20th March 2015
An Appeal for the Truth concerning the 9/11 attacks, the 7/7 London Bombings and the “War on Terrorism”
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 , called “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – the Architecture of Destruction.” 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 attribution 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. 
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. 
It seems that these reports never received any proper and conventional investigation?
As noted above, the attribution of both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks to that of Islamic terrorism was extremely swift and without conventional due process. The attribution 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.
[It has been reported that] there is a long history of covert western activity in conjunction with foreign intelligence services such as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in [what had amounted to] the creation of an ever expanding militant Islamic network. What first began in Afghanistan in 1979 , 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”: [Please also see my later letter to Mr Jeremy Quin MP of 12th December 2015 for further details of the above too].
… 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.” 
Furthermore, as we will see below, this [reported] ongoing covert activity appears [quite possibly] 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. … 
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.” 
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. 
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]. 
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 [reportedly] 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 7th 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…. 
The above interview raises a number of extremely serious matters, including that British intelligence [reportedly] 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 attribution of the 9/11 attacks to that of Islamic terrorism, [I believe that] it is extremely likely that the actual perpetrators also have an involvement [i.e. some form of association] 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 [reportedly previously] been an ongoing and extended covert development of jihadi Islamic groups by western parties. And whilst the intelligence agencies [are reported to] 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 [possible] 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. 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. This will be a civil order, imposed by a High Court upon application by the police [emphasis mine].
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 defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies … So help me God” [emphasis mine].
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.
With my fullest and most respectful sincerity
Mr Roger Bentley
 “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
 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
 O’Neill, B. ‘How we trained al-Qa’eda’, The Spectator, 13 September 2003, p. 31. An online edition of this article is available at http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/13th-september-2003/31/how-we-trained-al-qaeda
 ‘Dismissed ISI chief linked to mastermind of U.S. Attacks’, The Times of India, 10 October 2001, p.1.
 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), http://europe.newsweek.com/prejudice-pakistan-152341
 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. An online edition of this article is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-attacks-diplomacy-powell-says-it-clearly-no-middle-ground-terrorism.html
 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. An online edition of this article is available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-overview-bush-top-aides-proclaim-policy-ending-states-that-back.html?pagewanted=all