The Illuminati and the Deception of History by Terence Smart (best way to read books .TXT) 📖

up who says that Habib Hussein was on the Bus. He gave an interview on camera straight away saying it was a ‘Muslim bomber’, perpetrators of a crime usually accuse someone else, to divert attention away from themselves as they did straight after 9/11. He says he was sat next to Hussein on the bus and he states that Hussein kept fidgeting with his rucksack. Would you really fidget with a rucksack if there was a bomb in it, no you wouldn’t. Richard Jones couldn’t even describe what Hussein looked like or what he was wearing correctly. Was Richard Jones actually part of the plot? The U.K.’s Sunday Mail on the 10th July 2005 reported that Jones served an apprenticeship at an explosives factory in Ayrshire.

Look at the white van below with the words Kingstar on the side. This company specializes in controlled demolition and Robotic Demolition. Were there men in this van who remotely detonated the bombs on the bus?

In an e mail (July 9th) from an employee of Stagecoach to the Prison Planet website the Stagecoach employee (driver) says “Last Saturday a contractor came to inspect the CCTV on the buses at the depot, According to my supervisor the person spent more than 20 hours over that weekend, 20 hours to see if the CCTV is working? Also that person who came was not a regular contractor, for security reasons the same few people always come to the depot to carry out work, this time it was different”.

Look at the yellow arrow on the image below. That is obviously a cut in the roof of the bus made by some sort of cutting tool. Bombs don’t blow roofs of in straight lines. My research leads me to the conclusion that this bus was taking out of use for a day while the CCTV was neutralised (see the Menezes story below) and cuts were placed onto the roof of the bus so that it would blow off for dramatic effect for the media.

The real perpetrators of this crime are psychopaths because they even played some type of sick joke by choosing a bus with this poster on the side, Outright Terror…Bold and Brilliant.

Hassib Hussein has been tried and wrongfully found guilty of blowing up the number 30 bus, by the government’s organized and controlled media machine, without a shred of real evidence. They claim to have found Hasib Hussain’s ID in Tavistock Square. However, they also claim that ID from another of the four, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was found in at least two, some reports say three, separate blast locations. He cannot possibly have been in two or all three locations at the same time, proving that these items were planted after the blasts. How could their IDs have survived suicide bomb-blasts?

Daniel Obachike saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July. Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast, Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as he was taken away from the scene. The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports. This suggests that the coverage was planned in advance

A witness, Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus. The Police authorities deny that there was a second explosion on the bus. She was then mysteriously found dead in her flat five weeks later.

Witness Testimony

John McDonald was a passenger on the Edgware road train on the morning of 7/7 and testifies that “Just after the train left Edgware station, there was a small bang, and then there was a massive bang, followed by two smaller bangs. Then, there was an orange fireball. I then fell into one hole, and thought I was going to die, then was helped out, and then describes another big hole, also with someone slipping into it” Around that second big hole he came across, ‘the metal all around it was all jagged and bent up from the explosion’. Explosions under the Train would bend the metal up, explosions on a backpack inside the train would not bend the metal up.

Ray Whitehurst was the Edgware road train driver and he also seen a hole in the floor. When the train came to a halt he walked through the first carriage and then upon reaching the connecting carriage which joins the two carriages he came across a dead body “I realised that, if I tried jumping across him, there was a hole in the floor that I could see, and I was probably going to go down that hole”.

At the 7/7 Inquest detail’s where heard about the slow death of Daniel Brewster. One person looked under the train after he had died, and saw: ‘His legs just seemed to be very mangled up in the wreckage. You couldn’t really see his legs’. Again this evidence suggests he died because of an explosion that happened under the train and not in a backpack inside the train.

So witness testimony has said that 4 explosion occurred. How can a bomb in a backpack produce 4 explosions? We also have witness testimony that says there was 3 holes in 3 different locations in the second carriage were the bombs went off. It is a physical impossibility for a bomb in a backpack on someone’s back to have produced these 3 different holes. Also most of the injuries reported on the three trains were injuries to the lower limbs or having there lower limbs blown off which is entirely consistent with bombs going off underneath the train. Also 90% of the witnesses on the trains do not remember seeing young colored men with a backpack’s on their back.

Bruce Lait was a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing and described to the Cambridge Evening News how he and his partner were sitting nearest to the bomb when it detonated.

This is his testimony.

“We’d been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now,” he said.

He and his partner Crystal were helped out of the carriage. As they made their way out, a policeman pointed out where the bomb had been.

“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.

Below a picture from one of the train blasts which shows metal bent upwards which can only happen if bombs are under the trains.

For over an hour after the bombs had gone off on the trains it was reported as a power surge. Maybe bombs under the trains, were detonated by a calculated & engineered power surge. That is why reports of a power surge along with survivors' reports of an "electrical like discharge" before the explosions themselves, originated early on. Remember - the truth usually comes out in the first half an hour of an event like this one. Why would they do it like this? For the simple reason that in this manner, they could have utmost control over the exact time and location of the blasts, something which could not be achieved with timers, since something might go wrong, a train could be delayed for whatever reason and blow up in the wrong place, for example.

MI6 inside Information

A former MI6 agent received the following information from his former MI6 contacts. I can’t give his name for obvious reasons. The MI6 contacts claim the following about the London Bombings.

“The bombs were planted into the bus several days before the 7/7 London bombings. When they went into the bus depot a few days before hand a trade union spokesman who was asked about this said he couldn’t understand who the security was. He didn’t recognise anybody. These were people who come into check the buses. They normally check the buses for things like suspension, braking systems and the security cameras. Instead of staying what is usually an hour or so these people were there for the entire day. When workers approached them and started making small talk they were basically ignored. So they had the feeling that these people were not regular security. They were MI5. They were there primarily to make sure the video camera went off at a certain time. Which is of course what happened. Isn’t it is amazing that on that day, this was similar to what happened with the cameras prior to the death of Princess Diana. All the security cameras that counted on 7/7, not the ones that didn’t count, the ones that really counted weren’t working. The security camera on that bus wasn’t working on that particular day. They planted the bombs inside the seats and under the floor of the bus. I know that the eye witness accounts of what happened were all at variance with one another. The BBC relied exclusively on a testimony given by a Scottish guy. The Scottish guy contradicted himself so many times and yet no one in the media asked him about these contradictory statements. He said in one report that he got off the front of the bus and in another report he said he left through the rear door. One report said he was the first out and another report he said was the last off the bus. So there appears to be a lot of confusion in terms of the report. The four Asian lads were they MI5 assets. They were stooges. They would just be a shadow team lured into London to be part of a covert programme of simulated attacks. They were paid to be in a certain place at a certain time to take part in a simulated attack. A company was running a simulated terror attack at the time. Those boys were part of that. They were told your backpacks represent explosive devices but of course they aren’t explosives. They were told this is just a dummy run. They were part of the dummy run. They stopped their car just outside of Luton and they were briefed by somebody. When they left Luton of course, they didn’t leave Luton at the time described because there was a cock up with train times. So whether they managed to get to London or not is an unknown because the video camera evidence has been shown to be faulty. There is a problem with the timing on some of the video footage”.

What Type of Explosives

The authorities couldn’t even agree what type of explosives were used on the trains.

On 12 July 2005, Superintendent Christophe Chaboud, chief of French anti-terrorism Coordination Unit who was in London assisting Scotland Yard with its investigation, confirmed to The Times that, “The nature of the explosives appears to be military, which is very worrying….the material used were not homemade but sophisticated military explosives”.

Again how could four young Muslims get access to sophisticated military explosives?

On 13th July it was stated that these were of ‘C4’ explosive….London explosives have military origin – [Science Daily. LONDON, July 13 (UPI)]: Forensic scientists told the newspaper the construction of the four devices detonated in London was very technically advanced, and unlike any instructions that can be found on the Internet.

Then the type of explosives used was changed to TATP. Then later it was changed to bombs made of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide which could not have caused the carnage of 7/7.

The reality is the truth never needs to be changed. I would suggest that Mr Chaboud’s version is the correct one as these are the explosives that MI5Mossad would use.

Yet again the pathetic controlled mainstream media just repeats the governments version of events without any research what so ever and the masses then get ‘brainwashed’ into believing it.

If you want a more thorough investigation of 7/7 then you should watch John Hill’s Youtube video Ripple Effect 2 or Nick Kollestrom’s book ‘Terror on the Tube’ or you can take a look at his website terroronthetube.co.uk.

The Murder of Jean Charles De Menezes

Jean Charles De Menezes was a Brazilian man killed by officers of the London Metropolitan Police Service at Stockwell Station on the London Underground (July 22nd) after he was wrongly deemed to be a bomber. We know that Jean Charles De Menezes was a contract electrician and maybe he was killed because of what he saw or learned. He was not shot seven or eight or nine times in the head as a "mistake". They made sure he could never talk about what he saw or knew.

Jean Charles was an electrician and he either had something to do