Sunday, February 27, 2011

7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT Interview with Jim Feltzer...

TRANSCRIPT:  AUDIO http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/210709-muaddib-interviewed-jim-fetzer-170709


Part 1:
(JIM): This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”, with my very special guest today, Muad’Dib, who has produced the video; sensational DVD may I say; “7/7 Ripple Effect”, about the attacks on the British subway-system and a double-decker bus on 7 July 2005. Muad’Dib, it’s a real pleasure to have you back on the show.

(MUAD’DIB): Thank-you. It’s good to be back with you again.

(JIM): Now, our last interview was divided into segments and is posted on YouTube. So anyone who would like to listen to our previous conversation, which was a two-hour interview, can find it there. And your video, your DVD, is available also on YouTube or Google Video - “7/7 Ripple Effect”.

I must say, in my opinion this is a Masterpiece. In less than an hour, you explain how this whole event was planned, how it was staged, what went wrong, how the authorities sought to cover it up and the failure of the press to cover it adequately. I think it is as marvellous a microcosm for understanding the nature of inside-jobs as anyone has ever produced, so I must congratulate you and tell you how much I admire your work.

(MUAD’DIB): Thank you very much.

(JIM): Why don’t we give a little sketch for the audience here, during our first segment, about what you discovered in relation to 7/7, how you began to do research on this subject, and what you turned up? Because the whole “operation-going-live” was being masked or camouflaged by the claim that an anti-terrorist drill was going to take place in the vicinity of the exact same tube-stops, and even an additional complementary event that in fact played out in real life.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Well, after 911 happened and everybody started investigating that… once that set the ball rolling, really… for when 7/7 happened; that myself and some friends started to investigate the mainstream media articles, TV-reporting, etc.

In fact, on the morning of 7/7, I received a call from a friend of mine who was in the U.K., in London, and he said, “Have you heard what’s happened?” So I said, “No, what’s going off?” So he said, “You need to turn the TV on and have a look at what’s going off, there’ve been some terrorist attacks in London.”

So I turned on the TV and started watching it. We saw Peter Power come on the TV saying that he had been running a mock-terrorist-exercise that very same day, with the same scenario, the same tubes, etc… same time, same locations… and that stank.

 So we started to dig and dig and dig, and found more and more evidence of how the government’s story just didn’t add up at all.

 It was full of holes and contradictions.

 And we followed it over the following couple of years, with all the so-called new evidence that came out - an interview of the person they say was the ringleader’s, wife, (who) was interviewed on TV after she’d been released from police custody, having been arrested and kept in custody for six days, away from her young daughter… and all the rest of it.

It’s just… there was a mountain of evidence that we collected, and so then I sat down, and started to look at all of the evidence, and started to put it in chronological order and striving to make sense of it all.

 And it then became plain; to me anyway; what had happened.

 And so I decided that we should make a film about it.

I’d already watched a film about 911 that I felt was a good film, which was “911 Ripple Effect”, made by Dave von Kleist, in which you were featured quite heavily, and I liked the film.

I liked the way it was made, the way it was presented. There was no hype, there was no sensationalising anything. It was just information from experts. So I decided that somebody needed to make one about 7/7, and so I set about doing it and wrote a script for it, laying out; using common-sense and Ockham’s Razor – Ockham’s Razor says that all things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one; and looking at all of the evidence that we’d found and analysed… it became obvious that the story that I eventually wrote, the script that I wrote, seemed to be the only logical common-sense answer to all these different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. In reality it’s like a big jigsaw puzzle. You have to get all the pieces, and then you have to fit them all together. And that’s what I did… and came up with the film.

(JIM): And of course in relation to Ockham’s Razor; which I have discussed in my professional work as a philosopher of science; you prefer the simpler theory when it can also account for all of the available relevant evidence.

 So that a simpler theory per se, is not preferable unless it can account for all the available evidence, and in fact the simplest theory may well be one that is refuted by all of the available evidence, as would be the case here, if you presume that these “terrorists” actually performing the acts that were attributed to them as (being) the simplest theory, rather than that the government staged these events and framed these individuals, and subsequently as you discovered; shot them dead.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.

(JIM): Tell us about… it’s, you-know, to me… given my present familiarity with the case and being so appreciative of the marvellous study you’ve produced… is Peter Power coming on and saying it was on the same day and all that, was simply, you-know, confronting the most obvious refutation of the government’s account head-on, by trying to make it sound as though, you-know, this was some incredible coincidence, when in fact it was nothing of the sort, it was simply taking advantage of the planned drill to turn it “live”?

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. I’m not sure what you wanted me to come back on, on that.

(JIM): Oh, just that Peter Power was clearly trying to dismiss what would later be cited as the most obvious reason for believing it was an inside-job.

By hitting it head-on and saying that it just happened to be on the very same day, at the very same tube-stops and so-forth, that this drill was taking place. I mean, this is a psychological operation trying to convince the audience that there’s nothing to it, because if later it turns out that it was the same time and so-forth, everyone would obviously smell a rat.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. It may be, even, that he was duped. The chances of it being coincidence are just not worth considering. I mean, it’s such a large number. It’s just… it’s not possible for it to have been a coincidence.

(JIM): I agree completely.

(MUAD’DIB): So one question that does sort of fit into this, is; if he was a dupe, he would have… and as he was a spokesman that all the TV companies; with these kind of things; they always used to rake him up and have him on air immediately, asking his opinion on everything… so it may be that he used that familiarity with the TV-stations to get out onto the air, his side (of the story), so that he wasn’t suspected afterwards.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): Because he had to get out there very, very quickly and make his statement, before the TV-companies or the censors would have any chance of stopping him from getting on and saying it.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): In other words, in order to cover himself… or C-Y-A I think you Americans call it.

(JIM): Yes, CYA indeed (laughing).  

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, so that’s a possibility. I mean, it may be, as I said in the film, I said was he a dupe or was he an accomplice? Because looking at the facts, he had to be one or the other.

(JIM): Yes. Yes. I think that’s exactly right. Now, if he was a dupe then you would think the more he learned about (this), the more outraged he’d become and he would go on an aggressive stance to expose what had happened, if he had been a dupe. But he hasn’t done that, has he?

(MUAD’DIB): No, he hasn’t, but you have to take into consideration that he would know THEY* would kill him, if he did that.
* THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You.

(JIM): Well, there’s some things worth dying for.

(MUAD’DIB): Of course.

(JIM): An outrage of this magnitude that’s been used to… you-know, it’s a terrorist-act performed by the British government on the British people that… he ought to be able to stand up for it, and once he makes his peace, the risk of killing him, I think, is dramatically reduced, because if they kill him it’s confirmation that what he was saying was true.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah but THEY don’t always act in such a logical manner.

If you take the case of Dr David Kelly, he came out about the “dodgy dossier” as the justification for the invasion of Iraq and all of that. And, you-know, THEY passed it off as a suicide.

But there are now thirteen highly qualified doctors who are saying that he could not have committed suicide, the way that THEY said he had committed suicide. He would not have died from loss of blood, from the type of wound that THEY say that he had.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): So they are demanding that there is a proper inquiry.

 Lord Hutton did an inquiry into it, a white-wash really, and everybody knows it was a white-wash. And most people in the U.K. believe that THEY did actually murder David Kelly, and make it look like a suicide.

 So this isn’t really a surprise to the British public, the same as the Lady Diana business, you-know, they did a survey shortly after she died in that car-crash in Paris and the results of the poll were that more than 98% of the population believe she was murdered.

(JIM): That case has troubled me too. I was a huge admirer of Princess Di and thought she was doing so much good for the world. Especially in her campaign against land-mines.

(MUAD’DIB): Exactly. And so, who would have the incentive to kill her?

(JIM): Obviously the military-industrial complex that produces them, that doesn’t want to lose their profits, and so forth.

(MUAD’DIB): Exactly. And they were being manufactured in France, in the U.K., and in America.

(JIM): It’s a terrible case.

(MUAD’DIB): So then think about the three secret services being involved in it. And the covering up of it.

(JIM): Yes. Well, returning to 7/7… four young men who were accused of these crimes, but it appears quite evident from your research that they could not possibly have committed it.

(MUAD’DIB): No, because they couldn’t have made it in time to catch those tube-trains. And you can be absolutely certain that if they had made it on time to catch those tube-trains, there would be loads of CCTV-footage showing them doing so.

(JIM): Yes. Why don’t you sketch the time-line here for the attacks, and when the bombs, the explosives, went off and so-forth, and relate it to their inability to make their appointed destinations on time?

(MUAD’DIB): Well, I don’t have all that information in front of me, and I don’t have it all in my head. But the train that they were… the official government story said that they caught the 7:40 AM train from Luton to Thameslink Station at King’s Cross.

(JIM): But ironically that train was cancelled.

(MUAD’DIB): Yes, and the next one was cancelled also.

(JIM): And the next one following that? So their fall-back to say they caught the next train, also wouldn’t do.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. So about a year or more after, the government had this pointed out to them, so then they had to come up with a new story, that: oh, they caught an earlier train.

 But everybody’s investigated that.

 They wouldn’t have had… if they were carrying highly volatile home-made explosives in their back-packs, they would be walking very carefully, very slowly, because it was so volatile.

 And so they couldn’t have made it from the photograph (which shows them) outside Luton Station, to the platform, buying tickets, getting to the platform carefully, walking very slowly.

 They would not have been able to catch even the earlier train that the government is now saying that they caught.

Even if they did, that train was delayed and it didn’t get into Thameslink in time for them to make it from Thameslink to King’s Cross Mainline Station, and then down into the Underground, buying tickets… all the rest of it, and to get onto the platform to catch those three tube-trains. So whichever way they look at it, whichever way the government wants to try and argue it, it doesn’t work.

(JIM): You-know, it’s so shameful that the British government is being such a, you-know, lying so massively about this just as the American government has lied so massively about 911, and justifications for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. We know that they commonly deceive the people, and that they are thieves, but they also turn out to be murderers even on a massive scale. I mean, that 911 was an inside-job, in the U.S.A., I think is beyond dispute.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.

(JIM): Of course, over three thousand persons, or around three thousand persons, were killed, most of them in New York. And what we’re talking about, in the U.K.; were there one hundred and twenty or so casualties?

(MUAD’DIB): There were fifty-six fatalities.

(JIM): Fifty-six fatalities.

(MUAD’DIB): Including the four patsies.

(JIM): Including the four patsies…

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. The government keeps putting out that there were fifty-two people killed, you-know, but they never seem to want to include these four patsies, because they were patsies. So there were actually fifty-six fatalities and there were, I think, seven hundred and eighty-something injuries.

(JIM): Seven hundred?!

(MUAD’DIB): Seven hundred and eighty-something… almost eight hundred people injured.

(JIM): My goodness. So it really was quite a large-scale event, because of-course it created a sensation in London, and there were a number of important figures who were in the vicinity, including no less than Benjamin Netanyahu, who was staying not far from Tavistock Square, as I understand it.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. And don’t forget Rudy Giuliani.

(JIM): You had Rudy Giuliani right there. My God, get him on the air so he can talk about terrorist-attacks…

(MUAD’DIB): Or should we give him his proper title?:- SIR Rudy Giuliani.

(JIM): Giuliani has been knighted?

(MUAD’DIB): I understand so, yeah.

(JIM): Oh, that’s an embarrassment! Listen, I noticed a report… one of the few that made it into the media here about 7/7, it’s entitled “7/7 Attacks Not Suicide Bombings”, by Rixon Stewart, that was published September 14th 2005. I’d like to read a few paragraphs from it, and then I’d invite your comments on it.

(MUAD’DIB): Okay.

(JIM): Well, the authorities have repeatedly claimed that suicide-bombers were behind the 7/7 attacks in London.

 Evidence to the contrary continues to mount, although the mainstream-media has largely ignored it.

 Bruce Lait, who was in an Underground train-carriage near London’s Aldgate East Station, when one of the bombs exploded, describes a scene that indicates that the bombs were planted, not carried by suicide-bombers.

 Describing the immediate aftermath of the blast he said: “It was just the most awful scene of death and there were body-parts everywhere. There was something next to me. I was trying not to look. I couldn’t figure out what it was. A short while later, paramedics arrived and began attending to the dead and injured.”

 Crucially, however, as Bruce Lait made his way out of the wrecked train-carriage, a policeman pointed-out where the bomb had been, and Lait recalls: “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, the evidence, together with eye-witness testimony like Bruce Lait’s, indicates that some of the 7/7 explosions were the result of explosives that had been placed underneath the train-carriage, or at least under the train-carriage’s floor.

And this seems to be perfectly consistent with all the research you’ve done, that the explosions blew the metal upward and into the compartment, indicating the explosives were beneath it, rather than downward and out, which would have even created such a tremendous blast that it ought to have taken the carriages off of the rails.

Which in fact, did not happen.

(MUAD’DIB): Well, the trains were derailed.

(JIM): Oh they were derailed?

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, because the bomb was underneath and it lifted the train off the track.

(JIM): Yes that’s right, that’s to (what I meant to) say…

(MUAD’DIB): Oh okay.

(JIM): That they wouldn’t have been derailed had the explosive been inside…

(MUAD’DIB) … inside…

(JIM): … the compartment.

(MUAD’DIB): Correct. Correct, yeah.

(JIM): Well, Bruce Lait’s testimony seems to be consistent with that of others too, who reported that the metal was blown upward.

(MUAD’DIB): Yes, absolutely. And recently, very recently, there has been a photograph released of the King’s Cross tube-train, and that also appears to have the floor bent upwards.
 And this has only come out in the last couple of weeks.

(JIM): Really?

(MUAD’DIB): Well, in fact, since I was last on your program.

(JIM): Really?

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah.

(JIM): And of course these four young men apparently learned about the explosion as they were still en-route to their destinations, so they decided to not keep their appointment with death and destruction, but instead sought to make some kind of escape, but they were trapped.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, they went to Canary Wharf.

 That’s where Reuters is, and a lot of the major print-media in the U.K. are stationed in Canary Wharf, which is in the Docklands, the East-End of London.

And I’ve posited the theory that they went there, because they didn’t know what to do.

They were like fish out of water. They were a long way from home. They didn’t know anybody. They didn’t know what to do… and it would make sense for them in that situation, and in a panic, to try to get some media-coverage to show that they were innocent, thinking that Reuters would probably, you-know, do the story, which I doubt very much because we know; well, I know; who owns Reuters. I don’t know if you do?

(JIM): No I don’t. Tell us more?

(MUAD’DIB): It’s owned by the Rothschild’s.

(JIM): Hmmm.

(MUAD’DIB): So yes, and then we have reports which I saw personally on the TV that morning… remember I said that someone had phoned me and told me to turn the TV on and told me all about this, and I was busy…

unfortunately I can’t remember which station it was broadcast on, because I was busy flipping channels from one news program, from one channel to another, striving to get the maximum amount of information, because they all put out similar things, but each news (station) tries to have something unique in their report, that the others haven’t got.

And so I was flipping the channels and I can’t remember which channel, but one of the channels; because I saw it myself; announced that some suicide-bombers had been shot and killed by the anti-terrorist squad of the police in Canary Wharf.

And of course that really set the alarm-bells going, because later-on, when they started saying that: oh it was suicide-bombers, I thought well, you-know, that doesn’t make any sense.

How can suicide-bombers who’d blown themselves up on three tube-trains, be in Canary Wharf to be shot by the anti-terrorist branch of the police?

Didn’t make any sense. And all of the things… as I kept investigating, more and more information was coming out… and it just proved that the government story couldn’t possibly be true.

(JIM): Yeah. I think you have three crucial factors in your refutation of the official account. Number one - that they couldn’t have made it on time to their appointed destination. Number two - that the physical evidence of the explosions contradicts the bombs-having-come-from-inside-the-compartment-downward (idea), but instead is consistent with beneath-going-upward. And third – they survived the bombings and were shot dead in Canary Wharf, when they may very well have been seeking to gain some kind of media attention to their plight.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Also the explosives that were used… we were told that these were home-made explosives - TATP. And that they mixed it up in a bath in Leeds, and it’s very, very volatile. And then they managed to transport it, all the way from Leeds, to Luton. Then from Luton to Thameslink. and then onto the tubes and the bus, without it going off. This stuff is very, very volatile.

(JIM): It sounds like if it’s about as unstable as nitroglycerin.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. If not more so.

(JIM): Even more so. Remarkable.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. In fact, I was reading recently that they only use it as a detonator for other explosives, because it is so volatile, and so unstable.

(JIM): So there’s another gross implausibility in the official account, and not to mention of course, the over-riding consideration that it was going on at the same tube-stops in relation to this government terrorist drill. I mean, the whole situation is absurd.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. And the other thing about the explosives… I mean, it’s been admitted by the French anti-terrorist chief of the police in France, (who) came over to London to help the investigation, and he said that these were not just high-explosives; that they weren’t home-made.

 Not only were they high-explosives, but they were military-grade high-explosives, which is even more explosive and dangerous than ordinary high-explosives

(JIM): How remarkable that three young, allegedly Muslim men, should have been seeking to perpetrate these crimes using military-grade explosives.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, which they would not have had access to.

And the other thing is that they keep stressing that these young men mixed up this TATP explosive in a bath in Leeds, when we know that it was military-grade explosives.

And we know from the results, that they were military-grade explosives, that they weren’t TATP, because TATP; when it explodes; there is no flame and there is no heat involved, unlike conventional explosives.

 Now, if we look at the injuries that were caused, and there’s a famous picture that most people, I think, have seen, of a woman being led across the street by a man and she’s wearing a white mask, a burns mask

(JIM): … yes…

(MUAD’DIB): … okay? Now, how did she get burnt with TATP? There is no flame, there is no heat.

(JIM): Marvellous. Marvellous point. The effects couldn’t have been produced by the alleged mechanism used to blow up the trains.

(MUAD’DIB): Exactly.

(JIM): We’re going to take a brief break here, and return with Muad’Dib talking about 7/7, the events and the consequences. We’ll be right back.

Part 2:
(JIM): This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”, with my special guest today, Muad’Dib, discussing his research on 7/7, where it seems to me he has made an overwhelmingly compelling case for governmental-complicity and cover-up.

 I mean, the facts are so elementary here, and so devastating to the government’s account, that I find it difficult to believe that any rational mind exposed to the evidence could possibly believe what the British government has been saying about these events.

 But I take it it’s your view that there aren’t a lot of rational minds out there? That the government has so much influence on the media and the “tube” (TV) and so forth, that it’s difficult to find persons, whose minds are sufficiently open, to actually consider the evidence in an objective fashion?

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. That’s the sad reality, I’m afraid.

(JIM): Now, it’s very interesting to your present plight by virtue of being in Ireland, because the British government is trying to extradite you in order to prosecute you, for what? I mean, the fact is that some associates of these young men were being brought into court for collaboration with them, and you sent copies of your DVD to the barristers involved, and for that; for your efforts to expose them to the evidence and the truth about 7/7; they have come after you.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. They didn’t come after me for sending the DVDs to the barristers.

They came after me for sending a copy of the DVD to the judge in the case, and five copies, addressed to the Court, but to the foreman of the jury, because the jury and the judge are the people who have to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused.

And the jury were being lied to.

 Important information was being withheld from the jury.

They were misled both by the prosecution and by the judge, who told the jury-members that there was no doubt that the four original patsies had carried-out these horrendous crimes, when they’d never been found guilty in a court of law.

All the evidence that I’d collected and put into the film proves that they were patsies and that they didn’t do it.

So for the judge and the prosecution to be telling the jury that there was no doubt that these four original patsies had carried-out these crimes, forced me, really, to send the evidence that I had, to the court, to the judge.

 So that he could correct; if it was a genuine mistake that he’d made; that he could correct it and therefore prevent there being a miscarriage of justice.

And prevent the prosecution from perverting the course of justice. Unfortunately what happened was that they did the opposite.

 Instead of accepting the evidence as an Amicus Curiae Brief, which is Latin for “Friend of the Court”, which is what I was striving to be, to help the court not to make a miscarriage of justice and make a grave error, and that these young men could get twenty, thirty, forty or whatever years, in prison, for something they couldn’t possibly have done, because if the four original patsies were innocent and didn’t do it, then these three who were being tried couldn’t possibly have helped them to do something that they didn’t do.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): And they should never have been put on trial in the first place. There was not enough evidence. There was nothing. I mean, they were eventually found not guilty. There was no evidence against these young men and it’s never been proved in a court of law that the four original ones did it, because it wouldn’t stand up in court. They didn’t do it.

(JIM): Would you have reason to believe that your intervention made a difference to the outcome of the trial?

(MUAD’DIB): Well, my DVDs… on the warrant that they sent to have me arrested it says that my DVDs never reached the judge or the jury, so unless, you-know, by the grassroots word-of-mouth on the street… the DVD had been on the Internet free for people to watch and download, for at least six months before the trial, so it’s possible that by other means it had an effect. I would hope that it possibly did.

(JIM): By the Crown’s own admission, your effort to serve in an Amicus Curiae role was frustrated… was defeated.

(MUAD’DIB): Yes. Exactly, yeah they said that they’d intercepted them and that they hadn’t handed them to the judge, or to the jury.

(JIM): So what offence are you alleged to have committed?

(MUAD’DIB): Well, they’ve now accused me of attempting to pervert the course of justice, in that particular trial. Whereas I was doing the opposite, I was striving to prevent them from perverting the course of justice and from having a miscarriage of justice.

(JIM): Have they acknowledged your role as an Amicus Curiae contributor? That, that was what you were seeking to do? Have they ever used that phrase?

(MUAD’DIB): No. No, not at all.

(JIM): The barrister representing you now in your efforts to defeat this extradition move, has he ever made the argument that you are serving in an Amicus Curiae role

(MUAD’DIB): No.

(JIM): That seems to be crucial to understanding what you were seeking to do.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, absolutely.

(JIM): This troubles me about your representation, and the quality of your representation. It suggests you are not receiving competent counsel.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. I don’t know if eventually… because you’re going to load this up; hopefully anyway; onto the Internet… I would like to find a solicitor and a barrister in Ireland who believes, who’s seen the film and believes in what I did and is willing to represent me.

(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I think that’s devoutly to be wished. I think that’s extremely important that that should happen. Why were the young men acquitted? I mean, obviously the Crown couldn’t make its case.

(MUAD’DIB): Lack of evidence.

(JIM): Lack of evidence… (laughs)

(MUAD’DIB): Because they can’tthere is no evidence. I mean, how can they have evidence if they’re innocent? There is no evidence.

(JIM): They can fabricate evidence.

(MUAD’DIB): Oh yes. They could do that, yeah.

(JIM): In the case of Lee Oswald, the accused assassin of JFK, for example, they planted a weapon on him, they made a mistake because it wasn’t high-velocity, it could not have fired the bullets that killed the man.

He was actually down on a second-floor lunch-room, where he was observed by co-workers at ten minutes to twelve, at twelve, at twelve-fifteen, as late as twelve-twenty-five… the assassination took place at twelve-thirty.

 And a motor-cycle patrolman confronted him there within 90 seconds afterwards, and he and his supervisor who identified him as an employee and explained how he should be there, both described in their hand-written statements that he wasn’t perspiring, he wasn’t agitated, he wasn’t acting at all suspicious, except Roy Truly; his supervisor; had a little startle perhaps, as someone might be to suddenly find an officer holding their revolver on you.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, of course.

(JIM): He was drinking a coke if you can believe that. The scenario the government would have us believe is quite absurd, as absurd as you find here.

 But they did manufacture, you-know, they faked photographs, they planted evidence, you-know, in lots of other ways they sought to incriminate him, even for the shooting of a policeman, where it’s rather evident that he was not involved.

So, you-know, the fabrication of evidence can be massive and extensive when they want to frame somebody.

(MUAD’DIB): Oh yeah, yeah, I’m aware of that.

I think the fact that I put the film out and there were other films out as well, and there were a lot of people who didn’t believe the official story… I think if they had gone to the extent of fabricating evidence against these young men, there would have been an outcry.

I would hope there would have been an outcry anyway.

I mean, I was moved to do what I did. I couldn’t sit back and not do what I did, because I could see that what was happening was totally unjust.

 But there were a lot of other people who’d seen my film, who could equally have sent it to the Court, and didn’t.

There were a lot of people who knew, or were convinced, that the four original ones were patsies, who could have made approaches to the Court in the U.K., and who didn’t. Nobody seems to have lifted a finger to help these young men. Even their own barristers said to them that they shouldn’t dispute the official story because they might end-up with longer prison sentences. Well, I mean, that’s outrageous.

(JIM): That is outrageous. Trying to manipulate their own clients whose interests they are supposed to be representing, by actually dealing dirty with them.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, but you see, it’s all about money as well. Because if the barristers had used the DVDs that I sent to them, and they had told their clients to dispute the official story, then the trial wouldn’t have gone on for as long as it did, and they wouldn’t have made as much money as they did.

(JIM): Mmhm (chuckles)

(MUAD’DIB): Because very quickly, they could have had the case thrown out of the Court, because they could have said: look, there is no proof; these original four have never been found guilty in a Court of law.

They’ve only been given a trial by media and found guilty by the media. And so, in reality, as they’ve never been found guilty of this offence, in Court, then there is no basis for the charge against the other three. And it would have been thrown out of Court quite quickly. Especially if they had used the evidence that I gave them, on the DVD, in the film, to prove that these young men were innocent.

(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes.

(MUAD’DIB): But you see, the barristers are part of the system and they make their money… you-know, they work for the Crown, indirectly.

(JIM): Yeah. Let’s talk about what’s happened since you were last on this show.

 I know that it was divided into segments and posted on YouTube as I may have mentioned earlier, and there has been a great deal of discussion of your case on the continent, in England too I presume.

I know Alex Jones had a segment devoted to it and there was at least one article that appeared in PrisonPlanet. Are you aware of other efforts on your behalf, or interest in this case, is it growing in your judgment?

(MUAD’DIB): It did immediately after we did the broadcast and it was uploaded, and people knew about it and watched it on YouTube and then Alex Jones picked up on it… but I haven’t really heard anything since, well, the last week or so… I’ve been watching the Internet, things have been pretty quiet really, in that respect, although I’m quite certain that the ripples are still rippling and probably accelerating. But the thing is, it needs more than ripples, it really needs a tidal-wave to wash away all this filth.

(JIM): Yes. Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I could not agree more. So where is your case currently standing, in relation to this attempt to extradite you to England, for trial?

(MUAD’DIB): Well, I’ve submitted an appeal on the grounds that it is a malicious-prosecution, and it is politically-motivated.

And I’m waiting, really, for it to be processed and to go before the Supreme Court of Ireland. My barrister told me, at the original hearing here in Ireland; at the High Court; my barrister told me that I didn’t have grounds for an appeal, but I gave him written instructions that he was to appeal, on the grounds that I specified in that letter, which was that it was a malicious-prosecution and politically-motivated.

 So he didn’t think that I had grounds for an appeal, and that I should submit myself and go to the U.K., to fight the case.

 Well, when we went before the judge, the same judge who… (chuckles)… funnily enough the same judge whom my original hearing had been in front of, when the barrister wouldn’t present the case, the defence, that I had given him to present, and where I lost… we went before that judge again to re-apply for bail, because in the meantime I’d been locked up in prison again, and the barrister said that I wouldn’t get bail and I didn’t have grounds for an appeal, so I should just agree and to go to the U.K..

 So I said, no, we won’t do that. I want to apply for bail and I want you to apply for an appeal on the grounds that I have given you.

 So he said: okay then, we’ll do our best, we’ll see what we can do. When we went before the judge again, for the bail-hearing; after I’d been locked up for twenty-three days; the judge asked me, personally, some questions, and he asked for a copy of the appeal and said that he would look at it and consider it, and we gave reasons why I should be granted bail, because I had previously been granted bail and I hadn’t run away;

I’d fulfilled all the conditions of the bail, so there was no reason why I wouldn’t do that again. So the judge then needed a couple of days to decide what he was going to do with me, and we had to go back two days later, and in Court he said that I did have grounds for appeal, so the barrister that was representing me was wrong.

And I got the impression that what he was signalling to the Court, was that if he had had the grounds that were on the appeal; which were originally in the defence I gave to the barrister; if he had seen those on the day of the hearing, that he would have thrown out the warrant against me.

 And so the barrister was a little bit embarrassed, to say the least, about all of this. And the judge granted me bail, he increased the amount of money that I had to pay, in bail; the bond, I think you call it; but he granted me bail, which the barrister said that I wouldn’t get. And he said that yes I did have grounds for appeal and that it should be processed and should go to the Supreme Court. So the barrister was wrong on both counts, which made me, you-know, wonder exactly what the barrister was up to.

(JIM): Well, I don’t think he’s representing your interests, Muad’Dib. I think he’s representing the interests of other entities involved in this case.

(MUAD’DIB): It would appear that way, I must admit.

(JIM): Very disturbing.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, so I would really like… the thing is, how do I find somebody who will represent me properly?

If you find a solicitor and a barrister, and they say: oh yes, you-know, we’ve got a pretty good chance, and we’ll represent you… and then you go into Court; you’ve only got their word for it that they’re any good; and then when you get into Court, and you find out that they’re not, it’s too late. It’s all over and you’ve lost the case.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): So it’s a very, very difficult situation.

(JIM): Oh I think it is indeed. I only wish that when the police offered to find you a barrister, that you had not been in a position of being dependent upon them to locate him.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Because that’s what happened, the arresting officers asked me; at the time of the arrest; if I had a solicitor, and I said no, and they said, you-know, did I want them to get one for me? So I said, yes, I suppose you’d better do that and make it a good one.

(JIM): In retrospect, do you think perhaps the arresting officers had a conflict of interest?

(MUAD’DIB): Oh I would think so, yes.

(JIM): I mean, given that they were arresting you, they’d like to find their arrest was proper?

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, and their attitude… of the two plain-clothes ones who came from Dublin to arrest me, has been very strange. It’s been very… bad really.

(JIM): Tell me more about that?

(MUAD’DIB): It’s something I can’t really… just their attitude, something I can’t really explain, it’s just that, you-know, when people are dealing with you, they’re supposed to treat you as innocent until proven guilty

(JIM): Right, of course.

(MUAD’DIB): And they’ve been treating me as though I was guilty.

(JIM): Yes. Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): Which is totally the wrong attitude. It’s not their job to decide that. It’s their job to have the information, to find evidence, or whatever, if they are the investigating officers, and to present that to the prosecution-services, etc, and to the Court. It’s not their job to decide whether somebody’s guilty or not. That’s the Court’s job.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): So they were, you-know, pretty anti-social, to put it mildly.

(JIM): Yes.

(MUAD’DIB): And, you-know, I mean, there was no violence or anything but… just their attitude was bad all the way through. And so the fact that they found me this particular solicitor and all of the things that have happened since, makes me wonder if they, you-know, work sort of in collusion.

 To just process people as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and make as much money as they can, and just, you-know, get people sent out of the country so it’s no longer their problem. And if that’s what they are doing, then that’s absolutely evil.

(JIM): Well, you seem to be confronting corruption at every level.

(MUAD’DIB): Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.

And then the judge, you-know… and the judge seemed to be a reasonable man, but he said he would watch the film and then he didn’t… I feel that he might be regretting the fact that he didn’t watch the film, since then, because when I went in front of him again for bail and for the appeal to the Supreme Court, he was much more mellow and he was much more… I can’t say friendly because that wouldn’t be right for him to be friendly, but he was much nicer.

(JIM): More receptive, more sympathetic, more patient, listening…

(MUAD’DIB): Yes. Yes. I think he’d realised that he should have let me speak that day at the hearing. And put forward my defence.

I think he realised that if I had put forward what he then had in front of him at the second hearing, for the appeal, he would have thrown out the warrant. He would have quashed it. And then I would be free now to, you-know, continue my life. I think that’s what he was trying to put over to me, and to the Court. And that embarrassed the barrister. The barrister was very embarrassed after the hearing. So once this is put up onto the Internet, if there are any solicitors in Dublin, who; will watch the film; have heard the interviews, and are willing to do their best to defend me; please contact me.

(JIM): Yes. Yes, yes. Well, you’re as deserving a case as I can imagine. You’re standing up for human-rights, integrity of the judicial-system, you’re resisting harassing forms of prosecution which would actually constitute persecution on political grounds. It would seem to me that there are a lot of individuals of great integrity and legal standing who ought to have an interest in your case, Muad’Dib.

(MUAD’DIB): I would hope so. I really would hope so. The other thing as well, is that I’m on… on legal-aid, so there isn’t, you-know, I’m not wealthy and can’t afford to pay for a lawyer, so it would have to be someone not only with integrity and belief in the case, but also that is willing to work on legal-aid.

(JIM): Well, I think that, you-know, there are persons of great integrity in this world who ought to be interested in a political persecution of this character, especially when the stakes are so high and it represents, you-know… you are a seeker after truth, you have revealed so much about governmental-complicity in the events of 7/7.

It’s part of a very elaborate charade to deceive the people, not just of Britain and of the United States, but the world, about these events, which are, in fact, terrorist-attacks performed by the governments of these nations, in order to instill fear into the population to manipulate us for political purposes. It’s truly disgusting… and on the highest order of evil.
(MUAD’DIB): Yeah, it is, and with that in mind; so that people might understand why all this evil is happening, and why everything is getting worse and it’s accelerating; I’d really like them to read a book that is available to be downloaded from the Internet, free, in PDF format. And the book is called “The Way home or face The Fire”, and the URL for it is http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net or http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.info . It’s on two different sites, one’s “dot net”, the other’s “dot info”. The book is called “The Way home or face The Fire”, and it will explain…

(JIM): … “The Way home or face The Fire”, and we can get it, obtain it, on the Internet and download it in a PDF form.

(MUAD’DIB): Yes. And perhaps then at some future date, we can do this again and discuss The Book.

(JIM): Muad’Dib, that’s a wonderful suggestion. I just want to tell you how much I admire you, for your courage and your integrity in speaking out against these political charades being perpetrated by; in this instance; the government and intelligence agencies of the U.K., and I can only hope that you are able to receive competent counsel from respected barristers in the near future, and that this whole matter can be straightened out to your benefit.

(MUAD’DIB): Thank-you. That’s very kind of you.

(JIM): Thank you so much for coming on the show again. This is Jim Fetzer, your host on “The Real Deal”. We’ll be right back.

 http://mtrial.org/inthemedia/210709-muaddib-interviewed-jim-fetzer-170709