duped the London bombers?
By GAVIN GATENBY, Possum News Network
18 July 2005
Citing police and MI5 sources, The Mirror.co.uk, a mainstream British
internet publication, has now admitted the probability that the four
London bombers were in some way duped by a master bomber (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html).
This theory has been widely reported internationally (for example by
the Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July 2005).
In the Mirrors scenario the master bomber cynically tricked his
team into thinking that when they pressed the button, they were setting
off a timing device that would give them sufficient time to leave the
target area. Instead, they pressed the buttons, detonated the bombs
and killed themselves as well as their victims.
to this scenario the bombers were merely expendable low-level operatives
whose death would happily remove the probability that, if caught, they
would reveal, under interrogation, details about their controllers and
other members of the network.
In its way, this admission is a breakthrough that should allow other
more plausible scenarios to emerge for investigation.
In that spirit, let me suggest variants of the dupes scenario
that I believe are at least equally plausible, given the information
currently available to the public .
Its necessary to understand that the detonators were probably
constructed from mobile phones. Mobiles can be used to set off bombs
in three ways: by using them as a timer (alarm clock function) or by
remote detonation using voice or text message. While unidentified police
sources have claimed that no timers have so far been found,
The London Times had admitted the possibility of mobile phones being
There are many problems with the version of the dupes scenario publicized
by the Mirror.
If the four men knew they were carrying bombs and believed they were
going to plant them before withdrawing safely from the scene it would
certainly have occurred to them that the police would afterwards be
searching for four men of Islamic background and that they would be
recorded on CCTV arriving at Luton, then at Kings Cross and then going
their separate ways. They are hardly likely to have ignored this threat.
They would certainly have traveled separately and approached the targets
from different directions. They would not have blithely assumed they
could meet up again at the rented car at Luton to drive home. Nor would
they have left more bombs in the car as suggested by some media reports.
The Mirrors scenario also depends on the three tube bombers (and
probably all four of them) activating the bomb timers (perhaps by pressing
a button) at an agreed time and unwittingly blowing themselves up. But
why would they operate in that way? If the aim was to leave the bombs
on the trains surely the most effective target in terms of death
and chaos then the bombers would have activated the timers as
the trains were pulling into a station then got off at the last moment
leaving the bombs on board. But in that case, they would all have unwittingly
detonated the bombs just as the train was approaching a station.
No, the simplest and most compelling reason for the near simultaneous
detonation of the three tube bombs is that the bombs were detonated
by timers, and that timers were set running, by some method, at Kings
The master bombers
It is entirely plausible that the master bomber would not have relied
solely on the timer. If a timer failed to detonate one of the bombs,
a dupe would be left alive and in possession of the evidence. A simple
fail-safe detonator might also have used a mobile phone, perhaps the
same one used as the timer in each of the bombs. The London Tube system
is not equipped for mobile phone reception, but if the master-bomber
backed up the timer by sending a text message to the four bombs, the
message would have been delivered to the bomb detonators as soon as
the unwitting bomber left the underground and entered a mobile phone
reception area on the surface.
In my variants the four dupes were recruited to carry out some task,
other than a bombing, which involved them going to Luton, where they
picked up the bombs, securely packaged to prevent their real contents
being detected by the men, then to Kings Cross, where they received
further instructions. The purpose for which they were recruited might
have been either legal or illegal.
A drug courier run, for which they were promised big money.
A secret courier task, related perhaps to clandestine support
for, say, the Iraqi resistance or a Palestinian group.
In either case the dupes were instructed to proceed to Luton, then by
train to Kings Cross to meet a contact who was probably unknown to them,
but who, they were assured, would recognize them when they got off the
Luton train. This person would tell them where to deliver the stuff.
Its unlikely they would have been given an address to go to. They
would have been told to travel individually to four separate destinations
such as the entrance to another railway station where
they would be recognized by the person they were to give the backpack
to. That scenario is consistent with standard clandestine operative
Based on what we know of the character and background of the four, Id
rule out the idea that they thought they were drug couriers. More likely,
I believe, is that the manipulator would have played on their political
and religious sympathies and their sense of adventure. They would have
been told they were transferring something important (guns, munitions,
currency, explosives exactly what would probably have been left
to their imagination) to separate locations in London for onshipment
to the final recipient possibly the Iraq resistance or a Palestinian
Note that in this variant the manipulator might be either an agent
provocateur working for Mossad, an American or British secret police
faction, or a genuine Islamist, but the cynicism of the manipulation
suggests a state operation, rather than that the men were duped by one
of their own.
A security training exercise. This variant has already been flagged
by skeptics. In it the dupes were offered good money to be "the
enemy" in a security training exercise played out in the underground
and were naive enough to believe the recruiter. They would have been
engaged as actors and told they were only required to carry the backpacks
to certain destinations to see if they could get them through the security
people under training who had been given the profile of
a suspect. They would also have been told that, for security reasons,
they were not under any circumstances to talk to anybody else about
the exercise. As a further precaution they would have been told theyd
only be informed of their destination when they were briefed at Kings
Cross station. They would probably have been told to meet back at the
station for a debriefing. Such exercises are a normal part of security
training, but we might question whether, in the atmosphere generated
by Britains role in Iraq, four young Muslims would have been happy
to take part.
Arming the bombs
Whatever method was used to dupe the men, they arrived with the bombs
at Kings Cross station where they met a contact and were assigned their
In the case that the men thought they were engaged in a non-legal task,
examination of, or tampering with, the backpacks by the contact, who
they probably would not have known, would have run the risk of arousing
their suspicion. So how, in that case, were the timers activated?
This could easily have been accomplished by the master bomber, or more
likely an unseen accomplice, using a modified TV, stereo or garage door
remote control. Rigging a remote to turn on and to activate the alarm
clock function on a mobile phone would present no difficulty to a techno-nerd
of average ability.
Why did the fourth
bomb explode on the bus?
The mobile phone detonator scenario also provides a plausible explanation
for Hasib Mir Hussains bomb exploding on the No. 30 bus an hour
after the tube bombs.
When the phone-based detonator attached to the bomb he was unwittingly
carrying was remotely switched on, the alarm clock function failed to
activate. So the bomb failed to detonate twenty minutes after activation
and he left the tube either because his train hadnt arrived (it
has been hypothesized that he was supposed to travel on the Northern
Line which had been disrupted by technical problems) or he was evacuated
from the tube after it ground to a halt in the aftermath of the bombs.
Perhaps he tried to reach his appointed destination by bus. Perhaps
he caught the No. 30 to do a little sightseeing. Why not? Hed
heard that the whole underground had been knocked out by some sort of
a power surge, London was in chaos. He couldnt contact the man
he thought was his controller for the exercise (or in the illegal purpose
variant, his London contact) because the phone network was down. And
he didnt know where his three friends were.
As the master bomber listened to the incoming news reports (and perhaps
other intelligence) he would have realized that only three bombs had
gone off. This would have been a bad moment. Somewhere, out there, was
a dupe, still alive and carrying the evidence. If he hadnt already
sent the text message to the bomb detonator, he now did so. But the
mobile network was in such chaos that it took another hour before the
message was delivered to the bomb on the No. 30.
Keep it Simple,
The variants of the dupes scenario I am suggesting do not require a
large conspiracy in the operational phase. The whole job might have
required (apart from the dupes):
An agent provocateur, to recruit the four.
A master bomber to plan the operation, supply the bombs and rig
A contact at Kings Cross station to give the dupes their destination
An assistant to remotely activate the mobile phone detonators
at Kings Cross.
Thats a nice tight little cell of just four conspirators, or perhaps
only three if the master bomber doubled as the contact at Kings Cross
or as the unseen assistant. Its easy to organize, very hard to
detect and has a very low chance of failure. An organization such as
Mossad would have no difficulty finding three or four hardened bastards
for the job
and an overwhelming interest in provoking world outrage
Unknown to me William Bowles and Edward Teague reached similar conclusions
on 15 July
and William Bowles returned to the subject on 17
july. Well worth reading.
AND READ ALSO>>>
any spin necessary
Why imperialist spokesmen are distancing the London
bombings from the Iraq war
By GAVIN GATENBY
10 July 2005
the surprises of the London bombings has been the line taken by prominent
imperialist spokesmen. Tony Blair, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Condoleezza
Rice and John Howard have all been careful to say, or imply, that
the bombings were not specifically related to their nations
invasion and occupation of Iraq.
At first glance, this is a bizarre position, but on further reflection
the reason for it is obvious.
THE FULL ARTICLE >>>