The Truth Concerning the 9/11 Attacks, the 7/7 London Bombings and the “War on Terrorism”
Open Letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ~ yea like "these" elites lazy sick fucks ...will dooooooo any~thin :o hows bout we start wit .... geet a fucking job u para~fucking~sucking~sites ..let's start there ...bums LOL Oops
The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA
20th March 2015
An Appeal for the Truth concerning the 9/11 attacks, the 7/7 London Bombings and the “War on Terrorism”
Your Majesty
I am writing an open letter, born out of immense concern.
I believe that the truth and nature of the terrorist threat is dreadfully other than what it is ordinarily stated to be.
First of all, I believe that the events in New York on 11th
September 2001 (9/11) were horribly contrived. Instead of the buildings
falling due to the plane impacts, I believe that the 3 World Trade
Centre buildings, including World Trade Centre Building 7 (which was not
hit by a plane), fell as the result of preplanned explosive controlled
demolitions.
All 3 buildings collapsed at almost free-fall speed. Each began
suddenly, and collapsed straight down, symmetrically into its own
footprint. Great volumes of molten steel were seen pouring out from
parts of the buildings prior to their collapse. The demolitions were
accompanied by the sounds of explosions, amidst enormous dust clouds of
pulverised concrete. The steel structures were totally dismembered, with
many pieces of steel weighing several tons being violently ejected
several hundred feet horizontally, embedding themselves into adjacent
buildings.
I have enclosed a DVD by the organisation Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,1 called “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – the Architecture of Destruction.”2
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organisation of building
and technical professionals which has examined the science based
forensic evidence relating to the destruction of the buildings. It is
not an organisation of conspiracy theorists, but one which seeks to
establish the proper and technical truth of the collapses.
The evidence presented in the DVD gives proof beyond all reasonable
doubt that the buildings fell as the result of preplanned explosive
controlled demolitions.
But instead, as we know, the events were almost immediately
attributed to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and all without any
conventional investigation of due process.
However, the demolitions of 9/11, along with all that would have been
required to achieve this was utterly beyond the capability of “Islamic
terrorists”.
Furthermore, and crucially, the attributation of the events to that
of “Islamic terrorism” seemed to be both purposeful and determined.
The entire “war on terrorism” and all that has followed, has been
built upon the assertion of these attacks being the work of Islamic
terrorism. But again, such demolitions and the surrounding necessary
arrangements could not possibly have been the work of Islamic
terrorists.
Therefore, who is actually responsible and who is truly at the root
of these matters? It would appear that the “war on terrorism” has been
utterly contrived.
The London bombings of 7th July 2005 (7/7) share a number
of similarities with 9/11. Most prominently, that these events too were
swiftly asserted to be the work of Islamic terrorism, and again without
any conventional investigation of due process.
When we consider the events of 7/7 further, there are many deeply
troubling aspects about it. For example, there were several different
reports that the bombs had been placed under the trains, rather than the
explosions having been produced by bombs carried inside rucksacks. One
such report appeared in The Cambridge Evening News on Monday 11th July, as rescued passenger Mr Bruce Lait recounted how he had been helped out of the carriage:
“The policeman said ‘mind that hole, that’s where the bomb was’. The
metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.
“They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don’t remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,” he said.3
In fact Your Majesty, the newspaper article shows a photo of you
visiting Mr Lait whilst he was in hospital. Please find a copy of that
article enclosed, along with copies of the other articles that I quote
in this letter.
Also, there were various reports that people (described as bombers)
were shot and killed at Canary Wharf on 7/7 by British police. One
report was given in The New Zealand Herald on Saturday, 9th July 2005 and was entitled “Police shot bombers”:
A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues
witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide
bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.
The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of
the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).
Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were
told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least
six hours, the New Zealand man said.
He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues,
who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from
the tower.
Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.
Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.
Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower,
said he saw a “massive rush of policemen” outside the building after
London was rocked by the bombings.4
It seems that these reports never received any proper and conventional investigation?
As noted above, the attributation of both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks to
that of Islamic terrorism was extremely swift and without conventional
due process. The attributation appeared to be both purposeful and
determined. Furthermore, and once again, the preplanned explosive
controlled demolitions of the World Trade Centre buildings were way
beyond the ability of Islamic terrorists.
Let us now consider something of the background of militant Islamism.
There is a long history of covert western activity in conjunction
with foreign intelligence services such as Pakistan’s Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI) in the creation of an ever expanding militant Islamic
network. What first began in Afghanistan in 1979
5 later expanded into other countries, including the Balkans and beyond.
Some aspects of this appeared in an article in
The Spectator in 2003, entitled “How we trained al-Qa’eda”:
…..It is well documented that America played a major role
in creating and sustaining the mujahedin, which included Osama bin
Laden’s Office of Services set up to recruit volunteers from overseas.
Between 1985 and 1992, US officials estimate that 12,500 foreign
fighters were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and guerrilla warfare
tactics in Afghan camps that the CIA helped to set up.
Yet America’s role in backing the mujahedin a second time in the
early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few
people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that
it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in
1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan
mujahedin became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the
words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan
‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some
were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted
with the movement of thousands of mujahedin and other Islamic elements
from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims
against the Serbs.
The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of
mujahedin forces, to the emergence of today’s cross- border Islamic
terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search
of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic
fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle
East into Europe….. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the
mujahedin, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it.
As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica
massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam
University…..details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and
radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist
Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons-smuggling
through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of
the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups
that included Afghan mujahedin and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms
bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia
were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia — airlifts with which,
Wiebes points out, the USA was ‘very closely involved’.
The Pentagon’s secret alliance with Islamic elements allowed
mujahedin fighters to be ‘flown in’, though they were initially reserved
as shock troops for particularly hazardous operations against Serb
forces. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times in October 2001,
from 1992 as many as 4,000 volunteers from the Middle East, North Africa
and Europe, ‘known as the mujahedin’, arrived in Bosnia to fight with
the Muslims…..
…..Indeed, for all the Clinton officials’ concern about Islamic
extremists in the Balkans, they continued to allow the growth and
movement of mujahedin forces in Europe through the 1990s. In the late
1990s, in the run-up to Clinton’s and Blair’s Kosovo war of 1999, the
USA backed the Kosovo Liberation Army against Serbia.” 6
Furthermore, as we will see below, this ongoing covert activity
appears to have developed to include ever more deeply disturbing
relationships between western governments, intelligence agencies and
individual members of both foreign intelligence agencies and individual
terrorist suspects themselves.
For example, following the 9/11 attacks,
The Times of India
reported that the US authorities had sought the removal of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director-general Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmed
due to his apparent instructions that $100,000 be wired to the alleged
mastermind of the attacks, Mohammed Atta.
Although Pakistan’s Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) has claimed
that its former director-general Lt- Gen Mahmoud Ahmed sought retirement
after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. U.S.
authorities sought his removal after confirming that $100,000 had been
wired to Mohammed Atta, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, from
Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sayed Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahmoud
Ahmed.
…..A direct link between the ISI and the September 11 attacks could have enormous repercussions.
7
Additionally, there were several press reports that Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmed had been in the US at the time of the attacks.
Newsweek
reported that “Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed was on a visit to Washington at the
time of attack [9/11], and, like most other visitors, is still stuck
there.”
8
The New York Times reported that:
Foreign nations were being given an immediate black and
white choice in their relationship with the United States. ”You’re
either with us or against us,” was the message that went out today, a
senior administration official said.
To that end, the administration today began to apply pressure to
Pakistan, a country that has been accused of providing support for Osama
bin Laden and giving his militant Islamic organization the freedom to
operate. The director of the Pakistani Interservices Intelligence, Gen.
Mahmoud Ahmad, who happened to be here on a regular visit of
consultations, was called into the State Department today to meet with
Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage.9
And:
Senator Joseph R. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s
intelligence services, who, according to Mr. Biden, pledged Pakistan’s cooperation [emphasis mine].10
Therefore, why was such as the head of Pakistan’s intelligence
services (who was in Washington during the 9/11 attacks, and had pledged
Pakistan’s close support to the US) never pursued when it was later
found by the US that he had ordered $100,000 to be wired to the alleged
mastermind of the attacks, Mohammed Atta? Why would the US merely seek
his removal from office instead?
Regarding British matters, following the London bombings of 7
th
July 2005, former US Justice department prosecutor and intelligence
expert, Mr John Loftus gave a very disturbing interview on Fox News:
Mike Jerrick [Fox News]: John Loftus is a terrorism
expert and a former prosecutor for the Justice Department. John, good to
see you again. So real quickly here, have you heard anything about this
Osman Hussain who was just picked up in Rome? You know that name at
all?
John Loftus: Yeah, all these guys should be going back to an
organization called Al-Muhajiroun, which means The Emigrants. It was the
recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda in London; they specialized in recruiting
kids whose families had emigrated to Britain but who had British
passports. And they would use them for terrorist work.
Jerrick: So a couple of them now have Somali connections?
Loftus: Yeah, it was not unusual. Somalia, Eritrea, the first group
of course were primarily Pakistani. But what they had in common was they
were all emigrant groups in Britain, recruited by this Al-Muhajiroun
group. They were headed by the, Captain Hook, the imam in London the
Finsbury Mosque, without the arm. He was the head of that organization.
Now his assistant was a guy named Aswat, Haroon Rashid Aswat.
Jerrick: Aswat, who they picked up.
Loftus: Right, Aswat is believed to be the mastermind of all the bombings in London.
Jerrick: On 7/7 and 7/21, this is the guy we think.
Loftus: This is the guy, and what’s really embarrassing is that the
entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British
government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him. And
this has been a real source of contention between the CIA, the Justice
Department, and Britain.
Jerrick: MI6 has been hiding him. Are you saying that he has been working for them?
Loftus: Oh I’m not saying it. This is what the Muslim sheik said in an interview in a British newspaper back in 2001.
Jerrick: So he’s a double agent, or was?
Loftus: He’s a double agent.
Jerrick: So he’s working for the Brits to try to give them
information about Al-Qaeda, but in reality he’s still an Al-Qaeda
operative.
Loftus: Yeah. The CIA and the Israelis all accused MI6 of letting all
these terrorists live in London not because they’re getting Al- Qaeda
information, but for appeasement. It was one of those you leave us
alone, we leave you alone kind of things.
Jerrick: Well we left him alone too long then.
Loftus: Absolutely. Now we knew about this guy Aswat. Back in 1999 he
came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle
because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training
school in Oregon.
Jerrick: So they indicted his buddy, right? But why didn’t they indict him?
Loftus: Well it comes out, we’ve just learned that the headquarters
of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to
touch Aswat.
Jerrick: Hello? Now hold on, why?
Loftus: Well, apparently Aswat was working for British
intelligence. Now Aswat’s boss, the one-armed Captain Hook, he gets
indicted two years later. So the guy above him and below him get
indicted, but not Aswat. Now there’s a split of opinion within US
intelligence. Some people say that the British intelligence fibbed to
us. They told us that Aswat was dead, and that’s why the New York group
dropped the case. That’s not what most of the Justice Department thinks.
They think that it was just again covering up for this very publicly
affiliated guy with Al-Muhajiroun. He was a British intelligence plant.
So all of a sudden he disappears. He’s in South Africa. We think he’s
dead; we don’t know he’s down there. Last month the South African Secret
Service come across the guy. He’s alive.
Jerrick: Yeah, now the CIA says, oh he’s alive. Our CIA says OK let’s arrest him. But the Brits say no again?
Loftus: The Brits say no. Now at this point, two weeks ago, the Brits
know that the CIA wants to get a hold of Haroon. So what happens? He
takes off again, goes right to London. He isn’t arrested when he lands,
he isn’t arrested when he leaves.
Jerrick: Even though he’s on a watch list.
Loftus: He’s on the watch list. The only reason he could get away
with that was if he was working for British intelligence. He was a
wanted man.
Jerrick: And then takes off the day before the bombings, I understand it–
Loftus: And goes to Pakistan.
Jerrick: And Pakistan, they jail him.
Loftus: The Pakistanis arrest him. They jail him. He’s released
within 24 hours. Back to Southern Africa, goes to Zimbabwe and is
arrested in Zambia. Now the US–
Jerrick: Trying to get across the–
Loftus: –we’re trying to get our hands on this guy.
Jerrick: John, hang around. I have so many questions now.
Loftus: Oh, this is a bad one….11
The above interview raises a number of extremely serious matters,
including that British intelligence shielded terror suspect Haroon Aswat
from the legitimate enquiries of the British police and foreign
authorities.
Moreover, it raises serious questions about the true nature of the
relationship between the security services, alleged or actual terrorists
and the groups to which they belong.
We still do not know who is actually responsible for the planning and
execution of the demolition of the 3 World Trade Centre buildings on
9/11. As already stated, such explosive controlled demolition and all
that was required to achieve that was way beyond the work of any Islamic
terrorism. It could only have been executed with immensely technical
and specialist expertise.
Given the false and determined attributation of the 9/11 attacks to
that of Islamic terrorism, it is extremely likely that the actual
perpetrators also have an involvement with the jihadi terrorist groups
themselves. Such a relationship may very well extend to a covert
development and manipulation, the extent of which is totally unimagined.
We already understand that there has been an ongoing and extended
covert development of jihadi Islamic groups by western parties. And
whilst the intelligence agencies have been involved with this, we do not
know who is further and hence actually at the root of these things or
what the true extent of the present developments are.
As such, I do not believe that we know what level of clandestine
contrivance may be at the root of the emergence of more recent terror
groups, including that of ISIS itself. And very possibly crafted by the
selfsame as yet unidentified (and non-Islamic terrorist) parties who
were actually responsible for the controlled demolition of the World
Trade Centre buildings.
Additionally, any deep contrivance would extend not just to terror
groups themselves, but also to any number of individuals who may later
act individually.
The events of 9/11 have been used as a justification for the invasion
of Afghanistan and Iraq, killing many hundreds of thousands of innocent
people of all ages. These wars have also been widely recognised as
being illegal irrespective of any asserted ‘legitimacy’ for the “war on
terrorism.”
All that has been conducted in relation to the “war on terrorism” has
been said to have been done in the name of truth, democracy and
freedom. But given the apparent nature of this deception, it is
difficult to imagine a falsification of more evil proportions.
In addition to the countless deaths and great destruction, there has
been an immense curtailment of personal freedom, all based upon the
‘legitimacy’ and hence ‘requirement’ in relation to the “war on
terrorism” and the subsequently perceived terrorist threat. The
development of such thought and trends in government policy seems to
have acquired a momentum of its own.
I received a letter from a senior member of the Conservative government a while ago which said:
…..The Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism [emphasis mine]. It will aim to undermine
and eliminate extremism in all its forms – not just Islamist extremism –
and it will aim to build up society to identify extremism, confront it,
challenge it and defeat it.
A future Conservative Government will go further still, and the next
Conservative manifesto will contain a commitment to introduce Extremist
Disruption Orders (EDO), which will seek to restrict the harmful
activities of extremist individuals who spread hate but do not break laws [emphasis mine]. This will be a civil order, imposed by a High Court upon application by the police.
I replied with great concern and said:
To forcibly prohibit things which do not break the law,
is by definition to work outside of the law. And I believe that this is
universally understood to be completely incompatible with either genuine
freedom or honest democracy.
However, the Member of Parliament did not reply to this point.
We seem as a nation and indeed as a civilisation to be at an incredibly dangerous crossroads.
I write as an ex-member of the armed forces who swore upon enlistment
that “I….. swear by Almighty God that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully [emphasis mine] defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies [emphasis mine]….. So help me God.”
Although, I am no longer a serving member of the armed forces, the
oath lives on in my heart and I believe that the actual enemies at the
true root of this matter are not Islamic terrorists, but are parties who
remain as yet unidentified, whilst our nation, and in fact the whole
world lies in great peril.
Therefore, I appeal to you, Your Majesty, that you may personally
give your heart and conscience to these matters and that you might share
these things with the Prime Minister during your weekly meetings with
him. And after due consideration, that you may be moved to the urging
for all to be fully examined and addressed.
I have written similarly to the Prime Minister. Please find a copy of my letter to him enclosed.
Should Mr Cameron no longer be Prime Minister following the
forthcoming general election, then I will write further to the new Prime
Minister accordingly.
Thank you.
With my fullest and most respectful sincerity
Mr Roger Bentley
Notes
1. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s homepage is http://www.ae911truth.org/
2. “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – the Architecture of Destruction” DVD, (cased or download ISO and MP4), http://www.shop.ae911truth.org/DVD-Cased-European-PAL-1hr-of-9-11-Blueprint-for-Truth-DVD-BfT- EURO-COMP-CASED1-AE-DVD.htm or view the video online at https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Anp3KsuciEQ
3. Attwood, R. ‘Dancer speaks of tunnel terror’, Cambridge Evening News, 11 July 2005, pp. 2-3.
4. ‘Police shot bombers’, The New Zealand Herald, 9 July 2005, p.A3.
5. According to the
then US National Security Adviser, Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, covert aid to
the Afghan mujahedin began in July 1979, prior to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan. In fact, he wrote to US President Carter at that time
expressing his opinion that such action would induce a Soviet military
intervention. Jauvert, V. ‘Les révélations d’un ancien conseiller de
Carter « Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes… »’, Le
Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998 (Web Edition Only). https://web.archive.org/web/20080226163245/http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p19980115/articles/ a19460-.html (accessed 20 March 2015). See also Blum, W. and Gibbs, D.N. ‘The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)’, http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview, and Gibbs, D.N. ‘Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect’, http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/files/afghan-ip.pdf
6. O’Neill, B. ‘How we trained al-Qa’eda’, The Spectator, 13 September 2003, p. 31.
7. ‘Dismissed ISI chief linked to mastermind of U.S. Attacks’, The Times of India, 10 October 2001, p.1.
8. Nordland, R.
‘Prejudice In Pakistan; Why is Islamabad reluctant to pressure
neighboring Afghanistan into turning over Osama bin Laden?’, Newsweek,
14 September 2001 (Web Exclusive).
9. Perlez,
J. ‘After the Attacks: The Diplomacy; Powell Says It Clearly: No Middle
Ground on Terrorism’, The New York Times, 13 September 2001, p.17.
10. Bumiller, E. and
Perlez, J. ‘After the Attacks: The Overview; Bush and Top Aides Proclaim
Policy of ‘Ending’ States that Back Terror; Local Airports Shut after
an Arrest’, The New York Times, 14 September 2001, p.1.
11. Statement by John Loftus on the Fox News DaySide programme, 29 July 2005, www.youtube.com/watch? v=MoxPY3H5EqA
Posts
