De Menezes trial

[Len Colby]

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 :-)

David that was a “Emily Latella” moment for you ‘acetone’ and ‘acetone peroxide’ are entirely different compounds. The latter is only “fairly common component of numerous household items” of bomb makers any woman foolhardy to enough to use it to remove her nail polish would probably end up removing her fingers in the process.

[Guest David Guyatt]

David how hard do you think it is to obtain “high-grade explosives…such as dynamite” in Britain or to smuggle them in? Original assessments are often reevaluated in light of new evidence. For example it was originally thought worn out “grooving” on the runway was a factor in the Sao Paulo airport Airbus crash but that doesn’t seem to be the case, though the shortness of the runway and its placement in a urban area were. Nothing in the article indicates the residue had been analyzed, don’t forget the accused bomb maker was a chemist (and had an advanced degree IIRC) thus could well have been capable of producing "technically advanced." Explosives. Remember also this wasn’t even the original assessment from your article “Because of the small size of the bombs, some investigators initially said last week that they were relatively crude.”

As for who knew what and when regarding the warning and how they found out are important questions that should be looked into. You still haven’t come up with concrete evidence of an inside job or even that the warning was specific enough to have saved lives. It might well have been but then again it might not.

Len, honestly you're stretching. Irrespective of the fact that you can find no media report that the explosives residue was analysed, do you really think that the authorities didn't do this? It's simply unbelieveable to suggest such a thing. They would've gone over it with a fine tooth comb, because it is forensic Standard Operating Procedure. This is almost certainly why, various European and other intelligence agencies learned, five days after the event, that "military grade" expolosives were used -- because British intelligence shared that information with them.

Also, "military grade" is not a description for simple "commercial" dynamite but something a lot more sophisticated. Militarty grade is a description used for explosives that must fit certain battlefield requirements. They must be stable, and not explode except under purposeful control, they must be able to endure a range of temperatures and still function, the must be waterproof and have a high output-to-weight ratio (more bang per ounce).

Again, it is useful to understand and realise that the UK has been subjected to bombing campaigns for the last Forty odd years. This is quite apart from the fact that there is no source of commercial gelignite, dynamite etc., that is not subject to the most strenuous licensing requirements and oversight by the authorities over here. Smuggling in is very possible and very likely was the case. In bringing up the subject of "military grade" explosives, I wasn't attempting to suggest that the British Army were involved (although there have been examples in alleged IRA bombings in the past where such involvement has been pointed to).

The advanced warning may well have saved lives. Why else warn Netanyahu to stay in his hotel room and not go out to the Conference? That's one possible life saved. And forgive me for thinking that if one VIP's life is worth saving, then ordinary mortals also deserve the same protection. It's an old fashioned viewpoint, I know, but I'm rather fond of "all for one and one for all".

Lastly, in posting on this subject I am merely pointing out curiosities and inconsistencies in the story available to the public. Since I don't have the confidence of the Security Service and the other policing authorities, I am unlikely to ever be able to provide concrete evidence of an inside job. Concrete evidence would be subject to classification under the Official Secrets Act, and I don't have one of those. I keep looking for one in my Christmas stocking, but someone keeps removing it and replacing it with funny whistles and party poppers. Damn their eyes.

Anyway, I'm not even sure it was an inside job in the sense you appear to be suggesting. How about the US doing it themselves in order to strenthen the backbone of the British public to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and to keep plodding along in the footsteps of Uncle, no matter where he trod? As theories go, this seems to have as much going for it as the four Muslim kids out on an unexpected Jihad who bought return rail tickets -- which (presumably) they could cash in the return element, in Paradise, for a couple of extra virgins to while away those long nights of eternity? Yum.

Also, I think you'll find that the widespread media story of the alleged bomb-maker (arrested in Egypt) began to shift quite considerably after awhile... The original report about the bomb-maker began to circulate in intellligence circles the following day. The source for it was a special report issued by the security firm, Aegis. Tim Spicer is the CEO of Aegis. Spicer is rightly famous for being a hoodlum. He and Aegis were also involved in the planned coup of Equitorial Guinea that saw former prime minister, Margaret Thatcher's gun-running son, Mark, arrested and detained (mummy pulled strings and got him released -- it pays to have an infleuntial mummy, no). Aegis, coincidentally, works with the Pentagon's Iraqi operations. There's plenty of media report about Spicer and Aegis of which the following is just a sample: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050110/ackerman In other words, Spicer and Aegis can hardly be considered to be objective and independent -- and nor was their report which was loaded with caveats such as "possible" and "probably" etc. Not so much "intelligence" as shaped propaganda...

David

PS, re your comments about the explosives being "relatively crude" -- my question is compared to what? Compared to a fuel air bomb or a tactical nuclear device then, yes, certainly very crude. The words used are meaningless without further explication and, anyway, who trusts TV and media talking heads who offer these opinions?

[Guest David Guyatt]

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 :-)

David that was a “Emily Latella” moment for you ‘acetone’ and ‘acetone peroxide’ are entirely different compounds. The latter is only “fairly common component of numerous household items” of bomb makers any woman foolhardy to enough to use it to remove her nail polish would probably end up removing her fingers in the process.

Jeez Len, the nail polish bit was a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

You seriously need to get out more often, man. Take in a few beers. Put a happy-hour curve in that spine.

David

[Len Colby]

David how hard do you think it is to obtain “high-grade explosives…such as dynamite” in Britain or to smuggle them in? Original assessments are often reevaluated in light of new evidence. For example it was originally thought worn out “grooving” on the runway was a factor in the Sao Paulo airport Airbus crash but that doesn’t seem to be the case, though the shortness of the runway and its placement in a urban area were. Nothing in the article indicates the residue had been analyzed, don’t forget the accused bomb maker was a chemist (and had an advanced degree IIRC) thus could well have been capable of producing "technically advanced." Explosives. Remember also this wasn’t even the original assessment from your article “Because of the small size of the bombs, some investigators initially said last week that they were relatively crude.”

As for who knew what and when regarding the warning and how they found out are important questions that should be looked into. You still haven’t come up with concrete evidence of an inside job or even that the warning was specific enough to have saved lives. It might well have been but then again it might not.

Len, honestly you're stretching. Irrespective of the fact that you can find no media report that the explosives residue was analysed, do you really think that the authorities didn't do this? It's simply unbelieveable to suggest such a thing. They would've gone over it with a fine tooth comb, because it is forensic Standard Operating Procedure.

That was poorly phrased perhaps I should have said “Nothing in the article indicates the residue had been analyzed YET” More likely then results weren’t in yet or the “counterterrorism officials” interviewed hadn’t been appraised of the results when interviewed. From what I understand such analysis can take time. A test for Acetone Peroxide rsiduewas only developed in 2002.

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/anc.../ac020392n.html

From the NY Times article it’s clear they weren’t sure exactly what kind of explosive had been used

“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. ”

You want the short version they really weren’t sure what sort of material was used so the conclusion that it was “high-grade explosives” was probably based on their force rather than chemical analysis.

Indeed according to a later NY Times article datelined July 14 [TATP = acetone peroxide]:

The recent discovery of TATP lends credence to the initial belief last week by Scotland Yard investigators that the bombs were crude, homemade devices. Later, the first forensic inquiries pointed to more sophisticated devices made of military-grade explosives. But on Thursday night, officials said they were less certain that the bombs had any characteristics consistent with high-grade explosive.

"There were a lot of hypotheses in the beginning," said one of two senior European officials helping in the investigation. "It shows why these things take time."

http://tinyurl.com/29xm9f (Access is free but you need to registar)

This is almost certainly why, various European and other intelligence agencies learned, five days after the event, that "military grade" expolosives were used -- because British intelligence shared that information with them.

Wrongamudo, see above. Also you’re cherry picking. The lead paragraph which often acts as a summery said they thought it was "military quality" the next one said they though it was “the kind manufactured for military use or made for highly technical COMMERCIAL purposes”

Also, "military grade" is not a description for simple "commercial" dynamite but something a lot more sophisticated. Militarty grade is a description used for explosives that must fit certain battlefield requirements. They must be stable, and not explode except under purposeful control, they must be able to endure a range of temperatures and still function, the must be waterproof and have a high output-to-weight ratio (more bang per ounce).

-Do you have any citations for the above or did you pull it out of your er er uh ah uh…hat? I imagine all you specs apply to commercial explosives as well.

-The article said they thought it was military OR “highly technical commercial” (see above).

-There are explosives like RDX which are a lot more powerful than dynamite and almost impossible to detonate accidentally.

Again, it is useful to understand and realise that the UK has been subjected to bombing campaigns for the last Forty odd years. This is quite apart from the fact that there is no source of commercial gelignite, dynamite etc., that is not subject to the most strenuous licensing requirements and oversight by the authorities over here.

That might well be so. I won’t even ask you for a citation. But there is a black market for everything. You don’t think there any unscrupulous people on those islands of yours who might sell such stuff no questions asked to whoever will pay their price? I imagine there are more than a few Muslim/Arab mining engineers/construction contractors etc etc. I’m sure the vast majority are loyal citizens who would never do such a thing but all you’d need is one with access who would. The dynamite from the Madrid bombs “had been stolen from a quarry” according to your article

Smuggling in is very possible and very likely was the case.

Since tons of pot, hash, heroin and coke make it I don’t imagine getting in a few kilos of TNT, RDX etc would very hard.

In bringing up the subject of "military grade" explosives, I wasn't attempting to suggest that the British Army were involved (although there have been examples in alleged IRA bombings in the past where such involvement has been pointed to).

Did any of those incidents involve mass casualties? There are more than enough reasonable explanations for how they could have gotten “high grade” “military or commercial” explosives that there is no necessity for such theories or reason to be suspicious of the changed assessment.

The advanced warning may well have saved lives. Why else warn Netanyahu to stay in his hotel room and not go out to the Conference? That's one possible life saved. And forgive me for thinking that if one VIP's life is worth saving, then ordinary mortals also deserve the same protection. It's an old fashioned viewpoint, I know, but I'm rather fond of "all for one and one for all".

That might well be the case but it is far from certain they knew any details Netanyahu was probably the most obvious human terrorist target in all of England especially since Blair was in Scotland for the G-8 summit. One of the articles you cited said they didn’t want to let the warning “disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland” which would seem to indicate they had no idea when or where the attack would occur.

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

Anyway, I'm not even sure it was an inside job in the sense you appear to be suggesting. How about the US doing it themselves in order to strenthen the backbone of the British public to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and to keep plodding along in the footsteps of Uncle, no matter where he trod? As theories go, this seems to have as much going for it as the four Muslim kids out on an unexpected Jihad

IIRC none of the people close to them have voiced such doubts to the contrary several of them including one of the widows said they had been attending radical mosques and acting strangely beforehand.

" …who bought return rail tickets -- which (presumably) they could cash in the return element, in Paradise, for a couple of extra virgins to while away those long nights of eternity? Yum."

I don’t think a few pence less in their pockets would have made of a difference where they were going. What’s the price difference between a return and one-way ticket on the Tube?

"Also, I think you'll find that the widespread media story of the alleged bomb-maker (arrested in Egypt) began to shift quite considerably after awhile... "

Care to elaborate or provide any citations?

"The original report about the bomb-maker began to circulate in intellligence circles the following day. The source for it was a special report issued by the security firm, Aegis."

You didn’t make that up did you? I did some Googling (only a minute or two) but didn’t find anything along those lines. Do have a citation? In any case Scotland Yard seemed to believe it as did the Egyptian police.

The NY Times first reported it in the July 14 article cited above no mention was made of Spicer or Aegis.

http://tinyurl.com/29xm9f

Nor were they mentioned in the American Chemical Society (acs.org) article about the Egyptian linked below nor in a newspaper article cited by Alex Jones

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/160705u-turn.html

It appears the guy earned BS and MS degrees in chemistry in Egypt where started his doctoral studies then studied chemical engineering in the US and finally got his PhD in the UK. He seems more that qualified to have made an explosive “so easily synthesized that a recipe for making it has been found in terrorists’ handbooks”

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i30/8330london.html (see also the July 14 NY Times article)

A published scientific paper describes its “simple synthesis” being carried out by “amateur chemist(s)” {with occasional accidents}

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/anc.../ac020392n.html

"PS, re your comments about the explosives being "relatively crude" -- my question is compared to what? Compared to a fuel air bomb or a tactical nuclear device then, yes, certainly very crude. The words used are meaningless without further explication and, anyway, who trusts TV and media talking heads who offer these opinions?"

Funny YOU cited the article and now you say you don’t trust the authors.

Yes I knew you were joking about the nail polish but thought you were being serious when you said “acetone peroxide… is [a] fairly common component of numerous household items“ actually I still do. ‘Oh yeah I was only joking I knew that’. But if I’m wrong you can’t forget that sarcasm doesn’t carry as well in writing no facial expression/tone of voice clues.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Well Len, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

My choice is that there are enough anomalies in the story to suggest that there is something deeper lurking behind it all and that it is likely there has been a cover-up -- for whatever reasons.

You choose differently.

One can argue that the first few days of reporting is likely to throw up the most information and that after that initial period, the disinfo fixers gradually get more on top of their task.

As for prior knowledge, the protection of Netanyahu has already detailed that happened. The question that remains is how time ahead of the bombing that a warning was given. The intelligence services were certainly aware that the London Underground system had been targeted well ahead of 7/7. But although specific in that, this warning did not state specific stations or a date.

Of course, after the police phoned the Israeli Embassy to give them warning to take netanyahu to safety, they then later denied that they had ever phoned the Embassy.

Seems there was also a report circulating that Scotland Yard had received a warning themselves and had passed this on to the Israeli Embassy. It was sufficient for the Israeli Embassy to be locked down with no one permitted to enter or leave. However, this report seems to have gorne away. Then there was the Stratfor.com report that it was Israel who officially warned London "a couple of days" ahead of the attack.

Then blow me down, the Saudi's come along and say that they warned the Brits about that attack. Jeez, can someone please step forward and state definitively that they didn't warn London of the attacks. -- let's get at this by a process of elimination.

So it is obvious that somebody's telling Porkies, the question is why?

Then we have the military grade explosives story that was leaked by Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Co-ordination Unit, who had been immediately sent to London to help in the investigation. This report is carried around the world by major media outlets because of Chaboud's credentials. Then whoops-a-daisy, a New York Police chief, almost a month later, tells the world that the explosives were made by "household items" and were not military grade. Curious that, if you're inclined towards curiosities. The report instantly causes a rift between the Metropolitan Police and the NY Police.

NY police Chief, Raymond Kelly said: "Initially, it was thought that perhaps the materials were high-end military explosives that were smuggled," Mr Kelly told the security heads of New York businesses in a briefing. "It's more like these terrorists went to a hardware store or some beauty supply store."

So we have a difference of opinion between the French and the Americans. Nothing new there.

But being a great ally with a non-special Special Relationship to uphol, we now we are heavily into boosting the TATP explanation and Christophe Chaboud's briefing has been cast into the pit. He must be feeling a little bit peeved, I guess. After all, you would think that the head of France's Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit would know the difference from supplies from a beauty parlour or lightweight military grade explosive. But no. Serves him right for being French, I say.

But this desn't for one second dtop the bickering. That gradually became elevated to the highest levels. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said the UK delegation at an EU terrorism meeting claimed that some of the London bomb suspects had earlier been arrested. Whoops.

But no. The ever so nice Charles Clarke, Home Secretary for a few hours until Tony "let him go", said the comments were "completely and utterly untrue". Fancy that. Obviously there was a BIG falling out between a redundant-to-be Home Secretary and the ever so Francaise French Foreign Secretary.

Incensed, Charles Clarke, threw down the gauntlet by accusing Froggy Sarkozy of arriving at a meeting a "little late" and leaving a "early". That told him.

Officials meanwhile, were adamant the men were not arrested and then released in order to break a wider network. That would be English officials. French officials clearly believe that is what happened.

Mon Dieu.

Somebody's telling porkies here too.

And blow me down if MI5 officers didn't then jump into the fray on behalf of Le Fracaise, by leaking top secret documents to the Sunday Times saying that Ministers have "withheld information from the public about what the security services knew about the suspects before the bombing of July 7 and the abortive attacks of July 21."

Does withholding that sort of evidence constitute a cock up or a cover up?

So all this does is add spice to the argument that 7/7 may have followed the same Pearl Harbour arrangement as 9/11. Assuming it wasn't just a case of old fashioned bureaucratic ballet, where everyones left feet point inwards and their right feet point outwards to ensure that everyone keeps walking in cirlces...

The same thing in other words.

David

PS, during his term of office that ended on September 1, 2003, FBI Director, Louis Freeh was a member of Opus Dei.

[John Simkin]

An interesting aspect of this case is the support that the New Labour government has given to Ian Blair. It seems the government is very anxious that Blair stays in office. Does this mean he could be dangerous to the government if he was forced to resign? Blair has of course been very supportive to the government's anti-terrorist measures.

The Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorist activity so broadly that ordinary political activity can be criminalised. It has been used frequently against peaceful protesters. Over the last 6 years 1,228 individuals have been arrested under this act. However, 87% were not charged under the Terrorist Act and 54% were released without charge. The government now want to increase pre-charge detention from 28 to 56 days. This is equivalent to a four-month custodial sentence, merely on the grounds that the individual is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. Those released without charge are permanently stigmatized.

Apparently, all this is being done at the request of Ian Blair. Is it possible that if Blair was forced to resign he would admit that he made this request under pressure from the government?

[Guest David Guyatt]

An interesting aspect of this case is the support that the New Labour government has given to Ian Blair. It seems the government is very anxious that Blair stays in office. Does this mean he could be dangerous to the government if he was forced to resign? Blair has of course been very supportive to the government's anti-terrorist measures.

The Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorist activity so broadly that ordinary political activity can be criminalised. It has been used frequently against peaceful protesters. Over the last 6 years 1,228 individuals have been arrested under this act. However, 87% were not charged under the Terrorist Act and 54% were released without charge. The government now want to increase pre-charge detention from 28 to 56 days. This is equivalent to a four-month custodial sentence, merely on the grounds that the individual is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. Those released without charge are permanently stigmatized.

Apparently, all this is being done at the request of Ian Blair. Is it possible that if Blair was forced to resign he would admit that he made this request under pressure from the government?

I agree. I also have a suspicion that there is much more about the de Menzes affair -- and 7/7 - than meets the eye, and that Sir Ian Blair is "fronting" for that things that may have a far nastier explanation and that if he was forced to resign that information he is holding tight might start trickling out.

David