"...there was a woman...who was on her back, trapped in the metal which had twisted up through the middle of the carriage. The roof was still on but the lining of the carriage had been blown off...there was a big hole in the middle of the floor."
Policewoman Lizzie Kenworthy - eye-witness at the Aldgate East explosion
"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag"
Fortress GB Ltd is an Israeli-run company with offices in Tavistock Square, London. They are contracted to provide 'security technology' on the Jubilee, Northern, and Piccadilly lines of the London underground. Fortress GB specialises in the provision of smart-card technology and biometric applications to large scale transport operations. Apart from servicing the London Underground, the company also has contracts with several major British airports, the Israeli bus company 'Egged', - the largest bus company in Europe - and with several English Premiership football clubs.
ICTS UK Ltd is another Israeli-run 'transportation security' company with offices in London. Although the company's registered address is listed as 8 Baker Street, they operate, however, from an office on the first Floor of Tavistock House South. Curiously, this is the exact same location that Fortress GB operate from. More curious still, Tavistock House is the exact location where the number 30 bus exploded on 7th July. ICTS UK Ltd lists among its activities: "the provision of Smart Card solutions to open access organisations such as academic institutions hospitals airports and football clubs."
Given that both companies provide 'transportation security' services, operate from the same floor of the same office complex, and that both are owned and run by Israelis, only a hardened 'coincidence theorist' would deny that there is evidence indicating tangible links between the two. One could be forgiven for believing that Fortress GB Ltd and ICTS UK Ltd are one and the same.
Christopher Bollyn - a distinguished and much-respected investigative journalist who works for the American Free Press - recently telephoned Fortress GB to make some enquiries. Bollyn reports that:
"An Israeli man answered the phone at Fortress GB and was noticeably reluctant to answer any questions about who ran the company although he did admit that a lot of Israelis worked there." When he telephoned ICTS UK, Bollyn states that the secretary he spoke with: "....quickly told me that the companies are related."
In view of this frank admission, both these Israeli security companies ought to be the focus of an investigation. As Christopher Bollyn points out, these companies merit being investigated because "they provide 'security technology' for the tube lines that were bombed."
Bollyn also points out that these Israeli companies perfect their 'security' skills in Israel and Iraq and then apply them in Britain and the USA.
There is strong evidence to support the view that Mossad were behind the bombing of PanAm flight FL 103 that exploded in mid-air over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on the evening of 21st December, 1988 killing 270 people. MOSSAD has a long history of 'false-flag' operations - carrying out acts of terrorism that ultimately get blamed on Arabs. MOSSAD also has a history of setting-up 'front companies' from which they operate, hidden out of sight. ICTS UK has connections to ICTS International and ICTS Europe. The differences between them exists only on paper. ICTS International sold ICTS Europe to a company called Fraport in 2002. Fraport owns owns Frankfurt airport which, incidentally, is where the bomb was placed in the hold of Pan Am flight FL 103.
ICTS International are an Israeli-owned firm which is registered in the Netherlands, and is the world's premier aviation security company. ICTS International were the company who ran the security arrangements at ALL the airports from where the hijacked airliners departed from on the morning of September 11th, 2001. There already exists mountains of evidence implicating Mossad in the 9-11 attacks. Mossad are also implicated in the Lockerbie bombing. Many believe that Mossad was involved in the London bombings too.
To determine whether Israel was involved in the 7/7 attacks, a root and branch investigation of Fortress GB and ICTS is called for. Perhaps one way the British government could better protect its citizens would be to cease outsourcing basic security arrangements to questionable Israeli companies that may well be no more than Mossad fronts.
That the safety and security of millions of Londoners is partly the responsibility of a private foreign-owned 'transportation security' firm is in itself alarming. That the company servicing the London underground was also involved in the security arrangements of the ALL the 9-11 airports will not induce a great degree of confidence among passengers.
If these revelations do not induce feelings of deep apprehension then rest assured that the following article will. This anonymously-written piece appeared a few days ago on the whatreallyhappened.com website.
The past two decades have been marked by a large number of man-made terror events which remain unsolved to this day. Several of these events, which involve heinous crimes of mass murder, are similar in a most remarkable way. These are the disasters which occurred during security drills or military exercises in which the scenario was incredibly similar, if not identical to the real-life terror attack.
Understanding the nature of the exercises that created the background and framework for these attacks is essential to understanding how the attacks were carried out. The fact that these real-life terror events occurred within the context of virtually identical terrorism/security exercises has been completely ignored by the media -- as if the exercises had never happened.
Of the major terror events that occurred during such exercises, we will look at three specific examples: the aerial attacks of 9-11, the bombings of the London Underground and a bus in 2005, and the sinking of the Baltic ferry Estonia in 1994.
While there certainly have been other major disasters that occurred within the context of military exercises, the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk in 2000, for example, and the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf, the three events being discussed here involved attacks on civilian transportation systems far from any war zone.
The three disasters were all handled in the same way by their respective governments and media. In each case, before a real investigation could begin to establish the facts and examine the evidence, a politically acceptable explanation was put forward by government officials and repeated, without question, by the mass media. Evidence and facts that contradict the "official" version of events have been confiscated, destroyed, or simply ignored.
The extremely hasty and improper sale of the steel from the World Trade Center to distant Asian smelters, for example, must rank as the most egregious case of destruction of evidence from a crime scene in American history.
Likewise, during the official dive for evidence to the wreck of Estonia, on which more than 852 people are known to have died, the crucial locking bolt from the bow visor, which officials blame for having caused the catastrophe, was thrown back into the sea.
The bolt from the Atlantic lock had been detached by divers and brought to the surface for investigation only to be thrown back to the sea by Börje Stenström, the Swedish navy commander who was the head of the technical group of the international investigation commission.
Stenström's throwing the bolt back to the sea was clearly the destruction of "one of the most important pieces of evidence," according to his own scenario of what had caused the sinking.
The first rule in maintaining a cover-up is to control access to the evidence. The second rule is to destroy any and all evidence that contradicts the official version of events.
The fact that these three disasters occurred during very similar terror scenarios being staged as part of an exercise has been ignored by the mass media, which has treated these extremely uncanny coincidences as complete non-issues.
Information about the exercises has been kept hidden from the public. The government cover-ups have been greatly facilitated by the compliant mass media which has consistently ignored the fact that several mega-disasters occurred within the context of strikingly similar terrorism exercises.
The terrorist attacks, for example, that struck New York and Washington on 9-11 and the London bombings of July 7, 2005, were the realization, i.e. the making real, of computer-based scenarios that were being staged in the same place at the same time. Would a truly free press ignore the conspicuous fact that both events occurred within the context of very similar terror exercises?
"The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out," Captain Eric H. May, a former military intelligence officer from the U.S. Army wrote in a recent article entitled "False Flag Prospects, 2008 - Top Three U.S. Target Cities."
False flag terror attacks are designed and carried out with the intention of having the blame assigned to a targeted foe in order to manipulate public opinion, cause conflict and foment war. The complicity of the media is necessary for such false flag terrorism to succeed.
"This is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 'terror' attacks," May writes, "which were in reality government attacks blamed on 'terrorists'."
Captain May, a Texan from Houston, certainly knows what he is talking about. He is an expert in military exercises involving simulations. May completed advanced courses at the U.S. Army's school for military intelligence officers at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and served five years with the U.S. Army's 75th Division as an Opposing Forces Controller, where he ran "contrarian scenarios."
May's aim, he says, as a former military intelligence officer who spent five years conducting war games, is to warn the public that the " 'next 9/11' -- constantly promised by officials and the media -- is likely to be carried out under the guise of future military exercises.
"If the American people are aware of pending exercises and the danger they represent," May says, "then the exercises cannot 'go live' and effect the very terror events that they are supposed to be rehearsing against."
9-11 and the July 7, 2005 bombings in London "have smoking guns proving that the mass murderers were not foreign terrorists but domestic tyrants," May writes. The "smoking guns," he says, are the terror exercises that simulated the attacks that actually occurred.
While the terrorism/security drills created the "contrarian scenario" framework within which the real terror attacks occurred, it does not necessarily follow that the agency running the exercise is the actual terrorist. The true culprit is much more likely to be a foreign agency, who is covertly, but intimately aware of the planning of the exercise. By having access to the critical computer networks involved in the exercise this outside agency has the ability to hijack the drill and make it "go live."
While the real terrorists could be from any agency that is involved in the drill, they could also be from a foreign intelligence organization that has gained "back door" access to the computer networks on which the exercise is planned and carried out.
Israeli military intelligence, for example, which has long been engaged in supplying enterprise software, e.g. Ptech, and network security personnel and programs to the U.S. government and military, undoubtedly has "back door" access to these most sensitive computer networks.
As May says, the "smoking gun" terror drills disprove the official fairy tale that "Islamic terrorists" are responsible for these false flag terror attacks. The Arabs and Muslims who have been wrongly blamed for 9-11 and the London bombings have simply been framed, like Lee Harvey Oswald, as part of the deception.
(NOTE ON THE CHICAGO CONNECTION – Itzhak Rabin, a senior Israeli military officer and ally of Shimon Peres, also happened to be in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was killed. So, pray tell, exactly what business did the Israeli military officer Itzhak Rabin have in Dallas on November 22, 1963?
On January 1, 1964, Rabin was promoted to Chief of Staff after returning from Dallas. Rabin's father, Nehemiah, had lived some 13 years in Chicago's West Side Yiddish-speaking Jewish community, some of that time at 2734 Crystal Street with a Solomon Turovlin of the Jewish Daily Forward, the Yiddish language paper. The elder Rabin (said to have been born Rubitzov, although not one record has been found in that name) was involved in the same Yiddish-speaking Zionist community, which the Rubinstein family was also part of, before migrating to Palestine as a member of the "Jewish Legion" sometime after September 1918. Rabin's father from Chicago engaged in fighting in the Jordan Valley of Palestine and was one of the founders of the underground Zionist militia, the Haganah, in Jerusalem in 1920.
Why has the U.S. media ignored the extensive ties between Zionists like Rabin and Rubinstein to the world of Jewish organized crime?)
At the exact time of the terror bombings of the London Underground and a bus at Tavistock Square, a man named Peter Power was, with his crisis management company, Visor Consultants Ltd., conducting a terrorism drill for a mysterious un-named client. The Visor exercise was precisely identical to the bombings that occurred. Just how likely is such a coincidence?
Peter Power had previously worked at Scotland Yard, the Anti Terrorist Branch, and as a police superintendent in West Dorset, England. In 1993, Power was himself the subject of a criminal investigation which, in April 1993, led to his suspension and retirement from the police.
Superintendent Power was suspended following an internal police inquiry, which resulted in a file being submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution. Oddly, the details of the Power investigation have been kept classified. After a five-month investigation, Power retired from the police force in September 1993, at the age of 42, "on health grounds."
Just hours after the London bombings, Power explained the incredible coincidences with the drill his company was conducting in a radio interview with Peter Allen on BBC 5:
Power: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
Peter Allen: To 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 they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers, for the first time they'd met, and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, "this is the real one" and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.
Later on July 7, Power appeared in a television interview on ITV News in which he revealed more about the nature of the operation:
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.
ITV Host: 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 o'clock 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....
One would think that such astounding revelations of a British terrorism expert about how the terror bombings were "almost precisely" like the exercise he had been conducting for a mysterious company would be of great interest to the media. That has, however, not been the case.
There has been virtually no discussion in the "mainstream" media that the London bombings, or other terror atrocities and disasters like 9-11 and the sinking of Estonia, occurred within the context of security drills that were very similar to what actually happened. Why has this crucial background information been censored? Astonishing first-hand accounts, like Peter Power's, from people engaged in these exercises were reported shortly after the events occurred, yet these important stories were confined to local news outlets and not reported in the major national and international news outlets, in newspapers like the New York Times, for example, whose motto is: "All the news that's fit to print."
Power's comments about the amazing coincidences with his security drill were censored by the BBC in the same way as the eyewitness report of Stephen Evans, their reporter who was at the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Evans was on the ground floor of the South Tower when planes struck the complex. When he appeared on BBC World television shortly after the collapse of the twin towers, Evans repeatedly described a "series of explosions" he had seen and felt at the base of the tower before it was demolished.
From the first minute Evans spoke, however, it was quite obvious that his eyewitness report was being censored by the higher powers at the BBC. When the BBC revisited the events of 9-11 with Evans, there was absolutely no mention of the "series of explosions" he had witnessed on the morning of the attacks. How can that be? Such blatant and intentional omissions are properly defined as censorship.
Evans' astonishing eyewitness account from 9-11 was evidently dropped into the "memory hole" at the BBC. Peter Power's revealing comments about the London bombings met the same fate. For independent journalists to question the controlled-media's version of events, from which such significant first-hand accounts have been censored, is to risk being branded a "conspiracy theorist."
The public is now told that eyewitness accounts can not be trusted – at least when they differ from the official version. Eyewitness reports from people who were in the disaster or who saw it with their own eyes can not be considered as reliable testimony, we are told. How very odd.
Such was the case with the downing of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, New York in 1996, when more than 100 eyewitnesses reported seeing what appeared to be a missile streak from the surface of the ocean, strike the aircraft, and cause an explosive fireball.
I attended the final presentation of the official TWA 800 report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2000, when David Mayer, whose only credential as a panel member was a Ph.D. in Applied Experimental Psychology from Rice University, audaciously dismissed the reports of more than 100 eyewitnesses as the collective hallucinations of intoxicated New Yorkers, based solely on the fact that it was a summer weekend evening!
At that point, it was abundantly clear that there was something seriously wrong with the NTSB and their investigation of the downing of TWA 800. The cover-up could hardly have been more obvious.
On 9-11, an agency of the Dept. of Defense and the CIA was conducting a terror scenario in which an imaginary airplane from Washington's Dulles International Airport was to crash into one of the four towers of the suburban campus of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in Chantilly, Virginia, just a few miles west of the Pentagon.
The plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, American Airlines Flight 77, departed from the very same airport at 8:20 a.m. on 9-11. When the terror scenario became real in New York and at the Pentagon, the NRO exercise was cancelled and nearly all its three thousand employees, the people who operate the nation's "eye in the sky," were sent home.
The government said it was a "bizarre coincidence" that the NRO, a military intelligence agency working under the Dept. of Defense and CIA, had planned a simulated exercise with a mock "plane-into-building" crash on the morning of 9-11.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," spokesman Art Haubold told the Associated Press in August 2002. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."
As the agency that operates many of the nation's spy satellites, the NRO personnel come from the military and the CIA. When the attacks occurred, however, most of the 3,000 people who work at the agency were sent home. Why would they do that? Does it make any sense at all for a nation to shut its eyes while it is under attack?
The fact that the spy agency had planned such a drill was casually leaked in an announcement for a homeland security conference in Chicago in 2002. In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement said:
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.
The most pressing questions about why the U.S. military air defense system failed to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9-11 are obviously of crucial importance. Captain May writes that "even official apologists call [9-11] the greatest defense failure in American history."
How could the most modern and expensive air force in the world fail to intercept four airliners, three of which roamed wild for hundreds of miles before striking landmark buildings in New York and Washington?
Why was the U.S. air defense system unable to intercept several large, slow-moving planes before they struck the nation's largest city and its capital? If the U.S. Air Force couldn't intercept lumbering civilian planes, how could they possibly stop a hostile invasion of fighter jets or missiles?
These crucial questions have never been raised by the government appointed commissions or the media, which have all avoided discussing the military exercises of 9-11. It's not that these drills were not reported, but rather that their connection to the disasters has not been openly discussed and investigated.
Four months after 9-11, the Post-Standard of Syracuse, New York, published an article by Hart Seely that featured first-hand accounts of the military radar operators of the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, New York. These radar operators were the eyes of the U.S. air defense system for the eastern part of the nation on 9-11.
In Seely's article, the NEADS personnel explained how a North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) exercise called Vigilant Guardian, which they were participating in, had caused systemic confusion which prevented an effective military response to the real emergency.
The confusion at NEADS was evident from the moment Boston Flight Control informed them that a plane had been hijacked.
At 8:38 a.m. an air traffic controller telephoned Sergeant Jeremy Powell at NEADS to inform him that one of their planes had been hijacked and was headed to New York :
"Is this real-world or exercise?" Powell asked.
"No. This is not an exercise; not a test," Powell was told, according to transcripts of the 9-11 Commission report.
Seely's informative article described the context -- and the confusion -- at NEADS:
6 a.m.: WAR GAMES
Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins figured it would be a long day. Sept. 11 was Day 2 of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide. The simulation would run all week, and Deskins, starting her 12-hour shift in the Operations Center as the NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, might find herself on the spot.
Day 1 of the simulation had moved slowly. She hoped the exercise gathered steam. It made a long day go faster.
8:40 a.m.: REAL WORLD
In the Ops Center, three rows of radar scopes face a high wall of wide-screen monitors. Supervisors pace behind technicians who peer at the instruments. Here it is always quiet, always dark, except for the green radar glow.
At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.
"It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought. At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.
On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center: "I have a hijacked aircraft," he told her.
American Airlines Flight 11, headed to Los Angeles, had veered off course, apparently toward New York. The liaison said to get "some F-16s or something" airborne.
Forty-one minutes earlier, Flight 11 had left Logan Airport with 81 passengers. For the last 27 minutes, it had not responded to ground control.
Deskins requested Flight 11's latest position, which an operator put up on the screen. Flight 11 wasn't there. Someone had turned off its transponder, the device that identifies the plane to ground control. Boston Center could still track it on primary radar, but the operators in Rome would be hard-pressed to find it amid the jumble of blips on their screens.
We'll direct the intercept, the liaison told Deskins. Just get something up there.
Deskins ran up a short flight of stairs to the Battle Cab and reported the hijacked plane - real world, not a simulation.
What is most peculiar is that Seely's informative article about the confusion among the critical military radar operators at NEADS was never published or referenced by any national newspaper in the United States. The New York Times, for example, has never even mentioned "Vigilant Guardian," the air defense exercise that contributed to the confusion behind the military's failure to protect New York City on 9-11.
Oddly, among the national newspapers and news magazines of the United States, Vigilant Guardian has only been mentioned once, very briefly, in a Washington Post book review of the 9-11 Commission report.
The review began with the painfully obvious truth: "If the 9-11 report had been written as a novel, nobody would believe it. The story is too far-fetched."
The Post only mentioned Vigilant Guardian when it quoted "a little-noticed footnote" from the report:
When FAA officials realize (late) that planes are being hijacked, they can't monitor them - or decide what to do. The vice president thinks he has issued orders to shoot down civilian planes, but the pilots in the air don't get the word. The military's air-defense command isn't sure whether it's dealing with an exercise or a real event. Incredibly, according to a little-noticed footnote in the report, "On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union."
Vigilant Guardian obviously confused the military because simulated hijackings and false "injects," which are radar indications of non-existent planes, were reportedly part of the exercise. This is why Deskins and others were initially uncertain whether the reports of hijacked planes were "real world" or simulation.
"First thing that went through my mind was, 'Is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?' " Air Force Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, who was at a command center at the Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, told ABC News.
The military's inability to respond effectively to the rogue aircraft of 9-11 was evidently caused, at least in part, by the NORAD exercise. The fact that a similar exercise, involving a plane striking a military facility near the Pentagon, was being staged on the morning of 9-11, indicates that the computer-based exercises played key roles in the actual terror attacks that occurred. Is this why the controlled media has ignored them?
What role the military exercises played in the 9-11 terror attacks and how they could have been hijacked, and by whom, are all questions that need to be answered, but these are questions that will be addressed in greater detail in a subsequent chapter.
The unexplained sinking of the Baltic ferry Estonia on its way to Stockholm from Tallinn in late September 1994 is the third mega-disaster (not in chronological order) that occurred within the framework of a military exercise.
The day before it sank Estonia had also been the scene of a terrorism exercise in which the scenario was a terror bombing of the ferry. Looking at the NATO military assets that were assembled nearby and the terrorism drill that had just been conducted on the ship, the stage was clearly set and the actors were in place for what turned out to be a real disaster.
The Estonia catastrophe is Europe's worst maritime disaster since World War II. 852 people are known to have died when Estonia sank in the early hours of September 28, 1994, but more than 1,000 may have perished, if, as reported, some 150 Iraqi Kurds were being smuggled to Sweden in one of the trucks on its car deck.
Scores of people died in the frigid water of the Baltic Sea waiting for rescue boats and helicopters that came too late. More than ninety bodies were retrieved from the life rafts.
Although it is seldom mentioned, the Estonia catastrophe occurred on the first day of a 10-day NATO naval exercise called Cooperative Venture 94, in which more than 15 ships and "a number of maritime aircraft" were prepared to conduct "humanitarian and search and rescue operations" in nearby waters.
The NATO exercise, which involved 10 NATO member states and the Baltic "partner" nations of Russia, Sweden, Poland, and Lithuania, was to be staged in the Skagerrak, between Denmark and Norway, and the Norwegian Sea, according to the NATO press release about the exercise from September 16, 1994.
The NATO nations who participated in the exercise were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States. Many other allies and partners sent observers to the exercise, according to the NATO press release.
The fact that Estonia sank as the submarines, ships, planes, personnel, and satellites from the navies of 14 nations were preparing to begin their 10-day "search and rescue operations" exercise off the coast of Sweden raises several obvious questions that deserve to be answered: First and foremost, if NATO had 15 ships and a number of aircraft assembled and prepared to conduct "search and rescue operations," why didn't NATO assist in the early morning rescue operation for the victims from the Estonia catastrophe?
The Swedish rescue helicopters were ill-prepared and ill-equipped, which resulted in a fatal delay for those waiting to be rescued.
"Were there specially-equipped rescue helicopters or other aircraft that could have assisted?" Drew Wilson, author of The Hole (2006), a book about the Estonia catastrophe, wrote:
Survivors who didn't die from hypothermia while floating on upturned boats or flotsam in the biting water waited four-six hours for rescue. NATO search-and-rescue personnel and equipment could have saved some lives. Flying time was under 1 hour. Why didn't they respond to the distress traffic? What happened?
The evidence indicates that the Mayday signals from Estonia had been jammed, as were all radio communications in the area.
"A series of comprehensive malfunctions in regional communication systems all at once, and all at the exact time the ferry had sunk suggest involvement by a military or intelligence services," Wilson writes in The Hole. "Was a distress call intentionally blocked? If so, why? Communications throughout the Northern Baltic Sea were disrupted during the time of the accident."
As Wilson documents, VHF Channel 16, the international Mayday channel, and Channel 2182 were blocked. "Signal jamming of all radio communications apparently occurred on the Southern coastline of Finland as the accident unfolded."
The NSA of the United States, the intelligence and spy agency which monitors signal intelligence around the world, reportedly has a file of documents about the Estonia catastrophe which remain classified more than 13 years after the passenger and car ferry supposedly sank due to a faulty bow visor. Why would the NSA maintain top-secret files about an innocent ship wreck in the Baltic Sea in 1994?
Wilson wrote:
Werner Hummel, the German investigator, said that his Group had documentation showing that the regional telephone network servicing the catastrophe site failed just as it was needed most. The malfunction was truly a startling coincidence. The telephone company stated its entire radio communications network, for unknown reasons, had been down from 1:03 to 1:58 a.m. – almost exactly the time the Estonia first encountered trouble until the time it disappeared from radar.
Didn't the NATO communications units prepared for the "search and rescue" exercise overhear the distress calls coming from Estonia? NATO, with state-of-the-art satellite and airborne surveillance assets in place over the Baltic Sea certainly must know who was blocking the SOS calls.
Why has this information been kept secret since 1994? Blocking SOS calls and jamming distress signals is a violation of international law. Why has this crime not been investigated?
The intentional blocking of the Mayday signals from Estonia points to complicity in mass murder. "Naval exercises are meant to be as realistic as possible," Olivier Schmidt, author of The Intelligence Files: Today's Secrets, Tomorrow's Scandals, writes.
What was the "search and rescue" scenario of NATO's Cooperative Venture 94 exercise, which was commanded at sea by the Dutch submarine commander Gijsbert Goofert Hooft?
I sent a series of pertinent questions to Robert Pszczel, NATO's press officer for Baltic issues, about NATO's response to the Estonia catastrophe:
Did NATO have any naval assets in the Baltic Sea on the night of September 27-28, 1994 and what actions did NATO take in the immediate aftermath of the Estonia disaster?
Did NATO pick up the Mayday signals being sent (and jammed) from Estonia? Why didn't NATO assist, given the urgent need to retrieve hundreds of freezing people from life rafts? What was the scenario of NATO's search and recovery exercise?
Despite telephone calls and email exchanges with the press office at NATO headquarters, Robert Pszczel failed to respond to a single question about NATO's response to the Estonia catastrophe for this article.
Drew Wilson ran into the same wall of silence at NATO when he asked questions about Estonia for his book The Hole.
If NATO has a reasonable explanation for its failure to respond and assist during Europe's worst maritime disaster since World War II, why is it unwilling to provide it? To whom is this organization accountable?
The Estonia ferry had been the object of bomb threats and had participated in at least two terror bomb exercises in 1994, one in February and another just the day before it sank.
On February 2, 1994, Estonia was the subject of a major mock bomb exercise conducted with RITS, Sweden's maritime fire and rescue agency, and the Stockholm police. The Stockholm police had requested to take part in the exercise and used bomb-sniffing dogs to find explosives. The terror simulation involved a scenario in which "bombs" had been placed in the sauna and swimming pool area on the lowest deck, below the waterline in the bow of the ship. A second "bomb" was placed in the sleeping quarters on the first deck, also below the waterline.
In the Estonia terrorism scenario, the explosives in the sauna were to be found by the dogs, while the second "bomb" was to explode. The purpose of this terrorism drill was to train with the ship's crew and include shore-based terrorism experts and police with bomb-sniffing dogs, brought to the ship by helicopter. In the simulation, the "bombs" were set to explode about half way between the Estonian and Swedish coasts, which is where the ship actually sank in September 1994 after a similar mock bomb threat exercise.
When Estonia sank, another mock bomb exercise on the ship had just been concluded. Survivors from the sinking actually reported hearing two huge explosions immediately before the ship listed to starboard. Several crew members testified to having heard the coded fire alarm "Mr. Skylight to No. 1 and 2" over the ferry's public address system at about 1:02 a.m. after the vessel had listed severely.
This is the exact same message for the crew that was used during the previous bomb drill in February 1994. "Mr. Skylight" was a signal for the fire fighters to proceed to their fire stations 1 and 2 and prepare for damage control. The fact that this coded alarm was given indicates that there was damage caused by a fire or explosion that required immediate attention. The ferry sank within 30 minutes.
Eyewitness testimony from survivors plus the fact that the ship sank extremely quickly strongly suggest that explosives were used to tear a large hole in the hull below the waterline. Swedish policemen who had just conducted training involving a mock bomb threat on the ferry were returning home when Estonia sank. Of the 70 policemen, only 7 survived.
So, the government will 'narrate' what happened on 7th July. Trust the government - the government would never lie to us. The Ministry of Truth's version of events will be re-spun and 'narrated' to the masses. Uncle Tony, Uncle Charles and Uncle Ian will tell us of how four evil 'disaffected' Islamic terrorists from Dewsbury carried out the bombings.
Some faceless mandarin in Whitehall will then write-up their story before Uncle Charles puts his autograph to it, and the whitewash is released for public consummation.
A public inquiry would surely question the highly improbable 'coincidence' of an 'exercise drill' being run simultaneously with the actual attacks - and at the exact same locations. Such an inquiry would surely wish to examine the eye-witness evidence of Cambridge man, Bruce Lait, who was injured in the bombing that occurred near Aldgate East station.
Mr. Lait's testimony included the following statement:
"The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."
Mr. Lait's evidence totally destroys the 'suicide bomber' theory tendered by the government and its' agents.
Any honest and open inquiry into the London bombings would want to know how the alleged bombers managed to execute the bombings despite having been under surveillance by MI5 in the year preceding the attacks. MI5 would be invited to offer an explanation as to why they lowered the threat level just five weeks prior to the bombings taking place. MI5 might also be asked to explain their links with alleged bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan.
Any serious inquiry into the facts surrounding the events of 7/7 would seek to establish just how the bombers' bodies were blown to bits after their bombs detonated yet their ID documents managed to survive intact. Questions might be raised as to why home secretary Charles Clarke is of the opinion that the attacks "came out of the blue" when just weeks before the Saudi security service had warned both MI5 and MI6 of imminent terrorist attack on London.
Clarke's blatant lies would be exposed by the revelation that Blair was warned months in advance by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ of Al-Qaeda plans to launch an attack on the London Underground. "Out of the blue", Mr. Clarke?
A public enquiry might also probe a confidential French intelligence report - written just days before the London bombings - which warned that Britain was at risk from Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, and that such attacks were "likely to be implemented with the support of Jihadists in Britain's Pakistani community."
Israeli foreknowledge of the bombings would come under the spotlight. Indeed, the distinct possibility of actual Israeli participation in/commission of the atrocity would surely be investigated. Clarification would be required as to exactly how the Israelis came to have foreknowledge of the imminent attack while the home secretary pleaded ignorance.
If the attacks did indeed come from "out of the blue", as Charles Clarke claims, then Scotland Yard would need to explain how they came to be in possession of intelligence that warned of the attacks a short time before they occurred. The Israeli Embassy in London had advance notification which consequentially led to Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than proceeding to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion where he was due to address an 'economic summit'.
There can be no public inquiry because revelation of the truth would expose the compartmentalised traitors operating within MI5 who facilitated the bombings and set-up four young men as patsies. An open and honest investigation of the facts would show that the mastermind of the attacks - Haroon Rashid Aswat - is an MI6 agent whom the British prevented US authorities from arresting just a month prior to the bombings.
There can be no public inquiry because any such investigation would reveal a plethora of smoking guns that would prove beyond any shadow of doubt that high-level government officials along with corrupt elements within the intelligence 'services' were complicit in the planning, execution and subsequent cover-up of the bombings. The evidence available incriminates not only key elements within the British government and its intelligence services, the evidence also directly implicates the Mossad too.
Any public inquiry applying the concept of 'cui bono' would soon establish that 'Al-Qaeda' gained nothing from the London bombings. The Blair government, on the other hand, was able to use the bombings as a pretext for introducing a batch of draconian legislation that further curtails British civil liberties, and as a justification for the expansion of the phony 'war on terror'.
MI5 and MI6 are the other main beneficiaries of the London bombings. Both will now receive at least £85 million in extra funding as a consequence of the 'crackdown' on terrorism but don't expect any public inquiry to enquire as to why failure is being rewarded.
There won't be an independent inquiry regarding the London bombings because the two Blairs, Straw, Clarke et al would have to explain why they were so quick off the mark to attatch blame to 'Al-Qaeda' when an eight-page report - 'London Attacks: The Emerging Picture' - produced by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre in October 2004, and leaked to the Sunday Times, admits that MI5 still does not know whether the attacks of 7th and 21st were linked and whether Al-Qaeda were involved.
Assuming that this astonishing admission by MI5 is actually true and not disinformation intended to fool us into believing that all leads have been exhausted, then those in government and law enforcement who blame Al-Qaeda for the attacks would surely be pressed by a public inquiry to explain how they know who committed the 7/7 atrocities when MI5 don't.
And if MI5 truly have 'exhausted all leads' then questions have to be raised as to why tens of millions of pounds of OUR money has found its way into the agency's coffers to fund its nationwide expansion. Questions also have to be asked as to how the British public can expect MI5 to 'protect' them from 'terrorists' when the agency is so evidently incompetent and inept.
Move along folks, there's nothing to see - nothing but smoke and mirrors, naked deception, black lies, and high treason.
The Government is facing fresh calls for a public inquiry into the July 7 attacks after admitting a mistake in an official account of the bombings.
Home Secretary John Reid told the Commons the published narrative gave the wrong time for the train which four suicide bombers took to London to carry them out.
Grahame Russell, whose son Philip died on July 7, said it raised concerns about the accuracy of the rest of the report.
Mr Reid admitted that the error "may be of concern" and had ordered a report from police into how it had gone undetected for so long.
However, Scotland Yard pointed out that the official account had been produced by the Home Office and police had never given it the time for the train.
A spokesman said the mistake may have come from erroneous first-hand witness accounts of the timing it had received and then passed on.
The official account said Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Germaine Lindsay left Luton station at 7.40am on July 7 last year.
But Mr Reid said he was told last week that it had in fact set off for King's Cross Thameslink at 7.25am.
The four men killed themselves and 52 innocent people in a series of attacks on London's transport network later that day.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis repeated Tory calls for an independent public inquiry, saying it would be "in the best interests of the public".
07.21: The 4 are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King's Cross Thameslink train.
07.40: The London King's Cross train leaves Luton station. There are conflicting accounts of their behaviour on the train. Some witnesses report noisy conversations, another believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors. The 4 stood out a bit from usual commuters due to their luggage and casual clothes, but not enough to cause suspicion. This was the beginning of the summer tourist period and Luton Station serves Luton Airport.
08.23: The train arrives at King's Cross, slightly late due to a delay further up the line. The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system.
The official version of events has been changed so many times that it has now completely discredited and beyond belief. The timetable discrepancy was first exposed 11 MONTHS AGO by independent researchers Nick Kollerstrom and James Stewart.
Kollerstrom and Stewart produced evidence almost a year ago proving that the train the alleged bombers were supposed to have taken to King Cross from Luton DID NOT RUN...IT WAS CANCELLED!!! The duo also proved that it was physically impossible for the alleged bombers to have been filmed entering the station at 7.22 a.m. and be aboard a train 3 minutes later. Not only that, it is also physically impossible for the eye-witnesses cited by the Home Office to have seen the alleged bombers on the 7.40 a.m. train if, as the Home Office are now claiming, they travelled to London on a train that departed 15 minutes earlier!!!
For almost a year, the police have been telling us that the supposed bombers caught the 7.40 a.m. train out of Luton. Now they're telling us that they were on the 7.25 connection - even though this is demonstrably impossible. There is only one logical explanation - the footage of the supposed bombers is fake, and the alleged perpetrators of the London atrocities patsies who were set-up and framed.
There must now be a full public inquiry so that the truth of what really happened on July 7th last year can finally see the light of day. The victims and their families deserve nothing less.
Blair often uses the 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' argument whenever he is trying to push ID cards on us. Well, if Mr. B-Liar has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear.
We demand the truth, we demand a public inquiry, we demand justice.
Death Of A Nation
Written by Ian Hunter
I was having a drink with Prince Charles and the Queen
When Winston Churchill stepped into my dream
His head it was heavy
His voice was shakin'
He said "Look what they've done"
It's the death of a Nation
I followed his shadow right out of the bar
And we talked all night
Underneath the light of the stars
He said "This used to be a cradle of civilisation"
Now look what they've done
It's the death of a Nation
Everything's illusion now
Nothing's what it seems
Money isn't everything
When you're turning your back on a dream
I held you together when you were breakin'
You can pull down the flags
It's the death of a Nation
Don't say goodbye, don't say goodbye,
We'll never die, no we'll never die
Don't say goodbye, don't say goodbye,
We'll never die, no we will never die
From the bottom of this ancient heart
I hate to see you falling apart
Cos I love you still, I love you still, I love you still
You've been getting away with it far too long
Your promises ain't worth the paper they're printed on
I had a love but that love's been forsaken
Look what they've done
It's the death of a Nation
Don't say goodbye, don't say goodbye,
We'll never die, no we'll never die
Don't say goodbye, don't say goodbye,
We'll never die, no we will never die
This website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here.
