Muad'Dib interviewed by Jim Fetzer on 24.06.09




Part 1:

Jim: This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib who produced a DVD entitled “7/7 Ripple Effect”, and I say to every one of you, as you are listening to the words we exchange, go to Google Videos, enter “7/7 Ripple Effect” and download this video to your computer. It is perhaps the most brilliant example of documentary film-making, I have ever viewed in my life. It gives us a microcosm of exactly how false flag attacks are planned and executed. Once you have studied this video, which runs less than one hour in time, you will understand how it’s done and have a template… a pattern… a plan, for how 9/11 was executed too.  “7/7 Ripple Effect”. It concerns the false flag attack that occurred in London, involving explosions at three tube stops and on a bus on the 7th of July 2005. It is my honour, to have with me today, Muad’Dib who created this Masterpiece. Muad, it’s a great pleasure.

Muad’Dib: Thank-you. It’s good to be with you.

Jim: I’m absolutely fascinated by this and I must begin of course by commenting on your Name. You… when we spoke prior to the show you explained to me that it is Arabic, for Teacher Of Righteousness… and that it’s derived from the film Dune, which I’ve heard of, but not yet seen, so I expect that that’s something else that my listeners are going to want to do, namely, view the movie, Dune. D-U-N-E.

Muad’Dib: Yes, it was made in 1984 - the film Dune - and it stars Kyle MacLachlan, and Sting the rock musician, Jürgen Prochnow, and quite a few other well known names. And it’s a very good film. And the lead…

Jim: (crosstalk) Yes, go ahead…

Muad’Dib: …the lead character, in it, is called Muad’Dib.

Jim: Muad’Dib. I love it. (chuckles)  Tell me, how did you come to make this Masterpiece?

Muad’Dib: I suppose it started really with 9/11… I saw the buildings come down on the TV, as most people did, and I think we’ve got plenty of time so I’ll tell you where I was. I think everybody knows where they were when they first heard about that. It’s a bit like everybody knows where they were when they heard John Kennedy had been killed.

Jim: Yes.

Muad’Dib: It’s a similar situation. So… I was in - I’m in Ireland – I was in Dublin with an elderly American gentleman who’d come to visit me, and he was in his middle to late 80’s. And the day previous to 9/11 we had been talking about the situation in America, with the economy and everything else and what a bad state it was in, and he said to me, having studied lots of things over his 80… I think he was 86 at the time… he said, there will have to be a war… he said that’s what they normally do in these situations; it’s their only option. So I said okay, fair enough. And then the next day, we travelled to Dublin and we were in the ferry terminal there, and hanging from the ceiling in the ferry terminal, they have these enormous flat-screen televisions, so that nobody can block your view. It’s hanging from the ceiling and everybody can see it in the waiting room. And we were waiting to go to Glastonbury, in England. But anyway, as we were sitting there waiting for the ferry, we saw the second plane hit the building… there was a newsflash and then of course it took over the whole television programming for the rest of the day, and for the next few days. And we watched the second plane hit the corner of the second building, and all of the jet fuel burning off in a fireball outside of the building… and anyway, shortly after, as you’re aware, that building came down and it came down before the other building. And as the buildings came down, he looked at me and I looked at him, and he said to me… “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?” And I said, “I think so… what are you thinking?” And so… we both more or less said at the same time, “That was controlled demolition.” Right there and then, the very first time we saw it. And… because it didn’t make any sense. It had to be controlled demolition, for the way that the buildings came down, but also for the fact that, the second building, the plane only hit the corner, all the jet fuel burned out in a fireball on the outside of the building… and yet that building came down first. It was totally illogical.

Jim: That’s right. After approximately an hour in the South Tower, a fire that burned neither hot enough, nor long enough, to cause any damage at all… the building was destroyed and the North Tower, in an hour and a half… it followed suit.

Muad’Dib: (crosstalk) Absolutely. Yes.

Jim: But you’re absolutely right. The North was hit first and yet the South, hit second, fell first, or, was blown to pieces, really, better, because when it was all said and done, Muad’Dib, there was nothing left, it had all been converted to massive quantities… billions of cubic yards of very fine dust, lock, stock and barrel.

Muad’Dib: Yes. And the fact that the fuel, couldn’t have melted anything inside of the building, because it burnt off in a fireball outside of the building.

Jim: That’s exactly right and we have a popular former governor here by the name of Jesse Ventura, as he likes to observe, his propane camp-stove burns hotter than jet fuel, and yet his propane stove doesn’t collapse or melt when he uses it on a trip.

Muad’Dib: Yes, yes. So it was just a case of logic, just seeing the buildings coming down. Having seen controlled demolitions before on television, of tall buildings, and watching them come down, it was obvious. And I’d always thought, for years and years, and for decades, I’ve thought, I wonder what they would do if they ever want to bring those buildings down…

Jim: (laughing in background)

Muad’Dib: …because they are so tall, and of course, when I saw them come down, I had the answer to the question I’d been asking myself for decades.

Jim: Yeah, you’re absolutely right… and very perceptive of you. There was even an actor who rushed up to a reporter at the time when everyone was scratching their heads and asking what in the world had gone on here, since no steel structure high-rise, ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11, nor after 9/11, nor of course on 9/11. But he hastened to explain how the fire from the jet fuel had been so intense, that it had caused the steel to weaken and precipitated the collapse, which brought about the destruction of the buildings. It was of course completely planted to create this impression in the minds of most Americans who, unlike you and your friend, are much less critical of viewing these things, I think, because of decades of exposure to motion pictures and television programs that involve fantasies at all levels…violations of laws of physics, engineering, aerodynamics… you name it. So, I’m afraid the American public is far more gullible than most Europeans, who are also far more scientifically literate.

Muad’Dib: Mmhm, yes. So anyway, from that and looking on the Internet for the following years, and seeing all the scientific evidence that you and others have put together… just reinforced what I knew instinctively that morning, when I saw the buildings come down. I saw the second one hit, and then the buildings come down, and so I followed it and followed it and then eventually … I’d seen some videos and some were kind of too hyped and too sensationalistic. And then eventually I saw the film Dave von Kleist made, called 9/11 Ripple Effect, and I liked the film, because it was very calm and measured, and there was no sensationalising anything, there was no hype about it. It was just facts, and experts speaking, very calmly and putting the whole thing together. Or, at least a brief picture of it, because it would take hours and hours and hours to go through every detail. But I really liked the film and then, I and some friends had been analysing and studying 7/7, in London, for at least two years, and looking into all of the… what was available; the TV reporting of it and the newspaper reporting from around the world and different people discussing it on the Internet… and after watching this 9/11 Ripple Effect, I thought, you-know, somebody needs to make one about 7/7, you know, a similar movie that doesn’t hype anything; that just gives the facts and puts it all together in a way that the average person… I think you use the expression Joe Sixpack over there?

Jim: Yes.

Muad’Dib: …That Joe Sixpack could watch, and follow, and see that the government’s story didn’t make any sense… in fact was a pack of lies, and would then fully understand what had happened, who was behind it, and what they needed to do in order to take the country back and put things right… and I watched a film called “Mind The Gap” which was about 7/7, because I mentioned to my friends, you-know, somebody needs to make a film, and one of them said, well somebody has made a film called “Mind The Gap”, and he is an ex-MI5 agent… and, anyway he… I watched the film and he does a pretty good job in taking apart the official story and showing that it’s lies. And then there was another film called “Ludicrous Diversion”, which does a similar thing. But, neither of the films put the whole thing together in a way that everybody could understand - that the average person in the street could understand. So, I decided that if nobody else was going to do it, then I’d have to do it, and so that’s what we set about doing. My friends helped me with downloading video from the Internet and newspaper articles from the Internet, and all the rest of it. You’ve seen the film so you know that I haven’t fabricated anything. It’s all… I’ve used all mainstream media articles and TV footage.

Jim: Well… when I describe it as a Masterpiece, Muad’Dib, I mean that in every possible sense. It’s wonderfully constructed, it tells a completely accessible story, it uses clearly public sources, your analysis is impeccable, the editing is sensational… I’ve never seen anything I consider to be as good as this, frankly – in the category of documentary, and if there were any Justice in this world, it aught to be winning the highest prizes possible for documentary filmmaking.

Muad’Dib: Thank you very much.

Jim: It’s just amazing… just amazing. And I’ll tell you, I’ve been to London many times, I consider it to be my favourite city… six or seven times probably in the last 15 years or so, often to give professional talks. I stay on Bloomsberry Street at the Morgan Hotel, which backs onto the British Museum. We walk all over the place. I’ve been at many of the tube-stops where this actually occurred. One of my visits I actually was in the Tavistock Hotel on Tavistock Square, which you discuss, and I just say… you-know, if ever I were disillusioned about a country, and a government that I have thought highly of, this is it. You have completely stripped away any illusions, and if anyone had any lingering doubts about the close association between Tony Bliar and George Bush, and their willingness to use acts of violence and threats of acts of violence to instill fear into the population, to benefit their own personal political agendas, you have demonstrated that conclusively, with no question; no doubt, whatsoever. And I must say, this is such a brilliant critique and explanation of how these things are done, that not every… not just every American, but every Citizen of the World needs to study; 7/7 Ripple effect. It’s that important in my judgment. I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate, that  you took the time and the effort, and had the patience, and intelligence!... to put this together as you have done, Muad’Dib… I’m just in awe of your accomplishment…

Muad’Dib: (appreciative voice) Thank-you… You see, I would like everybody
on the planet, just as you have said; that was the idea of making the film. I would like every single person on the planet to see the film. Because, the only way that we have a chance of preventing these people from doing the same thing again, or a similar act, is when everybody knows that they* did the previous ones, and that they* know that everybody knows that they* did it. Because if they* can do it in New York, and they* can do it in London, and they* can do it in Madrid… they* can do it anywhere. Nobody is safe.

* - THEY – The Hierarchy Enslaving You

Jim: That’s exactly right. When I hear, you-know, objections to the study of JFK, people saying, “Well that was 40 or 50 years ago, how is it relevant today?” – virtually every technique that is employed today to mislead, and misinform a population was employed in that instance; fabricated evidence, a phoney weapon… fake photographs… they recreated home movies… the whole song and dance. If you want to understand how these things are done, the techniques at the disposal of a government, you want to study JFK, and I’ll just mention in passing, anyone who wants to learn about this should go to two different websites - – which is my public issues website, and take a look at the box entitled “The latest on JFK”, and, which is an online journal for the advanced study of the death of JFK, which I co-edit with John P. Costello, who has a Ph.D. in electromagnetism and is the leading expert on the Zapruder film, in the World today, and there you’ll find, you-know, a massive repository of  studies, and reports, that will give you deep insight into what happened here. In addition, I’ve edited three books on the subject; Assassination Science in 1998, Murder in Dealy Plaza in the year 2000, and the great Zapruder film hoax in 2003. But I’ve got to say what you’ve done here, Muad’Dib, is so wonderful, so accessible, that I again… I say everyone listening, you must go, enter on your Google search: “7/7 Ripple Effect”, and download it. It’s very easy to do, there’s an instruction there: “download video”. All you have to do is click on it and in 15 or 20 minutes you’ll have it for your own copy. You can distribute to others, you can get the word out, you can pay attention to it, you can watch it over and over and over. Because, it is, mark my words, this is a Masterpiece.

Muad’Dib, you just did it so well. Please tell us. Let’s begin by talking about your video and where you began with planning. I mean, you were successful in even discovering footage for the actual plan for the attack that would be executed on 7/7; was being addressed in another context, and it’s absolutely sensational how they are planting the seeds in the public, in the UK, that something like this could happen.

Muad’Dib: Yes, and it also makes you wonder, about the people that are behind this, because, it’s almost like they are so brazen, that they are going to show you what they are going to do, before they actually do it.

Jim: (crosstalk) And then they’re so brazen…

Muad’Dib: … And thinking that they are so untouchable, that they can get away with it. And laughing at everybody, saying, “Look, we showed you what we were going to do”.

Jim: Absolutely. The cynicism is incredible. And is it Peter Pace, who actually comes on television on the day of 7/7 to say, this is really remarkable, how the actual terrorist attack followed the same plan as the intended drill – the practice terror attack – and how he’s just astonished that it happened that way?

Muad’Dib: Yes. Peter Power is his name.

Jim: Peter Power. Absolutely unbelievable; the zenith of arrogance and cynicism… you-know, talk about unscrupulous, dishonest agents… this is unbelievable.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: So begin with, you-know, how did they first start getting out the word that something like this could happen, warning the people of The City, and of the UK that, you-know, this was a possibility, so that when it happened they’d already have the seeds of belief planted, as to what they should understand this to have been.

Muad’Dib: Well, they made the program that you’re referring to and that I’ve shown footage from; it was the BBC. And they made the film and released it in May, of the previous year, 2004. And, in the program they were saying that, “This is the kind of attack that is going to happen.” And, it’s not a case of if, it’s a case of when, and all these kind of things. And, so that stuck in my mind and the mind of my friends. A lot of people had forgotten about this film by the time 7/7 happened, and when we brought it to the fore and put it in the film, all these people said, “Wow, I’d forgotten all about it… I saw that, and I’d forgotten all about it and now you’ve brought it up” and it’s so obvious, because it’s three tube-trains… explosions on three tube-trains and a road-vehicle. And that’s exactly what happened, on 7/7/2005. It was three tube-trains and a road-vehicle. The road-vehicle was a different kind of road-vehicle to what the BBC had put in their film in 2004, because they used a tanker that was full of chlorine, and that got blown-up and created a gas-cloud, and they were telling everybody to keep the windows and doors closed and try and block off any air-vents and things. And it was killing people. Obviously they didn’t do that in the actual event in 7/7, instead of that they used a bus, which was a road-vehicle, as most of you probably heard on the news…

Jim: Muad’Dib, pull back just a hair from your microphone, I’m getting a little double-effect…

Muad’Dib: Okay.

Jim: Yes, they used a double-decker bus and, I mean, so they planted the seed with this BBC program. Was it supposed to be a fictional account or was it supposed to be authentic, was it showing how, you-know, this commissioner-group was planning on how to cope with it, were those the actual officials who were shown in the BBC production?

Muad’Dib: Yes, that’s correct. Yes. One of them was an ex-government minister, of not the government that was in power, the Labour government, but he was a Conservative. I think he was a Minister for Defence, in the Conservative government previous to the Labour government. And Michael Portillo was his name. And then there were other people, who were all the officials, they were all using this program as an exercise, to decide how they would cope with the situation if it did happen.

Jim: And as you have observed it was going to be explosions at three different tube-stops. Plus…

Muad’Dib: (crosstalk) …tube-trains, it wasn’t at the stops, it was on the tube-trains themselves.

Jim: …on the trains themselves, yes, yes. And… but they were located near specific stops.

Muad’Dib: Oh yes, of course.

Jim: Yes, yes… and how much did that early plan then provide a template for what would actually be executed on 7/7? I mean with what specificity, was it exactly the same tubes, the same trains, I mean you have this fascinating explanation of why it didn’t come off according to plan, which I think is extraordinarily revealing, to show that the whole government account is a complete and total fabrication, and we’ll get into that.

Muad’Dib: Mmhm.

Jim: But how, you-know, were there more recent then discussions of the possibility of a terrorist attack before it happened on 7/7, after this programme had been broadcast?

Muad’Dib: No, but there were bomb-scares that turned out to be hoaxes, immediately before the 7th of July, in Sheffield, and in Nottingham.

Jim: To prime the mind to expect that if something like that happened they know how they should take it.

Muad’Dib: Yeah, yes. But the thing is with them having turned out to be hoaxes, what would happen, or could happen on 7/7, when the real thing happened, is that people would take no notice, thinking it was another hoax. And of course, then get caught in it.

Jim: So that was one more form of duplicity. How many were killed on 7/7?

Muad’Dib: Fifty-six people…

Jim: Fifty-six people.

Muad’Dib: …yes, and hundreds were injured.

Jim: … hundreds were injured…

Muad’Dib: Yes, hundreds.

Jim: And most of them were in the explosions on the three tube-trains?

Muad’Dib: That’s correct, yes.

Jim: Because the bus I think injured only a few.

Muad’Dib: Mmhm, that’s correct, yes.

Jim: (sighs) …Well, Muad’Dib we’re going to continue and we’re going to explore those who were supposed to have been responsible here, in the brilliant research you did here in exposing the chicanery here. In the meanwhile, we’re going to take a brief break. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal” with my very special guest today, the producer of 7/7 Ripple Effect, a video you must watch, you must download, you must preserve. We’ll be right back.

Part 2:

Jim: I’m putting you back on. This is Jim Fetzer your host with my very special guest Muad’Dib, who produced the 7/7 Ripple Effect DVD. It runs less than an hour. I encourage everyone out there, listening to me, to go to their computer, enter “7/7 Ripple Effect”, find it on Google Video and download it. Very easy to do. There’s a label there, “download video” – just click it, it will take 15 or 20 minutes or so, and you’re going to have a priceless study, of how false flag operations are conducted. It will give you insights, not only a complete understanding of what happened in London on the 7th of July 2005, but what happened in the United States, on 9/11. It’s really an absolute must. And you mentioned too, Muad’Dib, how much you liked Dave von Kleist’s video, 9/11 Ripple Effect, that you paid him a compliment by adapting the title of his study, to yours.

Muad’Dib: That’s right, yes. And what I did, which, you-know, other people can imitate, is that I made copies of 9/11 Ripple Effect and I went around all of the pubs and I gave a free copy to the landlord of every pub in the area, and asked them to show it to their customers. So, I was seeding that to the people, to get them familiar with the idea. Some people already suspected that 9/11 was an inside job, but some people were absolutely innocent and didn’t know anything about it. And then I waited 2 or 3 weeks, to give a chance for everybody to watch it and talk about it, and then I went round, and I did the same thing with my film, 7/7 Ripple Effect, to get everybody… to let everybody know. And I actually had somebody stop me in the street today and say, could they please get a copy of the film, which was lovely.

Jim: Yes, perfect. Wonderful.

Muad’Dib: And when you’re asking the people if they will download the film, I would like to ask them please, if they would do me a favour, if they can download it, would they please, if they have the facilities for doing it, put it on a DVD, and make copies of the DVD and give them out to everybody that they know and care about.

Jim: Excellent… excellent, excellent, I recommend that completely. Perfect. Perfect. Now, tell us about how they tried to induce these four young men to participate in this, what they claimed was going to be an exercise, an anti-terrorism exercise, and what went astray that caused the whole thing to unravel, when you understand what actually happened, as opposed to what the BBC and the government claimed to have happened.

Muad’Dib: Yes, well they were running… Peter Power as you know, as you’ve stated, Peter Power was running a mock terrorism-drill, on that day, on those tube-trains, at those stations and with the road-vehicle. And of course, as part of the exercise, they would need four mock-terrorists, to carry dummy backpack-bombs, and so what I’ve suggested, because it’s the only thing that makes any sense; when you see that the government’s story is a pack of lies; is the fact that they must have recruited these four young Muslims, to take part in the exercise, and got them then to come down from… they wouldn’t want them to be Londoners, because, if they were Londoners they might suspect… they would know London too well; they might suspect that they were being misled. So they had to be people who weren’t familiar with London. So, they chose people from Leeds, which is in the North of England. It’s about 200 miles from London, north of London. And, they recruited them… or, I am saying that they recruited them, because that’s the only sense it makes. And, they were supposed to catch the 7:40… they were supposed to drive down to Luton, and catch a train from Luton into London. And they were supposed to; the government official story was that they had caught the 7:40 AM train from Luton to Thameslink, at King’s Cross. And, the first problem with that, is the fact that God intervened… I hope your audience don’t mind me bringing God into this, because…

Jim: (laughs) … well, in this case it could be another term for chance, or serendipity, or what… it’s fate, is what happened, go ahead.

Muad’Dib: Alright. But, there was an Intervention, because, that day, the 7:40 AM train from Luton to King’s Cross was cancelled, and the following train was also cancelled, and all the trains that did run, were running late. So it was impossible, for these four young Muslims to have made it from Luton, to London, to Thameslink station at King’s Cross, in time for them to make it then from Thameslink King’s Cross station, through to the main-line King’s Cross station, and then down into the underground, to catch the tube-trains. It was impossible for them to have made it in time to catch those trains that blew up. So, the trains obviously left, without them on board. And… I don’t know whether I’m going to be spoiling the film for your listeners by telling them…

Jim: No, no no no. You go ahead. This is not a work of fiction, where you need to have the willing suspension of disbelief, this is a documentary where you explain exactly how you know how these things happened, and how you have been able to establish that this was the government program all the way, and what you’re talking about here is a crucial part of it, so I want you to address it.

Muad’Dib: Okay. The fact that they didn’t make it in time into London, to catch these tube-trains, is the reason why there is no video-footage of them - CCTV video-footage of them - catching these trains.

Jim: Now, you might want to explain there that there is an Israeli company that makes monitoring-videos that are spread all over London. There are ten thousand, or twenty thousand of them, and they showed one frame of these three young men, attempting to enter a subway. The fourth… was on an independent track then, was he Muad’Dib? Because it wasn’t all four of them in that particular photograph, or was it?

Muad’Dib: Which photograph are you referring to?

Jim: You-know, the one still frame you point out how they had to use a still frame…

Muad’Dib: Oh, that’s outside Luton Station, and it shows the four of them on this single, single-frame shot, okay?

Jim: Right.

Muad’Dib: It shows all…

Jim: (crosstalk) … supposedly the government’s most important evidence that they were involved in this.

Muad’Dib: Exactly. Because there was no video-footage of them getting on the tube-trains, or the bus.

Jim: You-know, there’s this fascinating parallel between this event and 9/11 because, the United States pays billions of dollars to have the most sophisticated air-defence system in the world, and yet on 9/11, it didn’t work. You pay millions of dollars to have the sophisticated surveillance system in London, and yet on 7/7 it didn’t work.  

Muad’Dib: Yes. And…

Jim: … this cannot be a coincidence.

Muad’Dib: No. There are something like, I’m not sure whether it’s three, or four MILLION CCTV cameras, in London.

Jim: (surprised) Million?

Muad’Dib: Million.

Jim: Wow.

Muad’Dib: It’s the most surveilled city, in the world. It has at least three, and I think it is nearer to four million CCTV cameras, in the streets... I’m not talking about in shops, I’m talking about in the streets…

Jim: Can you imagine how many employees it would take to even monitor (starts laughing in astonishment) millions of cameras?

Muad’Dib: Yes, exactly. And the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Jim: Stunning. Absolutely stunning. So these guys missed the train they had to take in order to arrive at the tube-stations, to catch the trains where they were supposed to plant their phoney satchels for the fake terrorist attack.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: But of course, the fact that they missed the tube, was simply an inconvenience, because the terrorist-drill went forward even in their absence.

Muad’Dib: Oh yes, absolutely. And, what happened was that the actual explosives were fastened under the floors of the trains. There are eyewitness accounts of people who were in the tube-trains that blew up, and survived, and they have stated (and I’ve quoted them in the film as saying that) the floor blew up, not down, and that there was no Muslim with a backpack, there was no backpack, there was no luggage, there was nothing in the place inside the train where the explosion took place…

Jim: And as you observe, the physical effects would be very different too if they were in the car, then the steel would have been blown downwards and out, instead it’s upward and out, plus, because it’s between the bottom of the car and the ground, it causes the train… that section of the train to go off the rail! Which is exactly what happened and if it had been inside the car with the force going mostly upward it wouldn’t have had that effect. 

Muad’Dib: Exactly. Yes. And, so anyway, the photograph that you referred to is outside Luton Station, and it’s time stamped. Date-and-time stamped, and this was their one big piece of evidence that they were presenting to the public to try to incriminate these four young Muslims, because there was no footage of them in London, and no footage of them getting on the tubes, because they didn’t catch the tubes because they were too late. So…

Jim: … because the two trains that would have been the ones that would have enabled them to do it were cancelled.

Muad’Dib: Yes, that’s right.

Jim: Do we know why they were cancelled?

Muad’Dib: There was some problem on one of the lines, that they were working on and doing repairs, and that caused delays and then eventually, I suppose they got a backlog of trains backed up, and, so they cancelled two of them. Because…

Jim: … so it’s truly fortuitous that those particular two trains were cancelled.

Muad’Dib: Oh, absolutely, yes.

Jim: Fascinating.

Muad’Dib: Yes. And so then, as the authorities have got this time-stamped, dated and time-stamped photograph of the four of them supposedly outside of Luton Station, at this particular time, and saying that they caught this particular train…

Jim: (laughs in astonishment) … but it’s the train that was cancelled, right?!

Muad’Dib: Exactly, yes.

Jim: So they had it all prepared, with a date and time, but it was for them entering a train that didn’t actually run.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: Amazing. Wonderful!

Muad’Dib: But what’s even more amazing about it is that that photograph has been photoshopped. It’s a forgery, they fabricated it as evidence.

Jim: Yes.

Muad’Dib: Okay? And…

Jim: Well it’s like the famous backyard photograph of Lee Oswald, there’s an insert line by the chin; it’s not Oswald’s chin. When he was shown the photograph he said it was his face pasted on someone else’s body. Jack White is showing that the two communist newspapers he’s holding can be used as an internal ruler, so the individual in the photograph is either too short to be Oswald, or the newspapers were introduced too large to be genuine. So we have proof there that it was a fakery. And the weapon they planted on Oswald, this obscure WWII Mannlicher-Carcarno only has a muzzle velocity of 2000 ft/s, while the President was killed by the impact of high velocity bullets. The Mannlicher-Carcarno isn’t capable of firing them, which means that Lee Oswald couldn’t have killed him with bullets firing from the weapon that he’s alleged to have used. 

Muad’Dib: No.

Jim: So very similar here, all these techniques, I say again just study JFK and you can transfer it over to 9/11 and to 7/7. You do a masterful job, I mean 7/7 is an education all by itself.

Muad’Dib: Yes. And the thing is, that you have to take into consideration the fact that they have now got far more sophisticated equipment, for fabricating and for doing all these alterations,

Jim: That’s right, using digital techniques it’s much easier to fake photographs.

Muad’Dib: … than they did in 1963.

Jim: That’s right.

Muad’Dib: Yes. So, once you then see that this… you start to analyse the single time-stamped photograph, this single frame, and start to see that it has been fabricated, and I mean it’s full of flaws.

Jim: Now, the young man who was supposed to ride on the bus however, managed somehow to get into the city. Did he separate from them and not go on the tube and take a bus in?

Muad’Dib: No, they all must have caught the train into London…

Jim: Yes, the later train…

Muad’Dib: … the later train, which didn’t get them there in time for the three of them to catch the tubes that blew up.

Jim: Right.

Muad’Dib: But the explosion on the road-vehicle was to happen later, an hour later.

Jim: So he had enough time to carry out his part of it.

Muad’Dib: Exactly, so as far as we can see from what has been released in the mainstream-media, he split off from the three of them, and went about his business. He went into a McDonalds and he went into a Boots chemist shop to buy a battery, they say. And they’ve shown photographs of him at Boots (in King’s Cross) Station and then they’ve recently put out another video and they show him, his head and shoulders; very, very tiny, hopping about amongst this crowd outside King’s Cross Station, which again, could have been fabricated.

Jim: Of course, he does not realise yet that he’s part… he’s just playing the role of a patsy, a pawn, in this elaborate scheme. But the bus-route here, that he wound up on is extremely revealing, tell us about that.

Muad’Dib: Yes, well they say that he caught the number 91 bus, and he caught it from King’s Cross, to Euston Station, to get on a number 30 bus, and the…

Jim: … which was the target vehicle, by the way, was the number 30 bus.

Muad’Dib: That’s correct, yes. And, the number 30 bus, retraces the route of the 91, back to where he started from and goes the other way, past where he got onto the number 91 at King’s Cross. So it is totally illogical that he would do that. Why would he catch a 91 bus, to Euston Station, to catch a number 30 bus hat he could have caught at King’s Cross, if it hadn’t been diverted? It’s totally and utterly illogical, and anybody that was familiar with London, a Londoner; which is why they had to choose people from 200 miles away; anybody that lived in London, would know that they could get on the number 30 at King’s Cross, so they wouldn’t have gone to Euston, to catch it.

Jim: And the 91 actually turns into Tavistock Square itself, that was its destination.

Muad’Dib: Exactly.

Jim: So if that’s where he was headed, he shouldn’t have gotten off the bus at all.

Muad’Dib: No, he should have stayed on the 91 and blown that up if he was going to…

Jim: (laughing)

Muad’Dib: Yes! But you see, the number 30 bus... the cameras didn’t work on the number 30 bus (laughs)… just like….

Jim: … just another amazing coincidence, just amazing.

Muad’Dib: Yeah, yes. All these coincidences. 

Jim: Just remarkable. So he gets on the number 30 bus, and it takes a turn, that actually I think it shouldn’t have taken, isn’t that right? It wasn’t part of its route to go to Tavistock.

Muad’Dib: That’s correct. It should have gone straight along Euston Road, back to King’s Cross…

Jim: So that’s another bizarre aspect of all of this.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: And of course, he’s been told to sit at a particular location in the bus with his backpack. And then we get a fellow who rushes up after this event and says he thinks he saw this suicide bomber there. And he gives us a fanciful story that seems to be laden with contradictions. Why don’t you address that for us, briefly.

Muad’Dib: Oh, well, he gives a description of the person he says was a suicide-bomber, and the description, both of the person and their clothing, doesn’t fit the photograph that we’ve been shown of Hassib Hussein, by the authorities. So, there’s that for a kick-off, to start with, and also it’s obvious from what this witness is saying, that this witness was on the lower deck of the bus, not the upper deck…

Jim: … which was of course where the suicide-bomber; allegedly; was riding.

Muad’Dib: Exactly. And…

Jim: So how could he have seen him, maybe he has X-ray vision, maybe he’s you-know…

Muad’Dib: (laughing)… like Superman yeah…

Jim: (laughing)… yeah, possessed of unusual properties. And he seemed to give inconsistent descriptions of him, did he not? He gave 2 or three different reports about all this that weren’t in harmony with one another.

Muad’Dib: Yeah. That’s correct. Yeah. And, he contradicted himself so many times in different interviews that he did with different branches of the media.

Jim: Now, was that young man actually killed in the explosion?

Muad’Dib: That we don’t know. We’ve no way of knowing whether he was actually killed in the explosion on the bus… and there must have been pre-planted explosives on the bus.

Jim: Right. Right. That’s why they had to be so specific about where he was to sit and all that.

Muad’Dib: And which bus he had to catch, and at what time, and all the rest of it.

Jim: What do you think was the purpose of taking it off of its normal route into Tavistock, to minimise collateral-damage?

Muad’Dib: Well, there are various theories about this. One is the fact that Tavistock Square, and Tavistock House is where the Tavistock Clinic was founded, and… the Tavistock Clinic is the place where they started using mind control.

Jim: This is very interesting, did I tell you on my first trip to London I stayed at the Tavistock Hotel?

Muad’Dib: Yes… (Jim laughs)… yeah, you did. So that’s fortuitous as well, because you know exactly where it is.

Jim: Yeah, but I had no idea about some of these ramifications you’re mentioning about mind-control and all that.

Muad’Dib: Yes, and the ICTS, which is another Israeli security firm; transport security firm; has their office in Tavistock Square.

Jim: Hmmm.

Muad’Dib: As well as they have an office at Luton, not far from the station.

Jim: So the speculation, I realise this is a bit conjectural you-know, but I mean it can’t have been the normal bus-driver, can it? I mean he surely knows his own route, he knows he doesn’t turn right, and had…

Muad’Dib: … Well, it was a roadblock.

Jim: Oh, there was a roadblock?

Muad’Dib: Yes, they diverted that particular bus, with a roadblock. There were a couple of…

Jim: … temporarily ad-hoc, it’s like JFK going down Main Street and they encounter a road-block, so he takes a right onto Houston and turns on to Elm and it’s to slow the limousine down so the shooters will have a better opportunity to take him out, but they actually have police there with a barricade and all that… I’ll bet that was a short-term barricade…

Muad’Dib: Oh yes, absolutely.

Jim: Like 5 minutes, just to divert the bus and then it all disappears.

Muad’Dib: And then it disappears, yes, that’s what…

Jim: (laughing)... isn’t that something, isn’t that something!

Muad’Dib: ... and it wasn’t the regular bus-driver of that bus, that drove the bus.

Jim: Of course. Of course, of course.

Muad’Dib: And the cameras on that bus which were also; I believe were also the Verint Systems, Israeli System’s cameras; were not working that day.

Jim: Isn’t that fascinating, isn’t that fascinating? (laughs) … what happened to the young man then that was on board of the bus, did he wind up dead?

Muad’Dib: Well if he was on the bus… we don’t know for certain that he was on the bus.

Jim: Oh, you mean he was blown to smithereens, he was blown so completely they don’t even have body parts to identify him?

Muad’Dib: Well, they found his I.D., but…

Jim: … like the highjacker I.D. that survived the destruction of the Twin Towers. This is really fantastic, isn’t it. I mean there’s so many patterns here, so many commonalities. 

Muad’Dib: Yes. And the person they say was the ring-leader of the four, they found his I.D. in 3 of the blast locations.

Jim: But as you observe in the video, it would have been impossible for him to have been in any two, much less three of those locations at the same time.

Muad’Dib: Precisely.

Jim: I guess they wanted to make sure that everybody knew who was (laughs) responsible here. It’s like the highjacker’s manual and the list of the 19 alleged highjackers found in Mohammed Atta’s suitcase, his luggage and what-not, at Logan Airport in Boston. The absurdity here!

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: I mean, playing the people for saps, you-know, playing us for suckers, it’s so brazen, as you say.

Muad’Dib: Mmhm, yes. But you see in the initial stages that morning, there were no bombs and there were no suicide-bombers in the initial stories. What they said was that it was an electrical power-surge, and they maintained that for quite some time. And then, after this witness suddenly, magically appeared and said, he saw a suicide-bomber on the bus, then that set in frame, in everybody’s minds, “Oh... suicide-bombers!” and then of course, they all started going on from there.

Jim: How did the power-surge play into all of this? I know we found a dead electrician who may have been responsible for it, but how did that figure into all of this?

Muad’Dib: Well that was what the official story was, for the pandemonium, really, in the underground, was that they said that it had been a power-surge.

Jim: Oh, they did not say that it had been the blowing up of these bombs…

Muad’Dib: No, no. That came later, after they had released the information of this witness that had been interviewed on camera, saying that, you-know, he saw the suicide-bomber, on the bus... and then “oh, it’s suicide-bombers…” and then of course, it generated from there to it not being a power-surge on the tube-trains, but those being suicide-bombers as well. And then, suddenly, “oh, they knew the identity of these suicide-bombers” and all the rest of it. 

Jim: What was the role of the power-surge, I mean it seems to me to be a superfluous part of this, why did they introduce it?

Muad’Dib: I’m really not sure, why they did that.

Jim: Very curious. We do find the electrician dead.

Muad’Dib: Yeah, yes. It could be that the explosives; that were fastened under the floors of the trains; were actually detonated by a power-surge.

Jim: Ah. A power-surge. Yea. Stand by, this is Jim Fetzer your host on The Real Deal with my very special guest, Muad’Dib, the producer of 7/7 Ripple Effect. Go to your computer, download it now, make copies, distribute them far and wide. This is a tutorial in false flag operations. We’ll be right back.


Part 3:

Jim: This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib, who created the DVD “7/7 Ripple Effect” and I recommend to everyone, use their computer to download this at their earliest opportunity, make copies, distribute them. This is a brilliant tutorial, in the planning and execution of a false flag attack. And I just learnt from Muad’Dib during the break, that he’s actually a Stones fan, so that… (laughter)… we may have a difference in our musical taste but nevertheless… God, has he done a marvellous job here, I regard this as a Masterpiece. Now, Muad’Dib let’s return to what happened to the other 3, because, I mean they were starting to figure out that something was going on and they were supposed to have been a part of it, but weren’t.

Muad’Dib: Yes, if we follow the story as we’ve been told it by the mainstream media, and see the discrepancies and how it doesn’t fit, because the trains they were supposed to have caught were cancelled, and they couldn’t possibly have caught the tube-trains that blew up. But if they actually caught a train, from Luton, later-on, and got to London, to King’s Cross, after the tube-trains had left, and blown-up, they must have very quickly figured-out that they had been set up, and that they were patsies, and they’d then be in a panic, wondering what they could do, where they could go. They would know that they couldn’t trust the people that had got them there and set them up as patsies, and they wouldn’t know anybody that they could trust in London, because they were from 200 miles away - their homes - and so it would appear that what they did was that they went from King’s Cross, and they went across to Canary Wharf, which is in the Docklands area, in the East-End of London. And that’s where Reuters is, and a lot of the main print media. So, they could have gone there, to try to tell their story, to Reuters. They probably would innocently think that Reuters wasn’t part of the system, and that Reuters might help them, which I doubt very much, but, there’s also the possibility that if they couldn’t get the media there to listen to them and to print and publish their story, about what had happened… was that they could, from there, because there’s an airport, London Airport, is in the same location. And there are flights to 32 different destinations, throughout Britain and throughout Europe, from London Airport. And so, they had the possibility of catching a flight, or, if they couldn’t catch a flight, also, being at the docklands, they had a possibility of getting a boat, to get away from England and get across to France, where they should have been safe. But, on the television that morning, just once, it was broadcast that the authorities had shot and killed three suicide-bombers, in Canary Wharf, in the Docklands. So, that also doesn’t fit with the official story, because, the official story is that these three people were on the tubes, and they were suicide-bombers who blew up the tubes, and obviously blew themselves up at the same time. So how could they then, possibly be in Canary Wharf and be shot by the authorities?  
Jim: (laughter) That’s wonderful. How does a suicide-bomber survive his bombing, only to be shot by the police, and of course, notice what a wonderful scenario it is. I mean, here are the guys who know the truth about the situation and could implicate the government in this whole fiasco. And the police have this wonderful excuse for shooting them dead on the street.

Muad’Dib: Yes. It’s absolutely amazing.

Jim: But as you say, look at the incoherency of the thesis. These are suicide-bombers, so they are all ostensibly already dead. It’s as David Ray Griffen has pointed out, that we have six or seven of the alleged highjackers, living, alive and well in the Middle-East, but how is that possible if they died in the crash of their planes, when they took over those four commercial carriers?

Muad’Dib: Yes, and there was even Mohammed Atta’s dad, said that he’d been contacted by his son, after 9/11, and he said he couldn’t tell him where he was, because he was afraid. But then obviously, he was phoning him up and saying he was still alive.

Jim: (laughter) We’re just being played for saps. It’s amazing what percentage of the American people, or the British population are so gullible, that they could swallow any of this. It’s just, it’s reinforced by the massive power of the media and the government itself, so that, you-know, if you’re disbelieving, if you don’t accept it, then there’s supposed to be something wrong with you.

Muad’Dib: Yes, and they sling this insult, this ‘conspiracy theorist’ insult, so that people think that you’re a nutcase.

Jim: It’s really a shame, because I mean obviously the government’s own account of 7/7 is a conspiracy of these four young men, just as the 9/11 attack, official account is a conspiracy involving 19, plus this guy off in a cave in Afghanistan. So, you’ve got a conspiracy either way. If you’ve exposed the government’s shenanigans, then that’s simply a deeper, darker, more sinister conspiracy, than the one the government itself has floated and that’s true, whether you’re talking about 9/11 or 7/7.

Muad’Dib: Yes. Well they have to blame somebody else to take the spotlight off themselves. That’s what criminals do. If there’s any chance a criminal is being caught, they point the finger at someone else.

Jim: But of course, the whole point is, to blame it on these Islamic terrorists, so that we can sustain, or justify a war on terror, increased contraction of civil-rights, more surveillance, and if you’re getting up to millions of cameras, it’s hard to imagine how you could have, more surveillance in a town like London.  

Muad’Dib: Yes, it’s amazing. One of the police officers that day, who was interviewed on the television, said that London is the most surveilled City in the world, and they have said that the average person, in London, is caught on CCTV cameras, at least 300 times a day…

Jim Fetzer: (laughing) Jesus Christ…

Muad’Dib: … so, what this chief police officer said on television - there was sort of a podium with seats and there were 3 or 4 of them there and there was Ian Bliar, who is the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who is the head man, and then others with pips on their shoulders and, you-know, high-ranking officers - and one of them who said this about the cameras, he said well, he said London is a very CCTV-rich-environment, I’m sure that we will have no trouble in tracing these people, every step of the way. And of course, none of that came about, because they weren’t there to be seen on the cameras.  

Jim: It’s like when the US insisted that the Taliban deliver Osama bin Laden into the hands of the US and the Taliban resisted and said well, when you produce evidence that he was involved we’ll do that. And Condoleezza Rice promised she would give a white paper, a study that showed exactly that, which, of course, never came to pass, and eventually the FBI would admit that the reason why Osama bin Laden was not wanted for involvement in the events of 9/11 is because they had no hard evidence showing that he was involved. I mean, it’s just simply astounding how the governments can act in such a brazen way and seek to mislead the people.

Muad’Dib: Yes. And the fact that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset who’s code name was Tim Osman.


Jim: Yes, yes. We forget that. We forget that. And the whole idea of Al Qaida was a creation of the CIA too and it was really their financial records for, you-know, for funding the resistance to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, where we eventually supplied them with Stinger missiles that started bringing Soviet helicopters out of the sky at such a rate, that the Soviets had to abandon Afghanistan. I mean, I’m waiting for the Taliban or whoever to start employing, you-know, more sophisticated weapons against the United States military presence.

Muad’Dib: Yes, and the fact that America knew exactly where to bomb, because they’d helped to build these places in the first place.

Jim: That’s right. That’s right, that’s right. David Ray Griffen by the way, has a new book, it’s a little book. It’s only a hundred pages long about Osama bin Laden, ‘Dead or Alive’ and I interviewed him on this program about a week or so ago, and all the evidence indicates that Osama died of, no doubt of health related causes, around the middle of December in 2001.

Muad’Dib: Yeah. And so all these videos purporting to be him, that have been brought out at important moments, for the politicians, are all fakes.

Jim: That’s exactly right. Just as 7/7 was a fake, just as 9/11 was a fake, and it just so happens that these events happened to promote the political programs of key players, in your case the prime minister, Tony Bliar, who was not a very popular guy around the time this event took place. 

Muad’Dib: No, the government almost was voted out of power. They went from a very large majority in the General Election, to almost being voted out of power, because the people had been demonstrating out in the streets, that they didn’t want the British troops to be fighting in the Middle-East in this so-called “War OF Terror”. They wanted the troops brought home.

Jim: Hadn’t one of Bliar’s most devoted followers lost his seat in a special election which sent fear, talk about ripple effect… through the entire party?

Muad’Dib: Yes, that had happened as well.

Jim: So, isn’t it amazing that just by the surest coincidence this event occurs, and revives Tony Blair’s political fortunes.

Muad’Dib: Yes, exactly on cue, and also the fact that they did it at the time of Gleneagles when George Bush and the world leaders were meeting to discuss making poverty history. And, of course they wanted to change the agenda very quickly on that.

Jim: Yeah, what was it they originally had on their agenda that they switched to the War against Terror?

Muad’Dib: Well, the Live 8 concerts that most of your listeners might be familiar with. There were Live 8 concerts all around the world.

Jim: O, Live Aid? Oh right, okay got it.

Muad’Dib: Yes, well they were actually called Live Eight (8), this time. Eight, because there were eight cities taking part in it, and it was televised from each of the eight cities.

Jim: Those were anti-war concerts?

Muad’Dib: They were about making poverty history; they were about forgiving the third world debt. And of course…

Jim: Aha. And the G8 would take a dim view of that.

Muad’Dib: Oh yes, absolutely.

Jim: So the Live 8 was in a way in opposition to the policies of the G8.


Muad’Dib: Yes, and…

Jim: … well, these guys were then shot dead on the street by London Special Forces?

Muad’Dib: According to the media, yes.

Jim: And of course, I mean, it’s no problem turning them up dead right? I’m sure those bodies are the real bodies of the real guys? They knew how to silence them forever…

Muad’Dib: Yes, so they can’t tell anybody.

Jim: Do you think the bus bomber survived? Is there any chance he’s alive or has he actually turned up on a slab in a morgue as well?

Muad’Dib: Well, the parents were all contacted and told that they could have; you-know; the bodies back in pieces. So what they did with the bodies, I really don’t know, after you-know… after they were dead.

Jim: Told them they could have them back in pieces… yeah, that’s real nice… (sarcastic)

Muad’Dib: Yes, and some of them have been buried in Pakistan, rather than in the U.K..

Jim: Are the parents aware, of how badly their sons were abused in this case, have they seen your 7/7 Ripple Effect? Have they expressed support for your effort to bring the truth, to the British people?

Muad’Dib: They’re all frightened, and we can’t seem to get them involved, we can’t seem to get them to answer. I’ve sent via mail and also sent people to visit them, to make sure that they got copies of the film, the DVDs. But, they are very, very frightened, and well, quite understandably after what’s happened. And, there hasn’t really been any response from them, I’m sad to say.

Jim: Has there ever been any formal enquiry to verify what actually happened on 7/7?

Muad’Dib: No. The government, Tony Bliar in particular said that having a public inquiry would be a “ludicrous diversion”.

Jim: (laughs in amazement) A ludicrous diversion? That’s very much like Bush and Cheney putting off an inquiry into 9/11 for 441 days.

Muad’Dib: Yes. Well that’s why, as I said, the name of the film... I watched two films, one was “Mind the Gap”, which was by an ex-MI5 agent, David Shayler, and then the second film I watched was called “Ludicrous Diversion”, and it’s about 7/7 and explaining; they chose the title because of the statement that Tony Bliar made, that an inquiry would be a ludicrous diversion, so that’s why they picked the title. But neither of them, you-know, they pulled apart bits and pieces of the official conspiracy theory, but neither of them put it together as to actually what did happen. So, that’s why I did what I did with “7/7 Ripple Effect”.

Jim: Now tell me a bit about the consequences since. I gather that the Crown is now attempting to prosecute some friends or associates of the four alleged suicide-bombers, no doubt to try to reinforce the impression in the minds of the public that the original story, the government told was true and that they shouldn’t pay attention to, you-know, (sarcasm) scurrilous rogues like you, who have put out this highly misleading propagandistic piece called “7/7 Ripple Effect”.

Muad’Dib: Yes. Well, the government are obviously very frightened of my film, and they are frightened of the effect of it, proving to most people’s satisfaction… anybody with an open mind who watches my film, will believe that it is what actually happened, as I am convinced that that is what actually happened; and, the Ripple Effect of it… more and more people are making copies of it and are handing it out to people that they know, so the ripples are rippling and spreading and spreading, and the government is frightened of the effect of that, because they want to keep it quiet. They want everybody to believe that it is as they have put it out, through their propaganda-machine, the mainstream-media. And, I’m undermining their credibility with my film, so, they have to try to convince the British public, or keep the British public convinced, that the story they’ve given them is correct, and that the bombings were carried out by these four young Muslims. And so, as they can’t prosecute these four young Muslims, because they’re dead, they have then attacked three of their friends, and accused them of assisting the four alleged suicide-bombers by doing hostile-reconnaissance, and going and looking at targets and things, in advance, for them to decide what they were going to do and what they were going to blow up. And, so they arrested these other three young men who were friends of theirs, and have charged them with doing hostile-reconnaissance and assisting the original four that they allege carried out the bombings, and put them on trial. And, they’re desperate to convict those three young men, of assisting the other four, so that, by extension, they would prove, if they could get a guilty verdict on these three, they would, by extension, prove to the British public that the four alleged ones actually did do it, and that my film is wrong. And, so, what happened was that whilst they were being put on trial, it was reported in the media that the prosecuting barrister (lawyer – they’re called Q.C.s in the UK), the prosecutor, said to the jury, that there was no doubt, and no dispute that the four original young Muslims had carried out these atrocious attacks, these bombings. And, so he was lying to the jury.

Jim: This is the judge himself?

Muad’Dib: No, this is the prosecution.

Jim: The prosecutor, who’s supposed to represent the Crown.

Muad’Dib: Yes, that’s right. And so, the jury were being misled, because millions of people…

Jim: … from scratch, from scratch…

Muad’Dib: … yes, from scratch. Because millions of people doubt that these four young men did it, and millions of people dispute, that these four young Muslims did it. So, the prosecutor telling the jury, that there is no doubt and no dispute and that these four alleged suicide-bombers were actually the suicide-bombers and they were guilty, is lying, and misleading the jury, which is a perversion, that is perverting the course of justice, by lying to the jury. In fact, he should be charged with perjury.

Jim: And I take it the barristers, the attorneys representing the accused are not putting up a fight, but are conceding and complicit in this deception.

Muad’Dib: Exactly, yes because I sent copies of the film to them as well, saying, please use this evidence, introduce it into the case, to defend your clients, because this will show that the jury is being misled, being lied to about the original four having committed these crimes, and so, if the four original ones didn’t commit the crime, then these other three couldn’t possibly have helped them to do something they didn’t do.

Jim: (being sarcastic) And of course, the barristers were all very grateful that you had sent them your DVD and are going to introduce it as evidence in court.

Muad’Dib: Well no, they didn’t answer at all, and they actually advised these three young men, their clients, they advised them not to question the official story, otherwise they might end up with very long prison-sentences.

Jim: Yeah, my sarcasm is just to reflect the absurdity of the situation and the miscarriage of justice that’s being perpetrated for political propagandistic purposes.

Muad’Dib: Yeah, and to make it worse, the judge of the case, when he was selecting the members of the jury, he told the prospective members of the jury, also, he told them that the four alleged-bombers actually were guilty of carrying out these bombings. So the judge, as well as the prosecution, is misleading the jury.

Jim: And of course, he’s making a declaration that is not the fact, because there has been no legal determination, there having been no formal enquiry.

Muad’Dib: Exactly. So, both the judge and the prosecution, were in effect perverting the course of justice, by misleading the jury; lying to them; giving them false information, and this was reported in the press. So, having done all the research that I’ve done and having made the film, which to my satisfaction; and to the satisfaction of every person who has an open mind who has watched the film; proves that these four young men were innocent, then, I had to send the film to the Court, as an Amicus Curiae brief, as a Friend of the Court brief. I had to send this information, because I thought, surely this judge wouldn’t be saying this to the jury-members, if he knew the truth. Perhaps, naïve of me. So, I sent a copy of the DVD to the judge, Care Of the Court. And I sent five copies, to the Court, addressed to the foreman of the jury, because the jury and the judge are the people who will determine whether these people are guilty or not. Only a fully-informed jury can reach a proper conclusion, and when the jury are having critically-important evidence withheld from them, purposefully, and are being lied to at the same time, there is NO possibility of these three young men getting a fair trial, because, the authorities are striving to pervert the course of justice. And so, I sent the film to the judge, thinking, well, when the judge sees this, surely he will apologise to the jury for having misled them, and tell them the truth, that the four original ones… there is doubt as to whether, you-know, even if he doesn’t say they’re innocent, he could say there is some doubt whether they were guilty or not, and I’m sorry that I told you they were guilty. And, I thought it was also be possible that they would ask me to come as a witness, and that was perhaps naïve of me as well. But, it had to be done. Any right-thinking person, knowing what I knew, having done all this investigation… no right-thinking person could not do what I did, and send this (information) to the court... I couldn’t sit-by, and let them pervert the course of justice and there be a miscarriage of justice, and these men get 20, 30, 40 years in prison each, for something that they couldn’t possibly have done. And I couldn’t do that. And that’s happened time after time in the UK. There’s been cases where people have spent 15 years, 16 years, some as many as 27 years in prison, for crimes that they didn’t commit. The famous ones are Irish people, who have been convicted. There was the Guildford Four; The Birmingham Six, the McGuire Seven, and there’s probably countless others who we haven’t heard about.


Jim: Well, I admire you for doing that, as well as for creating this Masterpiece, and when we return, we’ll discover how the court responded and the situation you’re in today, for your efforts to bring the truth to the court and to the British people. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib who created the DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”. We’ll be right back.

Part 4:

Jim: This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib who created “7/7 Ripple Effect”, a simply brilliant analysis of the events of 7 July 2005 in London, where a false-flag terrorist-attack was being camouflaged as an anti-terrorist-exercise. He has done such a devastating exposé, that anyone who watches this video, which is less than an hour in length, will understand how these things are done, and how the British government has paralleled the American government in manipulating the British population, just as the American government has manipulated the American population, by using acts of violence to instill fear, in order to ensure our political support for an agenda that we would otherwise never have been inclined to favour. It’s wonderful for me to have the privilege to have Muad’Dib here with me. Muad, you explained how you had sent the copies of your DVD to the judge, to the jury and to the barristers, in the interest of truth and justice, and how the effect, however, that came about, was not precisely what you had intended.

Muad’Dib: Yes, that’s correct. What happened was that I sent them, and I sent them anonymously, because it wasn’t about me; it was about the evidence, that was being withheld from the jury, and exposing the fact that they were being lied to by the prosecution. And that the judge had also misled the jury, when selecting the jury, by saying that the four people, the four young Muslims were guilty, when they had never been found guilty in a court of law; there’s been no public enquiry; they have been convicted by the media and this judge was wrong, in instructing the jury, saying that these four young men were guilty, when they have never been found guilty. And my film proves, to my satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of hopefully millions of people around the world who have seen it, and who’ve… I’ve had many, many people thank me for making it and opening their eyes, and the film proves that these four young men were patsies and that they were innocent. So, as a Friend of the Court, which is called an Amicus Curiae, Friend of the Court brief, I sent the copies of the DVD to the people who have to do the deciding, which is the members of the jury, and the judge. And instead of the… I sent them to the Court. I didn’t send them to anybody’s home, I didn’t do anything underhand, it was all above board, I sent them “Care Of the Court”, where the trial was being held. So, they were received by the Court authorities, and the Court authorities could have accepted them as a voluntary Amicus Curiae brief, and they could have given the copies, to the people who were deciding in the case, of all this evidence that was being withheld. And they could even have; by looking at the DVD and looking at the e-mail addresses; they could have contacted me and asked me if I would be prepared to come and be a witness, to which I would have said yes. But, instead of that, because these people are so devious and so evil, they didn’t accept it as an Amicus Curiae brief and they have charged me with doing what they’re guilty of doing. They’re guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice. And so, they have accused me of doing what they have actually done, they’ve accused me of attempting to pervert the course of justice, public justice, contrary to Common Law. Which was never my intention. My intention was to prevent them from perverting the course of justice and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. And to see Justice done. So, they have then issued a charge against me, in the U.K., of attempting to pervert the course of justice. And they served a warrant and then they have applied to the E.U., to the European Union, to the court there, for an international European Arrest Warrant, to have me arrested and extradited, to the U.K., to stand trial for attempting to pervert the course of justice in this particular trial. And so, the European International Arrest Warrant was sent to the Irish police, and they came - a gang of them - there were two plain-clothes officers, and there were either four or six uniformed, I’m not quite sure; there were a lot of them; came early one morning, in February and I was still in bed. They came in and arrested me, showed me this warrant, got me out of bed and took me to the police-station and etc. etc. And I’ve been going through the court-process since then, fighting the extradition, because I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. This is a malicious-prosecution and it is politically-motivated. It is meant to punish me, for having made the film. That’s the bottom line. The British government, is really afraid of my film and they want to punish me. Because I won’t play ball with them, and recant on what I’ve said, they have decided to try and punish me through the courts and accused me of this false charge. 

Jim: The official account of the events of 7/7, like the official account of the events of 9/11, have the status of a quasi-religious dogma, that if you assume it; the official accounts; to be true, of course, then you would be guilty of some form of subversion, because the contents of your video would have to have been fabricated. On the other hand, it is so obvious that what you have produced is authentic and genuine. You have in fact decisively refuted the official account, which leaves the government in this extremely awkward position. Have any of the authorities in Ireland even reviewed your DVD, to see what it is you are supposed to have done, you’re alleged to have done, that is supposed to be the offence under law?

Muad’Dib: No, at the extradition hearing, the judge at the hearing promised to watch the film, before giving his decision. And, later on, when we had another appearance for him to give his decision, he said that he hadn’t watched the film, so it had had no effect on his decision.  

Jim: That’s unbelievable. That’s unbelievable!

Muad’Dib: Yes, after he had said that he would watch it. And of course he could not possibly have come to a correct decision without having watched the film.

Jim: This is the crucial evidence of the case!

Muad’Dib: Exactly.

Jim: How can you be tried, even in a British Court without showing the video to the jury?

Muad’Dib: Well, that… I don’t see how that could be possible, in the U.K..

Jim: If they’re going to do it, they’re going to make it a closed trial? They’ll control the evidence, they won’t even allow it to be shown, because it’s so inflammatory? It would be a completely rigged case; this is a moral and legal outrage.

Muad’Dib: Mmhm. And at the moment, over here in Ireland I’m facing a different process. I’m fighting the extradition here. I’m not fighting the actual case.

Jim: Yes.

Muad’Dib: That would be in England. If I get extradited then I have to fight the charge and fight the case in the U.K.. But, before that happens, I’m fighting here to not be extradited to the U.K., because, my life could be in danger, it’s a politically-motivated charge, it’s a malicious-prosecution, because, I didn’t do any harm. The DVDs never made it to the judge, never made it to the jury, so no harm whatsoever was done. They could have just said, well this is an Amicus Curiae brief, but we’re not going to accept it, and they could’ve just thrown it in the trash. But, that wouldn’t have served their purposes. They have decided to charge me with this false crime, in order to try to punish me for making the film, and to make an example of me, to deter other people from speaking the truth.

Jim: Of course. But what offence, even broadly construed, could you possibly have committed by exercising your freedom of speech, your freedom of the press, your freedom of enquiry, but for say, the existence of state secret acts in Britain, just as we seem to have some sort of shadowy parallel here in the United States.

Muad’Dib: Yes, I mean, I did absolutely nothing wrong. I did what any decent person, with the information that I had, and what was happening in that court, I did what any decent person should have the moral courage to do.

Jim: I completely agree, and if they were willing to shoot these three young men to death in the street, what are they going to be willing to do with you?

Muad’Dib: Exactly. Well, they’ve already been found guilty and acknowledged that they have been assisting in extraordinary-rendition, of British subjects, and facilitating the torture of British subjects in foreign countries.

Jim: Truly disgusting.

Muad’Dib: So…

Jim: Does Ireland want to be a party to that?

Muad’Dib: Well that’s what I’m going to find out. I have to appeal now, I’m waiting... I have appealed this decision from the High Court, where the judge ordered my extradition, without watching the film. I have appealed to the Irish Supreme Court. So, I…

Jim: … someone’s got to at some point look at the evidence, I mean this is absurd! How great a miscarriage of Justice can you have, and this is on an international scale.

Muad’Dib: Yes, absolutely, yes. I’m going to insist again that the Supreme Court, like I insisted that the High Court, watch the film, and the judge didn’t, I’m going to insist that the Supreme Court… there’s five judges on the Supreme Court bench… that they watch the film. To see that this is politically-motivated, and under the European Arrest Warrant Act of 2003 it prohibits the extradition of somebody, if it can be “reasonably believed” that the charge is politically-motivated, in order to punish the person for their political opinion.

Jim: Now, is your barrister affirming that defence? I mean, that’s a very important element of all of this.

Muad’Dib: Well, at the High Court, my barrister refused to use it!

Jim: Well, something is wrong with your barrister.

Muad’Dib: Exactly.

Jim: Muad’Dib, you’ve got to get somebody who has integrity, you’ve got to find another barrister.

Muad’Dib: Well, that’s what I’m striving to do at the moment, but the difficulty is, the barristers are not allowed to talk directly to the public; you have to go through a solicitor. And so the first thing is that I would have to find another solicitor and then find a solicitor that can find a barrister… I want to talk to the barristers myself, I want to talk to them to find out if they are going to fight the case the way I want it to be fought!

Jim: Of course!

Muad’Dib: And if they watch the film, and they believe in the film, and they can see that this is, you-know, that this is perverse, what they are doing to me, that it’s wrong, and that…

Jim: It’s a blatantly political prosecution, there’s no question about it. I mean that’s obvious to anyone who watches the DVD.

Muad’Dib: Yes. But the judge didn’t watch it. That’s the problem. After he said that he would watch it.

Jim: (crosstalk) How was he induced to not watch it? There’s a higher level influence going on here, something’s… you-know, somebody got the word to somebody, who got he word to him not to watch it, or, he’s lying that he didn’t watch it. 

Muad’Dib: I’m really not sure.

Jim: There’s something going on… the political-pressure in this case must be enormous behind the scenes.

Muad’Dib: Oh yes, absolutely. And the British have had MI5 agents infiltrated into the Irish government, and into the Irish police, and all of that and the court system, you-know, for hundreds of years - ever since the founding of the MI5. And the Irish people know that, that they’ve been infiltrated by the British.

Jim: Can you get this shown somewhere in Ireland? Can you get it shown at local pubs or something like that? I mean, it seems to me that there could be the possibility of a groundswell of support for you, if the Irish people would become aware of the existence of your DVD, and what it shows.

Muad’Dib: Well, I did go, as I said earlier in the interview, I did go around to all the public-houses, all the pubs in the area, but, I don’t have any transport; I use public transport and I don’t have unlimited resources to make, you-know, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of copies and go around every pub in the country, that’s…

Jim: Yeah, I understand. I understand.

Muad’Dib: I would like to be able to do that, or I would like to have people willing to help me to do that…

Jim: Right.

Muad’Dib: I’ve done as much as I can to encourage people to make copies and to spread them everywhere, like we’ve said earlier in the program.

Jim: Yes.

Muad’Dib: Everybody on the planet needs to see this film.

Jim: Oh, I think that’s true! I think that’s absolutely correct. Because this is the new form of political manipulation, using false-flag terrorism. This is perfect from the point of view of any government, because they can perpetrate any act, any time, anywhere that is politically convenient, or expedient, or useful.

Muad’Dib: And then control the media…

Jim: … control the media, control the judicial, the prosecution, murder the innocent pawns, in the street, with impunity.

Muad’Dib: And in that BBC program from 2004, they actually admit that they are going to control the media.

Jim: That’s right.

Muad’Dib: And they’re going to edit what is put out, and the story that will go out will be exactly according to their script.

Jim: And that’s what we have to understand is what’s been going on in the United States.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: Exactly the same in relation to 9/11. They’re controlling exactly what goes out, which is why it is so rare that you get any honest discussion of 9/11 on the television. If it weren’t for talk radio, if it weren’t for the Internet, I think we’d all be doomed to be subservient to the mass-media, and the information they provide, which is a thinly-veiled version of the government’s preferred treatment of every subject. 

Muad’Dib: Yes, so what we really need to do - those of us who are awake and aware of what’s happening - we need to motivate as many people as we possibly can and use the outlets that are at our disposal, like your radio program, other radio programs of other sympathetic people. And hopefully, we could eventually break through into the mainstream. There would come a break-point when the main-stream-media could no longer ignore it.

Jim: Have you thought of creating some kind of defence-fund, to provide you with additional, you-know, source of financing for legal representation? If you were to create such a thing and could tell me how to advertise or promote it, I would be glad to do that. I’d put it on Scholars, I’d put it on the New Forum, I’d do whatever I could to promote it.

Muad’Dib: Okay, some supporters of mine have started a website called ‘Friends of Muad’Dib’.

Jim: Friends of Muad’Dib.

Muad’Dib: Yes, and the url for it is

Jim: mtrial? That’s the whole title, just mtrial? For Muad’Dib’s trial, in other words.

Muad’Dib: Yes.

Jim: Alright.

Muad’Dib: They wanted to keep it as short as possible, so that people could easily remember it.

Jim: Well, I’ll certainly do what I can to make sure people are aware of this. Friends of Muad’Dib have a website at

Muad’Dib: Yes. And if people want to donate and help towards a fighting-fund then, you-know, I’d be very grateful.

Jim: Well, I can’t express my admiration sufficiently. I mean your study is completely brilliant. It’s not only a documentary-Masterpiece in the way it’s constructed, edited, the script, the filming, the whole deal. But it’s a tutorial, in how these things are done. So I’d say, you-know, any American, any Brit, any resident of The World who wants to understand what’s going on today, in manipulating political opinions by using acts of violence and threats of acts of violence to instill fear into a population, in order to manipulate them for political purposes, must study your DVD. And since the manipulation of a population using acts of violence or threats of acts of violence for political purposes is the very definition of terrorism, you have proven that the British government is using terrorism against the British people. Just as the 9/11 truth movement here has proven that the Bush-Cheney administration has used terrorism to benefit itself. It’s absolutely completely disgusting. It’s a violation of all the principles of morality, and civility, and of basic human-rights. I find it completely outrageous, and I’m inspired by your example, and I can only tell you how much I admire you and how much I want you to prevail, and hope, my profound hope is that the Supreme Court in Ireland will not allow itself to be manipulated by the British Intelligence apparatus, for the sake of a political trial that is intended to punish you for bringing the truth, or attempting to bring the truth to the people of the United Kingdom.

Muad’Dib: Thank-you.

Jim: I’m just so grateful to you.

Muad’Dib: It’s quite a daunting task to throw the gauntlet down against the government, single-handedly. Because, that’s really what the film is. I made the film, and I’ve sent it out. Really, I’ve thrown down the gauntlet to the British government.

Jim: Is there no politician in England, or no reporter, or no publication that has the courage and integrity to bring this to the attention of the British people? I mean, is there no exposé, no journal devoted to exposing governmental corruption that could not be induced into pursuing this; it seems to me that is what you need more than anything. You need… the threat of exposure is going to cause the British powers to back off on this, because the more people who learn about it, the more are going to be outraged, and the more it’s going to weaken their capacity to manipulate and manage public-opinion.

Muad’Dib: If there is such an organisation, I’m unaware of it. It would be nice if there was, it would be nice if there were lots of them, but I don’t know of any that are able to do that and are willing to do that. I suppose really the mainstream media, they are able to, but they are not willing to. There’s been nothing about my case in the media in the UK, about my arrest and extradition, all of this. There’s been nothing in the UK media about it, it’s all been kept quiet. Because, they don’t want people to know about it, because, if people know about it, they’ll want to watch the film.

Jim: Yet, from a political point of view, it’s probably the most important case in the UK in the last 10 or 20 years.

Muad’Dib: Yeah, yes.

Jim: (sighs).

Muad’Dib: The Irish media have picked it up… the Irish Republic, not the North of Ireland which is part of the U.K., as you probably know. The Irish media have picked it up, and..

Jim: … so there are Irish reporters who have viewed the video and are talking about it, writing about it?

Muad’Dib: No, they’ve just reported about me having been arrested, and I’ve made a film and you-know, they gave the name of the film, which was great, because anybody in Ireland who read the paper and was interested would Google the film, and then watch it, the people who haven’t actually received a copy from me or from other people who have been giving them out. But no, there’s nobody actually doing an exposé about it.

Jim: Well, one is desperately needed here and I can’t imagine a situation in which one would be more justifiable than here. Muad’Dib, I can’t thank you enough for your brilliant work and for your courage and integrity in pursuing these issues, and I can only say man, Godspeed to you, I want everything to work out for you and let the Truth be known, to The World.

Muad’Dib: Thank-you very much, and thank you for having me on your show.

Jim: I cannot thank you enough. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, thanking you all for listening, encouraging you all to go to 7/11 (sic) Ripple Effect, download…

Muad’Dib: 7/7!

Jim: … 7/7 Ripple Effect…

Muad’Dib: Yes, you said 7/11…(laughs)

Jim: Thank you so much, “7/7 Ripple Effect”, download it, make copies, get it around. This is a burning issue, I encourage you all. This is for all the marbles. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, thank-you for listening.

Syndicate content