It suggests two things very clearly:
a) That mossad had prior knowledge of the bombs and so were able to warn the Israeli Embassy and Netanyahu before the actual explosions.
"Then there is the timing and method of the blasts. First the various explosions were spread out over more than an hour, until people began to ask why, seeing that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had been able to warn Netanyahu (who was conveniently on location) not to leave his hotel"
and
b) that the British Government was in some way involved as these attacks were precisely what they needed politically at that time.
"London needed a real terror attack in order to numb people sufficiently for the government to push through legislation that they had not been able to push through even before their electoral fiasco."
Surely such a thorough investigator as you can manage to read between the lines here, or simply just put two and two togther as the article so clearly and so often invites you to do? Here's another inviting tid-bit:
"What is more, in a multi-million people city like London there are inevitably people who see things they were not meant to see, like station closures before the event, for example, or the shooting of alleged perpetrators by police in Canary Wharf which was hushed up very quickly. As the saying goes: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time."
Whatever can they be suggesting?
x200000000
