Mr Jeremy Quin MP
House of Commons

12th December 2015

An Appeal for the Truth concerning the 9/11 attacks, the 7/7 London Bombings and the True Nature of the Terrorist Threat

Dear Mr Quin

Thank you for your letter of 15th September 2015.  However, despite having then allowed a good amount of time for everybody to reply to my earlier letters, the response has been poor.

Therefore, in light of this I am writing to you in the form of an open letter, asking that you formally raise my concerns before Parliament, placing the matter on the public record and submitting all to the full and accountable due process of our Government.  I request that this is done irrespective of any personal views which either you or any other may hold, until such time as the evidence that I have put forward is properly and responsibly examined.

In order that you have a complete understanding of the correspondence to date, please find copies of all previous correspondence relating to this matter enclosed.

Before I address my concerns to you, I will explain something of the history of my position.

I was convinced that the official account given for the attacks in New York on 11th September 2001 (9/11) was false from the day they occurred.  I had served in the Royal Air Force between 1982 and 1989 where I worked as an air defence radar and [defensive] guided weapons technician.  As such, I could not believe it possible that hijacked aircraft had been allowed to fly about as they did on that day (without them either being challenged, intercepted or even shot down if necessary), unless there had been some unprecedented and compound irregularities sufficient to disable the air defences of one of the most militarily advanced nations in the world.  Please find copies of my service qualifications and experience enclosed.  These give a little further background information.  I was given these upon leaving the service to show to future employers.

Furthermore, the very manner in which the Twin Towers buildings collapsed appeared to be so unnatural – why was the onset of each collapse so sudden, with each tower falling so rapidly, with such uniformity, exactly as they did into their own footprints?

As other grave irregularities began to emerge, these added to the implausibility of the official story.

I raised my concerns with various people from the earliest times and then over the ensuing years, including with my then MP.  However, he felt unable to take the matter forward.

As more evidence emerged of the false contrivance of 9/11, the “war on terrorism” (which had been launched because of it), saw nations invaded with hundreds of thousands of people killed, whilst freedoms elsewhere evaporated.  Meanwhile, the explosions in London on 7th July 2005 caused more deaths in the West, yet (as with 9/11) the attacks were never subject to the proper scrutiny of conventional due process.

As the situation continued to ever worsen, and with many responsible individuals having come to recognise the West’s role in [having assisted with] the creation of [jihadi elements which later gave rise to] al-Qaeda, we were next presented with the nightmarish and highly questionable emergence of ISIS.

In light of this, and with my long standing conviction that a most evil and false contrivance lies behind the “war on terrorism”, and in light of my previous and sincere endeavours to responsibly raise my concerns, I felt compelled to appeal to our nation’s monarch and to the head of our government in order that the truth of these things might be established.

I later wrote to all members of the Cabinet too, in order that it might provide a further focus to assist in effecting an appropriate investigation, so enabling the necessary action to follow.

I was not, of course, writing to Cabinet Ministers about constituency matters, but I was writing to them as members of the Cabinet of Her Majesty’s Government, and concerning matters of a most grave and universally critical nature.  Some of the Cabinet ministers also held departmental positions that were highly relevant to the subject of concern too.

But, with the exception of some encouraging words from Her Majesty, as conveyed in a letter by her senior correspondence officer in April, meaningful engagement from others has so far been negligible [i.e. very poor indeed].  For example, I have not yet received a personal reply from the Prime Minister.

However, may I say that I was greatly encouraged by the portion of your letter which says “It is a great aspect of our democracy that ordinary citizens can raise their concerns on any issue and have them read, understood and aired at every level [italics mine].”

As noble as this is, and is surely true of every genuine democracy, it has not yet happened in this case.  Many of my letters have either been passed on to those other than to whom they were addressed (and apparently without any ordinary analysis), or have not been answered at all.  As such, there is no reasonable indication that they have been ‘read’.  And, replies that I have received have contained no substantial content at all, suggesting that there has been insufficient engagement for the matter to have been in any way ‘understood’.  As such, that which I have written has not been ‘aired’ and certainly not at ‘every level’, or most crucially at an appropriate level necessary to establish the truth and appropriate action concerning the matters that I have raised.

With reference to your letter, I would wish to point out that I have not made any ‘allegations’ or ‘suppositions’, but I have carefully laid out a series of information which is fully referenced to documented sources.  Although that which is discussed is so tragically difficult by nature, I believe that that which is presented is without conjecture.  I would also say that these are not my ‘views’, but are instead careful and responsible representations, which when considered honestly and sincerely obviously require the most urgent investigation and appropriate action.

Therefore, I will now present the content of my concerns to you.

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 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 each, 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 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. [3]

Please find a copy of this 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 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.

An account of this appears within the series of articles that I quote below:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992.  Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs.  Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad. [5]

In his book, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Professor Michel Chossudovsky explains that:

US Government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a “necessary response” to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.  Recent evidence suggests, however, that the CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan had been launched prior rather than in response to the Soviet invasion.  Washington’s intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which lasted more than 20 years.

The CIA’s role in support of the Mujahideen is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter. [6]

A translation of this interview from the original French, which appeared in Le Nouvel Observateur, is as follows:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention.  In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair.  Is that correct

Brzezinski: Yes.  According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.  But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.  And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.  But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn’t quite that.  We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them.  However, there was a basis of truth.  You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what?  That secret operation was an excellent idea.  It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?  The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.  Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world?  The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?  Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems?  But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense!  It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.  That is stupid.  There isn’t a global Islam.  Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion.  It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers.  But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism?  Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. [7]

Further details of Afghanistan’s war against the Soviets are as follows:

… This jihad was primarily funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia.  And the leading role in training the Afghan and non-Afghan volunteers was performed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in conjunction with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The guerrilla training was accompanied by ideological education.  The main thrust of it was that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.

It is estimated that some 30,000 young, non-Afghan Islamists travelled to Pakistan in the 1980s from all over the Muslim world – from Indonesia to Morocco – to undergo this educational and guerrilla training, funded and supervised by the CIA.

The Afghan jihad ended in victory in April 1992 when the leftist regime of Dr Muhammad Najubullah fell.  The victorious seven-party alliance of the Afghan Mujahedin took power, but was unable to maintain unity.

Having performed their religious duty of participating in a jihad, which succeeded, most of the non-Afghan Mujahedin returned to their countries of origin – including Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Egypt – with a heightened religio-political consciousness. … [8]

However, a number of the mujahedin who remained in Afghanistan would later be transported with the assistance of the Pentagon, along with thousands of other mujahedin and Islamic elements from Central Asia and the Middle East, to fight alongside the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

An article which describes these movements, and also includes a good deal of further information concerning the expanding militant Islamic network, appeared 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. … [9]

And then from the same article:

… they [the Clinton administration] 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.  According to a report in the Jerusalem Post in 1998, KLA members, like the Bosnian Muslims before them, had been ‘provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries’, and had been ‘bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin … [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan’. … [10]

Bearing this in mind, an article appeared in Scotland on Sunday on 29th August 1999, which reported covert US and UK involvement in the training and equipping of the KLA:

Details of the role played by the Special Air Service (SAS) in Kosovo have emerged, including how members trained Kosovo Liberation Army fighters…

… Military sources in London have disclosed that British and US involvement with the KLA involved the US Defence Intelligence Agency, the Secret Intelligence Services (or MI6), former and serving members of 22 SAS, as well as three British and American private security companies.

“The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA,” said a senior British military source.  “MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the [22 SAS] regiment.  Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.” … [11]

Therefore, what possible propriety could there be in Britain and America having covertly trained and supplied elements of a foreign army that has also said to have been “bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin … [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan”?

Given the history above, let us now return specifically to the long-standing relationship between America, and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), at the time of 9/11.

Following the attacks, The Times of India reported on 10th October 2001, 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. … [12]

It was also reported that Lt-Gen Mahmoud Ahmed had been in the US at the time of the attacks.

Newsweek reported on 14th September 2001 that:

[Gen.] Mahmoud [Ahmed] was on a visit to Washington at the time of the attack [9/11], and, like most other visitors, is still stuck there. [13]

The New York Times reported on 13th September 2001 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. [14]

And on 14th September 2001:

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]. [15]

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?

Let us now turn our attention to 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… [16]

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 have already seen 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 (and much more besides), 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.

Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech at the UN General Assembly on 25th September 2014.  In a section that dealt with suggestions concerning defeating the ideology of extremism, he said:

… As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it.  We know this world view.

The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.  The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy.  The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations.

We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism [emphasis mine]. [17]

However, I would request that such statements are re-examined and re-considered in light of the contents of this letter.

Given the apparent evidence, it would surely be gravely disingenuous if the sincere questioning of the events of 9/11 and 7/7 were ever dubbed to be the ‘peddling of lies’?  (Incidentally, the matter of any given nation or nations’ possible involvement would emerge, and only emerge, as the product a meaningful enquiry – however, see note [18]).

Furthermore, if an enquiry showed these events to be the result of a deceptive contrivance, then a greater level of Muslim persecution could hardly ever be imagined?  How could the affected countries and survivors therein (both maimed and intact) ever be restituted, (not to mention the individuals and nations who would have been deceived as part of prosecuting the whole matter)?

It is surely most desperately and urgently clear – there must be a full and proper enquiry into 9/11, 7/7 and the “war on terrorism” to establish the actual truth, before any further attempts to deal with what appears to be a gravely misunderstood situation by doubtless many sincere people, including politicians, drives the enactment of any further deeply damaging action or legislation.

There has already been an immense curtailment of personal freedom, all based upon a stated ‘requirement’ in relation to the ‘legitimacy’ of the “war on terrorism” and the subsequently perceived terrorist threat.  The development and trends of such thought within government policy seems to have acquired a momentum all of its own and has already greatly exceeded all reasonable causes for alarm.

I received a letter from a senior member of the Conservative government in October 2014 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 am convinced 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.

A massive precedent of departure from the conventional accountability of due process came into being at 9/11.  It has since been applied evermore far and wide, including to matters surrounding 7/7 in London.  Then, following the highly questionable rise of ISIS, we have been rocked by such events as the Charlie Hebdo attacks and most recently the Paris attacks of 13th November.  With no dependence on open due process anymore, the output of the media seems to be crafted and remote.  Policemen are now routinely seen around Europe and beyond with covered faces.  The open and honest place of truth fell as a casualty some time ago, as any honest analysis of what I have written above shows.  But now, beyond that, we seem to be journeying towards a hideous fracturing of the appearance of reality itself.

We live in utterly unprecedented times, and as the government is now forced to seek a way to best address the situation of ISIS and terrorism, I do hope that it may be recognised that the world will only be plunged into further uncharted depths of horror and terror unless the honest and actual truth of who, other than Islamic terrorists, are truly at the root of this unspeakable evil.

Therefore, I appeal to you Mr Quin, that you may give your heart and conscience to these matters and that you seek for these concerns to be raised before Parliament, placing the matter on the public record and submitting all to the full and accountable due process of our Government.

I am deeply grateful to you, and I hope and pray that you and your colleagues will be strengthened during your consideration of these matters, and that from what we presently have remaining in our nation’s government, the fullness of truth and even righteousness may become known once more, to lead the people of our nation, and those beyond, into the pastures of peace once again.

Thank you.

I kindly await your reply.

Yours sincerely

Mr Roger Bentley


Her Majesty The Queen.
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Prime Minister.
The Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP, Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department.


[1]   Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s homepage is

[2]   “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – the Architecture of Destruction” DVD, (cased or download ISO and MP4), or view the video online at

[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]   Rashid, A. ‘The Taliban: Exporting Extremism’, Foreign Affairs, November/December 1999.  An online edition of this article is available at

[6]   Chossudovsky, M. ‘America’s “War on Terrorism”’ (Global Research, Center for Research on Globalization, 2005, second edition), p.23.

[7]   Blum, W. ‘How the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess’, January 1998,  This is William Blum’s translation from the original French of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, conducted by  Vincent Jauvert, which originally appeared in Le Nouvel Observateur magazine in January 1998.  William Blum’s website is  The full reference of the original article is 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, p. 76.  I understand that there are at least two editions of the magazine (see note 1 as given in William Blum’s online essay above).  The edition held by the British Library does not include the article.  However, I have confirmed the details of the interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, as well as the veracity of the article archived at (accessed 12 December 2015).

[8]   Hiro, D. ‘GULF: Fallout from the Afghan Jihad?’, Inter Press Service (IPS), London, 20 November 1995, .

[9]   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

[10]   Ibid.  An online edition of this article is available at

[11]   Jennings, C. ‘Details emerge of SAS actions in Kosovo’, Scotland on Sunday, 29 August 1999.

[12]   ‘Dismissed ISI chief linked to mastermind of U.S. Attacks’, The Times of India, 10 October 2001, p.1.

[13]   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),

[14]   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

[15]   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

[16]   Statement by John Loftus on the Fox News DaySide programme, 29 July 2005,

[17]   Cameron, D. ‘PM speech at the UN General Assembly 2014’, 25 September 2014,

[18]   Since writing my original letters to Her Majesty and the Prime Minister in March 2015, I have become aware of two books by the American investigative journalist, Mr Christopher Bollyn, entitled Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, 2012, ISBN 9780985322588, and Solving 9-11: The Original Articles, 2012, ISBN 9780985322557, . Mr Bollyn presents extremely strong evidence for his hypothesis that the 9/11 attacks were an elaborate act of false-flag terrorism carried out by Israeli military intelligence with the assistance of highly-placed Zionist agents and supporters in the United States and elsewhere.  Mr Bollyn’s website can be viewed at .

I gratefully acknowledge Professor Michel Chossudovsky’s book, ‘America’s “War on Terrorism”’, which brought references 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15 above to my attention.