in Britain since World War II.

British intelligence officials have asked their counterparts elsewhere in Europe to scour military stockpiles and commercial sites for missing explosives, three senior European-based intelligence officials said.

Senior counterterrorism officials are concerned that the cell that exploded the bombs might have a stockpile of more explosive material and could strike again, in Britain or in another European country.

"I really pity my British colleagues," a senior European intelligence official said. "It's a very difficult situation. Every hour that passes diminishes the probability to catch those people and increases the chances that this cell might try to strike again."

Britain's terrorism alert was raised immediately after the attacks to "severe specific," the second-highest level overall, and the highest that it has been since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. It has remained at that level since then, reflecting the continuing anxiety of the police and intelligence officials here that another attack may occur in London.

In the attack on commuter trains in Madrid in March 2004, the industrial dynamite used for the bombs had been stolen from a quarry in northern Spain.

A month after the attack, investigators found the terrorist cell that was responsible. But the men blew themselves up in an apartment before the police moved in. Spanish officials said the members of the cell had obtained 230 kilograms (506 pounds) of Goma 2 Eco dynamite, and had intended to build more bombs for additional attacks.

A senior Spanish official said Monday that roughly 130 kilograms (286 pounds) were used in the Madrid attacks, with about 30 in unexploded bombs. The remainder is believed to have exploded when the terrorists blew themselves up. The terrorists had obtained the dynamite from a man named José Emilio Suárez Trashorras, who was arrested shortly after the bombings.

November 6, 2007