Instinctively switching to the BBC, the bold headline read "POWER SURGES ON LONDON UNDERGROUND" and the scene was crawling with police, emergency services and people evacuating the station. I immediately knew what was really going on and told her that there were almost certainly bombs on the tubes and that she should get away from the station.

How did I know this? Because for weeks and months I have watched as the fearmongering in London has risen. I have analyzed the Stasi-like "anti-terror"campaigns, the fake and sometimes unannounced terror drills, the house arrests where all are subsequently released, the press conferences where The Police Commissioner and the Mayor have explicitly told us we would be attacked soon and there's nothing we could do about it.

I have rode on the tube at the rush hour as people nervously pack onto the trains and try not to reveal their anxiety. I have witnessed the antiwar marches and the NO ID campaigns, the tension that surrounded the general election in London, the Live 8 circus and the Olympics farce. I have spoken to Londoners on a daily basis and I have felt the tension rise in this city to a point where we were prepared to be shown the feature presentation, "ATTACK ON LONDON"

So I put the call in to my brother and we were covering the incident, trawling the news wires, watching the live broadcasts within minutes of the first explosion, because that's what we do. We have watched relentlessly as the official story has been pieced together, and this looks, smells and tastes like another government operation. Already, within hours, there are multiple inconsistencies and contradictions which must be highlighted now before they disappear down the memory hole.

ADVANCE INTELLIGENCE

The first inconsistency to emerge, and to date the most compelling, is that of advance warning and prior knowledge. The police and the government have said unequivocally that there was no advance warning or indicative intelligence and that the attacks came "out of the blue". Yet early AP and Israeli radio reports clearly stated that Scotland Yard had given warning to the Israeli Embassy in London that an attack was imminent BEFORE any explosions had taken place.

Screen grab from the Israeli National News. The report is still online here

The Israeli National News quickly went off-line completely after the publication of this story, but has since returned with the original article still available.

The Embassy warned Finance Minister and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to stay inside his London hotel. For an hour after the first blast, the government and the news media were reporting that the cause was an electrical power surge. If the government knew bombs were going to go off before they did, why did they report for an hour that it was an accident? Were they trying to bide time so they could get their story straight? The same thing happened on 9/11 with the first plane strike.

Both Scotland Yard and the Israelis have since denied that they had any foreknowledge of the attack.

Since the original report, major TV news networks have been completely silent on the Netanyahu story. They are just repeating claims that there was no prior knowledge.

About an hour after the story broke, Associated Press started altering their online news stories, stating that Netanyahu got the warning after the first blast and not before. Haaretz is now reporting the same thing. It seems as if they are scrambling to coordinate their cover story. Either there were no warnings or the warning was after the first blast. The dithering seems to suggest there is some confusion on how to successfully hide the smoking gun, the fact that Netanyahu was warned before the first explosion.

Why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

In a further development The Jerusalem post has reported that Israel have ordered their officials not to speak to the media about the bombings, suggesting a lock down on any potential leaks.

DOWNGRADING ALERT LEVEL

On June 7th, MI5 downgraded the London terror alert from its second highest level “severe general” to a lower category of “substantial”. One month before the World's leaders were to gather in Britain, bringing in an influx of protesters and activists, why would this be a logical course of action?

Why did they do this, was somebody lowering the guard

ARMY ON THE STREETS?

Several foreign news reports stated that at 11:20 the Army were dispatched onto the streets of London. If this actually happened, were we under martial law? and why were the British people not informed. I have not heard or seen any eyewitness accounts stating the presence of soldiers on the streets, but no one is denying it occurred either.

MOBILE NETWORK SHUTDOWN?

The Police have said today that the mobile phone networks were not shut down as this would have caused public panic. (The Madrid Bombings were coordinated with the use of mobile phones). "We did consider it. We do have that ability," Blair said. But he said commanders considered how that would affect public confidence, and decided not to do it.

OK so why is the British media reporting that networks were shut down under a program called Access Overload Control , and why could I not make any calls for at least two hours? When the network is busy you get told that it is busy, my calls were instantly intercepted and failed immediately with no such message.

Furthermore, Whilst some "investigators" are saying timers WERE used to detonate the bombs, the Police are saying there is no evidence that timers were used.

REMOVING BODIES OR NOT?

During the same press conference the Police Commissioner also indicated that there were still bodies in the train between Russell Square and Kings Cross that are not yet being retrieved due to dangers of the tunnel collapsing. Yet the BBC had reported minutes earlier that police at the scene were saying they were in the process of carrying out forensic work in that carriage and the bodies were being retrieved. Which is true?

It is clear that the officials are not getting the official story straight.

HOW MANY DEAD?

The police will only go as far as saying at this point that "more than 50" are dead. Of these 50 officially only 2 died on the bus. The scene where the bus was blown apart has been completely cordoned off with screens. It is clear that more than 2 people died on the bus just from the pictures that have been released and the eyewitness accounts, so why are we still being told only 2 people are dead?

The Bombs also "held less than 10 pounds of high explosives" (about rucksack size). Are we to believe that this amount of explosive material on 3 different trains and 1 bus has not killed more than 50 people? The carriages at that time are absolutely packed with people, you have to literally stand nose to nose. I know, I was on a train at that time on the same line just the previous day.

Again the authorities are hiding the real facts, why?

More people are killed in car accidents every week in London than in this "major terror attack" yet the repercussions are likely to vastly bolster the police state grid.

SUICIDE BOMBERS? CCTV?

The media is in a frenzy over whether the bombs were let off by suicide bombers. The Police have said there is no evidence of suicide bombers and that there are many CCTV tapes to trawl through in order to uncover the facts. All London Buses have CCTV cameras on them, why don't they just watch the one video from the one bus that was attacked and find out if there was a suicide bomber?

The answer seems to be that if there were indeed suicide bombers, then the fear level is diminished because the perpetrators are not "still out there" lurking, waiting to strike again.

London has around 4 million surveillance cameras, there are thousands on the underground, yet we are now being told that they are absolutely useless. If they neither prevent such attacks nor help in the aftermath, then what is the point in them?

HOW MANY BOMBS?

Initial reports suggested there were up to 8 bombs on the underground and 3 on buses. This was later scaled back to 3 on the underground and one on a bus. So there were 7 incidents that never actually happened. Police have said that this confusion can be attributed to the fact that people were coming out of different stations. Furthermore the other bus incidents were "controlled explosions". Controlled explosions of what?

Could it be that the attack was supposed to be larger in scale but further incidents failed to make the right impact?

STATEMENT CLAIMING RESPONSIBILITY

The "Al Qaeda" Statement claiming responsibility for the attacks is being hyped by the media. Just like on 9/11 no one has officially claimed that they carried out the attack. It says:

"The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters."

You have to actively assume that this group are writing in the third person about themselves in order to come to the conclusion that they are claiming responsibility. The same goes for Bin Laden's video in which he "claimed responsibility" for 9/11.

The fact that anyone could have posted this statement and it came from "Arab Sources" is secondary to the fact that it claims nothing. This will not matter though as over time it will be repeated again and again in the media. The government don't even have to officially announce "Al Qaeda" is responsible.

Furthermore MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, has pointed out that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony..

"This is not something al-Qaida would do," he said.

THERE IS NOTHING FOR "AL QAEDA" TO GAIN FROM THIS

The Financial Times of London reported on the 6th of July that we were pulling a significant number of troops out of Iraq, then 'Al-Qaeda' bomb us, so the troops stay, how does that benefit 'Al-Qaeda'?

We are supposed to believe that Al Qaeda is made up of intelligent well educated, well off individuals who meticulously plan their operations. Are we to believe that they do not comprehend the fact that if they bomb major Western cities they will feel the wrath of both angry Westerners and well meaning peaceful Muslims.

We need to focus on the question of who will gain from these latest attacks and who has gained from the past attacks? Most importantly we must not just accept what we are told because clearly what we are being told does not add up.

JUST THE BEGINNING

One day after the attacks the inconsistencies and contradictions are mounting. In the weeks and months to come more and more will come out as the official story is demanded by the press and the public. Just as now, we will be here reporting them.