Who Did London 7/7 - The Hard Proof

This is a dissemination of an extremely interesting article found at http://www.takeourworldback.com/77suicidebombershoax/  by an unnamed author, but who I believe is Robert John Aumann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Centre for Rationality.

 One of the points that doesn’t do more than poke its nose out, is the animosity held by the writer towards the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, possibly due to Sharon’s moves to withdraw Israeli settlers from within Gaza, a point that Benjamin Netanyahu also vigorously opposed.

 After the London bombing, Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel and on the 7th August 2005, 33 days after the London bombing, Netanyahu resigned as the Finance Minister under Ariel Sharon, but immediately took steps to displace Sharon as Prime Minister, beginning with his attempt to gain leadership of the Likud party, which would have removed Sharon from the position of Prime Minister.

 However, for Benjamin Netanyahu to continue his political career, he had to overcome the major gaffe he made in London on the 7th July, 2005 when he stated that he had been ‘warned’ in regard to the London bombing.

 Andrew S. MacGregor 




This analysis evaluates the improbability of evidence such as timing of recent terrorist attacks and media reports of subsequently denied warnings pointing to an innocent third party. The prime suspects are found to have the means, motive and opportunity. We consider how records in Government databases could have been used in framing Muslims for London 7/7. The combination of Leeds criminals together with London scene of crime is also found to be at variance with the official "Islamic militants" line.

This is a very well-written article.  I would believe that the author is no mean journalist, but somebody with a much higher education and experience in this field.   The term, ‘improbability of evidence’ is in the negative, and is connected to two further points, the ‘timing’ of the recent terrorist attacks, and the subsequently ‘denied’ warnings to an ‘innocent’ third party.

The ‘denied warnings’ to an ‘innocent’ third party can only relate to the Israeli ‘Finance Minister’, Benjamin Netanyahu, so this then means that the ‘prime suspects’ with ‘the means, motive and opportunity’ is not Netanyahu related, so must relate to a third party.  In simple terms, this article is out to dispel any theory of Benjamin’s involvement in regard to the London bombing.

The sentence; ‘we consider how records ~ used in framing Muslims for London 7/7’ is interesting. This is now shifting the focus directly upon the British government’s internal Intelligence service, MI5.

 Then we have the final sentence of this ‘introduction’ with the terms, ‘Leeds criminals’, ‘London scene of crime’ and ‘at variance with the official “Islamic militants’ line’ which means that the British government version is in error. 

The only part of this ‘introduction’ that is easy to comprehend is; “denied warnings pointing to an innocent third party” which refers to Netanyahu.  The ‘prime suspect’ is not named or even insinuated, but the inferences to the ‘Government’ must push the view that the perpetrators are within this organization.

Let us look at where the author takes us to.

From their previous record of deception, spying, and carrying out false flag attacks [Ref. 1] [Ref. 2] which is too numerous to list here, Israel would be the prime suspect for the London 7/7 attack. Evidence of complicity would include a specific motive for the timing of recent terror attacks, as well as a more general analysis of who benefits. From the events of 7/7 alone, it should be possible to infer some estimates of the probability of Israel's guilt or innocence.

This paragraph insinuates that Israel’s previous history in ‘false-flag’ attacks would be a prime motive in suspecting Israeli involvement.  This is not correct.  It is the actual Israeli involvement within the various areas of ‘security’ and forewarning that makes Israel a ‘prime’ suspect.  What is more, is that the statement ‘a specific motive for the timing of recent terror attacks’ is new and must be considered with a great deal of interest.

The two most significant terrorist attacks of July 2005 were London 7/7 and Sharm al-Sheikh 7/23. The online MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base provides the researcher with chronological information of terrorist incidents by region, tactic, target or group [Ref. 3]. Incidents in the database carry a detailed report which includes the associated number of fatalities and injuries. Attacks that are classed as "domestic" are included back to 1998; the data covers international incidents from 1968 to the present. Updating is bimonthly, so very recent incidents are not included. And the "terrorist group" variable is as asserted by the US Government, so could require further analysis to ascertain the true perpetrators. In spite of that, the database is a useful tool.

This paragraph links two different ‘terrorist’ attacks, The London bombing on the 7th July 2005 and the Egyptian bombing at Sharm al-Sheikh on the 23rd July 2005.  There is no basis given for such a link other than they occurred within the same month.  MIPT is a department within the United States of America Department of ‘Homeland Security’, which was set up after 911.

For the UK, it can be seen that London 7/7 (approximately 56 fatalities) was the worst terrorist attack since the Lockerbie plane bombing of December 1988 (270 fatalities). Total terrorism fatalities for UK, 1988, including other incidents is shown as 271. From 1968 to 2005, there were no other UK international terrorist incidents comparable to the 1988 and 2005 attacks. Domestic incidents (e.g. IRA) sometimes claimed about 10 to 20 lives, and are not included pre-1998. But over the period 1968 to 1997 there were no domestic terrorist incidents with 50+ fatalities. Hence, erring on the high side, if we count London 7/7, the frequency of a 50+ fatalities terrorist attack in the UK (immediately prior to 7/7) could be taken as once every 17 years.

This paragraph endeavours to link the ‘Terrorist Acts’ of Lockerbie with the London Bombing on the 7th July 2005.  This is akin to linking an apple with an orange, they are each a piece of fruit, but that is the only connection.  With Lockerbie and the London bombings, they are both ‘terrorist’ acts, but there is absolutely nothing to link them together.  This must be viewed as a ‘red herring’, but let us see where it leads to.

For Egypt, there were between 64 and 88 fatalities in the Sharm al-Sheikh attack of 7/23, with the actual figure probably closer to 88. Attacks of October 2004 killed 34 in two other Sinai resorts. Back in November 1997, an attack in Luxor resulted in 74 fatalities. The total terrorist fatalities for Egypt, 1997, is shown as 84. Going back to 1968, there are no Egypt incidents of similar magnitude. Hence, again erring on the high side, we can take once every 8 years as the frequency of terrorist attacks in Egypt on a similar scale to the July 23 attack (e.g. 64+ fatalities).

Again, this paragraph endeavours to link the various ‘terrorist attacks’ within Egypt over a period of time, that being between 1997 and 2005, and then using this period as a data base for a mathematical equation.  However, it is also pointed out that Egypt suffered no similar attacks from 1968 until 1997, which in reality negates the mathematical equation to absurdity.  The absurdity becomes even moreso when you take into account the ‘Lavon Affair’ of 1954.

British Gas recently discovered significant offshore gas fields in Palestinian Authority (PA) areas off the Gaza coast. Israel did not express any interest in this gas, even though gas from Egypt was more expensive. For political reasons, Ariel Sharon preferred to deal with Egypt, fearing that a $150+ million annual cash flow to the Palestinians would be used to bankroll terrorism against Israel.

Ariel Sharon was the Prime Minister of Israel from 2001 until the 4th of January 2006.  Since it is now over three years since this deal was made, has there been any sign of the Palestinians being able to use that money to bankroll terrorism against Israel?

On June 30, Israeli and Egyptian officials signed a $2.5 billion deal for the sale of Egyptian natural gas to Israel over the next 15 years, with options for a further 5 years. Israel then found out that Egypt and British Gas had struck a secret deal behind her back, whereby Palestinian gas would be sold to Egypt [Ref. 4]. Effectively, Israel would be purchasing from Palestine after all, but having to pay a premium price into the bargain.

Ref.4 is a media report on this ‘gas deal’ struck between Israel and Egypt, dated on the 5th July, 2005.  There are now only two days to go before the London bombings.

Let's test the theory "World Zionist Organization / Jewish Mafia orders hits on two targets for double crossing". If the theory is false, then London 7/7 and Sharm 7/23 were pure coincidence. We shall suppose Israel found out about the Gaza gas deal as early as July 1. The incidence of UK terrorist attacks of magnitude to the order of 7/7 is one every 17 years. The probability of one or more attacks would always be less than one, reaching about 0.6321 or 1-1/e over a 17-year period. As the sampling time becomes small in relation to the mean inter-event period, the probability approaches the ratio of sampling time / mean period = 6 days / 17 years = 1/1,035. For Egypt, the mean period between 64+ fatality attacks is 8 years, so we have 22 days / 8 years = 1/133. Hence, the probability for both attacks to occur within the timeframe is 1/137,655.

We now have a change of players.  Rather than ‘Mossad’ or ‘Israel’ running a ‘false-flag’ operation, the author has changed the player to ‘World Zionist Organization/Jewish Mafia.  Why the change in players?  Why the theory of a ‘double cross’ in regard to the Gas dealings between Israel, Egypt and the United Kingdom?

The author gives us the date of the 1st July 2005 for the Jewish Mafia to discover it has been ‘double-crossed’ and to initiate revenge, rather than take the matter to court and resolve the outcome properly.  It must also be remembered that Ariel Sharon runs this Jewish Mafia, as per the author of this article.

And now we see the mathematical equations initiated in paragraphs 4 and 5 being utilized, along with the ‘matter of timing’, which was mentioned in the ‘introduction’ of this article.  The ‘Gas’ deal between Israel, Egypt and the UK to be the basis of these two ‘terrorist’ attacks is absurd as there is no supporting evidence and no actual time to organize the ‘terrorist’ attacks.  In fact the evidence has already been established that the 4 Muslim London Bombers were active within the scheme of things well before this date.

In everyday experience, we observe "improbable" combinations of events that appear to be meaningfully related. When there is no causal connection, the events are sometimes believed to be an example of "synchronicity". In fact, due to such events being part of an almost infinite set, they are virtually a certainty. The phenomenon can be accounted for as pattern recognition in neural nets. It is true that the above 1/137,655 figure would undergo some degree of dilution. A corrected probability or improbability would be closer to unity, after allowing for other events that gave a negative indication, in the set of events which would provide a test of the theory "WZO did 7/7 and 7/23".

What are the mathematical equations of, ‘improbable’ appear to be, meaningfully related, no causal connection, sometimes believed, an example of?  And all of this equates to the theory “WZO did 7/7 and 23/7”.  The trouble is that it is not the supposed World Zionist Organization/Jewish Mafia that executes Israel’s ‘false-flag’ operations, but rather Mossad.

But the set of events that would provide a test of this theory is necessarily very limited in extent. The vast majority of recent events, such as did a particular person have a birthday on 7/7 or 7/23, are wholly independent of the matter of who ordered the London and Sharm bombings. It might be thought that if there are, say, 100 suspects for an Israeli conspiracy, then the question of whether or not any of these individuals blew the whistle or confessed ought to count as an event correlated with Israel's guilt. If so, then lack of confessions would constitute 100 qualifying events that contradicted the hypothesis.

And here is where the author does his ‘double-flip’ and puts the ‘acid test’ to work.  What the author states is simply that, the lack of any confessions in regard to these ‘false-flag’ operations contradicts the hypothesis of ‘false-flag’ operations.

Whether or not one supports the theory that Israel has, to further its international agenda, carried out dozens of false flag attacks over the previous 57 years [Ref. 5], cases where an individual freely confessed are either very rare or non-existent. The most spectacular failures, such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair, were due to operational problems rather than whistleblowers or confessors. In one case, Israel's operatives - given rockets, 30 mm cannons, torpedoes, napalm bomblets, radio jamming transmitters, and a crooked puppet President and Defense Secretary who would provide a 2-hour window of opportunity - failed to sink a US ship. In the other, bombs went off prematurely.

Ref. 5 is in fact a link to Judicial.inc.biz, a supposed anti-Zionist site that lacks greatly in accuracy and truthfulness.

If my memory serves me correctly, one of the Israeli pilots ordered to attack the USS Liberty refused to do so as the ship was flying an ‘American’ flag.  The pilot was court-marshaled and imprisoned for disobeying orders.  I am not aware of reports of napalm bomblets being used against the USS Liberty.

With the ‘Lavon Affair’ I believe a number of individuals ‘confessed’ as to their roles within this ‘false-flag’ operation run by Israel’s Mossad.

In contrast, consider the numerous occasions where police, military, security services etc. have tortured or in any way coerced an individual into "confessing". Over a period of decades, there must be hundreds of thousands, or millions, of such cases across the globe. (In the specific case of Jews in recent times, both voluntary and involuntary confessors are probably below the mean. This is accounted for by tribal loyalties and the global power balance.) Unfortunately, the system produces a set of incentives and deterrents whereby whistleblowers are the exception and innocent confessors are the rule. The overall correlation between confessions and guilt is strongly negative.

In other words, the ‘terrorists’ captured by Egyptian forces in the ‘Lavon Affair’ should never have been ‘interrogated’ or abused, but because they were so treated, then their ‘confessions’ were involuntary and coerced.  Of course, Israel has never behaved in a similar manner when it ‘interviews’ “terrorist” suspects.

And when we try to identify other events that are positively correlated with the truth-value of Israel's guilt, the indication often turns out to be positive.

 As in the Lavon Affair and the USS Liberty which have already been covered by the author of this article these events are viewed by the author as ‘negative’.   However, the author has neglected to provide any actual cases where Israel has acted ‘positively’ towards another country.  Are there in fact any such cases where Israel has acted ‘positively’ towards another country?

For example, initial news reports on 7/7 stated that Israel's (then) Finance Minister and former PM Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu was warned in advance of the explosions [Ref. 6]. Netanyahu, scheduled to speak at the 4th annual Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) Investors Conference in the Great Eastern Hotel, arrived in London on Wednesday night and was staying at a Mayfair hotel. Original reports stated that warnings before the attacks prompted him to remain in his hotel room, and revised accounts held that he was "on his way to the hotel" when he was warned "after the first explosion".

This claim that Bibi Netanyahu was warned either before or after the first explosion is irrelevant, because the first blasts that occurred on the London ‘tube’ were in fact reported as being power-surges, and not ‘attacks’ as later claimed.  Thus the simple fact that Bibi Netanyahu acknowledges his warning indicates prior knowledge.  Ref. 6 no longer operates.

However, as per the introduction of this article where ‘denied warnings’ to an ‘innocent’ third party relate directly to Netanyahu, we can now demonstrate that a prejudged stance has been adopted by this author. 

It was necessary to explain why Netanyahu did not show up at the TASE conference. The original plan (of Israel and the mainstream media) was to report that Scotland Yard warned the security officer at the Israeli Embassy who in turn warned Netanyahu, a few minutes in advance of multiple simultaneous explosions on the London Underground, which were followed by a bus bombing. The simultaneity of the Tube bombings would "prove" that the attack had "all the hallmarks of al Qaeda". When Scotland Yard refused to play along, Israel could not admit foreknowledge, leaving the original "warned by Scotland Yard before the attacks" claim dead in the water.

“The original plan (of Israel and the mainstream media) was to report that Scotland Yard warned the security officer at the Israeli Embassy”.  If in fact this was truthful, then there would be no need for a ‘plan’ as such, but this sentence demonstrates two things; (1) that Israel and the mainstream media acted in unison, and (2) that both parties were aware that it was a lie.  In legal terms, conspiracy and perverting the course of justice are just two of the felonies supposedly being committed within this claim.

Both Israel and the mainstream media were aware that the prior warnings issued by Scotland Yard story was not factual, had no corroboration and thus no competence, so just where did these prior warnings emanate from?

But “The multiple simultaneous explosions that took place yesterday on the London transportation system” were also the words used to open an article by Efraim Halevi, a former head of the Mossad and ‘Head’ of the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, that were printed in ‘The Jerusalem Post’ on the same day as the London Bombing, the 7th of July 2005.

We now have three people who had prior knowledge of the London bombings; Bibi Netanyahu, Efraim Halevi and the ‘Security’ Officer at London’s Israeli Embassy. 

There is one last point to consider from this paragraph and it is important.  It is the claim; ‘The simultaneity of the Tube bombings would “prove” that the attack had “all the hallmarks of al Qaeda”.’  This is neither factual nor correct.  The simultaneity of the London Tube bombings simply demonstrate that whoever carried out these attacks were rather sophisticated.  That doesn’t even imply al Qaeda, as, except for 911, the attacks supposedly carried out by al Qaeda were normally primitive and lacked sophistication.

Following negotiations, the UK authorities did agree to a minor rewriting of the script. A version where the three Tube explosions were spread over a period of 26 minutes, from 08:51 to 09:17 allowed the Netanyahu warning story to be revised to "after the first explosion". With several detonations occurring after the warning, the decision to avoid the conference would have been vindicated. It was hoped that the warning story would be forgotten two days later, by which time the simultaneous Tube explosions account would be resurrected.

Just who were the “UK authorities”?  Is that another name for the British Media?  However, if ‘the UK authorities’ means the British Government, or part thereof, that means in simple words, the British government was ‘compliant’ to Israeli interests, but not only the British government, but the British mainstream media as well.

But why and by whom was it hoped that the Netanyahu warning story would be forgotten two days later?

Unfortunately, the new improved script still incriminated Israel. Until the bus bombing, almost an hour after the attack began, the British police believed that the incidents were related to "power surges" rather than bombs [Ref. 7] [cached]. In fact, the explosions caused power surges after rails were shorted out by metal debris.

So, the new improved script still incriminated Israel?  That is not correct.  The new script still incriminated Bibi Netanyahu, and that is a completely different matter.  It was not for Israel to explain, but rather Bibi Netanyahu.

Think on this statement for a moment.  An electrical power unit that was ‘shorted out’ by metal debris, continued to create more power-surges. 

Efraim Halevi's piece [Ref. 8], in the July 7 online edition of the Jerusalem Post, was obviously mostly written in advance. The two paragraphs about Russell Square and Great Russell Street were an ad hoc insertion on the day. Although the bus explosion actually took place at the junction of Tavistock Square and Upper Woburn Place, the remark about Russell Square and its being "within a stone's throw" of 77 Great Russell Street is fair comment, since early reports did quote Russell Square as a blast site. The true historical irony was that if the bomb had exploded even closer to Great Russell Street and the bombers had been capable of time travel into the past, they might have bombed away the cause of their bombing. Fortunately, the laws of physics prohibit such time travel.

Ref. 8 refers to ‘The Information Clearing House’, and its version of the Halevi article differs in that the original word “yesterday” has been replaced with “today”.  Why didn’t the author use the original Halevi article instead of the ‘modified’ version?

How can the author make the presumption that Halevi’s article was ‘obviously mostly written in advance’?  Just how can a person write about a criminal act in advance without full knowledge of that criminal act?

The author claims that the ‘two paragraphs about Russell Square and Great Russell Street were an ad hoc insertion on the day, and calls it ‘fair comment’.  That is not correct!  These comments were neither ad hoc nor ‘fair comment’ but rather Zionist propaganda to be fed to the minions in Jerusalem.

You see, the third and fourth paragraphs that the author talks about here started with; “One historical irony:  I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone’s throw of a building that served as the headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.”

What is known though is that one of the initial ‘London Tube’ power-surge reports was from an area called Russell Square, but this author still equates the bus-bombing with Halevi’s comments about Russell Square and 77 Great Russell Street. 

This further demonstrates that the two relevant paragraphs were not ‘ad hoc’ and written on the day, but rather written prior to the event, which further incriminates Halevi, but also places the author of this article into the Halevi planning camp. 

Had the initial reports concerning the London bombing, been received in Jerusalem, then there is an explanation for the mention of Russell Square and 77 Great Russell Street.  Such information though would negate the possibility of Halevi stating that the explosions were ‘simultaneous’. 

However, there is no mention of these reports being received in Jerusalem, or utilized by Halevi, but the author of this article was fully aware of what exactly Efraim Halevi had meant by his third and fourth paragraphs, and because of the varied ambiguities, that knowledge can only happen where there is a collusion between Halevi and this author.

But how did Halevi, a former head of the Mossad, know that the explosions were simultaneous, two days before the London police knew (if the official story is correct, Israel is innocent, and Israel-UK negotiations on the warning story didn't take place as above)? This was a pre-written paragraph that should have been revised on the day, but wasn't.

The author is now stating that the Halevi article in regard to the actual bombing being ‘simultaneous’, was mostly ‘pre-written’ and should have been revised on the day.  The question still remains; how can a person write an article in regard to a certain event prior to the event, without some foreknowledge?

The Netanyahu warning fiasco, and Halevi's prior knowledge that the explosions were simultaneous, are also events that are correlated with the truth-value of Israel's guilt. Over recent times, the world has consisted of approximately 200 countries. It is rather telling that the country whose intelligence services, famous characters and online messaging services have the most foreknowledge of terror attacks, and whose spies are caught in compromising circumstances with astonishing regularity, invariably turns out to be Israel. The latter has less than 0.1% of the world's population, and is dwarfed by Iran, Syria, the Netherlands, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Indonesia, etc.

The Netanyahu warning Fiasco?  Please, there is no evidence of any person warning Bibi Netanyahu whatsoever.  No Scotland Yard officer has admitted passing on the information, no Israeli Embassy Security Officer has established himself as warning Bibi Netanyahu, and when Bibi returned to Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked Bibi to resign.  This is the ‘Lavon Affair’ all over again.  Bibi was not warned!  He knew what was to happen.

As for Halevi’s prior knowledge, the author has already argued that the incriminating paragraph was pre-written, which simply means that Halevi knew well and truly in advance what was going to happen in London on the 7th of July 2005.

The remaining diatribe in regard to Israel’s Intelligence Services (Mossad) tells us something else.  The author aligns both Netanyahu and Halevi with Israel’s Intelligence services (and whose spies are caught in compromising circumstances).  Now this is a completely new area that has not been covered before. 

This author is inferring that Bibi Netanyahu is part of an Israeli Intelligence Service.  In that case, it would be pertinent to consider Netanyahu’s presence at any other ‘terrorist’ event.  The WTC attacks of 911 stand out like a sore thumb. 

Furthermore, Efraim Halevi was head of Mossad at the time of 911, and again in his article [Ref. 8] Efraim Halevi wrote;  “The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place (today/yesterday) on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.  They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es- Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.”

This author has inferred that both Netanyahu and Halevi were connected to Israeli Intelligence Services.  We know that Halevi was ‘head’ of Mossad during 911, and that Netanyahu was in New York on the day, but when we look at the foreknowledge that both of these men had in regard to 7/7, and regard that knowledge as only being gained by those who planned 7/7, then when we consider what Halevi has stated, being that the same planners of 7/7 had come a long way since the ‘terrorist’ attacks of 1998 and 911, then the only outcome of this line of thought is that Mossad, and its Head, Efraim Halevi, and the other member, Bibi Netanyahu were also involved in the planning of 911.

Netanyahu and Halevi's prior knowledge can be considered as events each with a probability of 1 in 200 (assuming Israel is innocent). We do not specify either individual in advance and so do not include a probability for a particular individual to exhibit foreknowledge. Similarly, if the mean expected number of foreknowledge events for an attack such as 7/7 is lower than two, then no additional improbability is relevant in determining the culprit. We accept that there were two cases of foreknowledge, and then the relevant question is of which State the individuals concerned happen to be associated with. Thus, the accumulated undiluted improbability so far is:

137,655 * 200^2 = 5,506,200,000 or 1 in 5.5062 * 10^9 probability.

So Netanyahu and Halevi have now become individuals with prior knowledge, or at least some prior knowledge.  They have now been divorced from any Israeli body such as the Israeli Intelligence Services or Mossad, as well as divorced from the State of Israel. By this ‘divorce’, Israel retains its innocence.

Here we have those mathematical equations again.  Those of us who do not understand such mathematical equations will be baffled by them, or as my old math’s teacher, Mr Hill used to say, “Bullshit baffles brains.”

There was also the report in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the Mossad office in London received advance notice of the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast [Ref. 9] (German) [Ref. 10] (English, Google translation works with Explorer 6.0). It might be thought that these three cases of foreknowledge are really just one case, since the parties would have been in contact with each other. But that would be the case if Israel is guilty. When we set the truth-value of the theory under test to false, i.e. if Israel is innocent, the events that had a causal link to the theory and hence were explainable become unexplained, unconnected, improbable coincidence. The likelihood of Israeli foreknowledge increases with the number of alternate Israeli characters or organizations reported as having prior knowledge. One could postulate a theory of an "anti-Semitic" media as the common cause of all Israeli foreknowledge reports. These reports also featured in the Israeli press as well as the mainstream media. The proposer of such a theory would have to consider whether the Israeli and mainstream media have exhibited an anti-Semitic bias in recent times.

So the Mossad time-frame for their warning of the London Bombings was 6 minutes.  If I remember correctly, this was the same time-frame that Bibi Netanyahu had received.  Now read and wonder as the mathematician weaves his ‘magic’.

The author will not accept that the three cases of foreknowledge is in fact one case, as all three persons would have been in contact with each other, as that would imply Israel’s guilt.

However, by using the ‘theory’ to test for ‘false’ then the causal links become unexplained, unconnected, improbable coincidence, and Israel is innocent. 

As the author says in this paragraph, the likelihood of ‘Israeli’ foreknowledge increases with the number of characters/organizations reported as having ‘prior knowledge’.  And thus the magic has been woven and Israel has demonstrated her ‘innocence’.

But could an “anti-Semitic” media create all of these Israeli foreknowledge reports?  That is a loaded question; you see the author has already demonstrated on page 7 that the UK mainstream media was compliant with the wishes of Israel.

Semites are mostly comprised of Arabs and Jews, with the latter greatly outnumbered by the former. For the moment, we'll take the bizarre mainstream position that "anti-Semites" include those who oppose Israel's policies and the influence of World Jewry or International Zionism on global politics, but who may well sympathise with Arabs faced with illegal unprovoked invasions or bulldozed homes. Only the most blinkered or biased observer would fail to see that the mainstream media is more pro-Jew than pro-Arab. How often does one hear of a Jewish suicide bomber/terrorist, or a non-occupied Arab nation conducting military operations and legitimate assassinations against terrorists across the border in Israel? Comprehensive studies, albeit a few years old, have found Jewish control of the media to be wholly out of proportion with that expected for an ethnic minority [Ref. 11]. Nevertheless, let us give the benefit of the doubt, and count two rather than three cases of Israeli foreknowledge.

It is true that both Arabs and Sephardic Jews are Semitic, but it is only the Jew that uses ‘anti-Semitism’ as a weapon.  The Arabs have never used that argument, and the Jews will never permit them to use it.

The Mossad in London knew, Bibi Netanyahu knew and Efraim Halevi knew, but in all that only equates to two cases of foreknowledge.  That’s another mathematical equation.  1+1+1=2.  Somehow that doesn’t look right.

(If Israel claim that their foreknowledge is due not to complicity but to a highly efficient and skilled spy network, why do they never provide warnings - or the recipient never "acts on" their warnings to prevent an attack? And isn't it rather suspicious that their spy network is so proficient but doesn't seem to contribute to the general good?)

The Israeli spy network is there to provide only for the general good of Israel, the same as any other country’s spy networks. Foreknowledge though is always due to a degree of complicity.

Another interesting test would be the nationality of the company that was selected by Metronet Rail to provide a "networked video solution" to be installed in the entire London Underground. The company is Verint Systems [Ref.12], previously known as Comverse Infosys (before February 1, 2002), and is a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology [Ref. 13]. Watch for incidents at Copenhagen Railway, Montreal Metro, the Bank of Montreal, Porto Portugal buses, Brazil's Port of Santos, Washington Dulles airport, and Vancouver International airport, which have also selected Verint networked video. The Israeli security company's control of the software and computers involved in Verint Systems' "networked video solution" enable multiple 'malfunctions' to occur at the very times and places that a Mossad operation is in progress. Hence, a camera-free opportunity to install the 7/7 bombs. Along with a massive spy network, and puppet "leaders" of government and police etc who are either bribed, blackmailed, or brainwashed Masons, the Israelis have the means and opportunity.

The sarcasm is brilliant but truthful.  However, remember Prime Minister Tony Blair along with his Australian counterpart, Prime Minister John Howard immediately pledged to send additional troops to Afghanistan. 

In regard to the CCTV cameras malfunctioning, it reminds one of the death of Princess Diana in a tunnel in Paris, when Richard Dearlove was Head of MI6 in Paris.  Richard Dearlove later became head of MI6 and became Sir Richard Dearlove.  According to media reports, Sir Richard is a Jew, but he is not a member of the Mossad, he is MI6 remember.  I guess that it is not just Mossad that knows how to switch the CCTV cameras off.

The gas deal double-crossing would have been one part of the motive. The primary rationale was International Zionism's longstanding strategy for world domination, a brilliant, exhaustively documented Machiavellian program for controlling and enslaving the masses by way of manipulating the media, money supply, and national leaders. Puppet governments and oppositions ensure that no matter how people vote, they get precisely the same result: policies that enrich a tiny global elite whilst the vast majority of honest, hard-working folk are increasingly impoverished and enslaved. In a nutshell, the strategy is divide and rule. Any false flag attack that creates conflict between sections of the host population and allows the manipulators to profit from others' misery will be conducive to the long-term goal. The double-cross could be viewed as an irrational component of the motive which triggered the 7/7 and 7/23 attacks, an emotional reason for hitting a given target at a given time.

So we are now back to square one with the gas double-cross being realized by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the 1st of July, but reported in the media on the 5th of July 2005, the same day that Efraim Halevi wrote his article for the Jerusalem Post.  And yet the ‘anti-Semitic’ BBC did a program detailing such an attack on the London transportation system in 2004, The Muslims from Leeds had been video-taped practising their roles for the actual bombing the week prior, and yet nothing has been planned, as yet, that is.

And again the author has demonstrated the art of backflipping, as he has already previously stated that both the mainstream Media and the British government were compliant in redressing Bibi Netanyahu’s stated ‘prior knowledge’.  Thus we have the ‘manipulated media’ and the ‘Puppet Government’ and that is not sarcasm, it is simply previously stated by this author.

The video network might be considered the most important aspect of security. It is essential that one's agents are not filmed installing explosives. Other security measures also had an Israeli connection, e.g. "Operation Kratos" training in Israel of specialist London Police units such as SO19. This included the shoot to kill policy of at least five shots to the head. Ironically, in Greek mythology, Kratos and others on Zeus' orders actioned the torture of Prometheus, but there was no intent to kill him. Thirty years later, Zeus ordered Heracles (Hercules) to release Prometheus from the rock, where his liver had been renewed nightly after being gnawed by an eagle (or vulture).

What must not be construed in any manner is just who did install any explosives.  There is no evidence whatsoever in regard to explosives being placed within trains or buses by any specific group of people.  It is presumed that these explosives were placed, but by whom is not known.  But this argument is irrelevant, as what is in discussion here are the people with prior knowledge, and that is where the proof lies, in something we can document, not in what remains unknown.

It is the same with the London Police Units within SO19 being trained in Israel.  It is not relevant within the points of ‘prior knowledge’.  The point of this article is to demonstrate Israel’s innocence.  The possibility that these so-called Israeli trained ‘anti-terrorist police’ murdered Jean Charles de Menezes is not part of this exercise, nor is the possibility that men from this same unit were apprehended in Basra in Iraq after they shot Iraqi police at a checkpoint, and when arrested were found to be driving a ‘car bomb’.  Nor is it relevant to this argument that the Chief Provo Officer apparently committed ‘suicide’ whilst investigating the Basra incident and that his Commanding Officer handed in his commission. 

These matters are interesting but not relevant to the matters of Israel’s innocence in regard to prior knowledge on the parts of Netanyahu and Halevi.

One important aspect of security clearly was controlled by Israel. Others were not, or had a partial connection, which we may count as negatives. So another 1 in 200 probability for the nationality of the company providing video security on the London Underground places the accumulated undiluted probability for the five events to occur at 1 in 1.10124 trillion.

So Israeli companies had control of some ‘security’ aspects.  There is no definitive proof as to when, where, how and why, and to argue these points leads to nowhere, unless there is some evidence to be gathered.  However when we consider the ‘compliant UK government’ and ‘mainstream media’ as per this author’s prior statements, the required evidence will not be quickly forthcoming.

The Visor Consultants drill of an attack at the exact same locations and time as the 7/7 attack (provided it was not deliberate misinformation) is not a good test of Israel's guilt, unless we accept the (true) premise that the UK government is essentially Israel's puppet. Proof of this could fill several volumes, and would cover the myriad of Government policies that are designed to enrich and fulfil the agenda of an international elite, rather than benefit the British people. The program was administered by quislings from Cromwell through to Churchill, Heath and Blair.

It is my belief that there is sufficient evidence on the Internet to demonstrate that Peter Power of Visor Consultants is a member of MI5.  MI5 is not Mossad, and is not Israel.  The premise that the UK government is essentially Israel’s puppet has already been demonstrated within the Netanyahu matter, so there is no need to delve through history.

But the simultaneity of the exercise would demolish the "Islamic militants" theory about 7/7. How would Arabs have amazingly precise intelligence of the UK Government's operations (along with the NRA's "plane hits building" and Dick Cheney's aerial attack exercises on the morning of 9/11), when Western Intelligence for all its multi-billion-dollar budget is so incompetent it thinks weather balloon trailers are "mobile biological weapon labs" and imagines Saddam could have launched "WMDs" at 45 minutes' notice? Although in any case, the asinine conspiracy theory of Pakistanis or Ethiopians bent on world domination, who invariably target areas with a high Muslim rather than Jewish population, was always a non-starter.

With the arguments in regard to Efraim Halevi, it was argued on page 6 that ‘The simultaneity of the Tube bombings would “prove” that the attack had “all the hallmarks of al Qaeda”.’  It is now being argued that this same precision would demolish the ‘Islamic militants’ theory.  In other words, what was supposedly an ‘al Qaeda’ link within Britain has been reduced to purely ‘Islamic militants’, without any regard to what the former head of Mossad was telling the residents of Jerusalem. 

Could the former head of Mossad have got his facts so wrong?  If the London Bombing was purely the invention of some ‘Islamic Militants’, then just how did Efraim Halevi, the former head of Mossad obtain his prior knowledge? 

But Halevi’s second sentence was even more crucial because it claimed that the perpetrators of the London bombing were also involved with the American Embassies bombings of 1998 and 911.  With the prior knowledge demonstrated by Halevi, Netanyahu and the Mossad in London now being tied to 911 and the vilification of Osama bin Laden (the 1998 bombings) the next ramification must be that the planning of these three events were done by the same people (Halevi’s words), and not by the ‘Islamic Militants’.  The only Intelligence service demonstrating such superior capability is Mossad, ergo the planning of these ‘three’ operations was done by Mossad.

What we are seeing here is the whitewashing of Halevi’s prior knowledge and his connecting of the three ‘terrorist’ attacks.

The matter of whether the authorities held video of the 7/7 terrorists would provide a test of the official story. Britain is the world's premier surveillance society [Ref. 14]. With more than 4 million cameras nationwide including over 6,000 in London's Underground subway network, the average commuter is recorded some 300 times a day. After more than a month, the only video frames released were one of one and one of four men at Luton railway station. Many consider the image of the foursome to be faked; in any event, the quality is too poor to prove a thing. It's another nail in the coffin of the official story. However, as in the case of the drill, this does not prove Zionist culpability beyond the five events already counted above. We have already counted 1 in 200 probability for an Israeli company to handle video security.

Now why would a compliant UK government withhold video-evidence unless it would prove the government’s official version of the event was false? Is any of this relevant in regard to the prior knowledge of Efraim Halevi, Bibi Netanyahu and the Mossad in London?

In regard to the 1 in 200 probability for an Israeli company to handle video security, these are purely the author’s figures with no basis given for this probability.  The mathematical probabilities are simply used as a smokescreen to hide the actual definitive evidence that can be obtained.

New information that surfaced at the end of August 2005 dealt another fatal blow to the official 7/7 attacks theory. Police claimed that the four "suicide bombers" were filmed at Luton station at 7:22 and took the 7:40 Thameslink train to King's Cross, where they were filmed at 8:26. However, the relevant trains did not run to schedule on July 7, due to problems with the overhead lines in the Mill Hill area of North London, between Luton and King's Cross. Thameslink's 7:40, 7:46 and 7:56 trains were cancelled, and others were delayed (the arrival at King's Cross but not the departure from Luton) by up to 35 minutes [Ref. 15].

What is being demonstrated here is the collapse of the case against the four Muslim ‘suicide bombers’.  However there is nothing here that infringes upon the prior knowledge that was displayed by Bibi Netanyahu and Efraim Halevi; their matter is still very relevant.

The 7:24 departed Luton at 7:25. Independent trials have shown that it takes over three minutes to walk up the steps to the ticket office and down to the platform [Ref. 16]. In the image of Hasib Hussain on the stairs, he is not running. For the official theory to have even a snowball in hell's chance, the "bombers" would have had to have bought tickets in advance, they would not have needed to queue at the station, almost immediately upon entering the station (just after the almost stationary Hasib was filmed) a Tannoy announcement must have informed them that their train was about to depart from the relevant platform, and they must have immediately started to run for the train. But if a quartet of Muslim guys with bulky rucksacks were rushing up and down stairs to catch their train, there should have been witnesses. And the "suspects" would not have jeopardised the mission by sprinting like Linford Christie to catch a particular train whilst carrying bulky rucksacks containing ten pounds of shock-sensitive high explosives. The official Thameslink summer timetable shows trains running every six minutes on average, from 07:00 to 08:00 on weekdays. It was not until about 07:40 that the advertised trains on the screens began to be cancelled, and those arriving at the station at 07:22 would have been unaware of delays at Mill Hill [Ref. 17].

There are no known witness-statements in regards to such events gathered by the investigating police.  But what is even more incriminating in regard to the Metropolitan police investigation is that had such attempts been made to collect witness statements, immediately after the event, then the police, the mainstream media and the UK government would have been aware of the impossibility of the ‘official’ version of the London bombing.

In simple words either these three bodies, police, media and government were criminally incompetent, and didn’t investigate, or they did investigate, but withheld this vital evidence which is a felony.

This does not diminish the roles played by Halevi and Netanyahu, but it certainly raises serious questions in regard to the role of the British government.

The 7:30 did not arrive at King's Cross until 8:39 (35 minutes late). In this event, the 8:26 CCTV capture is patently impossible, and it is most improbable that all three Tube bombers would have reached the explosion sites by 8:50. Subsequent trains all arrived later than 8:39.

So the ‘official’ UK government version of the London Bombing is false.  It is a lie, and the story of three of the four bombers with rucksacks will not stand up to scrutiny.

But the three Tube bombs still went off ‘simultaneously’ as per Efraim Halevi’s article, but not picked up by the London Metropolitan police until two days later.  And again, these three bombs went off without the presence of the ‘Islamic Militant’ suicide bombers or their rucksacks?  So what became of these three ‘patsies’?  They still had to be ‘murdered’ but by whom and where? 

Would this have involved the Police ‘Anti-terrorist’ squad known as SO19, the squad that received its training in Israel?

An eyewitness has confirmed that no King's Cross trains left Luton between 7:25 and 7:56, apart from the 7:30 at 7:42 from Platform 4 [Ref. 17].

Clearly, those who concocted the frame-up merely referred to the Thameslink summer train timetable, rather than the actual times on the day. Just as the official theory was holed below the waterline and it was starting to look as if Sir Ian Blair would be facing grave criminal charges and Tony Blair an impeachment, a ludicrous heavily dubbed and edited video was released, purportedly of one of the 7/7 "suicide bombers". The lookalike actor could not mimic a Yorkshire accent, so had to mime along to a Yorkshire-bred narrator, with the audio and video out of sync by an ever-changing interval. This was rather like the "Nick Berg beheading" video.

So what we have here is an inference that ‘possibly’ MI5 tried to manufacture ‘evidence’ to incriminate the ‘suspects’ for the London bombing. The end results of this ‘video’ were amateurish and second-rate.  I would suggest that the author views Mossad as being more professional.  However retrace his comments and you will find that the Mossad are more prone to being caught out than most other Intelligence agencies.

The movements of Rudi Giuliani - the former New York mayor who played a key role in 9/11 - are interesting, to say the least. On July 6, he happened to be speaking at Harrogate, North Yorkshire, which is within some 20 miles of the south Leeds areas of West Yorkshire where most of the 7/7 "suspects" lived. Leeds is about 190 miles from London. As the Tube bombs detonated on July 7, he was just yards from Liverpool Street station, having breakfast at the Great Eastern Hotel, where Netanyahu was due to address the TASE conference to promote investment in Israel.

I would take it that Rudi Giuliani would be an acquaintance of Bibi Netanyahu, as both have a strong tie with New York.  I would also imagine that Rudi Giuliani was invited to the bash at Gleneagles that occurred after the G8 meeting to honor Rupert Murdock.  We now have two perfectly good reasons for Rudi Giuliani being in England at this time.  Now unless there is solid evidence to prove his attendance in England was of criminal intent, then all we are seeing here is innuendo.

Most present or former Western politicians are Zionists. Giuliani is no exception, and is rather overzealous. If two spins of a die produce two identical numbers, the first result specifies the actual number and the probability of the second matching is one in six. If we take {prominent devout Zionist is within half a block of a London blast site when the bombs are detonated} as the first event for defining who it is (just as the first spin specifies the number), we then have the probability of this person happening to be in the target area on the previous day.

So most Western Politicians are ‘Zionists’!  What does that prove?  So what if Rudi Giuliani is a Zionist?  What does that prove?  There was at least one other ‘Zionist’ Western politician in London on the day and that was John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia.  Come to think of it, The Australian Prime Minister was also in America on the day of 911, visiting his Zionist friend Rupert Murdock, you know, the owner of the compliant British mainstream media, and another good friend of Bibi Netanyahu.

England is an area of about 50,000 square miles. Harrogate is within a 20-mile radius of the south Leeds crime scenes, so pi*20^2/50,000 equals the probability of hitting this target, assuming the July 6 destination could have been anywhere in England. It is about 1 in 40.

Mathematical equations are not evidence.  Unless there is substantial evidence such as a statement of prior knowledge, then there is no reason to attack Rudi Giuliani, unless of course it is to prove innocence by association.

The improbability could be doubled by assuming a 50% probability that Giuliani would not travel outside the capital. However, this is balanced out by the fact that he could have been in the vicinity of Luton instead, which would appear equally suspicious. His Yorkshire role could have included planting peroxide-based explosive material in the Leeds apartment rented by the Egyptian biochemist, whom the UK authorities unsuccessfully attempted to frame, and buying plastic tubs from a Leeds garden centre to obtain a receipt which could then be "found" in pristine condition at one of the blast sites.

This whole paragraph deals with so many ‘improbabilities’ it becomes a farce, but where is this taking us to?

When we take into account the fact that Giuliani is not merely an enthusiastic Zionist, the probability decreases below 1 in 40. He played a key role in promoting the official story of 9/11. The overt role included banning the public from taking photos of WTC site, and arranging for Controlled Demolition, Inc, to remove and recycle the WTC steel as quickly as possible, ensuring that no private, independent investigators could get hold of any. The covert role could have included planting pairs of "looted" WTC Gap store jeans in a fire truck at Ground Zero, in order to demoralise the fire-fighters and discourage any from speaking out about explosions and a controlled demolition. But that is conjecture.

So Rudi Giuliani was a key player within the roles of 911.  Is there any basis for the “looted” WTC jeans story?  This drivel reduces this article to gutter politics.  I can just imagine Rudi Giuliani complete with his entourage at 911 ducking into a store to steal some jeans to plant on fire-trucks to incriminate firemen.  What would Giuliani’s media officer say about this?

There must be dozens of key players who could have been suspected of an important covert role in 9/11. High profile figures who openly played a part are fewer and far between. Let's suppose there are as many as 100 of these characters. If we assume the person placed at the Great Eastern Hotel on 7/7 and at the other crime scene the previous day was a member of a set of as few as 2,000 key past or present political figures, the probability of this event becomes 1 in (40*2000/100) = 1 in 800.

Efraim Halevi in his article on the 7th July 2005 made the connection between 911 and the London bombing as both being planned by the same people.  Now in regard to 911, the author is attacking the former New York Mayor, Rudi Giuliani, and telling his readers to ‘look at this man’, and at the same time totally ignoring the statement of Efraim Halevi.

The Giuliani connection is suggestive of government subterfuge, but is not really useful for proving an Israeli connection. It still requires assumptions about Zionism, and governments being in the pocket of Israel and international Zionism. In the interests of limiting the set of possible events that are correlated with Israel's guilt, it is better to suppose that Giuliani's movements, the Visor Consultants drill, and the failure of the UK authorities to provide clear and comprehensive video evidence of the 7/7 "bombers", are not evidence of Israeli complicity.

Now here is the drill.  The Giuliani connection is not useful for proving an Israeli connection.  Of course not, that is why it was used.  Giuliani’s movements, Visor consultants, the failures of the UK authorities, lack of comprehensive video evidence, are not evidence of Israeli complicity.  That is correct, but Efraim Halevi’s article is, Bibi Netanyahu’s prior knowledge is, as well as the ‘6’ minute warning from the Mossad’s London office is evidence of an Israeli complicity within the London bombings.

We have five events whose improbabilities are 1,035, 133, 200, 200 and 200. The gross, undiluted improbability product is 1.10124*10^12. Given some estimate of the total number of events in the set, a useful approximation of the dilution factor is provided by the nCr function:

nCr = n! / [r! * (n - r)!]

What were these ‘five events’ again?  Just how were these ‘improbabilities’ mathematically deduced again?  What is the value of this mathematical equation?  Why judge a series of actions purely on a mathematical equation?

where nCr is the number of possible combinations of n elements taken r at a time, r is the number of selected improbable events or elements within the set (5 in this case) and n is our estimate of the total number of qualifying events in the set. In order to qualify, the probability P of an event or condition must have sufficient positive correlation with the truth-value of Israel's guilt. As a guide, if Israel is innocent then P<0.01, and if Israel is guilty then P>0.1.

The answer of course is to decide ‘Israel’s’ innocence.

The Google calculator includes the nCr function [Ref. 18]. Input the variables in the format "n choose r" in a Google search. Alternatively, many scientific calculators carry the function, or the Windows calculator will compute factorials up to some rather high values.

Mathematics is a science.  In any science the input must be precise and accurate.  We have no ability to check the input of these equations other than the author’s word and thus we must conclude that this test has to fail any proper analysis.  99.9% of readers will not comprehend these mathematical computations, and thus this is not a science but deception.

The errors introduced by the nCr approximation exaggerate the degree of dilution of improbability. These errors decrease as the individual improbabilities increase, and as the individual improbabilities become more equal - i.e. as they approach the rth root of the gross improbability product, which is around 256.080433 in our example.

As my math’s teacher Mr Hill said back in 1964, “Bullshit baffles brains.”

If we assume the five events were part of a set of 100 events with the required correlation with Israel's guilt, the nCr approximation predicts a dilution factor of 75,287,520. So the corrected probability of the five events has increased from 1 in 1,101,240,000,000 to 1 in 14,627.

What five events? Let us list the events questioned by the author.

(1)     The London and Sharm al-Sheikh bombings in July 2005

(2)     The Israeli, Egyptian, and British Gas deal of July 2005.

(3)     World Zionist Organization / Jewish Mafia orders hits on two targets for double-crossing

(4)     Bibi Netanyahu had prior knowledge of attacks.

(5)     A compliant British mainstream media

(6)     A compliant British government.

(7)     Efraim Halevi’s prewritten article

(8)     Mossad’s London Office had 6 minute warning

(9)     Verint Systems and its ‘networked video solutions’.

(10)   "Operation Kratos" training in Israel of specialist London Police units such as SO19

(11)   The Visor Consultants’ drill

(12)   Four "suicide bombers" were filmed at Luton station at 7:22 am

(13)   The relevant trains did not run to schedule on July 7

(14)   A ludicrous heavily dubbed and edited video was released, purportedly of one of the 7/7 "suicide bombers"

(15)   The movements of Rudi Giuliani

Now why is this list of 15 separate events that the author refers to reduced to merely 5 events.  Why is the author being ‘selective’?

Calculations were also carried out using a more complex algorithm [Ref. 19] that corrects for the nCr approximation's increasing error as the probability or improbability approaches unity. It does not correct for another approximation that is also implicit in the nCr approximation: the equal probabilities approximation. If we have five events each of probability 1 in 256.080433 to give a gross undiluted product of 1 in 1.10124*10^12, the better algorithm predicts a dilution factor of 55,315,338 which places the corrected probability at 1 in 19,908. The nCr approximation and implicit equal probabilities approximation exaggerated the dilution factor by some 36.1% compared to the equal probabilities approximation alone; the true corrected probability would be less than 1 in 19,908.

It doesn’t matter what corrections are made within the calculations, if the initial equations are based on incorrect data.

It is possible that there could have been dozens of unconceived events that did not point to Israel's guilt. There are other aspects of security apart from video, for instance. But in many of these, it would in any case be unrealistic to expect an Israeli connection beyond the partial connection of, say, Operation Kratos.

It is the fact that the ‘partial’ connection of ‘Operation Kratos’ only ‘may’ have played a part within the London bombing.  This being the case, then this matter should have been properly investigated and tested.  If Israel was ‘Innocent’ as the author believes, then Israel should have provided evidence to prove her innocence, especially considering the behaviour of the British government, in denying their citizens a full and proper investigation into the matter.  However as it stands, even ‘Operation Kratos’ creates a guilty image.

Hundreds or thousands of negative events is surely too high. The events must be suitably positively correlated, and it is not enough just to poke holes in the official account. Once we start including drills, movements of prominent Zionists, a surfeit of dubious probably planted evidence but little in the way of video confirmation, cover-ups on shooting of innocent Brazilian, etc, the gross improbability would rise considerably, commensurate with the increased dilution factor of a greater number of events.

But the drills taught by the Israelis in ‘Operation Kratos’ were specifically used in the murder of the innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes.  Again there is that partial connection. 

At 200 events, when n = 200 and r = 5, nCr = 2,535,650,040 placing the approximate corrected probability at 1 in 434. At 300 events, the nCr approximation predicts a dilution factor of 19,582,837,560 which would make the corrected probability 1 in 56. Assuming 500 events, the nCr dilution factor of 2.55244*10^11 would predict a corrected probability of 1 in 4.314, i.e. we could be 76.8% certain that Israel is guilty. The error introduced by the nCr approximation increases as n increases, hence the corrected, diluted probability does not approach unity as quickly as the nCr estimates imply. So, in order to conclude that Israel is innocent, it would be necessary to have a set of well over 500 events, all suitably positively correlated with Israel's guilt, and then find that the indication was negative in over 99% of cases.

This is not correct.  In order to prove Israel guilty, you only need one event.  In the London bombing there were three major events that demonstrated Israel’s guilt; Bibi Netanyahu’s prior knowledge, Efraim Halevi’s prior knowledge and Mossad in London’s prior knowledge.  Those three events, even if they are reduced to one event by the association of all three into a common factor called Mossad, still render Israel guilty.  Israel may not have been the only guilty participant within the London Bombing, but its prior knowledge demonstrates an active part within the felonies.

Any independent investigation of events such as 7/7, 9/11, the Millennium Bug hoax, Lavon Affair, La Belle attack and tricking of Reagan into bombing Libya, attack on the USS Liberty, Kennedy assassination, Suez crisis, Gulf Wars, Lockerbie plane bombing, Bible Codes hoax, Bolshevik Revolution, Great Depression, promotion of gambling websites and pornographic spam, promotion of all-hours binge drinking, etc, will find a common theme of almost ever-present Israeli connections. These will be nearer 10% than 1%. The most reasonable estimate would take an n-value to be somewhere in the upper two-digit range, which would place the odds of Israel's innocence at tens of thousands to one against.

Bible Codes hoax?  Now that is an interesting aspect.  Wikipedia states that the Israeli mathematician, Robert John Aumann, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis, in 1996, was part of a committee that tested H.J. Gans Bible Code experiment.

Is Robert John Aumann the author of this article?

Not all terrorist incidents are linked to Israel / Mossad. When the 7/7 frame-up began to fall apart - even with the aid of Orwellian revisions such as "traces of TATP/HMTD", "no timers", and "bombs in rucksacks" - the UK Government would benefit from a second wave of "failed" bombings such as London 7/21. The simplest 7/21 theory, consistent with the evidence, limits the plot to four people. Four plucky friends, loyal to their own kith and kin, felt obliged to make a political protest in relation to the carnage of the illegal Iraq war. The plan involved neither suicide nor any injuries, since the devices were designed to be all bark and no bite.

It would have to be correct that Israel/Mossad were not linked to the 7/21 political protest. 

Naturally, the Government would attempt to promote 21/7 as part of its ludicrous conspiracy theory of thousands of evil Muslims bent on world domination. The claims that some of each party of suspects had previously travelled abroad (provided the documents weren't forged or relating to a namesake) where they just might have conspired or trained for terrorism, or that a relative of one of the "bombers" was said to use the same banking network that the alleged "al Qaeda organization" is alleged to use, were cited as "proof" of links between the 7/7 and 7/21 suspects. This, along with planted evidence and statements obtained under duress, was supposed to "prove" the official conspiracy theory (as explained above, the official theory was even more in need of life-support by September 1, 2005).

Again this would be correct, and again there is Israeli connection.

Alternatively, an MI5 agent could have masterminded the 7/21 operators. For Tony Blair and cronies to insist that London's July 2005 incidents were unrelated to the Iraq war whilst simultaneously fully aware that they had used the war to dupe the patsies into carrying rucksacks, would have been a delicious example of government cynicism. It is even less likely that the Blair regime accidentally became aware of the 7/21 plot, although if so they clearly would have done nothing to prevent it.

It was not the Iraq war, that 7/7 was related to, but rather the Afghanistan war, as immediately after 7/7 Prime Ministers Blair and Howard immediately pledged more troops to Afghanistan.  Otherwise this paragraph is technically correct.

It is unlikely that the police shot Mr de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician, because he knew too much. The Government surely had its own operatives who could wire fake or real bombs if necessary. This shooting reinforces the theory that the Government was unaware of the 21/7 plot, which was purely a political protest albeit one which played into the Government's hands. But it is true that eleven shots at point blank range - "marksmen" missing altogether in three cases with bullets lodged in the carriage, plus another shot to the shoulder - suggests that not only was there deliberate intent to kill, but they knew full well there was zero risk of an explosion. The police would have been under political pressure to come up with at least one of the 21/7 culprits within a very short space of time. Selecting a foreigner for the hit, they were gambling that there would be no eyewitnesses, that the target had no relatives or had poor relatives who could be bought off, and that the target was a Muslim.

This paragraph is not accurate.  The police ‘anti-terrorist’ squad had set up surveillance on the de Menezes residence.  Thus they knew him.  They would have also known his nationality and his religion.  That a ‘professional witness’ was in position and described to the media a completely fabricated story of the shooting also demonstrates a conspiracy to murder de Menezes.

Furthermore, the ‘Anti-terrorist’ Squad that murdered de Menezes had been trained in Israel under ‘Operation Kratos’ and so there is an Israeli connection albeit a slender one.

There were two overwhelming reasons for ensuring that Mr de Menezes was allowed to get on the train rather than shot on the streets of London: (i) Guaranteed "failure" of CCTV and minimal witnesses, or witnesses too terrified to speak out. Police would instantly seize videotapes or discs, bringing them back later and claiming that there was "nothing on them"; the system must have been "not working". A suitable large magnet, heater, or hammer would do the trick. As for the claim that the SRR surveillance soldier was "relieving himself" as the suspect exited the building, it is about 300 to 1 against that being true. (ii) The police could use the excuse of losing radio contact with their control; thus the decision to shoot had to be taken by field officers.

Again, this paragraph is mostly correct, except that ‘stills’ from the CCTV cameras were obtained showing the body of de Menezes on the train after he had been murdered.

The 7/7 planners had to select committed Muslims as patsies. The UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for the decennial Census, which included religion for the first time in 2001 [Ref. 20]. For each individual in a household, religion was an optional question, although 92.29% volunteered this information. Other questions such as ethnicity were compulsory. The Census data resides on a Sybase database [Adaptive Server Enterprise (version 11.5)]. After completion of the scanning / data capture project in April 2002, the original paper forms were reportedly pulped and recycled (confidential papers are occasionally discovered unshredded). Digital images were transferred to microfilm for public release in 2101.

This is a hypothetical scenario.  It is pure theory, and in theory, nothing goes wrong.  It is only in the practical application of theory that ‘Murphy’s Law’ comes into existence.  There is no evidence that this scenario was applied to the London bombing.

2001 was also the first Census where the main scanning and capture services were contracted out. The external service provider was Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. 2004 sales by customer are: (i) US Department of Defense / Intelligence (58%); (ii) Civil Government / Homeland Security (22%)... There were communication links from the Fareham ONS office to three external sites: Widnes, the Lockheed Martin / ICL data processing site; GROS, the corresponding Government office in Scotland; and NISRA, the Government office in Northern Ireland. Government agencies could readily obtain lists of known Muslims. Foreign operatives could have breached security at the time of data capture, or more recently by infiltrating ONS, hacking their database, providing IT services (potential suppliers approach the Procurement office in Newport, South Wales), or even being supplied by Lockheed Martin or the Pentagon.

This is simply an extension of the hypothetical scenario.  Again there is no evidence that this scenario was applied to the London bombing.

A select statement around July 1st may have specified four columns rather like "Leeds" + "Muslim" + "male" + "born 1974 to 1987". Three of the 7/7 "bombers" grew up in Beeston, Leeds. Mohammed Khan only moved to Dewsbury very recently and would have been within the Leeds Authority in 2001. The fourth, the Jamaican, was an enthusiastic Islam convert in 2001, so may well have declared as such in the April 29 Census. He appears to have been brought up in Huddersfield before moving to Aylesbury so does not quite fit the Leeds criterion. It would be interesting to know whether any relatives were aware of mailshots or telephone calls regarding a job on 7/7, and whether offers of a 7/7 job were going out to other Muslims or even those who declared themselves as "Jedi Knight" in 2001.

This paragraph gives us a date for the launching of such a recruitment of the four Muslims as being on the 1st July, as per the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Mafia theory expounded very early in the article.  It is in dispute with other known facts.  Furthermore, these Muslims would have had to have been properly assessed by an Intelligence agent on the ground, such as somebody from Visor Consultants, and it would have to be somebody whom these Muslims trusted.

The ONS site states that, "The key criteria for ONS were that outputs should: [...] minimise the risk of disclosing information about identifiable individuals..." and that disclosure protection includes measures such as swapping a few records in the output database. I.e., the system does maintain names and addresses and there is some risk that individuals can be identified, even without unauthorised access to the microfiche library. Tracing such a breach would not be straightforward, since the transaction log does not store select statements. It stores updates, deletes, inserts and user ID, and if auditing is turned on some additional security features are provided at the expense of performance.

The date of July 1st rules this entire hypothetical scenario as flawed.

Even disregarding all the evidence pointing to Israel masterminding 7/7, it is unlikely that the Government would have directly organised a plot to cold-bloodedly murder dozens of its own citizens. An external power probably selected the patsies. There remains some probability that the Government had advance warning of 7/7 but was powerless to prevent it, or was even cowed into playing a major role, due to blackmail (e.g. nuclear strike on Iraq/Iran, or radiological attack on UK). In this case the Muslim "suicide bombers" would have been set up by the Government, and lured into Visor Consultants' anti-terrorist drill.

‘All the evidence pointing to Israel masterminding 7/7’.  This premise is based on the highly flawed hypothesis of WZO/Jewish Mafia instigating payback on the 1st July 2005.  It hasn’t even considered the compliant mainstream media, this time the BBC running the exact scenario in 2004, for all to view.

“It is unlikely ~ Government ~ organized a plot ~ murder ~its own citizens”.  It may be unlikely, but the political situation may have been well served by such an action, which would then bring about a compliant government and mainstream media when Bibi Netanyahu made his fatal slip of the tongue about being warned.

The planners' cursory research could not eliminate family men with babies, special needs teaching assistants, sports science graduates who love cricket and have many white and Sikh friends, people who are thoroughly decent, honest, law-abiding, etc. Although there are many more Muslims in London, it was necessary to have the "bombers" drive part way so their car(s) could then be part of the "evidence".

Ahh, yes, as innocent as new-born lambs.  Not one of these Muslims had a criminal record, and thus would have been completely naïve when approached by someone from the ‘government’ to play a part in the Visor anti-terrorist exercise.  This would have been vital for the success of the operation, but such information is not on the ONS data.  These men would have been hand-picked on the ground, and that would have taken time.

The ONS website provides a wealth of fascinating information [Ref. 20], e.g. click on "National and Regional Rankings by Theme, Ethnicity and Religion". If the terrorists really were Muslim and were not selected by another agency, it would be more likely that they came from an area with a high Muslim population. For the Greater London area, the proportion of persons stating their religion as Muslim in the 2001 Census was 8.46%, compared with 2.97% for England and Wales as a whole. (Since 8.66% in London and 7.71% in England and Wales did not declare their religion, the actual Muslim proportions would have been some 9.26% and 3.22% respectively. For comparative purposes here, we shall take the percentages actually declaring as a particular religion.)

This paragraph clogs the brain with too many variables.  It comes to naught, but again we can see the mathematician’s touch coming through.

Considering individual local authority areas within London, Tower Hamlets is actually ranked #1 out of 376 local authority areas within England and Wales by percentage of population declaring as Muslim, with 36.4% to give a total of 71,389. Newham is ranked #2 with 24.3% and 59,293. In contrast, Leeds is ranked #66 with 2.99% and 21,394.

More mathematical statistics.

If the bombers had spontaneously emerged from outside London, there are more likely areas than Leeds. Bradford is ranked #4 with 16.1% and 75,188. Birmingham is ranked #7 with 14.3% and 140,033. It is the highest local authority area Muslim population, although if London were a single area its total would be around 600,000 Muslims. So even without factoring in an allowance for an inverse relation between the probability of an individual carrying out an attack and the required travelling distance, an attacker would be 28 times more likely to originate from London than from Leeds.

Again more hypothetical statistics, with absolutely nothing concrete.

Luton is ranked #6 with 14.6% and 26,963. Leicester is ranked #17 with 11.0% and 30,885. Kirklees, to the south and west of Leeds, is ranked #19 with 10.1% and 39,312. Manchester is ranked #23 with 9.1% and 35,806.

Let's consider the Jewish population in these areas. Bradford has 356 Census respondents who declared their religion as Jewish. Birmingham has 2,343 (0.2%), Luton has 534, Leicester has 417, Kirklees has 171, Manchester has 3,076. In contrast, Leeds has 8,267.

What do Jews have to do with the price of fish?  Were Jews the targets of the London bombing?  Of course not, Londoners were the targets, regardless of religion colour or ethnicity.

In addition to the requirement that the "bombers" drive part way (e.g. to Luton) and take the train to King's Cross, Mossad agents were directing the plot. Hence, it was more likely that the patsies' place of origin was an area with an above average Jewish population. Outside of London, Leeds and Bury are the only local authority areas with a Jewish population of more than 8,000. The Bury Muslim population is 6,756 compared with 21,394 for Leeds. Leeds is the only area outside London where both Jewish and Muslim populations are over 8,000. The combination of 8,267 Jewish and 21,394 Muslim makes Leeds an obvious choice as an operational centre for 7/7, and convenient for grooming of patsies and planting of fake evidence of homemade explosives.

“Mossad agents were directing the plot”?  On what factual evidence does this statement base itself upon?  There is no evidence to suggest who was directing the various plots and counter-plots within the London Bombing.

We are aware that Bibi Netanyahu and Efraim Halevi both had prior knowledge of the London bombing.  We are also aware that Mossad in London also had a ‘6 minute’ warning regarding the event.  We are aware of various Israeli security companies that may have been in a position to assist in planting and hiding certain evidence, but besides Netanyahu, Halevi and the London office of Mossad, there is no ‘actual proof’.

Also why change the target from the ‘London Transportation system’ to ‘Jews’?  There was never any evidence that that London bombing was racist or ‘anti-Semitic’.

The official theory has "Muslim bombers" travelling from an area with an above average Jewish population to attack an area with a high Muslim population. Ever heard of the expression "carrying coals to Newcastle"?

But Leeds, or Birmingham or Manchester do not have the ‘London Tube’ as per the BBC ‘anti-terrorist’ documentary televised in 2004.  Nor were the targets ever specified as ‘Jews’, but rather London commuters.

We conclude that Israel ordered the Mossad to carry out 7/7 with a high degree of certainty, with the odds against innocence being a minimum of tens of thousands to one. And such proof does not rely upon identification of those responsible for 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, Gulf Wars, Great Depression, Dr David Kelly suicide hoax, Lockerbie plane bombing, Bali bombings, Casablanca attack, Madrid 3/11, etc. Israel had the means and opportunity through a highly proficient spy network and involvement in security at the London Underground. It had the motive which included sending a powerful signal to deter double-crossing (e.g. in energy deals), and a long-term strategy for global hegemony. The Office for National Statistics could have supplied the records for selecting out known Muslim individuals for the frame-up. Unfortunately for Mr de Menezes, the same degree of precision was not employed in his selection. The official story is so full of holes that the improbability of four Muslims travelling almost 200 miles from a Jewish area to bomb a Muslim-populated area is the least of its worries.

Article revised September 20, 2005

The conclusion has completed the whitewash.  All the boundaries and goalposts have been moved, adjusted and mathematically regurgitated.  Well the conclusion states; “It had the motive which included sending a powerful signal to deter double-crossing (e.g. in energy deals).” This refers to the Israeli, Egyptian, British Gas deal signed off on the 1st July 2005, which leaves absolutely no time for any of the required organization for such a project.

If we look at the political scene in Britain prior to the London Bombing, the Prime Minister was having huge difficulties in following his war agenda. His evidence that caused Britain to enter into the war with Iraq had been totally discredited, and the death of Dr Kelly had been placed squarely at Prime Minister Tony Blair’s feet.  For Tony Blair to increase his commitments to the war-effort, to include Afghanistan, required Britain to suffer its own 911.

This précis was set up by the BBC in May 2004 when the BBC televised a documentary detailing a ‘possible’ terrorist-attack on the London Tube, and the effects such an attack would have.  We can understand then that the London Bombing would have been a Political requirement for the British Labor government at the time.  Thus much of the work required would have been fulfilled by MI5.  However there were certain areas that MI5 would not have been fully competent with, and those areas would have been ‘contracted out’ to specialist services and this is where Mossad would have come into play.

Efraim Halevi, the former head of Mossad, let the cat out of the bag with his second sentence, where he stated, “They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.”

The ‘they’ whom Halevi was referring to had to have been the planning-unit within Mossad, that planned each of these attacks, from the American embassies, to 911, and then the London bombing.

It was this planning expertise that MI5 would have ‘contracted out’ to Mossad, but then things didn’t go quite as planned, and Halevi’s comments in regard to the ‘multiple simultaneous explosions’, when the time of the explosions had originally been taken as when they were first reported, not when they had detonated, gave the game away.  What this simply meant was that Efraim Halevi had to have been part of the Mossad planning-team.

The next major gaff was by Bibi Netanyahu, who told reporters that he had been fore-warned in regard to the bombings.  The problem was that there was nobody in a position to have warned Bibi Netanyahu.  Bibi first of all named Scotland Yard as where the warning emanated from, and Scotland Yard weren’t buying that. 

Then the story was changed to Scotland Yard warned the Israeli Embassy ‘security officer’, who then warned Bibi, and again Scotland Yard weren’t buying that either.

Then there was the third attempt to cover Bibi’s slip of the tongue with the Mossad’s London Office stating that they had a 6-minute warning prior to the bombs being detonated.

And then Bibi stated that the original story was incorrect in that he had received a warning, but only after the first explosion.  Now that was even more interesting as the original explosions were put down as being caused by ‘power surges’ and not a ‘terrorist’ attack and so, no matter how many times he lied, Bibi Netanyahu couldn’t get his story right.

There is one last understanding in regard to Bibi Netanyahu’s story of ‘being warned’.  There is not one iota of evidence to demonstrate where any such warning emanated from, and so it must be understood that Bibi Netanyahu was never given any warning.  Bibi Netanyahu was always aware of the London bombings, well before they took place.  It is feasible that Bibi Netanyahu was on the planning-team along with Efraim Halevi.  It is also feasible that Bibi was and thus still is a member of Mossad.

The conclusion also includes a final reference to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, and we should consider his demise within this episode.  We do know that de Menezes was an electrician by trade, and it has been suggested that he may have witnessed the bombs being placed with the trains or the bus.  This is possible, but unlikely, as de Menezes, had he witnessed such an act, would have had to have been close enough to actually know what was being done, and to recognize what the actual bombs were.

There is another possibility, and that is that Jean Charles de Menezes witnessed the murder of the three ‘Muslims’ at Canary Wharf in London.  The murder of these three Muslims would have been carried out by a squad from the SO19 unit, a Unit that had actually trained in Israel.  Had this been the case, and de Menezes reported to the police what he had witnessed, then it would have been a major hurdle for the SO19 unit, and they dealt with de Menezes in the only manner they had been trained in.

That this murder had been carefully planned is demonstrated by the professional witness, Mark Whitby, who spoke to the BBC after the murder, but had several points wrong.  We also had the ‘police’ reinforcements all racing down the ramps leading to the train platform shortly thereafter.

It is my belief that Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered because he witnessed the murder of the three Muslims by the SO19 unit.  I may be wrong, but that is my belief.

After the fiasco Bibi Netanyahu returned to Israel and had talks with the Israeli Prim Minister Ariel Sharon.  Ariel Sharon was not impressed with Bibi’s incompetence.  I believe Ariel Sharon would have told Bibi to resign his ministerial position and to stay away from the limelight.

Now it must be remembered that Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu were both rivals jostling for the position of Prime Minister of Israel.  I believe there would have been some animosity between the two of them.  For Bibi to have been dumped by Ariel Sharon would have been a gross humiliation.

Bibi Netanyahu handed in his resignation as Finance Minister on the 7th August 2005.  In September 2005, Netanyahu tried to replace Ariel Sharon by gaining the position of ‘Head’ of the Likud party, but was unsuccessful.

On the 18th December 2005, Ariel Sharon shared tea with Shimon Peres in the Knesset, and within half an hour was taken to hospital suffering a mild stroke.  He was kept in hospital for two days and then permitted to return home.

On the 20th December 2005, Netanyahu regained the leadership of the Likud party with 47% of the vote, the same day that Ariel Sharon returned home from hospital.

On the 3rd January 2006 Sharon was visited by his Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert and talked for about three hours.  On the 4th January 2006, Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke and was returned to hospital.  The Zionist writer, Barry Chamish believes that Sharon had been poisoned.

On the 28th March 2006 with the Israeli elections, Ehud Olmert became Prime Minister and Bibi Netanyahu became the leader of the opposition.

At the next election on the 20 February 2009, Bibi Netanyahu was returned as the Israeli Prime Minister, and the role that Bibi played in the London bombing has been forgotten.

Andrew S. MacGregor


Syndicate content