The Conspiracy Files: 7/7
| 08:53 UK time, Wednesday, 24 June 2009
The bombings on 7 July 2005, which killed 56 people and injured 784, England's worst terrorist atrocity, are the subject of one of the most difficult programmes in the Conspiracy Files series. Difficult because it is still an understandably sensitive subject for survivors and relatives of victims.
But I also think it is important to investigate the conspiracy theories that continue to develop around 7 July attacks, because they play on the fears of the Muslim community and spread a highly divisive and damaging message. The programme carefully and analytically works through the allegations and the evidence to separate fact from fiction.
There have been three official reports into the bombings. However, a host of internet films continue to scrutinise every word and every picture for signs of a hidden truth.
The programme, to be shown on BBC Two at 9pm on Tuesday 30 June shows that on one occasion one sceptic was right and spotted a significant error in the Home Office narrative. The government had to apologise for suggesting in a report, nearly a year after the attacks, that the four bombers had boarded a train which had actually been cancelled.
However, crucially the government insists the bombers were still able to get to London on time, because they caught an earlier train, which was delayed leaving Luton.
Internet videos question the official account, suggesting the British government has deceived people into thinking four suicide bombers carried out the attacks. Some go even further and allege the British government was involved.
The latest Conspiracy Files programme films one notorious conspiracy video being played at the Birmingham Central Mosque and sees first hand how conspiracy theories have found favour among some Muslims.
One opinion poll by Gfk NOP for Channel 4, two years after 7 July attacks, found that around a quarter of British Muslims questioned thought the government or MI5 were involved in the bombings.
Rachel North, who survived the bomb on the Piccadilly line, tells the programme that the conspiracy theories need to be countered for that very reason:
"If people in mosques think that the Government is so antagonistic towards them that they're actually willing to frame them for a monstrous crime they didn't commit what does that do to levels of trust? That is a problem for the government and for everybody in this country."
Brian Paddick, who was Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the time of 7 July 2005, argues it is important to counteract the conspiracy theories:
"Programmes like this may be very controversial but hopefully there will be people in the police service and in the security service and in government who will realize how important conspiracy theories are. And how important it is to try and prevent further atrocities that every attempt is made to try and counteract them."
Mike Rudin is series producer of The Conspiracy Files. The Conspiracy Files: 7/7
is on Tuesday 30 June at 9pm on BBC Two.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"But I also think it is important to investigate the conspiracy theories that continue to develop around 7 July attacks, because they play on the fears of the Muslim community"
The BBC needs to stop doing things because the Muslim community may be scared/offended.
It is offensive to millions of people that the BBC insists on doing so.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC needs to stop doing things because the Muslim community may be scared/offended.
---------
Actually I would rather the BBC DID do it, they are pretty much the only option available who are well funded enough to do a thorough job on the investigation but also non-commercial enough not to have to 'sex up' the program in order to generate ratings.
It is of interest to many millions in the UK, not just Muslims.
Complain about this comment
I thought the tone of the article was that they didn't want to offend the victims, which I think is fully justified and a commendable attitude.
In terms of offending religious communities, I personally couldn't care less- this isn't just aimed at Islam, but anyone dumb enough to fall for one fiction will inevitably fall for more. I think the incidence of religious people who beleive ridiculous theories (Catholics and holocaust denial, every religion and that silly book about the Elders of Zion etc etc ad infinitum) is more than a little disturbing. No more disturbing than beleiving in transubstantiation, flying horses or reincarnation though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is there any chance you're going to mention the coincidence that on both 9/11 & 7/7 the respective governments were engaged in training simulations that matched the actual "terrorist atrocity" in almost every single detail ?
Seems an important point that the officials were quite happy to overlook.
kaybraes:
"The Muslim community is the offender in this case, not the British people ; the bombing was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam."
This is one of the most ignorant & offensive things I've ever read in response to 7/7, it may well be a lack of clarity in what you've said but it comes across like you want to blame the whole Muslim community for the events of that day.
The Muslim community is not and was not the offender that day, a handful of individuals who happened to be Muslim were (if you believe the official story).
Laying the blame on the whole Muslim community is the equivalent of blaming all Europeans for the Holocaust.
It is this type of ignorant statement, and the hatred that lies behind it, that needs eradicating from our society and I find your whole statement to be typical of the self-pitying White Europeans we get moaning about all subjects these days.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
forthblue:
"Why are Muslims unhappy here?"
Who said they were ?
I've got lots of Muslim friends and they're all happy here, how about you try making friends with some and finding out what they actually think instead of believing the lies & propaganda peddled by the tabloid press & BNP.
"Freedom of religious expression is permitted, compulsory conversion is not."
None of my Muslim friends have ever tried to convert me to Islam, I've been invited to various religious events and have enjoyed taking part in them just as I have Christian and Jewish events that I've attended but at no time did anyone ever try to convert me.
The Church of England puts far more effort into trying to convert people to Christianity with their religious schools etc than the Muslim community do.
"If I was that unhappy living in a country the answer would be to go and live with one that agrees more with my viewpoint."
Britain has a rich tradition of people standing up for what they believe in and using the democratic system to try to make changes to the way the country is run. I have yet to experience any Muslim trying to make Britain an Islamic state or trying to implement Sharia law though. Many of my Muslim friends parents came to Britain to escape Theocratic oppression and they and their children are not trying to bring it in here now that they have got away from it.
"So instead of trying to spread fear and terror why not go and live in one of those or other Islamic nations."
Very few Muslims are trying to spread fear and terror, most of them just want to get on with their lives and don't really care what you or anyone else believes, just like the rest of us.
It is you who is trying to spread fear & terror with your paranoid delusions and baseless lies.
How do you think a British Muslim would feel reading statements such as yours ?
Many of my Muslim friends have been living in fear for the last eight years, they feel they are being blamed for something they have no influence over and no responsibility for by people who can only ever see the colour of their skin and the religion they observe.
People like you who would twist their beliefs and use the statements of others to condemn them.
On several occasions since 9/11 I've been to friends' homes and businesses to help clear up the damage caused by mindless idiots who would blame all Muslims for the actions of a handful of individuals they've never met & have no influence over. Statements like yours only serve to inflame the brain-dead and incite them to commit further crimes against innocent people and you are therefore only continuing the cycle of violence and hatred that the rest of us are trying to break.
Replace the word Muslim with the word Jew and your statement would read like the paranoid ramblings of a Nazi from 1930s Germany.
Just like the German Jews from that time, most British Muslims have far more to fear from us than we do from them.
Complain about this comment
No matter what the religion or cause blowing people up is hardly going to endear them to your viewpoint is it? I personally think religion is the biggest source of trouble to humanity in history and as long as people cling to their outdated beliefs, this type of thing will continue. Nice liberal point of view dissection of my last point Secretariat. Shame it is all founded om a false premise though. In fundametalist Islam all infidels are to be disposed of. Hardly a tolerant religion is it? Since that is what the terrorists are fighting on behalf of, I really do not fancy that idea at all.
Complain about this comment
The BBC needs to stop doing things because the Muslim community may be scared/offended.
It is offensive to millions of people that the BBC insists on doing so.
========
If they didn't want to risk offending muslims then they wouldn't broadcast the programme at all, after all, according the article it seems the programme is concentrating on the minority of muslims who believe the conspiracies, as well as the usual online forums.
I suspect that while the programme will find small groups of radicals who use 7/7 as evidence of an anti-islamic conspiracy there will also those who cannot bring themselves to believe that their religous brethren could carry out a random attack against innocents (and fellow muslims).
I would also imagine that the vast majority of 7/7 conspiracists are not muslims but those who are also convinced 9/11 and global warming are also conspiracies. experience has told me that the vast majority of these will never change their opinion, regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary.
i look forwards to the programme.
Complain about this comment
forthblue:
"I personally think religion is the biggest source of trouble to humanity in history"
No, that would be greed. Religion is just an excuse given by those in positions of power to convince the masses that what they're doing is righteous.
Religion on a personal level is not a bad thing and the idea that getting rid of religion will solve all of our problems is ridiculous, people always will find reasons to hate each other and until we rid ourselves of the "them and us" mentality there will never be Peace.
This isn't a matter of self interested bias either, I do not belong to any organised religion.
"Shame it is all founded om a false premise though. In fundametalist Islam all infidels are to be disposed of."
What is "fundamentalist Islam" ?
How many of the worlds Muslims are "fundamentalist" ?
You're making over-simplified generalisations that simply are not true.
The Quran specifically states that non-Muslims should be protected if they live in a Muslim country.
Have you ever read the Quran or even spoken to a Muslim about their beliefs ?
The idea that all Muslims, or even all "fundamentalist" Muslims share the exact same beliefs and interpretations of the Quran is yet another fallacy.
No two Muslims have the same interpretation of Islam just as no two Christians share the same interpretations of Christianity, it's only those who wish to spread fear and hatred that try to give the idea that they do.
If you want to talk of tolerance then try casting your eye over your own intolerant statement, as the Bible says: You notice the splinter in their eye while ignoring the plank in yours.
How exactly do you know what all "terrorists" are fighting for ?
Read the interviews given by many of the Majors & Generals who've been dealing with detainees in Iraq & Afghanistan and they'll tell you that the people we're fighting against are, for the most part, not fighting for religious reasons but because they are angered by the continuing colonial attitudes and actions of certain Western nations.
From a recent interview in the Independent:
""The reason why foreign fighters joined al-Qa'ida in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology," says Major Matthew Alexander, who personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq."
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/torture-it-probably-killed-more-americans-than-911-1674396.html
You are living in a state of self imposed ignorance where you have sought the easiest answer possible to explain something, just as those with faith cling on to the idea that it is all God, so too do you cling on to the false idea that "it's all religion".
In fact, it is all greed, and those in positions of power are just using religion as a method to divide and conquer the people of the world for their own ends.
Our politicians have been trying their hardest to paint our nations as innocent victims of the Muslim world since 9/11 when nothing could be further from the truth.
Look at the Dictators we've supported over the years, The Shah in Iran, the Al Sauds in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein until he decided he'd had enough of doing what he was told.
All of them, and many more, have been supported by the UK & US governments for decades. While we talk of freedom and democracy we support some of the most brutal regimes the world has ever seen and, for the most part, it is these hypocritical policies that have caused these attacks on our nations as people are sick of living in oppressive regimes so that we in the West can enjoy the fruits of their labour & the resources of their nations.
But you can go on believing it's all the fault of the Muslims and this vicious cycle will continue and all of the worlds children will suffer the consequences.
Complain about this comment
"Why does the BBC feel it is required to pander to the M uslim community ?"
It takes a special kind of backwards of logic to think that debunking a myth held by 25% of British Muslims is somehow pandering to Muslims.
My comment is disagreeing with you. You might even say it's debunking your comment. Does that mean I'm pandering to you?
"The Muslim community is the offender in this case, not the British people"
Of the four terrorists who carried out the bombings, 3 were born and raised in Britain, and 1 was born in Jamaica, before taking up British citizenship when he was little. It is not true to say that the "Muslim community" and the "British people" are somehow separate, there are many British Muslims in this country, and as I have just shown, 4 were involved in 7/7. There is nothing in the term "Muslim" that says they can't be British, all it says is who or what they worship. That's all.
"Why is the BBC attempting to raise doubts in the minds of the population about who carried out the attack and why it was carried out."
The program is debunking the conspiracy. How does debunking raise doubts?
"should be condemned out of hand , rather than being justified as a fault of the victims."
And you got the idea that the BBC is blaming the victims from where exactly?
Complain about this comment
It is amazing how so many people try to turn any discussion which happens to mention Muslims into a discussion into how we should blame Muslims for everything. Just a bit of advice, if you are going to do this then don't make stupid mistakes such as suggesting British people and Muslims are two separate groups, many people follow Islam and also consider themselves British. Also, being Muslim does NOT make you a terrorist any more so than being Catholic. It is pathetic idiots who believe that stuff that are destroying the country.
Anyway, as to this particular subject I do not see it as pandering to any particular group of people. Whether or not you believe any conspiracy to do with 7/7 (and a surprising amount of people of various backgrounds do believe) you should be pleased to see that offical statements are just being accepted and alternative explanations are considered, it all ties in with our "freedom". Conspiracy theory programmes on TV can often be dismissed as cheap entertainment but if done right they can provide a good public service.
I will watch this programme not because I happen to think the authorities are lying but because I will be interested to learn more about the views of other people regarding the subject. I have found previous Conspiracy Files episodes to be interesting even though conspiracy theorists will inevitably say the programme was biased and is simply covering up the truth, maybe this time it is, I look forward to watching the episode and deciding for myself.
Complain about this comment
I did not as it seems, intend to blame the whole muslim community for the bombing, though it may have come out that way, what I meant was that the offenders were wholly from the muslim community and therefore the onus is on the muslim community to rectify the situation, not on the rest of the population to make special overtures to the community which may in fact be harbouring more of the same potentially murderous thugs; misguidedly allowing religious allegiance (as in Ireland during the troubles ) to shield the perpetrators and planners of such atrocities. Neither the rest of the population nor the security forces has any way of reaching into these communities where it is in fact a " closed shop " as far as information on terrorist activity is concerned either through fear of reprisal or just an unwillingness to become involved.
Complain about this comment
#8,
'This is one of the most ignorant & offensive things I've ever read in response to 7/7, it may well be a lack of clarity in what you've said but it comes across like you want to blame the whole Muslim community for the events of that day'
How typical! Just mention something negative about Muslims and a split second later somebody gets offended! Now all we need is an imam to start calling for a wolrd-wide 'day of anger'. I do not know whether the Muslims community supports terrorism, but Muslims do seem to be most easily offended by anything nowadays.
Complain about this comment
I hope this programme will be interviewing the distinguished writer Nafeez Ahmed whose book The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (Duckworth) raises many disturbing questions about the atrocity.
Complain about this comment
Kaybraes: "The Muslim community is the offender in this case..." I'm sorry, Kay, but that is a very obnoxious statement. Are we to blame all Christians for the witch burnings of earlier centuries, or perhaps even, the Inquisition? The offenders (or patsies) were individual persons aligned to the Muslim cause by both religious and ideological zeal. You cannot blame carteblanche a whole people or nation on the actions of individuals. Then again, your statement could be taken as an attempt to derail comments to the conspiratorial tone of the 7/7 bombings.
After doing research for myself, the conclusion I have drawn (but subject to change) is that the 7/7 attacks became good 'PR' for the reasons on the so-called 'War On Terror', particularly at a time when criticism of the war was reaching ever increasing vociferous levels. Bear in mind that the Iraq invasion was based utterly on lies, obsfucation, and corporate interests, all hiding behind the cause of fighting terrorism.
Coincidences of similarities between the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 are alarming and most certainly thought-provoking. One such coincidence is that on days of both attacks, emergency services were already in place before the attacks took place holding supposed drills on the type of scenarios that actually transpired. The point of conspiracies is that they draw needed attention to the scenario of the conspiracy itself, and that they seek to provoke investigation into who ultimately benefits from the attack?
The wider picture (of which the attacks are a part of) is an incredibly nightmarish vision of a move to Corporate Totalitarianism on a global scale...and it is still unfolding, especially so whilst most of the population sleep their accepting way into its grip. This programme, will I expect seek to paint the conspiracy as being nothing more than the warped thoughts of fringe extremists, disgruntled with the government. An attempt to discredit and whitewash over the concerns and alarm of those whom are investigating the attacks. It is very important to use the faculty of discernment when doing the research, and there are plenty of people out there who are doing just that.
Always bear in mind that these events are not unconnected, but are pieces in the global jigsaw of a world being steered towards a corporate ideology that if shown in full crystal clarity would frighten the living daylights out of the people. Quiet though...the people sleep a uneasy and disquieting dream, best not to awake them to the truth, they could not take it.
Complain about this comment
Society should be able to accept any point of view even if the view was proven to be false.
To #14: kaybraes
Like the onus is on the Christian community to condemn the killing of abortion doctors?
Complain about this comment
"the offenders were wholly from the muslim community and therefore the onus is on the muslim community to rectify the situation"
This is an interesting statement, since I've already pointed out to you that the offenders were wholly from the British community too. By your logic then, the onus is on the British community to rectify the situation.
This, by the way, is silly logic. If someone attacks you, why is the onus on the attackers to rectify it? No, the onus is on the whole of society to stop it happening again. If someone came and beat you up, do you sit there and go, "But but... the onus is on you to sort it out", or do you try and work out why it is they are beating you up, and stop them from doing it?
Complain about this comment
"I do not know whether the Muslims community supports terrorism, but Muslims do seem to be most easily offended by anything nowadays."
I think if I was told by someone that they didn't know whether I supported terrorism or not, then I might be offended too. That's not being "easily offended", that's taking legitimate offense when someone thinks it's possible they might be terrorists or supporters of terrorists. If I said, "I do not know whether Isenhorn supports terrorism", do you not see the offense that can be caused by just that statement?
Complain about this comment
deamon138,
No, I am not offended that you do not know whether I support terrorism. After all, you do not know me, you cannot know if I am a terrorist or not. Regarding Muslims- there are Muslim terrorists, there are Muslims who are law-abiding citizens. In the Muslim community there are people who support terroism, there are also people who oppose it. What the predominant faction is I cannot tell- I have seen contardictory polls. One poll showed a small but definite proportion of Muslims saying that the attacks on Britain were justified. The majority of Muslims said they were not justified. The opinion changed however when the question was about suicide-bombings against Israelis.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/137
So, after looking at these results, are you still surprised that I do not really know what Muslims are supporting and what not?
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn:
Did you even read the comment I was referring to ?
In case you missed it:
kaybraes:
"The Muslim community is the offender in this case, not the British people ; the bombing was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam."
This is a sweeping generalisation that gives the impression that all Muslims are responsible for the 7/7 bombings.
kaybraes has since clarified her position (sorry if you're a he, I'm guessing from the name) but the original statement was offensive & ignorant.
BTW I'm not a Muslim but as I have many Muslim friends I am getting increasingly tired of people making sweeping generalisations because it is this type of ignorance that has lead to some of my friends being attacked both physically & psychologically over the last few years.
It is not a pleasant experience to have to help clean up a friends home or business premises because some idiot thinks they're some sort of terrorist, it's even less pleasant having to clean a friend up after they've been beaten up by mindless thugs because your friend happens to look like a Muslim (even though they're a Hindu) so please excuse me if I'm overly sensitive but some of us have had to deal with the realities of this a little bit closer to home than others.
Rather than playing the daily Mail reader how about you try seeing things from other people's perspective rather than making absurd statements like:
"I do not know whether the Muslims community supports terrorism, but Muslims do seem to be most easily offended by anything nowadays."
Especially when we have self imposed Christian martyrs walking out of their jobs and claiming religious intolerance because the uniform code doesn't allow them to wear a crucifix on a chain.
Step away from the Daily Mail rhetoric and try thinking about things objectively.
Complain about this comment
#14 Kaybraes - Ok, you mentioned the Irish "troubles", would you (at any time during the "struggle") have even dreamed of writing something like that about the Irish? We suffered a 30 year bombing campaign on the mainland. Many more bombs, many more deaths by terrorists able to disappear within the community with far more ease than a muslim extremist. Yet we never had to resort to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its removal of freedoms fundamental to the British way of life. Your complacent acceptance of totalitarian, autocratic powers for a police force yet to vindicate itself from charges of institutionalised racism or subject itself to independant inquiry and the "unconscious racism" inherent in both your postings to date contextualises the "fear" and "easy offence" taken by the Muslim community as a reaction to unjust and unbritish laws which are frankly more anti-muslim than they are anti-terrorist.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone here seriously believe that the Government was behind these coldblooded murders? Fools,....... just that a look at the video the killers left behind, end of, how much proof do you want?
By the way, we did go to the moon & the earth isn't flat, oh.... & Elvis is dead.
Complain about this comment
Striking move.
Say, will there be some wider context? Remember, government needed support to keep running utterly illegal and unpopular war.
Other than that, this announcement seems to say that BBC made very careful, potently explosive mixture.
@15
Give it a break, Geert threw everything at disposal to offend Muslims, it fizzled. In his next shot, he'll seek the fury within non-Muslims, and sad to say, you seem as a sort of person who would gladly buy some.
@24
imo, Your comment belongs to YouTube.
***
As BBC seeks truth within conspiracy, there are more than enough facts about 7/7 and 9/11 (and do go ahead, continue the list, for the people), enough to warrant sound and clear call for independent investigation.
What we get instead is another meek attempt to make notice of what we all already know.
While BBC and other outlets play hide and seek with the powers not to be, we are loosing the window of opportunity to do this in civilized, orderly and lawful manner, for some may notice that related and artificially designed 'socioeconomicomical' engineering is taking its place.
Villains are at large, clock is running, tic tac.
Complain about this comment
re "The programme carefully and analytically works through the allegations and the evidence to separate fact from fiction."
Well that would be a first!
Rudin has already proven the 'quality' of his work with two disgraceful hatchet-jobs regarding 9/11. They were so bad that when the editor went to Ground Zero and was challenged by 9/11 truth activitst he was unable to answer a simple yes/no question about one of these so-called "analytical works":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3041383257058658403&ei=fVJCSsOfDILr-AapqeDBBw&q=mike+rudin+we+are+change
(4 mins in)
Rudin has zero-credibility outside of his own mind (and even then I'd hate to have to peer into his subconscious) so we should expect this 7/7 documentary to be another sham.
Complain about this comment
@24
You seem to have forgotten internment was introduced in 1971.
Also the Irish nation was slaughtered by the media, directly & indirectly far more freely than happens with the current terrorist problems in our country.
I think we have selective amnesia over these events.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me, that last comment was directed @ 23
Complain about this comment
"No, I am not offended that you do not know whether I support terrorism. After all, you do not know me, you cannot know if I am a terrorist or not."
Of course I don't know whether you support terrorism or not, but that misses my point. Saying, "I don't know whether you support terrorism or not" is as silly as saying "I don't know whether you are a murderer or not", or "I don't know whether you are Hungarian or not" (no offense to Hungarians). Normal people, when confronted with a label that is extreme (like terrorist) or very very unlikely (e.g. terrorist or Hungarian), tend to presume they are not that label, until evidence shows otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Of course it's POSSIBLE that they support terrorism, but that doesn't mean it's wise to say "I don't know whether you support terrorism or not", or even think about such doubt. When confronted with a stranger, whether or not they support terrorism is, and should be, the least of my worries until evidence shows otherwise. It's called pragmatism.
There's another principle at stake here. It is in fact a very British principle. It's called being innocent until proven guilty. It shouldn't cross any person's mind that someone might support terrorism purely because they don't know them. That's not how we do it in this country, that is in fact how they do it in countries that support and/or harbour terrorists.
"In the Muslim community there are people who support terroism, there are also people who oppose it. What the predominant faction is I cannot tell- I have seen contardictory polls. One poll showed a small but definite proportion of Muslims saying that the attacks on Britain were justified. The majority of Muslims said they were not justified. The opinion changed however when the question was about suicide-bombings against Israelis.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/137
So, after looking at these results, are you still surprised that I do not really know what Muslims are supporting and what not?"
Yes, I am still surprised. You say the opinion changed. Well it did change, but not in any way that affects the conclusion, "The majority of Muslims said they were not justified." As you rightly say, a small number say attacks on Britain are justified (7% in fact), but on attacks against Israel, 16% say they are justified. That still means that the majority of Muslims in this country oppose such attacks in Israel.
So it is rubbish for you to turn round and say, "What the predominant faction is I cannot tell", when quite clearly the majority of Muslims oppose suicide bombings in both Britain and Israel. Quite clearly the non-terrorist Muslims are the predominant "faction".
In fact, considering that Israel is such a contentious issue across the political and religious spectrum, I suspect that if you polled British non-Muslims on this subject in both countries, the same trend would be seen i.e. the vast majority oppose attacks in both countries, but a bit more support them in Israel than over here.
Complain about this comment
" In fact, considering that Israel is such a contentious issue across the political and religious spectrum, I suspect that if you polled British non-Muslims on this subject in both countries, the same trend would be seen i.e. the vast majority oppose attacks in both countries, but a bit more support them in Israel than over here."
You may be right, but if you took that poll the day after a suicide attack in London for example, then you wouldn't get that result I suspect, I remember NORAID in New York, support for that dropped like a lead balloon the day after 9/11, it was a very popular movement beforehand.
Complain about this comment
Many of these conspiracies are of course nonsense. Many are also well beyond the realm of the feasible. However, many things you might consider to be a conspiracy, particularly at the time, have indeed turned out to be true.
For example, if in 1953 you suggested that the BBC broadcast the go code for the Iranian coup that toppled a democracy, people would probably be rolling their eyes. Yet this indeed did take place, even though it's not something the BBC likes to talk about too much (particularly during the current Iran crisis).
Although its very unlikely that M15 were involved in the bombings, governments are certainly not beyond planning and carrying out terrorist acts. A good example of this is the now declassified Operation Northwoods, which was a US plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame them on Cuba as an excuse for war. Northwoods was never carried out, however in 1985 several CIA agents set off a car bomb in Beirut aimed at killing a Hezbollah leader. The bomb killed over 80 people.
Perhaps the most plausible conspiracy involving false-flag terrorism is the Moscow apartment bombings of 1999. The theory is that Russia needed an excuse to re-invade Chechnya (which would violate the previously agreed peace treaty).
When evaluating a conspiracy, you have to ask two major questions.
1. Can they hope to get away with it?
2. Is it worth the risk?
When it comes to invading other countries/toppling governments etc, the answer to number 1 is nearly always yes. Even when the whole thing is blown wide open, they know they will get away with it. (e.g. No British or American leader has ever been imprisoned for stealing another countries resources or toppling a democracy.) The worst that might happen is that some officials may have to resign.
However when it comes to murdering your own citizen, either on mass with a bomb or in assassinations, the answer to both questions is nearly always no. The media might let you get away with murdering a million people in the Middle East, but they won't let you get away with murdering even a handful on home territory.
Complain about this comment
As per usual with these subjects there are a lot of sanctimonious posts taking place. People miss-quoting others and taken their views out of context. And as usual with liberal scribes, people going round and round in circles without reaching any useful conclusions about how we move forward from the current situation.
There clearly are issues within 'the Muslim Community' both here and abroad as to their attitudes towards terrorism. The issues behind it are no doubt complex and will no doubt include questions about our own conduct. What concerns me is the lack of ownership 'the Muslim Community' appear to show towards this issue. They can't keep blaming others, in the same way we can't do towards what we have done.
I would be interested to know if there is as much debate within 'the Muslim Community' about this subject. We just seem to be tearing ourselves apart instead of coming to constructive conclusions.
Complain about this comment
Programme producers always have a BUT in their caveats when they intend to run a programme about an atrocity or disaster that is bound to be hurtful to the families of those killed and victims who survived but are maimed. In this case, it is.. we know it will be sensitive for survivors and relatives BUT were going to do it anyway because conspiracy theories are upsetting for the Muslim community. If the offending conspiracy theories are still developing i.e. not yet allegations, how will the BBC carefully analyse them and separate fact from fiction? It is very easy for programme makers to say some people think or it has been alleged or Muslims feel threatened by x y z.
If the BBC knows enough to say that nobody in the Muslim community, outside the group of murderers, knew or suspected anything or withheld information that would be helpful to the security services.....it behoves them to propose who might have, because somebody did. The feelings of the relatives and surviving victims are way down the list of programme makers priorities.
Complain about this comment
Everything we know about the 7-7 bombings (much like 9-11) came from the media following statements from the government.
I take what I hear from both parties with a pinch of salt at the best of times to be honest.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I find the motives behind these terrorists actions leaves a lot to be desired really. I mean what exactly did they hope to achieve with it?
Unfortunately, the British government would have stood to gain much more, simply because of the sheer quantity of anti-war sentiment generated by the public prior to it, and the amount of backing they received once it'd happened would lead to the postulate that perhaps it was an elaborate, egg breaking PR stunt.
Horrifying for sure, but certainly not implausible.
Its worth noting that it doesn't have to be the British Government. Secret societies within the likes of the Bilderburg Group could have arranged this, if you buy the whole NWO shtick.
But any budding general, war gamer or chess player will tell you that sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to win the game.
Perhaps it was a tactical master plan from terrorists with nothing better to do and nothing further to gain by it, but personally I doubt it.
I'm as English as mustard by the way. Just about clever enough to know that this is a part of a much bigger agenda and that we are not privy to all of the information.
I mean any one with an ounce of common sense knows the war in Iraq isn't entirely altruistic on our part, and to this day there hasn't been one single WMD uncovered, which just embarrasses the 'imminent attack' stance that justified the invasion in the first place...
We are being played by someone that's for sure.
As for the BBC's documentary; well with all due respect, I doubt your capacity for objective journalism at the best of times. No offence...
Why do I feel like this opinion won't make it through?
Complain about this comment
"Rudin has zero-credibility outside of his own mind"
Yes, it is Mr Rubin who comes out of his previous encounters with conspiracy theorists with zero cedibility.
Complain about this comment
You can make a hundred programmes. The government could have an inquiry, costing millions of pounds.
The same old people will just change their theory a little and incorporate the programme makers and the people who ran the inquiry into the conspiracy.
If the BBC wants to have a programme for entertainment or a government wants to have an inquiry for political reasons, fair enough. But it won't change anything.
Complain about this comment
On the general subject of Islam I support everything Secratariat has written. My personal experience of Islam does not fit "fundamentalism" at all; indeed it has been quite the opposite and I do not believe that the fanaticism exists in anything like the numbers governments and media like us to believe.
On the subject of "conspiracy" I am minded to ask just what some people commenting actually think it is. If our police and secret services knew about a bombing plot in London that affected 840 innocent lives but did not act appropriately is that "conspiracy" or is it poor intelligence? Was the later killing of an innocent person at a London tube station "deliberate mistaken identity" or an act of poor policing? The fine line that runs between something being acceptable to our minds or just too incredible to be true is not easy to trace or even trustworthy. We see something in two dimensions and we will swear that what we saw actually happened when in fact it never did. We see sleight of hand in three dimensions close up and still cannot detect what actually happens. That is how trusted our vision (and most other senses too) should be.
The questions about 7/7 focus on who stood to gain most if it succeeded, just as they did with 9/11 because then we have a motive beyond senseless killing of people for the sake of it. We should ask the same question of every suicide bombing rather than lamely accepting that there are a lot of people for whom life is not very precious at all.
Balancing this is our knowledge of how desperate people can become when a battle is being lost and we ask ourselves who was losing at the time of 7/7? Has the UK learned anything from the terrorism inflicted by the IRA and how it was intended to affect our lives? Did our security personnel have the intensity needed to root out the real villains?
Do we really trust our parliamentarians any more? Do we really trust the public army of civil servants who are in a position to do just what their chiefs require? Do we really trust our media for whom black and white are the easiest colours to use?
Complain about this comment
'Secretariat'
Whilst the 7/7 bombing was carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam, 'Kaybraes' was wrong to say that the Muslim community is the offender.
In accusing 'Kaybraes' of being ignorant and personally offensive to you, you seem unaware of your own incredible ignorance. It was not merely a coincidence (as you suggest) that the perpetrators simply happened to be Muslims.It was a deliberate attack and it was done in the name of Islam.
Your analogy of blaming all Europeans for the Holocaust is nonsense. If the Holocaust had been carried out in the name of Christianity (which it was not), there would be some argument to blame Christians who knew the Holocaust was happening but certainy not 'all Europeans'.
The real giveaway in your comments is the last paragraph about the hatred that lies beneath someone's ignorant statement....which needs eradicating from our society and the self-pitying white Europeans!
Perhaps you are suggesting something along the lines of another Holocaust!
Something tells me you are not the full shilling
Complain about this comment
#38 siralantheoracle...
Excellent response.
Complain about this comment
#38
I am sure you are familiar with the Dylan song "God on our side". I am also sure that you are aware that Hitler was a "devout" Catholic until he saw his own special light (if indeed he ever did). I am sure that you are aware that the intelligence service appeared to be tracking the "Muslim cell" that attacked London on 7/7. I am sure that you are aware that we (by that I mean the greater public) have not been told everything about the 7/7 attack or about 9/11. I am sure that you are aware that the west had been lining up Iraq and Saddam Hussein once it appeared he was not going to be easy to manipulate. I am sure that you are aware that Pakistan was full of warring factions with no clear leadership of the Islamic response to Bush and Blair ( as it still is). I am sure you are aware of the strategic and physical importance of Iran in providing cheap fuel and energy to the west.
There are many other ingredients that I have chosen to leave out for brevity, but my point is the importance of opportunity, appearance, and innovation in the pursuit of desire. If you mix these ingredients up several times you will not get a uniform cake - indeed you may not even get a cake at all - you will get something that looks different and tastes different each and every time.
For you the absence of any other known influence over the four men who carried out the attack on London means it was Islamic and in the name of Islam. That may be fine for you but it doesn't wash for me - so are you two halfpennies short of the full ticket or are you going to call anyone who doesn't agree with you stupid? Is that what the authorities imagined would happen all along?
Much of what happened after WW2 suggests that many Jews did blame "all of Europe" for the Holocaust and most of Europe was indeed Christian. And the battle for Palestine was nothing new to WW2 seeing as it had been going on for a long time before. So do you put two and two together and call those who disagree with you stupid again? Is that what the Jews would have wanted at the time?
Propaganda is a truth discarded by a person who has another belief (or truth) stronger than that of the propaganda. Your truth is another person's propaganda. What Secratariat may have been alluding to is the entrenched views of the "traditional" European as distinct from those who have less entrenched views. There is nothing wrong about either camp unless we no longer want a free society.
Complain about this comment
I think there's no doubt in my mind that there's a masonic connection to 7/7 and 9/11 -- these numbers are very important if you know anything about numerology. High up in compartments within MI5 and MI6 lies the people who may be responsible for both atrocities. After world war 2, MI6 took over the Muslim Brotherhood, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there was compartmentalised western intelligence involvement in manipulating Muslim "terrorist cells." Al Qaeda does mean the toilet, so I'm guessing that the people manipulating "the war on terror" are having a good laugh at the people's expense.
Also, it's worth repeating is what "Secratariat" wrote:
Is there any chance you're going to mention the coincidence that on both 9/11 & 7/7 the respective governments were engaged in training simulations that matched the actual "terrorist atrocity" in almost every single detail ?Seems an important point that the officials were quite happy to overlook.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately there are many examples of Muslim ideological extremists planting bombs, often intended to kill fellow Muslims.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhnBOhkMAj1skuyZ4fD5ibuB7-UgD9918U1G0
Why find it so hard to believe that with UK troops fighting in two Muslim countries that a tiny, tiny minority of British Muslims with ideological sympathies with extremists might violently object?
When I lived in London a few years ago there was a nail-bombing campaign by a politically motivated, white British extremist. One bomb exploded a few hundred yards from where I was working.
I never thought for a moment that this meant all white Brit's were like him; nor because of a tiny handful of Muslims and the 7/7 bombings do I believe for a moment that all British Muslims share their ideology. By its nature extremism attracts only a small minority. Europe has also had its fair share of those that believed that violence could achieve political change; Baader Meinhof, Basque separatists, IRA etc. But they were tiny minorities within Europe's population.
BTW. How long before the Iranian government begin saying that the videos showing the death of Neda Agha-Soltan are faked, or that she was shot by 'British agents' and not a Basij militia volunteer? Say it loud enough and someone is bound to believe you.
Complain about this comment
I think it's pretty obvious that the government hasn't told the real story, and tried to lie there way out of doing so, just like the american government in the 911 attacks.
Now we need to ask the question why?
But sadly i don't think we will ever find out, "officially" anyway, but, many have there own views as do i, i think thats as far as it's going to go to be honest. If the government was involved we will never find out, they will have made sure to get rid of the evidence that matters. All we can do is find holes in the official story, wich people have done and i welcome them with open arms.
Now to the people who say there shouldn't be investigations into these bombings, or are questioning the BBC, or any other news agency for reporting on theories, all i have to say is,
what if it was you?
or your family who died in the bombings?
would you be so willing to be ignorant then?
Complain about this comment
Very often I read comments on boards like this and feel an overwhelming sense of despair at the amount of bigotry, ignorance and spite that appears to make up mainstream opinion. That we are destined to a future of division, tribal thinking and intolerance towards the latest out-group of the day.
Then I read comments like those of goldCaesar, deamon138, rexel123, Elysiumfire, _marko, and especially Secratariat - and my faith in humanity is restored. Thanks sincerely to all of you for going to the trouble to balance out the haters.
To those few here who clearly need a reminder: liberal isn't a dirty word.
I don't currently subscribe to an inside job theory of 7/7, but I will watch the programme with interest to see if mention is made of that guy who was interviewed on Radio 5 Live's Drivetime regarding the terror rehearsal operation happening at the same time as the bombs went off. Can't say I've looked too deeply into it to see whether it's been debunked, but at face value it seems strangely coincidental.
Complain about this comment
My friend works at the Daily Star and he said it's common knowledge that Prince Phillip was involved in all this.
Complain about this comment
there are hundreds of conspiracy stories such as JFK, MLK, CIA and Drugs, Lockerbie, Covert Operations to overthrow south american governments, AID's, 9-11
anyone who blindly believes the official stories are spoon fed fools
Complain about this comment
Not sure about 7/7 but 9/11 has some very serious questions that need to be answered by someone impartial.
Like where did the 2 jet engines from the "plane" that plashed into the pentagon end up? Disintigrated?
Or how 2 buildings fell down in a way that professional demolition specialists would have been proud of, after a (relatively) small impact and a couple hours of (relatively) cold fire.
Or how the next door neighbor just "fell down"?
Of course I don't expect that to ever happen, not at least for 50 years when it doesn't matter any more.
Complain about this comment
In general, conspiracies occur when the authorities try to hide their own shortfalls prior / during or after the event.
Be it JFK's shooting, 9/11, 7/7 Omagh etc
Every time the authorities are secretive about their actions, conspiracies will surface.
There is little we can do about this as by definition some of the authorities actions will always be secretive and often mistakes will be made.
That said of course, there is always the possibility that there is an element of truth...
Complain about this comment
Dear BBC and Mike,
You would be well aware that the treatment of the 9/11 mass muders on 911 via your conspircay files has been sujected to a barrage of criticism on a number of 'comments' sections for each.
The blog "Caught up in a conspircay theory' has ove 3,100 comments and still running.
When, BBC and Mr. Rudin, will the questions published on that blog be answered? Particularly the questions relating to when the original programs will have the mistakes/errors corrected and the latest scientific findings disclosed.
People should be aware that there have been official complaints logged with the BBC about the BBC and its treatment of the 9/11 matter, particularly in regard to the desruction of the twin towers and building No 7, that may be seen at the 'Caught up in a conspircay theory', blog over the last few days.
If you new program is anything like the past programs on 9/11 then the 7/7 program will not be worth watching.
Mike and BBC; how about finishing the 9/11 "conspircay File Programs" by correcting the misinformation peddled in those programs?
Complain about this comment
"Is there any chance you're going to mention the coincidence that on both 9/11 & 7/7 the respective governments were engaged in training simulations that matched the actual "terrorist atrocity" in almost every single detail ?"
As somebody that's been involved in contingency planning, you prepare for anything, as much as you can - BUT the fact is they didn't do any such thing. Training for a bombing on the underground is not replicating in every single detail.
It's like suggesting that the Met Police learning from the Isrealis about dealing with suicide bombers (Operation Kratos) is evidence that Isreal planned the whole thing. Which of course isn't the case, it's that Isreal has way more experience dealing with this sort of thing than you'd want in an ideal world.
As for the conspiracy theories generally round these Islamic extremist events, I can't figure why people find it so hard to believe that there are no Islamic extremists out there prepared to commit this kind of act. I've travelled in the middle east and various Muslim countries would top my list of favourite tourist destinations. I don't know if it makes it easier for me to believe or harder, but things to bear in mind:
Islam practically invented assassination for most intents and purposes (See: Hashshashin, ).
Islam did invent the suicide bombing.
Islam probably has valid concerns and it /definately/ has a lot of angry young men looking for somebody to blame.
It's not the potential for there being conspiracy, it's the utter disbelief that people could behave that way - I don't care what religion you are or where you grew up, the fact is people are sometimes bad, and other times very very bad. If there was a conspiracy I'd hope somebody was trying to find it, it's the utter unwillingness to look at the real evidence and accept that the fact that's what's been said did happen that bothers me.
It might be that the events are just too tragic to comprehend or accept for some people.
Complain about this comment
"I am sure you are aware of the strategic and physical importance of Iran in providing cheap fuel and energy to the west"
I've always loved these sorts of comments, it doesn't matter who's pumping it and who they're selling it to, as long as it's being pumped it's largely irrelevant to anything.
It's like the idea that the US invades Iraq for oil, so they have a large supply of it for a while, job done. Fact is, Iraq was pumping oil and it was relatively peaceful. In the future it'll be selling large amounts of it's oil to china and other Arab states, it doesn't matter any more or less now, in the past or in the future who's buying it. The US will still never import oil from Iraq because it's too damn far away.
If the US wanted to control a large supply of oil for themselves they'd invade Venezuela, and I could give you a whole useful list of reasons why you could do that without having to send an army to the other side of the planet. George bush and the masons and everybody else you might want to accuse knows about Venezuela - Bush of all people made his money in oil, you think he doesn't know about the massive reserves sat practically on his doorstep?
Complain about this comment
So, Streaky81: 'Islam did invent the suicide bombing'. I didn't realise Kamikaze pilots were muslims.
Complain about this comment
Conspiracies occur when there is no trust in the powers that be. In this case the British Government and based on resent expenses claims I can see why. The Government needs to tell the truth on issues such as this when facing the public as their lies will come out eventually. Small things like the time of the train the 7/7 bombers travelled on throws doubt when people find out the official report was wrong. Honesty really is the best policy!
Complain about this comment
#51
This is a great example of what my whole posting was about.
In criticising my "throwaway" you come up with one of your own and choose to "believe" in it rather better than you "believe" in my theories.
So let's remind ourselves how the US ended up in Iraq according to one GWB. (I paraphrase) "They have WMD confirmed by satellite images and Saddam Hussein's reluctance to let UN inspectors anywhere near the place."
Reason to invade Iran, thus far, according to US intelligence. (I paraphrase) "It's a nasty regime. They are developing nuclear stuff. They will not cooperate with the west and therefore must be a threat. They do not like Israel. Our previous plan to scupper them backfired so we owe them another."
I am not sure what planet you are from but the US imported 627 thousand barrels of oil per day from Iraq in 2008 according to your own Administration's figures, a quantity that has grown steadily since the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Complain about this comment
It is no theory that when 2 planes hit the World Trade Centre on 9/11 the twin towers disintegrated and so did WTC 7 disappear in a puff of smoke. As a result of political manipulation the US and Allies went to war against an Axis of Evil where 100,000 civilians were killed.
Only a spoon fed fool could blindly believe the official stories
Complain about this comment
Could a Government and its Agents ever sanction or allow the murder of it's own people as a false flag incident to justify war. All so called transparent investigations should include this possibility for proper consideration.
Mr. Rudin can't penetrate and has his head in the sand about alleged bomb materials found in the 911 debris.
Complain about this comment
Hi LonesomeDayBlues,
I tried saying similar to what you said at comment 5. I refer you to the 3200+ comments in Rudin's other blog...
Complain about this comment
Yawn, Another tiresome hit piece by the BBC. Are there any real journalists left in this institution? Must we suffer another round of selective reporting, character assassination and wilful ignorance of scientific facts by these gutless establishment mouthpieces?
I used to have great respect for the BBC, what the hell happened to it?
Complain about this comment
YNDA20
I'm afraid your post (5) has been censored
Watch your back son as they might start deleting your life works
Complain about this comment
#58 "Are there any real journalists left in this institution?"
It's a rhetorical question I guess and we all know why, and that is what this blog is about. When the media fail to protect sources and acquiesces to "con-characters" in Whitehall to protect an illegal rally call rather than honestly inform the people they are paid to represent then we would be wise not to trust them about anything. What is worse is that we then incur thousands of casualties of wars and "terrorism" (and the "suicide" of a good man) rather than have just two heads on a pole somewhere close to Downing Street.
The problem I have with 7/7 and 9/11 is that the official view just does not stack up to close inspection. Why haven't the US ordered a criminal investigation into 9/11? The answers are in the heads of a few evil people just as the answers to 7/7 may be equally embarrassingly located.
Complain about this comment
streaky81
I've seen several reports of the contingency plan tests that were being carried out on 7/7 and the details match very closely with what actually happened that day. Four bombs going off, very close to the actual locations the real bombs went off at almost exactly the same time as the real bombs.
It's not just a case of them preparing for a bomb somewhere on the underground on the same day one went off somewhere else on the underground, it looks like the time, place, type & number of bombs and several other details matched almost exactly to what happened that day.
Obviously, it's impossible for me to know if these details are correct as I don't have access to that test's plans, but if the BBC can't even begin to approach this question then it just leads to more suspicion.
Surely there's a record of the plans for that days test, if so, all the BBC would have to do is get a copy from the emergency services and show if the details do actually match up or if this is just another conspiracy nut putting out disinformation.
I'd like to believe the government aren't capable of committing such atrocities but when we see the atrocities that have been committed by them in other countries it really makes me wonder.
BTW The Romans were assassinating people several centuries before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad and I believe they were just copying the Greeks, the Egyptians were also fond of assasinations several centuries earlier than either of them.
Suicide bombings are also nothing new and not something "invented" by Islam either, Dutch fighters were using the technique as early as the 17th Century.
Complain about this comment
deamon138 @29
If i were you I would not take too much comfort out of poll results. A poll is an ureliable tool, especially when it deals with very controversial issues. A lot of people will answer negatively to the question 'Do you support terrorism?' not because they migt be trully opposed to it, but because of fear of being exposed as terrorist supporters, unwillingness to be associated with something that is generally negatively perceived or just not wishing to give voice to their inner thoughts.
Just imagine a poll asking questions like: Have you participated in torture of other people? Have you ever thought of abusing children? Have you ever comitted a capital crime of which nobody suspects you?
I am sure you will get almost universal denial, even from people who have actually done any of the above things. So, as I said before, I do not know what the predeominat factions is in the Muslim comunity when it comes to supporting terrosrism. How otherwise would you explain the difference in the proportion of people who support terroism (small) and the people whos opinions are best represented by Abu Hamza and Omar bakri (not so small)? After all, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri are precisly the types of people who openly state that terrorism is justified in the name of Islam, and it seems quite a few Muslims (especially young ones) subscribe to their views.
Complain about this comment
Given that our government departments can't even look after a disc of records, swindle their finances or run the economy correctly, how the heck can anyone seriously think they could organise a cover up of this magnitude is quite clearly (ahem) a little bit misguided.
Complain about this comment
I'll give this 7/7 program on Tuesday a look but conspiracy theories in general annoy me. I'll buy the Pearl Harbour theory but other than that, I consider such theories an insult to those that died.
I highly doubt the conspiracy theorists care about those that died or were injured on 9/11 or 7/7. Otherwise they wouldn't be digging up their graves or pouring salt into their wounds for their own political ends.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn:
Over a million British people voted for the BNP in the recent European elections, by your logic this means that people can claim they don't know if British people are all racists who want to see the forced deportation of non-whites from our country or not.
Abu Hamza has the support of a few hundred people, his ideas are no more popular amongst Muslims than Nick Griffin's are amongst White British people.
The likes of Abu Hamza receive far more publicity than they deserve because certain sections of the press love portraying Muslims in a negative light yet Muslims who are in favour of closer integration and who love this country get no press coverage at all.
A couple of years ago there was a small anti-UK/US demonstration going on in Manchester where about a hundred Muslims turned up, this was plastered all over the national press and made to look like it had far more popular support than it actually had. The next day several hundred (possibly thousands but I didn't count) Muslims along with some non-Muslims (including me) turned up to have a pro-UK/US rally and the only press coverage was a cameraman from the local press and his pictures only made it onto the inside pages of the local paper.
Every nut job who claims to be speaking on behalf of the Muslim people can be assured that they'll get blanket coverage from the local, national & international media and will then be portrayed as the new voice of Islam.
Any "normal" or "average" Muslim trying to send out a message of peace & tolerance will be ignored by the media.
Complain about this comment
#34
'I mean what exactly did they [the terrorists] hope to achieve with it?'
I'm going to take a wild stab at maybe terror.
Anyway have any of you 'theorists' considered the possibility that all conspiracy theories are, in fact, planted by our Governments to distract paranoiacs from seeking out the 'real' truths. Not that I want to set anyone off on a conspiracy feedback loop mind. :)
Complain about this comment
#31 StephenJMUK - I really enjoy reading your well informed posts but I am a little suspicious of your tireless obsession with BBC's broadcasting of the go code for the 1953 coup d'état in Iran. It seems to appear in every posting you ever make. Why do you consider this to be of such overwhelming significance today that you must mention it quite so frequently? No doubt the World Service overstepped its remit to "speak truth unto (another) nation" on that occasion but does that mean nothing has changed in 56 years?
Complain about this comment
Mike Rudin.
conspiracy theories abound exactly because our government (along with most others) has been found lying to us, time and again.
and given that censorship is rife in this country too, I cannot believe that the programme "..to be shown on BBC Two at 9pm on Tuesday 30 June .." will be able to deliver.
waste of time.
Complain about this comment
Doogletastic #67.
"..but does that mean nothing has changed in 56 years?"
no. things have gone from bad to worse.
Complain about this comment
Doesn't matter if you believe in conspiracy theories or not. In the case of 7/7 I don't, but nor am I that interested.
Just ask yourself if you trust your government.
If the answer is yes, you're a fool.
Complain about this comment
Mike, as you know J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign declined to participate in the 7/7 episode of the risible Conspiracy Files series:
J7 refuse BBC Conspiracy Files Offer
Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theories lie at the heart of the State's legal system as evidenced in the recent trail of Ali, Shakil & Saleem, during which the judge in his summing up stated:
".. the men claim in their defence they are victims of a 'conspiracy theory without foundation."
and during which Andrew Hall QC for Saleem said:
"...a conspiracy theory that the prosecution have been prepared to pursue to the bitter end."
What we all need is the truth about the events in London on 7th July 2005, not an Official Conspiracy Theory or 'narrative', nor do we need 'alternative narratives'.
Despite all the attempts that will be made to cast anyone and everyone who 'dares' to challenge the Official CT or demands the evidence that backs up these claims as a 'dangerous paranoid fruit-loop' we at J7 will hold steadfast to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' and the people's inalienable right to question the State's version of events, no matter how unpalatable that may be to the BBC and its paymasters.
DI Neil Smith, Counter Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard wrote to J7:
"In due time I hope we will be in a position where all the public, and especially the families of those killed or injured, are fully appraised of what happened on the 7th July 2005.
Whilst we have not communicated for some time, I express the thanks of the CT Command for drawing attention to some issues in the official account that required clarification. Whilst is might not always be apparent from our replies, your scrutiny is seen as helpful rather than inconvenient."
J7 are equally concerned about highly divisive messages that spread mistrust amongst all communities not just Muslims, the recent (wrongful) arrest of 12 young students sends a far more damaging message than any CT can, or the use by far-right groups of anti-Muslim propaganda based on the events of 7th July 2005 or the use of blackmail and intimidation by the Security Services.
When we refused your offer to participate we wrote:
"The July 7th Truth Campaign would be more than happy to participate in any serious programme that honestly examines 7/7 in its correct historical and political context, the government narrative, the lack of evidence to support it, the nonsensical amendments that have been made to the narrative, and the ever increasing list of unanswered questions that engulf the events of 7/7.
However, we do not feel that the Conspiracy Files is the vehicle that will facilitate this, nor will it treat the event or issues arising from it with the level of seriousness that they demand, and nor will it further the cause of the July 7th Truth Campaigns quest for the truth about what happened on 7th July 2005. As such, the July 7th Truth Campaign has no intention of participating in the proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files and can only hope you will take on board the points we have raised in this communication in consideration of your public service duty to the people of Britain, a people that includes at least 56 families whom, through your continued refusal to honestly address the events of 7/7, you have hitherto failed abysmally."
We suspect that after viewing your offering on Tuesday, failing abysmally will be all too apparent.
Complain about this comment
Ah, Conspiracy...
Why were they "training" on 9/11 and 7/7 ?
Groups intent on nefarious activities seldom write to the police revealing their detailed plans for future attacks. Information is gathered covertly and is often tenuous or incomplete. consider this, we know when the attack will take place. we also know where the attack will take place. Due to the tenuous nature of the intelligence we have, we do not know how, we do not know who. we do not really know that an attack will actually take place.
What shall we do ? well we have a couple of options...
1. we could close down the tube, announcing a suspected terrorist attack and send the troops in.
this would result in mass panic, economic turmoil, serious inconvenience to tens of thousands of people. the attack is prevented or more likely aborted and the police get slated for being too twitchy and jumping the gun. only the terrorists win, whether they were planning an attack or not. of course the church of conspiracy, the "theorists", will claim that "they just want to scare you, put their police state in"
2. we can sit back, wait and see what develops, the attack takes place and we then send in the police and emergency services to deal with the aftermath. "theorists" say "they knew and did nothing, in fact they helped out"
people will die, the police will be slated for not reacting to the attacks. the tube gets closed anyway because of the wrecked trains, inconvenience to all, once again only the terrorists win.
3. we can leave the tube open, visibly increase the security, announce a heightened state of alert, less panic but still panic, people shun the tubes, inconvenience to many, terrorists win, again. the "theorists" again will say "they just want to scare you"
4. We increase security, we ready the emergency services, we put ambulances and police on the suspected scenes of attack, we say that it is just a training excercise, people go about their business confident that their safety and security is paramount, if no attack takes place we have no inconvenience to the public, we end up with better trained people on the ground, score one for the good guys, if the attacks do take place we have emergency assets in place to deal with evacuations and casualties, although some people will die we will save peoples lives because we are on the scene within minutes. there is also a chance that we could catch the bad guys en route. at worst we have a draw. at best we have a win for our side. the other snag to this plan is we hand the "theorists" more fuel for their paranoia.
"there's none so blind as them wot won't listen" :- Del Boy Trotter circa 1980
Complain about this comment
"I didn't realise Kamikaze pilots were muslims"
I didn't realise Kamikaze pilots strapped bombs to their chests and walked into places crowded with civilians and blew themselves up.
Point taken though, I probably should have said "as we know it today" - which was what I meant. Kamikaze were going for military targets not the easiest targets they could find, they had a pupose and frankly they did the job that was intended.
Terrorists have never got what they wanted anywhere ever.
Complain about this comment
@Rhubidium (72.)
Congratulations on an outstanding piece of satire, or commiserations on an outstanding failure of logic.
It's difficult to tell which.
Complain about this comment
"#31 StephenJMUK - I really enjoy reading your well informed posts but I am a little suspicious of your tireless obsession with BBC's broadcasting of the go code for the 1953 coup d'tat in Iran."
I sympathise. However, due to the current Iran crisis I've been mentioning it as much as possible. It's not widely known and the BBC certainly haven't been talking about it, even though it's highly relevant at the moment (given Iran's complaints of western interference). So apologies for the repetition to those who have read every post I've made. The other reason I have been posting it so much is that the BBC keep censoring so many of our posts, so I never know which messages are going to stay up.
The last time I sounded like a broken record was when the BBC had blatant pictures of Israel using white phosphorus in the Gaza assault. They had the pictures up for a whole week but refused to use the term "white phosphorus" despite many people writing in (eventually of course, they relented).
When something isn't being said, sometimes you have to keep saying it, although I promise not to mention it in my next post.
Complain about this comment
#67. At 12:51pm on 25 Jun 2009, Doogletastic wrote:
"No doubt the World Service overstepped its remit to "speak truth unto (another) nation" on that occasion but does that mean nothing has changed in 56 years?"
(Sorry, I missed the last sentence you wrote.) Overstepped its remit? That's a bit of an understatement. The BBC is a broadcaster committed to be fair and unbiased, so colluding in the overthrow of a democratic government so that it can be replaced by a dictator is well beyond simply overstepping a remit.
You ask whether anything has changed in 56 years? Perhaps not. BBC Persia is after all funded by the Foreign Office, which doesn't exactly instill confidence.
However, I will say that for a broadcaster to be so directly involved in such a despicable act is fairly unusual. Normally the BBC's (and other media's) cooperation with foreign policy is at a safe distance (although still quite blatant).
Complain about this comment
If you want to actually understand what is going on in the world, you'd be well advised not to waste your time with anything BBC produces. CNN presented a one hour documentary hosted by Christian Amanpour explaining how Islamic extremists came to the UK, were recruited by other Islamic extremists in the UK, how the UK's government ignored countless pleas from responsible Moslem citizens and non citizens alike to do something about it, how they ignored many very specific leads and why the attack therefore became inevitable. It also shows that the Moslem community in the UK is completely disaffected and alienated from the mainstream of British life because that is what the mainstream wants. It points to the sharp contrast between Moslem communities in the UK and the rest of Europe on one hand and Moslem communities in America on the other. There is a world of difference.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.amanpour/index.html
The entire program may be available as it was broadcast on CNN on Youtube as well.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Several months ago I supported the BBC team making the subsequently postponed 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme (now to be broadcast 0n 30 June) as I had the temerity to say on UK TV on 7 July 2005 that my company had that day also run an exercise involving simultaneous bombs on the London underground. A few days before so had more than one major London based origination and before that a BBC Panorama programme had done the same thing. The point being that the underground system in London has since 1885, been one of the most attacked structures in the UK apart from Belfast.
It follows that a company like ours that helps many organisations prepare for crises (a) always seeks to run one or more client based exercises and (b) will choose a scenario based on a realistic threat analysis. My comment on TV four years ago was intended to encourage others to do the same and at a time when the terrorist threat level remains very high to test their response in advance.
A message on this site dated 24 June mistakenly says that both 9/11 & 7/7 the respective governments were engaged in training simulations. The inaccurate assumption being our exercise that day was part of government training.
Regrettably there are many people who will always put conspiracy above coincidence and we still get menacing or otherwise nuisance emails and telephone calls every day.
Having already made available to the BBC our unexpurgated exercise material used in 2005 I look forward to this programme on 30 June and hope it will debunk some of the rather bizarre stories. However, I would still rather live in an open society where people can challenge official statements, but they in turn must be prepared to reconsider their assumptions if a cogent case is made to separate fact from fiction. I hope this will be the case next week.
Peter Power
Complain about this comment
Tengearbatbike wrote:
"Given that our government departments can't even look after a disc of records, swindle their finances or run the economy correctly, how the heck can anyone seriously think they could organise a cover up of this magnitude is quite clearly (ahem) a little bit misguided."
"Government departments" = massive, sometimes unwieldy bureacracies that run civil affairs and employ hundreds of thousands of civil servants.
No-one is saying thousands of individual bureaucrats within "government departments" are organising 'events' or 'cover-ups' - that is ludicrous and a red herring.
Did every single pen-pusher at Enron 'organise' that particular cover-up of magnitude, which went on for years before it was exposed? No. Functionaries had their heads down at their desks dealing with their particular work-loads. The majority of them could not see the bigger picture beyond their little desk booths and had no idea that the drivers of the Enron train had headed it down the wrong track.
Complain about this comment
re Peter Power at 79 -
Mr Power, it's fascinating to see your input to this debate in advance of the programme being broadcast. For the benefit of viewers who may wonder why your name is associated with the events of 7/7 whenever 'conspiracy theories' are mentioned, could you please confirm whether or not the following is an accurate transcription of your interview with Peter Allen on Radio Five's Drivetime broadcast of July 7th 2005?
...
PETER POWER: ...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!
PETER ALLEN: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
PETER POWER: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.
...
In the interests of transparency, accuracy, accountability etc etc, I hope you can submit another post to confirm that the above conversation took place, and that the transcription accurately represents what you said. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Here's a new one...
Michael Jackson is not dead. The multi-million dollar promoters panicked about him not being able to carry out all those concerts. Jackson is in hiding. The body is some itinerant who they gave operations to make him look like Jackson. Now he has 'died of natural causes' the promoters (and Jackson) are in the clear and the insurers will have to pay.
You heard it here first.
I want you to take this as seriously as all the other conspiracies and will get very upset if you don't.
Complain about this comment
Universal Suffrage
BBCitzens, this person claims possession of the 'tapes (that) reveal many more anomalies' about related grievance, what in the world is he talking about? Will you check it all out, to inform us?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
Whistle after loud whistle after.., mighty loud, so loud it resonates within torn, muted and censored members of mainstream media.
Corporation after incorporation and not a single entity to represent interest of public it feeds on?
Complain about this comment
moriaeencomium:
I read the interview with Kurt Sonnenfeld recently and I was shocked beyond belief, not just at what he said but also because there isn't a single media organisation in the world who has even mentioned his claims, thank God (or whatever else you believe in) for voltairenet !
If someone with such inside knowledge is forced into exile it really makes you wonder what other information is out there and being suppressed.
Complain about this comment
@82: I had wondered when some wag would write this.
Regarding 9/11, the "conspiracy theory" was the pack of lies put out by the US government, mostly through their own ignorance of events and not "being in the loop." Just because you're President of the USA doesn't mean that you have a "need to know," eh, Mr Vice President (MJ2)? ;) And why did Condi Rice warn Ron Brown not to fly on that fateful day? Some people obviously knew something. I think that's fairly obvious. The official story of 7/7 most likely follows a similar pattern, with training drills, confusion, and the people supposedly in top positions in this country truly in the dark as to what really happened on that horrific day in July. If the truth's ever to be had, then the masonic power elite and secret societies behind western politicians needs to be exposed, as well as the secret compartments residing in western intelligence agencies.
A herd of elephants are in the room and getting restless, and yet still a sizeable proportion of the population appear to like remaining in their comfort zones, being hoodwinked and taken for fools rather than getting to the truth. That's their right, of course. Just keep on consuming and being materialists, and all's right with the world, eh? Wake up, stop dreaming! -- and I'm not quoting lyrics from Wang Chung here.
Complain about this comment
re jon112uk at 82
Well, I hope you're glad you went to the trouble of sharing your insight with us. I wonder if you realise that the ignorant tastlessness you set-down at 82 typifies the sarcasm which has become a hallmark of OCT-supporters' contributions to every 'conspiracy'-related discussion. With that in mind, you're helping prompt the undecided to probe deeper and ask why the 'usual suspects' such as yourself have to resort to such childish nastiness. So, I hope you keep doing it.
(Could it be that you just don't have anything constructive or informative to say?)
Complain about this comment
82- jon112UK - I respectfully suggest you buy yourself some tin foil.
Complain about this comment
J7 detail some of the questions and anomalies that we suggest Mike Rudin's 'documentary' will fail to address:
BBC2 Conspiracy Files and the Official Conspiracy Theory
Complain about this comment
(85,86,87) I'm shocked that you don't take my contribution seriously. They told us Michael Jackson died of heart attack now we hear he was killed by a narcotic injection. The body is suddenly whisked away in a helicopter - why a helicopter not an ambulance? - was a switch made at this point? Why are the US authorities so uncertain of their story? Jackson's music sales have instantly gone from zero to off the scale. There is a lot money at stake here.
Why are you taking this less seriously than you ask us to take your theories - I can't see a difference.
(Seriously: my prediction is that the Jackson death will rival Elvis for dodgy theories in the long run. Mike will be doing a programme on them. You heard it first right here.)
Complain about this comment
for you, jon112uk
There was a chap who loved conspiracy
and used the term with great expediency
never one to interact
with a hard or solid fact
he asserted bureaucratic deficiency
Complain about this comment
Hey - I got censored again. Blowed if I know why.
I only added some detail on my new conspiracy theory. Apparently it's ok to put up random allegations about 56 people dying (or 2750) but not about one person dying. Go figure.
Complain about this comment
I go with both 11/9 and 7/7 were inside jobs and that Govenment all over the planet will kill their own if it does the trick. Blaming the Muslims is not new someone has to be blamed and pointed at and told they should back the country they were born in even if they are seeing their parents or grandparents countrymen being killed how many white men to brown men are now dead and for what? The West needs to show its power and to make those who live here believe they are still the colonial masters, not long ago a Lord in who lives in Africa killed and feed a black man to the lions this man was a Masai he was the second man he had done this and like our MPs and banker walked away if it had been a black man who killed him well they would have had many black men killed. Why do those of you think that the Govenment would not know about what went on in these two killings 11/9 and 7/7 the USA is well know for robbing stealing shooting kill its own and others,and the British Govenment is no different we just do it less as we are smaller and repressed.
If the BBC is doing this programme well it will be according to their pay masters who are not Muslims but are wanting to have a war backed by the USA and the UK in Iran so it can colonize the Middle East them and the evangelists and Catholics. I am not surprised that the young off all races hate what is going on as its nothing but lies as the old order loose power, not long before we hear the Chinese called the yellow peril and we are encouraged to kick off on them or the Japanese many of my generation do not know the difference, change is going to happen and nothing that the BBC can doe will change it. I lost interest in the BBC when I saw how it treated the people from this country of all colour who went to Gazza I knew who was their pay master then and who are running the show now and its kosher.
Complain about this comment
re 91, jon112uk-
Perhaps your theory is spot-on, but it isn't relevant. This blog is about the BBC treatment of 7/7, not the death of Michael Jackson. No doubt Mike Rudin et al will get some mileage out of the theories already circulating about Jackson's death, and it'll make an entertaining hour to which a blog will no doubt be dedicated. In the meantime, perhaps you could take a minute or two to acquaint yourself with the posts at 71 and 88. You've never been hesitant to speak your mind on this and other blogs, so let's hear what you have to say to J7 about what you referred to as 'random allegations' - unlike Mr Jackson, they are very much alive and kicking and able to defend themselves.
Complain about this comment
#83
The revelations of Kurt Sonnenfeld should be compulsory reading for anyone who doubts the ability of governments to hoodwink their citizens completely, utterly, and with consummate depravity. 9/11 seems not so much an elaborate conspiracy as an act of wanton immorality by many entrusted members of the US Administration in Washington DC.
It is time for all upright citizens of the UK to begin to ask serious questions about what really did happen on 7/7. Obviously the BBC's documentary is not going to help one little bit so how about a sponsor for an independent filmed investigation?
Complain about this comment
93. At 10:11pm on 26 Jun 2009, ianbrotherhood
Hi Ian
I had a look at some of their 'anomalies' (#88) .... "how Germaine Lindsay, on the 'packed to capacity' Piccadilly Line train, was able to scatter both his ID around the carriage and place a large backpack on the floor of the train before detonating the explosives?" Is this a joke??? Just have a think for a few seconds and generate multiple ways this could occur. Stuff like this is supposed to prove MI5 backed by prince Philip and funded by the oil companies helped Blair to blow up London trains in order to justify ID cards??? (or whatever they are alleging, no one really knows)
What I would like to see - as with the 9-11 ramblings - is some clear, coherent and detailed statement of what they are alleging DID happen so people can start testing it and finding some 'anomalies' of our own. When several people asked for that about 9-11 the debate soon opened up, with people who had studied 9-11 for several years stating "not a one of us has any idea what happened on that day" ... those were the people experienced enough not to state a clear theory and have it shot down. Others had a stab at telling us how the government plot worked with planes disappearing to no where, covert plans which involved hundreds of participants (not one of whom has whistle blown), mythical silent explosives. Etc etc.
Simple challenge - don't try to justify the 7/7 theories to me - I happily admit that I can change my mind about things, but no one will ever care. If you want to influence lots of people put a testable theory up on here, or on some other site, and let Mike look at it in detail for his next programme.
The Jackson thing IS relevant here - my guess is that this one is going to be another Elvis, but with the benefit of the internet to hype it. I would suggest to Mike that he watches MJ developments carefully. He has an opportunity to monitor one of these things evolving from the beginning. It will make an interesting programme.
Complain about this comment
83,
many thanks for posting the link to the Kurt Sonnenfeld interview. It is certainly very telling that his shocking story and the evidence he uncovered at Ground Zero has not been mentioned by the mainstream media. One wonders what Mr. Rudin thinks of it.
(Here it is again for anyone who has not yet read it
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html)
Complain about this comment
re jon112uk at 95 -
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't accept your invitation to supply an alternative theory. My only concern in visiting this and other BBC/Mike Rudin/Conspiracy Files blogs is seeing evidence, and how that evidence is treated by 'journalists' working for the most esteemed broadcaster on the planet. Theories are interesting only insofar as they are more or less convincing to the majority - what we've come to know as 'perception-management', or colloquially, 'spin', is what this debate is really all about. Yes, you're right that the Jackson death may, in time, prove an interesting case, but it doesn't provide us with any hard evidence about what happened on 9/11 or 7/7.
Your insistence that critics of the OCT come up with testable theories is reminiscent of the earlier months on the 'Third Tower' blog (which is still going and has surpassed 3,200 posts) - on that blog you made similar calls many times. Eventually, you bowed out, passing the torch to the legenadry JP, who utilised the same kind of circular reasoning until he was confronted with the David Chandler videos whereupon his circles became ever-smaller until, one day in April, hard evidence of nano-thermites emerged and he promptly vanished.
Perhaps we can agree that theories - interesting as they are - should be left aside until all the available evidence has been gathered via properly conducted public inquiries. That hasn't yet happened with regard to 7/7.
I'm intrigued as to why you've never returned to the 'Third Tower' debate - if memory serves, the Chandler video-analysis and the Harritt/Jones nano-thermite paper (not to mention Kurt Sonnenfeld as linked to, above) emerged after your departure. Have you any thoughts you'd care to share over 'in the other place'? I'm sure I'm not the only poster there who would welcome your input and perhaps help satisfy your yearning to have something to test for anomalies.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for that Ian.
Sorry, no I wouldn't accept that view.
We can go around in circles for ever on the 'anomalies' that aren't anomalies, or never happened in the first place, or just get replaced by another 'anomaly'
If people have a theory as to what happened on 7/7 then they should state it and have it open to scrutiny.
(Are you guys really still at this on the 9-11 blog?? I loved that one, particularly when some of you decided I was an undercover CIA/MI6 agent, LOL.
Nano-thermite: never said it doesn't exist, it almost certainly does exist. I questioned...
1. How an incendiary can cut through multiple steel beams with a timing accuracy of less than 1 second to conduct a controlled demolition
2. Why a government with access to proper explosives (including of Iraqi/Afghan provencance) would use something so untried
3. How a witness can say he heard explosions whilst he was inside the building, yet lived to get outside the building. Why did he hear explosions if silent thermite was used? He must have run very fast - to get out of a building between the explosions and the collapse of controlled demolition is pretty impressive.
That debate was a very interesting example of what happened when you guys got specific: just the odd one or two 'anomalies' emerged. I got bored in the end, but I'm sure Mike would be pleased to look at any specifics that emerge.)
Complain about this comment
re: jon112uk @95 "I had a look at some of their 'anomalies' (#88) .... "how Germaine Lindsay, on the 'packed to capacity' Piccadilly Line train, was able to scatter both his ID around the carriage and place a large backpack on the floor of the train before detonating the explosives?" Is this a joke???"
The Piccadilly Line train that Lindsay is said to have boarded at King's Cross has been described as 'the most packed train ever' (this was due to an earlier incident at Caledonian Road and a long delay on the line) and within 30 seconds of leaving King's Cross we are told he detonated his explosives.
Have you ever managed to squeeze on to a packed tube train? Could you then 'fling at some distance' papers (not necessarily id in Lindsay's case as he wasn't identified until 15th July, two days after his wife had reported him missing and police had visited and removed property from his home) and then place a large backpack on the floor and detonate it?
Perhaps you and Mike Rudin can also explain how the then Home Secretary John Reid was able to tell survivors and bereaved families in August 2006:
"Those who attended the Edgware Road meeting believed that there was a possibility of a second error in the Official Account. They said that Mohammed Sidique Khan was by the second set of double doors in the tube carriage at the time of the attack, whereas the Official Account states that Khan was "most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors".
My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation."
Over a year after 7/7 and a final forensics report hasn't been completed and the precise location not established? This was 3 months after the release of the Official Report into the London Bombings which Tony Blair claimed (when refusing a Public Inquiry):
I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and
we will make sure that they do.... We will bring together all
the evidence that we have and publish it, so that peoplethe
victims and others can see exactly what happened..... we will
publish a full account of all the information that we have.
-- Tony Blair, 14th December 2005
Whilst you would obviously prefer an alternative theory to pick through, we will continue to examine the Official Conspiracy Theory which to date remains unproven. After all it is the truth of these events that you want isn't it?
If Mike Rudin and his team had concentrated their efforts on examining the OCT the BBC would have done a greater service to the viewing public and the victims of whatever did happen that day.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk
It might help you to know that nano-thermite is an explosive.
Complain about this comment
re jon112uk at 98 -
Jon, I'll leave it to the J7 people to correct you on the specific 'anomalies', but I want to pick up a comment you made above regarding the 'Caught Up In A Conspiracy Theory' blog:
"That debate was a very interesting example of what happened when you guys got specific: just the odd one or two 'anomalies' emerged. I got bored in the end, but I'm sure Mike would be pleased to look at any specifics that emerge.)"
If indeed you haven't revisited that blog recently, you may be interested to know that Mike Rudin is currently the subject of multiple formal complaints to the BBC regarding his inability/unwillingness to respond to the 'new' evidence I cited above (specifically, the Nils Harrit interview on Danish TV in which the presence of unreacted nano-thermites in all Ground-Zero pre-clean-up samples was confirmed) - so, again, I invite you to click across to your old stomping ground. If you insist on using this blog (which is supposed to be about 7/7) to ressurect ancient and thoroughly debunked myths about 9/11, it might be an idea to acquaint yourself with the latest evidence before doing so. It's also interesting that you referred to that debate in the past tense. Please be assured that it is going strong and has become, in itself, a valuable repository of WTC7-related links and commentary, despite your absence.
But credit where it's due - you do respond directly to straight questions. (I wonder if you have any thoughts on why the producer of the material we're discussing seems incapable of doing likewise?)
Complain about this comment
99. At 12:09pm on 27 Jun 2009, J7Truth
Move about a crowded London tube?
Done it many times... shuffle-shuffle-"scuse me"-gentle push-wriggle-shuffle-shuffle. Done it with luggage. Seen lot's of other people do it as they want to get to the door.
Or I could just push my way through - I expect to be dead before another minute is out: why should I care about manners.
Or I could turn one way, put down my papers, turn the other way and detonate bomb. Blast and survivors' feet do the distribution.
That's 30 seconds of thinking about it.
Either way it doesn't do much to prove MI5/Blair/Oil Companies/prince Philip or whatever detonated the bombs.
We could do the same thing with the other 'anomalies' but by the time we dealt with all of them and someone added some new ones at the end, yet another poster would have us back to the first one again. The 911 one started October last year, I spent 2 1/2 weeks on it and, I now see, it is still going on.
I think ianbrotherhood has a good point about debating the media coverage rather than the pros/cons of the conspiracy theory.
Complain about this comment
re: jon112uk @102 Not just a crowded train, but one described as at 'crush capacity' - any thoughts on John Reid's statement to the bereaved families and survivors @ 99?
Complain about this comment
100. At 1:12pm on 27 Jun 2009
@jon112uk
"It might help you to know that nano-thermite is an explosive."
When I watched the video the 9-11 guys recommended it was like the old photographic flash powder, there are any number of two component mixes like that, but they don't instantly (less than 1 second) cut thick steel. I'm happy to watch any video of it detonating in bulk as a high explosive capable of instant steel cutting (like C4/PE4/CLC does it) if someone has that. If it did detonate as a high explosive then it would be fairly pointless - the whole point of the thermite theory was to explain how the government did a controlled demolition without explosions being clearly audible to everyone present and on the videos.
=========================
101. At 2:27pm on 27 Jun 2009, ianbrotherhood
Happy to look if you have something new on the controlled demolition by thermite - that was both specific and testable.
I take your point about replies from the editor. I can't quite make my mind up whether it would be most apropriate to answer specific new allegations on here or in a programme. But I do accept that anything specific, credible and testable (not endless 'anomalies') should be looked at. Just thinking about Watergate shows that any journalist who followed up credible allegations regarding 9-11/7-7, and could stand them up, would be a pretty famous guy.
Complain about this comment
103. At 3:14pm on 27 Jun 2009, J7Truth wrote:
re: jon112uk @102 Not just a crowded train, but one described as at 'crush capacity' - any thoughts on John Reid's statement to the bereaved families and survivors @ 99?
====================================
What on earth does 'crush capacity' mean? Who said that? How do we know it is true? What evidence is there that you can't move a few feet up the carriage? Why do we need to even assume the bomber moved, not the documents?
I've thought about it for another 10 seconds. I put the bomb down, I throw a couple of documents up the carriage over peoples' heads, I detonate the bomb. We could go on with this for ever.
John Reid is a politician: I have been directly involved in a couple of matters where politicians were asked questions and couldn't give a credible/consistent answer. None of them were cover-ups. I mentioned Michael Jackson as the next one of these 'conspiracies'- some official told us he had a cardiac arrest, now people are talking about drugs: the official didn't have the facts and may well be wrong. It doesn't prove any complex conspiracy about MJ.
All of these are just endless 'anomalies' - how does any of this prove John Reid/Tony Blair/Prince Philip detonated the bombs? That's my point, all of these 'anomalies' prove nothing.
People need to say what they reckon DID happen - let people test that out.
I still tend to agree with ianbrotherhood that this is really the place to debate the media coverage rather than the conspiracies.
Complain about this comment
re 105 -
"People need to say what they reckon DID happen - let people test that out.
I still tend to agree with ianbrotherhood that this is really the place to debate the media coverage rather than the conspiracies."
Nice one Jon. You certainly know how to flatter a man, but it won't work. What is about to be tested (yet again) via the broadcast of Mike Rudin's work is not media coverage 'rather than' the conspiracies - in making that distinction you bolster the a priori editorial stance that conspiracies are bad and untrustworthy, even 'dangerous'.
From Rudin's own intoductory blurb it's fair to make the assumption that whatever conspiracy is examined will focus on internet activity by 'truthers', the implication being that conjecture and theorising about the planning of the event is somehow more insidious and threatening than the event itself, and that 'facts' which appear only online are somehow diminished, are less-than-true because they've not had the BBC stamp of approval. That position is only tenable if one accepts the official narrative we've been fed since the day itself - only then can the business of questioning that narrative be classified as unpatriotic/subversive. If such reasoning is adopted then it becomes possible to regard 'truthers' as the real conspirators, the 'enemy within' etc etc, and I've no doubt at all that that is what Tuesday's programme will contend.
You're a smart cookie Mr Jon, and you know precisely what I'm talking about here, even if it is extremely difficult to express cogently. I suggest that we wait until the programme has been broadcast, then we can dissect what was shown, not just in terms of content, but tone, and, most crucially perhaps, omissions. J7 will be watching carefully, and I fully expect that come Wednesday morning this space is going to be very busy.
Have you revisited 'Caught Up In A Conspiracy Theory' yet? You said you noticed it's still going, but made no comment on recent content. It's good to hear a defender of the OCT because, to be frank, there are so few of you around these days (well, so few who are capable of stringing more than two sentences together and avoiding ad hominem attacks) we need your input to keep things fresh, to remind ourselves how important this matter is, and what impelled us to speak-out in the first place.
Complain about this comment
@john112uk
It might help you to know that crush capacity meant 798 passengers on a Piccadilly line train in 2005.
"42 Days
By Rachel North
7/7/05: The Westbound Piccadilly line train was at crush capacity as it pulled away from Kings Cross. To travel on it was to be uncomfortably intimate with strangers; to feel the warmth of their backs, bellies, shoulders pressed into your own body, the smell of rain-damp clothing, the prod of elbows, umbrellas, bump of handbags and rucksacks. When you are so close to your fellow passengers that you can feel their breath on your cheek, it is considered polite not to meet their eyes."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I just got censored again - I think it's when I give examples like.. "(name)could have done x,y,z" Potential defamation?
==============
re. 106
Looking at the coverage I can see where you are coming from, but I just don't think the long list of 'anomalies' is going anywhere. If you ever go to Mike Rudin or any other journalist with something like...
"[Named Person] used to work as a mercenary for [big security company making millions in Iraq], he says he recruited 5 young guys, they were told they were taking part in a security exercise, they stayed at [named address] and were conned into making martyr videos, they got driven to Luton in a hired van, they thought the rucksacks were dummies. This guy has receipts for the van and the house and the originals from the videos and is willing to sell them"
...they will rip your arm off, pay you big bucks and look forward to being the worlds most famous journalist.
But the 'anomalies' aren't going anywhere because they don't actually prove anything.
============================
re.107
I just don't see how these sort of things prove anyone did anything. I didn't think very hard and came up with several plausible explanations:
1) He shuffled and shoved up the carriage like most people do
2) He just barged through - he was about to die and didn't care about good manners
3) He put the documents to one side, turned the other way and detonated the bomb - the blast and survivors/rescuers feet distributed the papers
4) He threw the papers along the carriage over people's heads then detonated the bomb.
That's why I'm saying the 'anomalies' don't really take us anywhere.
Complain about this comment
@jon112uk
When Clifford Todd from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory gave evidence about the relatively undamaged ID documents he opined that "the obvious explanation was that they wanted to be known". One might have thought that CDs of suicide videos would have been more likely carriage litter. Instead, we have items that are normally held close such as bank/cash cards, gym cards, a provisional driving license and, on the Piccadilly line, a photocard and a photo.
The photocard was in the name of a Tyrone Smith. It had no photo stuck on it. A photo of Germaine Lindsay was found separately. Two expired weekly season tickets from Aylesbury to London that were also found with the reference number of the photocard
The picture you give of suicide bombers lobbing their plastic just before doing the deed is, frankly, ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
"If i were you I would not take too much comfort out of poll results. A poll is an ureliable tool, especially when it deals with very controversial issues. A lot of people will answer negatively to the question 'Do you support terrorism?' not because they migt be trully opposed to it, but because of fear of being exposed as terrorist supporters, unwillingness to be associated with something that is generally negatively perceived or just not wishing to give voice to their inner thoughts.
Just imagine a poll asking questions like: Have you participated in torture of other people? Have you ever thought of abusing children? Have you ever comitted a capital crime of which nobody suspects you?
I am sure you will get almost universal denial, even from people who have actually done any of the above things. So, as I said before, I do not know what the predeominat factions is in the Muslim comunity when it comes to supporting terrosrism."
So why then were you commenting about polls back in post #21? You said the polls were "contradictory". I just showed you that they weren't, and now you come out with "A poll is an ureliable tool". I agree it can be, but then you could say exactly the same thing about any other group of people. "I don't know how many people from Texas support terrorism" (no offense to any Texans here), either because polls haven't been conducted, or because polls of them are unreliable. So what? I must point you back to the first half of my post #29, where I gave you two good reasons not to take the "agnostic" attitude to whether or not the majority of Muslims are terrorists or not: pragmatism and innocent until proven guilty. Go back and read it as I did a better job explaining what I mean there.
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing the polls were reliable before. You cited a poll to back up your argument, so by doing so, you were claiming that the poll was reliable. When I showed you that the poll doesn't actually back up your argument, you moved the goalposts and claim the poll wasn't reliable anyway. It's hard to take your arguments seriously, when you argue dishonestly.
Complain about this comment
110. At 11:10pm on 27 Jun 2009, marxoid
Basic point I'm making: these 'anomalies' prove nothing.
I took the first one on a 7/7 website - the documents were a distance away from the detonation, the carriage was crowded, he wasn't in the carriage long enough to do that. I just assume for the debate that all of this is actually true.
In seconds I made up several possible explanations. The idea that 'anomalies' like this prove the government, big business, royality or whatever set this up just goes no where.
Put forward some concrete allegations - "it was done by XXX, they did it this way, here's my evidence that proves they did it" I'm not asking you prove it a court of law, a credible allegation should be taken forward by the media and then the authorities.
If you've got something that can be proven then you would not only be listened to, you would probably be very rich. Even a credible, specific and testable allegation would be interesting.
Complain about this comment
#112
The problem with your logic, jon112uk, is that it founders not just on the "anomalies in the original report" but also on simpler matters such as motive, opportunity, and timing. I would like to put up a theory as to what "really happened" but I hope that my "possibility" has already been covered in the "official" investigation. But how can I find out whether it has been covered?
We are repeatedly told in matters of serious crime that it is important to "catch the ringleaders, the master minds, the serious influence that has the ability to make these things happen". This is routinely done in drug crime where a thousand pushers are not as precious as the one person in control.
We have reason to believe, with hindsight, that our security services knew of at least two cells operating (in or against London) prior to 7/7. We also appear to know (or at least we can surmise) from the situation surrounding inquiries into the Stockwell tube killing, that there were no rehearsals.
As in 9/11, there are several questions I am uneasy with relating to 7/7 and prior knowledge. My question is simple in both cases - was it policy for the security services to "limit" damage rather than prevent the attack? I ask it in both cases because I do not believe enough was done in NYC or in London. How do I get to raise my question in a serious place? My MP knows no more than I do, and as matters of National security are "involved" whenever a sensitive matter is raised, it is impossible to get at "the truth" without making as many suggestions as you can that the official explanation is steeped in "lies".
It may be true that we go around in circles but isn't that perferable to doing nothing?
Complain about this comment
re: jon112uk @ 112
The scattering of documents around the underground trains and bus and the detonation of the explosives on the floor of each is not the first anomaly we suggest that the BBC will not be investigating. The first anomaly is the nature of the explosives. This anomaly links to this article:
The nature of the explosives: from C4 to powdered masala spice
The BBC want to investigate Conspiracy Theories surrounding these events and we suggest that the Official Conspiracy Theory, the one we investigate, is still unproven, inconsistent and full of anomalies.
The Official Conspiracy Theory has led to a massive increase in anti-terror legislation, to the point where a young father and sole carer of 3 children has spent 18 months in prison for nothing more than possessing a cd of an article that can be downloaded from the US government website and which he claims he never even watched.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the programme might address why the maker of "7/7 Ripple Effect" is currently facing extradition from Ireland and why the UK media seem to have given the case zero coverage.
I must admit, that I am one of those people who will not be watching on Tuesday night. I lost faith in the BBC a few years ago now and can't even watch BBC TV news, Newsnight or even Question Time any longer without feeling that I'm being manipulated by government propaganda.
Complain about this comment
"There is no connection between owning a gun and shooting someone with it, and not owning a gun and not shooting someone. And you'd be a fool and a communist to make one."
-Bill Hicks
This quote may be in relation to something else where the parties concerned have a vested interest in the 'truth' of a situation being what they want rather than what is the reality- but it also applies to such things as conspiricy theories.
So far this series has managed to miss large amounts of important information in order to 'debunk' certain conspiracy claims, so will have little if any weight in the ones surrounding 7/7.
Instead, let me debunk a few conspiricy claims made in the past myself:
JFK
Oswald was a fantastic shot who dangled out of a book depository window to shoot past a tree to hit a moving target (not otherwise visible on the date in question) at a rate of high accuracy fire not able to be achieved by most trained snipers. Those of you who have noted that the film images show JFK's head moving in the wrong direction based on the official direction of impact should note that if you pray hard enough the laws of physics can be suspended. Afterall, he did use magic bullets.
September 11
Simply because there was no wreckage of a plane at the Pentagon is in no way proof that there was not one there. Nor is the lack of any footage of one on the CCTV, and any images appearing to show a missile should be considered a hoax. None of the military personnel present should be considered expert testimony when they say they smelled explosive residue, and that the impact point just happened to be a perfect test for the newly installed anti-missile reinfocement (which also meant the building section was empty) is entirely coincidental.
The Trade Centre may have been designed to withstand the impact of a jet, but it failed to do so. The burning hydrocarbons clearly visible as giving off black smoke were not being used up and cooling, but in fact both defying the laws of thermodynamics and getting hotter than they can possibly do so under normal chemistry, in order to weaken reinforced steel that had been insulated against heat using hazardous chemicals that would cost more to remove than the new owner of the site could possibly afford. Simply because the official reports stated the design was inadequate and any such fire could cause a skyscraper to collapse, even when similar ones before and since have not, does not mean those reports were wrong. Nor are the supporting diagrams in these reports simply because photographic evidence and the blueprints disagree. The fact that New York building codes have not changed as a result of these officialy endorsed reports is no cause for concern...
In fact anyone who doesn't think that a handful of guys with no actual flying lessons (who were under 24 hour observation by the intelligence community at the time) could coordinate themselves to get aboard and take over 4 jets armed with blades shorter than the average finger, crash them into targets that would be hard for a trained military pilot to hit, have their bodies burn up so bad no dna could be recovered (but their passports were found nearby and readable) and just happen to choose a day when the military were unavailable to stop them, is a fool and a conspiricy theorist.
A conspiracy is any organisation where 2 or more people plan for something to happen whilst keeping this concealed from the majority of the population. The debunkers would have you claim that doing so is impossible to achieve, and yet what is a surprise birthday party if not a conspiracy? Was D Day an occurance of pure coincidence? What about the Enigma cracking team decoding the attacks on Pearl Harbour before they happened?
The truth is these things happen all the time. Programmes like these try to convince you otherwise, because this type of conspiricy event shakes the film makers faith and security in their own particular world view.
Complain about this comment
I am not a student of the 7/7 killings and form no view on the matter, but I have examined 9/11 for 5 years and formed the view some time ago that it must have been an 'inside job' and that the official conspircay theory 'endorsed' by Mike Rudin and the BBC is nonsense. That of course provides some insight as to what I think of the BBC.
Of course we know that governments do carry out 'false flag attacks' and even the BBC and Mr. rudin cannot ignore that. (e.g. The Reischtag, [sp?] operation Gladio, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the attack on the US Liberty in 1967, operation Susannah [the Lavon affair] etc, clearly available on a resaon able search) Such 'false flag' attacks are designed by government murderers to salivate people into hating others and even going and killing those who have been falsely blamed for the false flag event.
I have now formed the view that there is now another conspiracy and that is, to cover up the true events of 9/11 and get the murderers off.
In that process, the criminal protectors present flawed 'straw man' arguments and then make those arguments look silly, by that means; they then attempt to have thinking persons fail to properly consider valid facts and give moral suppport to the ignorant 'official conspircay theory' supporter.
On past methodology, one would expect the BBC program to somehow associate 7/11 'conspircay theories' with '9/11 conspircay theories'. By doing so they will probably attempt to pull themselves up with their own boot straps by claiming, if one is just a conspircay theory then the other one must be as well.
So what is the bet that that is what Rudin will attempt??
What is the bet that the BBC and Mr. Rudin will not mention any of the orther 'conspircay theories' involving murder that have now been shown to be historicaly real? Examples of those are mentioned above. There are many examples of governments murdering their own people or potential allies to trick a populace in going and killing others. How long does it normally take for the truth to be confirmed? One exmple is the Israeli attack on the 'US liberty' in 1967, that is now being confirmed by analysts as being just plain murder of American sailors by unmarked Israeli aircrfat and torpedo boats. Just after 1967 it was regarded as a "mistake" and any other interpretaion was just a 'silly conspircay theory' at the time.
One thing for sure; if the BBC and Mr. Rudin continue it's/his policy of ignoring the new developments in the demolishing of three skyscrapers on 9/11 and the mass murders, then they will ignore any relevant questioning of matters that may arise after the 7/7 program.
Another likely scam is to mention 9/11 and 7/7 in the same sentence as moon visits, aliens, Elvis etc and now, we can add Jackson 'survived' believers.
Regrettably, as with the 9/11 programs, most of Britain will be probably deceived into the BBC way of thinking, without considering the analytical commemts at the 'editors' blog in the BBC back yard where so few are seen. Thus the BBC continues it's program of 'no-information', for if the BBC was fair dinkum, then they would bring on a compentent debate on these matters between those who know each side of the arguments. That is what the BBC will not do and that clearly demonstrates the BBC program. Otherwise they woud have Niels Harrit, Prof Steven Jones, Richard Gage etc debating the likes of Sunder, (sp)Seffron, Goss etc. Now BBC that would be a decent program, but it will not happen. Why? FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! (of the truth!)
Complain about this comment
To echo the points made by fellow bloggers in 114 thru 117 I am very concerned as to why the BBC, and in particular Mr Rudin, feels that showing some anomalies in the OCT to be unproven, irrelevant or suspect theorising somehow despatches all other doubts.
In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was, in police eyes at the time, a "terrorist on his way to blow up a tube train", he was not prevented from boarding buses when doing so would have been highly desirable in the interest of avoiding multiple fatalities in a different but equally opportune situation. The context of this statement lies in the "admission" that police had intelligence of a failed "bomb attack on tube train(s)" during the previous day.
What did the security services "know" about the July 7 "four"? Was a positive decision not to detain them en route to London from Luton made by those in command?
Are we to believe that the Muslim community, more anxious than any other people would be to prevent anything that would exacerbate unrest, did not pass on what they knew to the authorities given that a "tube attack" was the most likely scenario? It is difficult enough for seasoned criminals to keep something "big" from the ears of "suspect" people, let alone four guys with absolutely no real experience at what they were about to do.
It bothers me that the key point in investigating an incident such as 7/7 for public information is not so much to "deflate" conspiracy as to "examine" any and all irregularity and illogic. The BBC has, in the past, conducted many significant and erudite investigations into erroneous convictions by our judicial process, often on far less "whimsy" than is present in the 7/7 official reports. Perhaps it is becoming obvious that Mr Rudin, whose track record is not that admirable on matters involving "criminal investigation or conspiracy", is not the best person for the job the BBC pays him to do.
Complain about this comment
7 questions about 7/7:
1). Why have none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day been interviewed, named or honoured. On the contrary, the driver of the Piccadilly Line train, Tom Nairn, was refused compensation on the grounds that the 'police had no record of him'.
Ref: http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2006/01/london-77-information-event-horizon.html
2). Why did Scotland Yard deny that a second controlled explosion occurred on the Number 30 bus? (as reported by Miss Marie Oates-Whitehead, employee at the BMA and who was described as a herionne who assisted the injured after the explosion, and who died unexpectedly at her home 11 days later).
3). Why did the £100 million spent on Operation Theseus fail to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005? Ref: http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2009/05/nature-of-explosives-from-c4-to.html
Why were mobile detonators reported to have been found on the trains? Traces of military grade explosives (c4) were found at all 4 locations (source: UPI, 13/07/05), yet the bombs were reported to be homemade explosives, which would not cause the same amount of damage (testimony of French anti-terrorist expert Christophe Chaboud, brought in the advice Scotland Yard).
4). Why is there evidence that the bombs which detonated at Edgware Road and Aldgate East were underneath the train?
(several eye witnesses gave that account, including original report by the Guardian's Mark Honigsbaum who spoke to several eye witnesses to the Edgware Road tube bomb, and Bruce Lait, injured by the Aldgate East tube bomb, who was interviewed on the 11th July by a reporter from the Cambridge Evening Standard).
5). Why is there a mysterious lack of cctv footage at any of the tube locations, but more so, from the no.30 bus which was bombed? What explanation is there for the fact that Stagecoach bus employees claimed that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete? Ref: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm
6). Why did a man named Richard Jones, who was on the bombed No.30 bus and got off the bus shortly before it exploded, give a very misleading description of the bomber in his witness statement to the police and the media about the clothing and facial characteristics of the person he claimed had the backpack bomb on the bus - which didn't corroborate with clothing or facial likeness (colour of skin) of the alleged bomber Hasib Hussain.
7). How did Mossad have advance knowledge of the bombs? 'Stratfor Intelligence Agency' reported that the Met Police gave Benjamin Netanyahu warning the bombs were going to happen 10 minutes before they happened. The Met police then denied they had informed Mr Netanyahu and that they had prior knowledge of the attack, and 2 weeks after, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan admitted he had informed Mr Netanyahu of the bombs ten minutes before they exploded at 08.40am on 7/7/2005. (source: Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag on 10th July 2005).
Complain about this comment
@free-the-media
I have to admit those are intriguing and well-laid-out questions.
I've not looked into the events of that day enough to conclude it was an intelligence op, but I would be interested to see each of your questions addressed by someone, one way or the other.
Bit late now, but I wonder if Mike Rudin might sometimes be better off announcing his intention to produce a documentary months in advance, and then taking on board some of the points that people post to tackle in the programme, instead of producing it and only then opening the door to all these questions.
Complain about this comment
I find it offensive that Mike Rudin refers to 56 people killed in these bombings. Until proven otherewise, the facts are that 52 people were assassinated by four Muslim suicide bombers, three of whom were Pakistanis, the other Afro-Caribean.
Perhaps Mr Rudin ought to dig a little wider and investigate the 'conspiracy' that created the conditions which enabled these four foreigners, supported by their co-religionists to do their evil work. I refer to the misguided policy of uncontrolled immigration, or more truthfully unwanted invasion of our islands. This conspiracy was dreamt up by the post war Labour government, and has been continued by successive governments.
Complain about this comment
#120
I agree with your general comment about Mike Rudin doing prep via his blog or wherever. However, given he has potentially more access to information than most of us one would consider that the points made in #119 were accessible to him at planning stage just as they are now to anyone who cares to Google for 7/7.
The problem is that although these questions have been asked they have not been answered. The one major anomaly that did get changed was about the timing of the four's departure from Luton, spotted by the police. Other matters such as type of explosives, location of the devices and their detonation method, lack of witness interviewing by the police and prior knowledge of the attack have not been dealt with satisfactorily. The confusion in identities of those responsible and their "mastermind" is particularly disturbing when one reads the evidence upon which the police made judgements.
It remains to be seen what Mr Rudin's programme will reveal.
Complain about this comment
The comment left at 121 by anenglishdissenter is precisely why the OCT is so dangerous and divisive and requires open and honest investigation. Let's hope that Rudin and Quinn's effort is not going to be more fodder for the right-wing and neofascists to exploit.
A lesson from history? After all, Himmler was an expert at false-flag operations.
Complain about this comment
Yet again, Mike Rudin's language makes it clear what the conspiracy files' agenda is: to DISPROVE the conspiracy theories. Of course that objective will be achieved  any theory can be disproved if that is the intention. Many survivors, however, want a public inquiry, which they consider to be a far more reliable vehicle for building a full picture of what happened on 7/7 and what came before it. No wonder Tony Blair rejected this. There are many unanswered questions from that day. I doubt if this documentary will touch on the most troubling  like the BBC's own assertion on the 6pm news that the Israeli embassy had foreknowledge of the explosions.
Complain about this comment
deamon138 @111,
I will ignore the personal remarks, as I do not want to get into a shouting match with you.
Regarding your question why I quoted a poll when I did not think it was reliable- I mentioned it as an example as to why I am unsure whether the Muslims support terrorism. I always said it was contradictory and never claimed it was representative. Go back to my posts 21 and 62 and check for yourself. The poll shows contradictory results about the Muslims' opinions- compare the support of terrosism question, with the 'who expresses your views best' question and the response of the young Muslims. Moreover, a poll is an unreliable tool, therefore I am not sure what the British Muslims really believe. If you still think that my posts are contradictory than I am sorry but I cannot help you any more.
Complain about this comment
re 117. do not forget the bologna train bombings of 1980, and possibly even the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. The state DOES kills its own citizens, or allow them to be killed, if the motivation is sufficient.
Complain about this comment
It appears that Mike Rudin and Tristan Quinn will choose to focus on one aspect of '7/7 Conspiracy Theorists', the strange & bizarre Muad'dib and his 7/7 Ripple Effect.
Fairly obvious and easy target and one dismissed by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign when this nonsense was first released:
7/7 Ripple Effect - A Rebuttal and Rejection
Ludicrous Diversion would have been much harder for them to ridicule.
Complain about this comment
Any "conspiracy" discussed on the BBC is in fact a part of it.
cheers
Complain about this comment
Would I be entirely wrong to think that some (if not most) of the creators and believers in these irrational conspiracy theories are not entirely opposed to terror attacks which they see as part of a campaign against Western democracies.
Complain about this comment
Haha - you had me until you mentioned "Muad'Dib". Anyone who's read Frank Herbert's "Dune" novels will know that it is the name given to the main character by the local desert dwellers. He is responsible for a weapon that uses the power of the voice.
Complain about this comment
RobAnt (comment 130): Spot on! "Paul Muad'Dib". The narrator said it was an arabic-sounding name: Oh, deary, deary me...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I only saw some of the programme this evening. I thought it was very interesting but the tone (all conspiracy theories are rubbish and loonies) of the program let it down.
I also noticed that the program forgot to mention that Reed Elsevier(the firm where Peter Power works(worked?)) is not just a publishing company. Until 2007, this firm had subsidiaries involved with defense and was I think responsible for organising the defense exhibition. Check wikipedia and caat for confirmation.
Does not necessarily mean much but I wish the program had mentioned it.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC just need to give this stuff a rest. I watched the show hoping to be educated but instead I ended up bored and frustrated at losing an hour of my life. The way they handled tonights show at least, is little more than poor tabloid journalism attempting to lead the masses. Never trying to explain the pertanent points but rather trying to undermine the people involved or just saying that there is contradictory statements (upward blast in carriage).
Then really focusing on debunking the irrelevant and clearly pointless parts.. such as a guy who got off the bus prior to the explosion. I also think it was a bit rich that the random girl who happened to be on the train was commenting on the ridiculous paper about the holocaust, although I have no strong opinions on the holocaust the programme failed to establish this ladies credentials in terms of WW2 and the history of the Nazism.
Complain about this comment
For once I agree with Mike Rudin...
"In the absence of a public inquiry into the 7 July bombings, conspiracy theories have filled the vacuum. One of the more inflammatory involves a man hiding behind an Arabic-sounding pseudonym taken from a sci-fi film starring Sting, says the BBC's Mike Rudin."
However, I don't think the BBC should be the arbiter of guilt or innocence, we need an Inquiry into the 7/7 bombings. (And 9/11 too!)
The use of "new evidence" is a wonderful kangaroo technique, btw. Interesting how the show turned ugly and anti-truther at the end. So tell me, please, what exactly is the problem of asking questions and demanding a consistent story from the government?
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to all concerned with that programme. To be able to blur journalism and propaganda so effectively, then situate the broadcast in such a way that the whole amounts to an incitement to racial hatred (with venue and date for potential confrontation helpfully supplied at the climax) takes some beating. A truly five-star effort of which you must be proud, and for which we have gladly paid.
Journalism?
R.I.P.
(We clearly don't need or want real journalism any more, and you clearly don't need or want to do it...)
Go on mods, just bin this right now - I'm past caring.
Complain about this comment
@137,
Hi Ian
Perhaps we should file a bbc complaint: the "evidence" of the 7/7 bombers at the end was clearly "dramatic reconstruction" but wasn't indicated as such. Also the allusion to 9/11's controlled demolition also did not refer to the maths, physics and chemistry supporting the 9/11 controlled demolition theory: this rather leads us to be skeptical of both the 9/11 and, by association, 7/7 official story.
Complain about this comment
Islam was built on a conspiracy theory
Namely that the Jews changed the Bible so that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac instead of his other son Ishmael.
So it should come as no surprise that "it was the Jews and not us" conspiracy theories are so prevalent amongst Muslims today.
Complain about this comment
138 ynda20
The CCTV footage showing four murky figures leaving King's Cross Thameslink via the walkway to King's Cross proper was released by the Met in 2008 during the first "7/7 helpers trial". The still shown was timed at 08:26.
See http://segamiemos.blogspot.com/ for another still with the timestamp just visible.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8124540.stm
This was remarkable; I'd say that Alex Jones and Mike Rudin and other infamous conspiracy theorists finally have some decent competition.
Complain about this comment
I think the most chilling element of this 'documentary' was the assumption that Governnments won't lie about stuff. If anything was true about the ripple effect, you can't rely on the government to say.."it simply isn't true." You can't simply ask someone, were you warned about the attacks? and they say No we weren't. That's not journalism. That's bogus. a scientific enquiry says, does this theory hold water..you can't just gainsay the argument with people saying no that isn't the case. That's not enquiry that's just poeple saying sh&t. Annoyed much. goverments Lie all the time. Operation Gladio. Gulf of Tonkin. Lies. Big lies. I'm appalled really. blow the stupid theory out of the water. Dont rely on us believing a gov't won't kill its citziens, sorry, subjects, when it has done many times. Coventry bombing, anyone? Did Churchill know. Of course he did - they made a film abut it. ARRGGHHHHHHHHHHH
Complain about this comment
Another poor attempt by the BBC to deal with the subject in a fair and balanced way. But who could have expected any better?
The important, unanswered questions still remain however and parallels between 9/11 and 7/7 such as terror drills, IDs of the terrorists found at the scenes and traces of military grade explosives being used were either conveniently avoided or only briefly touched upon. None of these factors were really adequately addressed at all.
Also, the use of Nick Kollerstrom, yet again by the BBC, was a cheap and despicable act and like I said before, only to be expected. His appearance at the beginning of the programme, set up the remainder of the programme on the path for an obvious conclusion.
We can only hope that the programme has stirred some interest and motivated others to question the information presented. But to be honest, I doubt it.
Overall, a very bad journalistic piece by the BBC, in my opinion and has only deepened my contempt for the organisation, that claims to be an impartial and objective reporter of the news, even further.
Complain about this comment
Operation gladio. We need to get over the idea that governments don't kill thier own citizens for higher purposes. they have done. they will do. we need to establish when,or if..not assume they would never.
Complain about this comment
I have not seen the program but based on some of the comments of those who have,(and I would put much reliance on 137 and 138) it would appear that I have litle to add to my comment at 117.
Great work BBC, you can be read like a book, the plot is always the same when it comes to a 'non attempt' at objectivity and responsible reporting. So come clean, what do you really represent? If your interest and objective is to foster a public attitude and perception, in support of the official conspircay explanations for 9/11 and 7/7, then as official reporter, financed by the public purse, you have a duty to state clearly your bias at the beginning and end of each program relating to those matters. In addition, you have a duty to the public not to knowingly deceive or put forward and represent matters as fact when there is an equally opposing evidence to refute that fact or explain it. (in that regard I cite Ynda's example at 137)
To not be cognisant of the above principles merely leaves it open to accuse the BBC of ........(I hesitate to say, the mods will be watching!)
I will make one observation about the BBC derision of anything, nowadays that might suggest a 'conspircay theory'. About 20+ years ago I saw most of a BBC documentary on the 'Lavon" affair. That documentary gave a good account of the Israeli operation to have it's apologists plant bombs etc in US and British businesses in Egypt and as a consequence civilians were murdered, the intent was to blame the diabolical acts on the "Arabs". The apologists (sayanin?) were caught red handed and Minister Lavon had to wear the responsibility. It was an intersesting BBC report. However, I missed any BBC follow up, if there was one, recording the awarding of medals to the culprits in the last few years by the Israeli Government for, no doubt, a 'job' well done.
Well BBC, it appears that you are not the same BBC now, where is you integrity, impartiality, competence and concientous attitude, why has it gone and why? More importantly; who is responsible for the BBC's demise as a credible and realible source and what is the BBC going to do about it. I particularly, though not exclusively, refer to the BBC's lack of reporting on recent scientific confirmations relating to the 'blowing up' of the twin towers and building No 7. Of course, when the twin towers were blown, mass murder was the result.
Seems that it is time for BBC staff with some integrity to do their own research and try and ensure that they are considered worthwhile to being fed out of the public purse in the future.
As for 121, I would award you the prize for great sarcasm, absolutely marvelous, when you say in part:
"I refer to the misguided policy of uncontrolled immigration, or more truthfully unwanted invasion of our Islands".
The "unwanted invasion" part just broke me up!!
Just to be clear I do not like uncontrolled inmmigration either, but as for 'unwanted invasion', thank God that the Middle East populace wants us to invade them, otherwise we might be regarded also as 'unwanted'.
Complain about this comment
My comments on your film.
It was formulaic, done in the style of a discovery type program, complete with repetition (either side of the anticipated adverts on commercial channels). The film was clearly set up for commercial marketplace release. It treated its audience as incapable of retaining a thought for longer than a few seconds.
The programmme had no depth, no profundity, and no balance. The bias was shamefully obvious throughout as government propaganda over the "damage" that conspiracy theorists "do". Indeed it went as far as to say that anyone who questions what official investigations say is acting against the wishes of the majority by furthering the cause of terrorism.
It was a patent waste of license fee money and has no place on the BBC whose supposed neutrality on all matters was clearly breached by the programme producers.
Once again I can say that the BBC do neutrality very badly and they should be looking at this and begin apologising to the many well intentioned people who want the truth about 7/7. I think those people now have a right of reply and a budget to make their riposte to Mr Rudin.
Complain about this comment
It was interesting to see the connection between al-qaeda denial and holocaust denial. I always thought they were similar but it seemed inappropriate to be suggesting it without evidence - better to debate than throw insults.
The thing about the 'controlled demolition' van was hilarious - blokes who knock things down with hydraulic rams supposed to be explosives experts ("we're right next to the bus now Sid, press the button"..."Won't it blow us up as well Bob?"..."Nah, it'll be all right").
Complain about this comment
I watched the program, difficult as it was. As Cardboard_Cutout said, it was formulaic and something you'd expect to find on the Discovery Chanel.
You'd have saved us all a lot of time & licence payers money if you'd just said: The government story is all true and anyone questioning it is a Muslim extremist/sympathiser, hell bent on destroying civilisation or a nutcase who is insulting the survivors/victims by their questioning of the OCT.
Complain about this comment
This site http://www.iNewsit.com/ has had a lot of news videos and articles, some which try to expose conspiracies
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Reporting conspiracies, even to discredit them, gives them more importance than they warrant.
Perhaps it would have been better to examine what it is about Islam that persuades some of it's followers to kill themselves and others.
Complain about this comment
Dear, dear...pick two "mavericks" (let's be kind to them) who are easy to ridicule. Viewing public reaches correct conclusion: 7/7 conspiracy theory is obviously the product of wacko nutjobs. Case closed. Move along now, there's nothing to see here.
Except there is. There is something very wrong with the official account of that day. When you smell excrement, it's a good idea to find the source, rather than use more air freshener.
Sorry Mike the stink is too strong to disguise.
Complain about this comment
Mr Rudin, your programme "Conspiracy Files 7/7 Bombings" was inacurate, focussed on irrelevant matters, avoided investigating the key issues, and peddled lies. ie: "within seconds 3 bombs blew up three trains" - a lie
why did you not focus on why 9/11 AND 7/7 both were running identical scenarios of 'terror attack rehearsals' prior to all events. Who planned and orchestrated these events?
why did you apply more weight of argument to one witness who was simply there, and had no other evidence to say other than 'I was there', rather than the testimonies of witnesses who spoke of the aftermath and nature of the explosions? Have you spoken to Daniel Obachike, passenger on the Bus, for instance?
why did you not run a timeline of events, which would show that for an HOUR people were streaming out of stations, arms missing, blinded, many dead, and for AN HOUR, we were told it was a 'power surge' - this at 3 stations already under pretend terror alerts with full knowledge of the events taking place?
You really DO take us for idiots.. I suppose the BBC David Frost interview with Benazir Bhutto which was criminally edited by the BBC also falls into your out-tray as 'scare mongering' 'coincidence' or 'insignificant'? (in case you need reminding, she talked of the death of Osama Bin Laden and those who killed him, this was edited from the subsequent footage aired by the BBC - can be viewed on YouTube thankfully!)
As a piece of journalism designed to rubbish a DVD you did very well, but in attempting to investigate and portray the truth, you willfully failed.
I do not expect you to answer any of these questions, but as we pay your wages, heres hoping
Complain about this comment
Good program, well researched. Blows the lid off the conspiracy theory.
However the guy who put The Ripple Effect together clearly has mental health issues and it was disgusting to see him being hounded by a BBC journalist. Whoever allowed this to be included in the program should be sacked, I do not pay my licence to watch people who are clearly ill to be treated in such a manner.
Complain about this comment
The premise of last nights hatchet job was that it reinforces Muslims already warped view of the world. Or because someone has an inquiring mind on other so called historical facts, his ideas on 7/7 are completely without merit. Also no mention of or interview with Daniel Obachike a passenger on the bus that police chose to ignore because his version of events did not fit the official narrative. Daniel Obachike is neither a fanatical Muslim or possible closet white supremacist so is harder to discredit. Why waste money tracking down Muad' Dib instead of the bogus head bandage man who appeared 50 meters away from the bus seconds after the explosion already having had is 'wounds' dressed he has never been tracked down or any hospital record exists for him. Lets just have a full public inquiry with a selection of extreme conspiracy theorists and radical Muslim clerics included on the panel if their questions draw a blank then they will never be able to cry whitewash.
Complain about this comment
TheFirstRalph wrote:
"Perhaps it would have been better to examine what it is about Islam that persuades some of it's followers to kill themselves and others."
Perhaps it would be better if we examined what it is about people that persuades some of them to kill themselves and others, not just Muslims.
After all, in the last ten years the number of Muslim civilians killed by British & Americans is far higher than the number of British & American civilians killed by Muslims.
There's no difference between a suicide bomb and a cluster bomb, both are used to further a political viewpoint by killing (mostly innocent) people.
Complain about this comment
I thoroughly approve of this programme from the BBC. At the very least, the fact that it was aired at all proves the conspiracy is wrong, because there's no way the government would let this be shown if it was true. That's the point of public broadcasting - the government can pretty much control them if they want.
Besides, as we've seen recently, our government is ridiculously incompetent and there's no way they could pull this off if they can't even sort out expenses. Rant over.
Complain about this comment
Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something harmful or illegal.
Questions: 1) Do nation states ever plan/perpetrate acts which meet the above definition?
2) Does the build up to the Iraq War (dodgy dossier, Downing St memo etc) comply with the above definition?
If you answer 'no' to both questions, then clearly last night's 7/7 documentary will have confirmed your view of the 7/7 conspiracy theory. The thing is, if you answered 'no' to both questions, I would suggest that you are in the minority...
Complain about this comment
157.
Sorry Pascalyuiop, (keyboard playing up?) but the fact it was aired is more likely to indicate a cover up. The blatant use of easy targets like Nick Kollerstrom and Muad Dib serves to discredit any questioners of the government line and put people off looking at what might be the real truth. The purpose of the whole Conspiracy Files series is to do exactly this. The phrase "conspiracy theory" itself is used to ridicule anyone who questions received wisdom. Think about it - any criminal act by a group of people is a conspiracy. A theory about how it was done is a conspiracy theory. So the official version is just that. A police version, if it were to actually go to court (some hope) would be a conspiracy theory, to be tested for veracity in a court of law.
Nobody who says "the government did it" or "muslims did it" is thinking straight anyway, obviously it is much more complicated than that - there may be some in government who had knowledge of a plot, same with MI5, MI6, Muslim patsies etc, we don't know. The questions raised by sensible investigators of 7/7 need to be asked, something this programme disastrously failed to do. It was a hopelessly biassed piece of "journalism" in the tradition of the series, and rightly those who have seriously looked at the facts of 7/7 had nothing to do with it.
Complain about this comment
The Conspiracy Files programme was a good round-up of some of the most popular "anomalies" claimed by the conspiracists, and while it may hopefully be useful in displaying their idiocies to the undecided, it's unlikely to change those minds that are already made up. A few years back, quite by chance, I ended up on one particular conspiracy forum, and found the temptation to point out the holes in some of their theories too great to resist. Within days I was accused of being an MI5 operative, which was rather flattering.
One of the issues I addressed early on what that of the Kingstar van that featured in the programme. Even the most cursory examination of the company's website at the time showed that they did not do explosive demolition, but this sort of revelation wasn't what the conspiracists wanted to hear, and two years on they still describe Kingstar as "the experts in controlled demolition," hoping the reader is going to fill in the blanks the "right" way.
It is ironic that while most conspiracists never stop complaining that their views are given little coverage in the mainstream media, I was eventually banned from that particular forum by none other than Tony Gosling (who appeared in the Conspiracy Files prorgamme), presumably for asking too many of the "wrong" sort of question. So much for free speech, eh?
Complain about this comment
LifeofReilly, there are a number of anomalies in Daniel Obachike's account (as related in his self-published book), not least that - ironically - he could not have made the journey he claims, if he caught the train he said he did. One also has to ask why he chose to commute to Old Street from Enfield Town station, which required a change to the Underground, instead of going from Enfield Chase station, which goes direct to Old Street in significantly less time.
Complain about this comment
re: LifeofReilly @ 155
Daniel Obachike's account of 'bandage man' rolling around in front of the Number 30 bus is not verified by the facts, facts have been the concern of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign since we started to investigate the Official Conspiracy Theory.
It was frustrating that Richard Jones was questioned over Muad'dib's allegation that he had planted the bomb rather than the statements that Richard Jones made on the day that he had seen someone fiddling about with wires in a rucksack on the bottom deck of the Number 30 bus, and whose description differed significantly from Hasib Hussain.
We would also have liked to hear what Rachel North had to say regarding the testimony of two women who claim that they were evacuated from the Piccadilly Line train within 3 to 4 minutes rather than the 30 minutes that Ms North states.
A few of the other major anomalies in the Official Conspiracy Theory are detailed here.
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625 Thanks for the info my comments prove how without the full facts misinformation can be repeated and eventually become a theory which needs unraveling. I am not a fanatical believer in either the official version of events or the CT's.
So the program makers decided not to include Daniel Obachike's story because it was less credible than Muad'Dib's or because it was more difficult to discredit? In a way it's like censoring the BNP surely those who think they have nothing of value to say should give them the publicity to make fools of themselves, likewise this event deserves nothing short of a full public inquiry with as I suggested radicals of all persuasions on the panel not just a Lord Somethingorother who wont ask all the questions but the wildest theories can if possible also be thoroughly dismantled.
Complain about this comment
LifeofReilly, Daniel Obachike has slef-published a book and maintains a website, through which he regularly accuses people of being MI5/MoD/etc "agents" without any proof whatsoever. He remains very much on the fringe of conspiracy theory circles. "Muad'Dib," on the other hand, has produced an amateur documentary which has been very widely seen, and is actively promoted by many conspiracy theorists, although rejected by others. Clearly there is only so much that can be covered in a one hour programme, so the producers had to be selective, but presumably they chose to address the more significant of the two.
Complain about this comment
'Perhaps it would be better if we examined what it is about people that persuades some of them to kill themselves and others, not just Muslims'
Perhaps as the vast majority of suicide attacks in recent years have been conducted by Muslims sticking to them might be more topical.
'After all, in the last ten years the number of Muslim civilians killed by British & Americans is far higher than the number of British & American civilians killed by Muslims'
And yet the terrorists on 7/7 happily murdered fellow Muslims which is odd if you blowing yourself up to 'protect' other Muslims.
'There's no difference between a suicide bomb and a cluster bomb, both are used to further a political viewpoint by killing (mostly innocent) people'
There is a large difference between those civilians who die unintentionally in war, and those who die because of deliberate acts of terror.
Complain about this comment
One thing that occured to me watching the programme last night.
The official narrative described the behaviour of the presumed bombers based on eye witness accounts on the train from Luton to Kings Cross. So presumably the police questioned these eye witnesses including establishing which train they caught. How then did the government get the train details wrong in the official narrative including details like whether the train arrived at the mainline or ThamesLink station when they supposedly had all these anonymous eyewitnesses?
Complain about this comment
Here's what I wrote on June 24th on the 'Caught Up In A Conspiracy Theory' blog:
"Some of us on this blog have spent so long looking at Mike Rudin's work that the piece he's written to announce the broadcast of this latest 7/7 Conspiracy File is highly revealing - in the relatively short article he's laid bare the outline of the programme, and it doesn't take a master of spin or any deep Critical Discourse Aanalysis to anticpiate what editorial stance has already been established.
At the risk of ending up with egg all over my face, here's how I see it - the programme will claim to examine the 'conspiracy theories' behind 7/7 because they're important in whipping-up anti-Muslim feeling and deserve attention. (There may be passing acknowledgement that the event rather than the conspiracies is the cause of such anxiety - 'moderate' British Muslims will appear to express their astonishment that any of the compatriots could have done such a thing) The a priori editorial stance will be that the official explanation is true i.e. the four men accused of being bombers were wholly responsible for the attacks, and any support they received came from shadowy 'Al Qaeda' figures, foreign and domestic. Some dastardly Islamic extremists have utilised available footage and discrepancies in the 'oficial' story to construct a 'conspiracy theory' which implicates UK State institutions and/or foreign intelligence services in the cynical murder of citizens as an elaborate psy-op. While some of such 'evidence' may appear in the programme, it will be shown in the context of young impressionable Muslims being brainwashed at their local mosques. (The soundtrack to the 'documentary' will, at such moments, feature deeply throbbing electronic music)
The conclusion of the programme will be that conspiracy theorists are threatening the fabric of British society, and playing into the hands of extreme political groups such as BNP, whose European Eelection success must be blamed on someone.
(That's my take on it anyway, and here's a dead cert - Peter Power will not be interviewed, nor will Peter Allen of BBC Radio Five Live.)"
That's it, unedited - go across to the other blog and check if you like.
I'm not looking for a clap on the back here. What I'm saying is this - if a normal bloke like me has such a handle on what the Beeb is doing with this stuff that it's become so-oooooh predictable, what does that say about the 'journalistic' content of the programme? There was nothing 'new' in it. Anyone with my level of knowledge about these events and/or basic media could have anticipated what was going to happen.
In two major repsects I got it wrong though:
Firstly, as stated, I didn't believe they would go anywhere near Peter Power. (I bet now they're wishing they hadn't.)
Secondly, and more importantly, I didn't dream that they'd have a real 'Scooby-Doo' moment at the climax, where the various 'conspiracy theorists' were brought together, thus creating the impression that THEY were the real conspirators, the real enemy.
The more I think about it the more sick I feel - this was pure propaganda. It was very well-done, slick, entertaining propaganda, and WE paid for every minute of it.
Don't it make ya proud???!!!
Complain about this comment
OK. First order of business. I am 'not' as much of an expert on the various theories as some. I didn't know about Muad'Dib or Nick Kollestrom so that stuff was interesting.
The one part of the conspiracy theory that looked credible was the guy who said he saw an explosion that looked like it had come up through the floor. Even that turned out to be perfectly explainable by the fact that he wasn't close enough to have a clear idea of the nature of the explosion. Fair enough.
Using Blair's statement as evidence of conspiracy was laughable. OK, he assumed that the attack was carried out by jihadis before it was officially confirmed and in his position that was maybe an irresponsible statement to make. However, from the second I heard of the attacks after coming out of the Newquay surf, I immediately thought "jihadis". So did most other people I suspect. I didn't even consider the possibility I was jumping the gun till a week or two later when a mate I was IMing with reminded me that it 'hadn't' been officially confirmed that this was a jihadi act.
Blair slipped up. Fine.
Generally, the conspiracy theorists came accross as a mix of sickos and denialists and the denialists care more about the image of their community than the feelings of those caught up in the attacks.
Complain about this comment
Howllll!!!! oh dear their really out today! There was no conspiracy on 7/7 except the one by the Muslim terrorists. There was no conspiracy on 9/11 except from the terrorists - and maybe the buildings architects. 7/7 was a straightforward simple attack, with an obvious motivation, an obvious target, and an obvious perpetrator. From the Al Quaida point of view the timing was exactly perfect - London was gloating and celebrating after just winning the Olympic bid.
To me these conspiracy theories are almost racist, they imply and suggest that Arabic or Muslim people arn't intelligent enough or quite 'human' enough to organize their own atrocities. They are. Or are they suggesting that the Muslim extremists are not angry enough or psychotic enough? Suicide bombing is a reality.
Lets talk about 9/11, what we saw was two large aircraft hit two buildings at very high speed - ugly bright orange explosions and thick black smoke. Colossal kinetic impact and tremendous shockwaves shaking and seriously damaging the buildings followed by intense fires. What happened was exactly what any engineer should have expected to happen, the towers collapsed - I predicted it at least ten minutes before it happened. The shocking thing was the way the collapses started those chain reactions that brought the entire buildings down to street level. Those towers were to finely engineered and were near the verge of collapse long before anything ever hit them. Buildings are supposed to have a redundancy of 50% - the tops of the towers should have fallen into the street or at least they should have had a controlled collapse but they didn't. Those towers were very close to their structural limit.
One can go on about the horror of 9/11, the tragedy of all those thousands of innocent bankers dying. The cold hard facts are that Bin Laden targeted the three same buildings that the American anti-government movement had themselves identified at targets. - Those very same conspiracy theorists who now point their fingers at the US government or George Bush.
If you want a conspiracy - a Bush conspiracy, the most logical one is that he persuaded Bin Laden to do the attacks then broke the FBI departments that could have stopped them. It must be pointed out that Bush was the one who really gained from 9/11. - He got an enemy to fight, a free war, he got special presidential powers, a free pass to invade Iraq - and from that billions of dollars funneled through Haliburton.
No 9/11 no Iraq, but did Bush cause 9/11, I doubt it. - Maybe Blair, I never trusted Blair.
We don't need conspiracy reality is bad enough.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the show for a second time, I noticed that the camera often lingered on bearded persons. Beardophobia, I call it. Shameful
Complain about this comment
Yeah, reality bites, inanity is becoming boring to watch though.
Here, a reminder>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Complain about this comment
169;
Give us a break, do some research on the collapse of the twin towers and building no 7; Read up the "Caught up in a conspircay blog" herein and 911 blogger.com with the references on the left hand column, especailly to the architects and engineers for 911 truth.
You appear to be about 7 years out of date, for some updated scientific discoveries go look up 'Niels Harrit nano thermitic residue 911'.
Complain about this comment
Charlie-Foxtrot's treatment of the Israeli warning needs detailed study.
"AP said their report was based on incorrect information from a senior Israeli source"
24:18 into the show.
Um, how did this senior Israeli source know when to give incorrect information?
Complain about this comment
Further to 173.
If this incorrect information was given at 08:40 on 7 July 2005 and if this information said bombs were going to go off in 6 minutes, how is this information incorrect. The Aldgate bomb went off between 08;46 and 08:47.
Complain about this comment
"A senior police officer who investigated the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public "dressed in police uniform", it emerged last night."
Now who's a 'conspiracy theorist'?
Complain about this comment
168 MGUK82.
Your comment; "Generally the conspircay theorists came across as a mix of sickos and denialists....."
Well you fell for the program's, tactics that I allured to at 117 above.
The tactic is to put forward some people as may appear as 'sickos' and 'denialists'. By associating 7/11 with 9/11 the clear tactic in the program is to apply the same categorisation to the 9/11 'truthers'.
Now how many of the viewers, who are not acquinted with the debate here, have also been sucked in? One would realise that, that was the intention of the program, i.e. to engender popular uninformed opinions dessiminated amongst the populace. In that regard, I refer you also to Ian's comments at 167. (Seems that Ian and me at 117 are well aware, as are so many others, of the BBC's campaign and tactics to deride those seeking facts) It is a diabolical campaign that some desperately wish to continue.
In regard to the mix of 'sickos and denialists', so far as it is inferred that the description applied to 9/11 'truthers', I suggest you go tell that to those referenced below, that they are 'sickos'and 'denialists':
At
http:patriotsquestion911.com/
have a look at the names, positions and titles of those who make up;
190+ senior military, intelligence, law enforcement and government officials.
670+ engineers and architects.
200+ pilots and aviation professionals.
230+9/11 survivors and family members.
200+ artists, entertainers and media professionals.
200+ professors question 911.
Just click on each category an see the photographs of all those 'sicko' and 'denialists'. Just imagine all those 'sicko' professors being let lose in the education system.
If you go the architects and engineers site you will find over 700 architects and enginers (ae911truth.com) who are also 'sickos', according to your inference
If you go to 'Political Leaders for 9/11 truth' you will find a list there that is incomplete, but it is a handy reference for others such as; firefighters, lawyers, religious leaders, medical professionals etc.
Now MGUK82, are you going to really calim that they are 'sickos' and 'denialists', by the way, add Michael Meacher MP UK, the President of Pakistan, the co-leaders of the Greens in New Zealand, Yuki Fujita of the Japanese Diet. (just in case you were not prepared to look)
Now, before you next time infer that I am a 'sicko' AND 'denialist', perhaps you could explain the Niels Harrit and 8 colleagues, confirmatiom that the dust of the twin towers contained nano thermitic residue. (expolsive) Also, minute molten metal spheres.
Plus you might try and explain to poor old 'sicko' me, how builing No 7 could fall for about 2.25 seconds at 'freefall' for a distance equivalent to 8 stories of the building floors. To do so, try the David Chandler prsentation at the ae911truth site under "NIST admits freefall". There are other Chandler examinations relating to the towers at 911 blogger.com.
If you cannot attend to the above simple scientific findings, be it leaving out the other hundreds of other anomalies relating to 9/11, and explain them to me, might I suggest you contemplate who is in 'denial' and who are the real 'sickos.
May I suggest that people; who plan, carry out and support a diabolical mass murder and blame it on others to cause hate and warmongering, are the genuime 'sickos' with their apologists trailing at their heal are ceratinly the genuine 'denialists'.
For sure, you will not find any reference to the scientific findings referred to above on any BBC program thus far.
WHY NOT? Perhaps it is 'denial', then again I suspect it is something worse, we shall see BBC.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure what you're trying to say "robertlucien". IF Bush allowed 9/11 to happen, he's partly responsible for it. You state that the facts are Bin Laden engineered it (not your actual words) but yet, he's still not wanted for the crime by the FBI. still!
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
I personally think everyone should take conspiracy theories with a pinch of salt, as of course, that's all they are, theories. However, despite what people like Mike Rudin says about the reason conspiracy theories are made and exist, one of the main reasons or root reason for them is the strange inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding the day. With 9/11 it seems they quite clearly exist.
When people like John Farmer (the leader of the 9/11 commission) claims the offical story is almost entirely untrue, I think it's reasonable for people to consider the Government's possible involvement.
There are still unanswered questions really about that day and all that shows like the conspiracy files do is serve to propagandise the official story in the viewers mind. Having watched the 9/11 conspiracy files, I became interested in people like Alex Jones. I was curious to find out what exactly his view on the subject was. When I browsed his site I came across a radio interview with Alex and Guy Smith, the original producer of the conspiracy files. I was quite shocked to find out just how much bias and how unbalanced the show was is favour of the official story. Guy had quite clearly set out to prove the theories wrong from the start, even before actually investigating it, and made sure in every way he got his view across to the viewer. Alex ripped him apart. After that I now look at these shows in a different light.
Although the latest files on the 7/7 bombings makes a more convincing case for the theories being wrong (mainly the new CCTV footage) I still see that awful Propaganda machine at work. The focus on anti-semitism and nutcases, mainly to sway the viewer and paint a picture of all conspiracy theorists being nuts. They're manipulating your emotional, irrational side by doing that.
I actually think conspiracy theorists are healthy for society. It doesn't matter if they're true or untrue. I think it would be quite dangerous for society if no one ever questioned the official story. The more these theories become popular to the masses and more people are exposed to them, the more pressure it puts on the Government to explain what exactly went wrong. I mean so much information about 9/11 still hasn't been released. Lets just say the Government had some involvement in 9/11, what the constant conspiracy theories does is, deter the secret services and Governments using such tactics. That's a good thing.
That's why the conspiracy files is bad, as it's not about just debunking theories, it's about painting a picture of all conspiracy theorists as being lunatics, and that all theories are entirely untrue. there is never any grey areas in their pieces. It's basically this theory seems untrue, so the official story is COMPLETELY true and shouldn't be questioned. The attention is then shifted away from the Government and those unanswered questions remain unanswered.
I'm all for totally open Government. You know there was an independent investigation into 9/11, but they were totally unable to do their job. Do you know why? Because the Bush Administration would not release any evidence or information to them. I don't know about 7/7 to be honest, but so much of 9/11 doesn't add up.
Complain about this comment
The one thing about this so called massive threat of immanent terror attack which we are meant to face is that the terrorists don't seem very imaginative with their targets or technique. It's as if the authorities are dreaming up possible attack scenarios to keep us frightened. Why do they seem to always present a concept of explosives in locations which have almost blanket coverage from CCTV?
I have already emailed all the relevant authorities several years ago telling them to consider the possibility of a canal boat loaded to the gunnels with a fertilizer based DIY explosive out in the unsurvailed countryside before drifting slowly deep into the heart of the capital completely unseen by CCTV ANPR or facial recognition software and either detonating in a tunnel under a major location or mooring in canary wharf before exploding.
I am not one of these so called 'radicalised Islamic jihadist extremist' (what a Frankenstein recipe for the ultimate bogey man BTW) so do not have the desire to commit an atrocity yet I have imagined a low risk low tech way for a small team to wreak massive destruction, chaos and casualties which would have lasting loss of confidence it the security services, government and devastating economic effects on the city without the need for explosives, mobile phones, being caught on any CCTV at all and not even entering the M25 or die in the act and probably escape capture.
So my point is, if I have come up with such an easy method how come something so difficult to stop hasn't happened yet? Not all these supposed enemies are so unimaginative or stupid are they? The only answer I can come up with is that despite what we are told there is NO threat to Britain from terrorist other than from our own security services.
Complain about this comment
Further to the programme's focus on persons such as Nick Kollerstrom (Holocaust denier) and Muad Dib (where do I start?).
[one eye on the mods here - hi guys!! love you!]
I think all of us who are concerned about this issue need to make abundantly clear that we have absolutely nothing to do with and no sympathy for the views of people like these above, with whom the programme makers are trying to connect us, in order to make us all look a little bit unstable. There is nothing wrong with seeking the truth about these events, especially when they have not been sufficiently investigated, as even Ms Rachel North will admit. Just because any of us might agree with another person about one issue, it does not follow that I therefore concur with everything else they say. Far from it. This is the dangerous and very subversive assumption at the heart of this documentary - it only serves to promote division and emotional reaction without the unbiassed and scientific approach to facts and evidence which is so desperately needed and which was so absent from the programme.
Complain about this comment
Can somebody please explain how subjects as important as 911 and 7/7 end up on second rate productions like the consporacy files. From the outset the series has been heavily biased towards the official explanation of these attacks. The program held up Mua Dib as a deranged idividual believing himself to be Jesus and said that Nick Kollestrom was a holocaust deniar. Wouldnt Annie Machon have been someone worth having on the program, or was the produces mandate to portray anyone who quesions these events as social misfits worthy of our collective ridicule? This program has convinced me that withholding my licence fee is still the correct decision. I wont be contributing to propaganda espcially when im the target audience.
Complain about this comment
BBC'S CONSPIRACY FILES A REBUTTAL
From Ian Henshall, author "911 The New Evidence"
2 July 2009
It's all too possible to use slick video tricks, crafty edits, a
plausible narrator, and a skewed set of questions to fool gullible
viewers into believing nonsense. This was the theme of the latest of
the BBC's "Conspiracy Files" as they deconstructed the internet movie
7/7: The Ripple Effect.
They were right. But how true too of The Conspiracy Files.
You could add quite a few more ugly propaganda techniques too. Choose
a soft target: a guy who thinks he is the Messiah. Base your position
on ad hominem logic and guilt by association: feature a 7/7
"researcher" who has never been to Germany but thinks the Holocaust
is a myth. These were the BBC's leading villains. They could not get
any footage of anyone normal: reputable 7/7 researchers either
refused to talk to the Beeb, after its earlier travesties of reality
in the Conspiracy Files series, or insisted that like any
establishment figure they should be given the final sign-off, no good
when your business is to lure useful idiots into convicting
themselves out of their own mouths.
Ignore or skate over the key issues, keep the graphics moving fast.
Use weird camera angles for the sceptics. Give soft interviews to the
key pro-establishment people, and portray them as victims of internet
hatemongers. Whip up hate against the hate mongers and then project
it onto anyone who disbelieves the BBC's version of reality, a world
where the government never lies, and where the police never frame
anyone and never fabricate or plant evidence.
Sinister and threatening? Internet bloggers or the BBC broadcasters'
advocacy of jailing them and blocking their internet sites?
Who sent the hate mail? We were not told. The main thrust of the
programme was not this hate mail, punishable already, this was just
an emotional hook for the broadcasters main thrust: bloggers are
inciting Muslims to carry out terror attacks. Yes, at the heart of
this pro-Bush, pro-Blair, pro-Likud rant was a glaring non sequitur.
The internet conspiracy theorists who blame the CIA and Mossad for
organising fake terror campaigns, who say that Al Qaeda is a CIA
front, are by doing this somehow inciting Muslims to join Al Qaeda.
As the legendary Private Eye editor might comment: shomething wrong
here, shurely?
Believe it or not this was the message from Washington, London and
Tel Aviv, oops, sorry the BBC, the sort of idiocy that only paid
propagandists living in a media bubble could come up with. Let's just
look at it again, it's mind bogglingly stupid. The bombers and
insurgents are not motivated by the bloody, illegal invasion of Iraq,
described as a "triumph" by venerable intellectual and BBC political
editor, Andrew Marr, and based on the weapons of mass destruction
that never existed, a whopper of a conspiracy theory, by the way,
that somehow has never made it onto the Conspiracy Files. Not by
Israel's atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. Not by the scenes from Abu
Ghraib too horrible to show in the land of the free and strangely
missed by the BBC's embedded reporters in Iraq. No, the terrorists
are motivated by internet bloggers who say Al Qaeda is run by the CIA.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, the saying goes,
and The Conspiracy Files certainly did not. Here are just some of the
vital questions about 7/7 the BBC abysmally failed to answer.
Why did the official story change from military grade explosives to
home made explosives in one news cycle on the say so of anonymous
security sources? Why did the suicide bombers buy return tickets? Why
did Haroon Aswat, named as ringleader and who reportedly received
calls from the MSK's mobile phone shortly before the attacks, vanish
from the story after US law enforcement sources said he was linked to
MI6? Why is the UK government supporting his extradition to the US on
lesser charges rather than pursuing him for 7/7? Did the bombs blow
up under the trains as the only named witness implies, or from within
the carriages as unnamed witnesses were reported to have said (and
the official story requires)? Why not release pictures of the damaged
trains and settle the issue?
Why did the Home Secretary at the time tell an outright falsehood,
that alleged ringleader Mohammed Siddique Khan was unknown, when MI5
had him on their list for years. If this man was a full-on terrorist
and not a double agent or patsy why (according to a recent official
report) was he not followed when other associates were? The BBC's
trump card was the confession videos, normally released by a dodgy
Western security company who charge fees to use "their" material. Did
none of the BBC experts let them know videos like this can be forged
nowadays? Or that double agents can be duped?
The programme explained apparent inconsistencies with a point that is
quietly whispered by security experts when faced with tricky issues.
It is allegedly a technique of Al Qaeda to leave clues to prove that
they were the culprits. Hence the confession videos, hence the
discovery of vital ID's from the 7/7 blasts. The personal documents
that proved the suspected suicide bombers were on the scene of the
explosions were not planted but dropped by the skilled terrorists a
distance from their bodies so they would be found intact. Al Qaeda,
if you believe the official story, thinks of everything. Others would
say this is the catch all logic typical of simple minded conspiracy theorists.
Oh yes, and after two years research, paid for by us, how did the BBC
team manage to make the elementary mistake of mixing up the photo of
Jarrah from Flight 93 on 9/11 (which incidentally does not look at
all like the real Ziad Jarrah) with Al Suqami from Flight 11? What
other mistakes did they make? The pictures were flashing past to fast to tell.
Behind these details lies a greater and more sinister flaw which was
made clear in the opening seconds of the programme. Were the 7/7
suspects suicide bombers or were they framed, asked the broadcasters.
Bertrand Russell, philosopher and peace campaigner, must be turning
in his grave and so should any sixth former conversant with
elementary logic. It's the fallacy of the excluded middle. The French
noticed it at once when George Bush said the world had to be either
for us or against us. It's the refrain of warmongers and idiots and
manipulative psychopaths throughout history: press the fear button,
close down the logic centre and bring out the animal in us. Video is
good for that.
Perhaps the 7/7 suspects were not simple suicide bombers and not
total innocents but something else. Apart from the more detailed
questions, here is a big one: who really controls Al Qaeda?
Throughout history wise people who wished to get to the bottom of
conspiracies have asked (and everyone agrees that 7/7 was a
conspiracy of one sort or another): who benefits? Ask the people of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza. If that's too emotive, then ask any
taxpayer who funds the bloated military budgets of US UK and Isreal -
and the propagandists at the BBC.
Note: this poster is not Ian Henshall
Complain about this comment
Mallestump @ 176.
Link noted, might check it out later as I am certainly not a government stoodge. As I said earlier, I do buy the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theory - because it makes sense.
I am willing to believe the "Official Conspiracy Theory" on 7/7, because it also makes sense. You get sick people in every walk of life, society has to accept that. The Muslims shown in the film seemed to be unwilling to accept that British-born Muslims would be willing to carry out a suicide bombing. That was the whole reason that they were willing to believe Muad Dib's stuff. Hence my charge of "denialist".
Conspiracy Files asked questions of the establishment, the establishment answered them and therefore I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the forseeable future.
Complain about this comment
7/7 murders and dissenting views.
I understand Gore Vidal had many conversations with a lawyer
grandfather. The old fellow constantly emphasised the central
importance of due process in law. And so it is.
Violent or unnatural death requires an inquest. When many die from a
common cause, a public inquiry under the 17a provision can be
substituted to avoid duplication and to lessen the pain of the
relatives. The 17a provision was applied in the case of the trawler
Gaul and for the Southall train crash. It was also applied
inappropriately, and indeed mysteriously, to the death of Dr David Kelly.
Have any inquests been completed on the 52 victims or on the 4 alleged
Muslim killers?
Has a public inquiry taken place?
If not, why not? As with Dr Kelly our law is being subverted.
Finally, read the Public Inquiries Act 2005 and you will see that the
Iraq inquiry will be stitched up, and tightly. The minister calling the
inquiry (?Miliband in this case) has carte blanche regarding the
withholding of evidence from the panel/public, what is to be heard in
camera, what conclusions are made public etc. This act was let through
by a committee of 9 MPs after parliament was prorogued in the spring of
2005 - see 'How will we know the Truth' Morning Star 1-11-05.
'Where law ends, tyranny begins' John Locke
David Halpin FRCS
Complain about this comment
I watched The Conspiracy Files programme about the 7/7 bombings on BBC2 on Monday night, and was left disappointed in the standard of journalism therein, and worried by the implications of this lapse in BBC standards.
The series purports to debunk various popular conspiracy theories, in this case the allegations that the 7/7 bombings were carried out not by Islamist suicide bombers as official reports suggest, but by the British Government or Mossad, or both, and that official accounts amount to a cover-up.
I should first point out that I do not personally hold this belief. I dont have access to first hand evidence, but my instinct is that 7/7 was indeed the work of suicide bombers. However I strongly objected to the sloppy manner in which the programme attempted to disprove the conspiracy theory, more akin to political propaganda than investigative journalism.
For a start, when someone levels an accusation against a government, official reports commissioned by that very government cannot constitute evidence for the defence. The evidence needs to come from an independent source. The programme was instead heavily reliant on governmental reports to rebut the claims made by the conspiracy theorists- which weakened its case considerably and made no ground whatsoever in contradicting the allegations. If a source is not trusted, how is more information from that source going to make any difference? It makes no more sense than citing the New Testament as definitive proof to Muslims that Christianity is right. Without independent verification, both parties will simply persist in their mutual mistrust.
Let us suppose (and heaven forbid that this is the case) that the allegations against the government WERE true, that they had orchestrated murder of their own citizens for political gain. In this scenario of course the government would do everything it could to cover its tracks, evidence would be synthesised, false witnesses made to testify, whitewash reports would be produced. We have seen this happening recently in the phony democracies of Iran and Zimbabwe- if our government was as corrupt as these and many similarly unsavoury regimes around the world, such practise would be standard. Therefore, where a governments word is doubted, it is fairly reasonable to assume that cover ups may have taken place. Wed like to think we live in a freer and fairer society than these, yet we can point to many recent instances where our government has been seen to be lying to its people. (We are fortunate indeed to have our relatively free press and media to keep tabs on such things). Regardless of whether these specific allegations are true or false, it is reasonable and objective to question the word of the government. An allegation cannot be refuted simply on the grounds that it dares to do so.
Tony Blairs statement on 7/7 was examined, in particular his seemingly premature claim that those people acted in the name of Islam before any investigation into the atrocity had taken place. What did the programme makers do to reassure us of Blairs innocence? Simply quote the second half of the same sentence; the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.
If a statement is accused of being untrustworthy, how can words taken from later in the same sentence constitute any kind of defence?
It is well known that Blair in office was an expert in the art of rhetoric and spin, and could sell any government action, however unpalatable in reality, with cosy politically correct terms. This was commonly used in support of George Bushs War on Terror- championing freedom, democracy, enlightened Western liberal values, womens rights, keeping the world safe from ideas later proved to be fictitious such as Saddams weapons of mass destruction or his alleged ties with Al-Qaeda through expert media manipulation the minds of the public were kept focussed on these things, not on the civilian slaughter that was being carried out.
That Blair on 7/7 made a speech full of reassuring PC terms is hardly remarkable and does nothing to deflect the valid point that he pinned the blame (whether rightly or wrongly) on Islamists before any evidence had been gathered.
Much was made of a certain internet film 7/7 Ripple Effect, revealing its author (using the pseudonym MuadDib) to believe himself to be Jesus Christ. Another conspiracy theorist, who had pointed out a mistake in the governments version of events (forcing the Home Secretary to revise the time of the train the suicide bomber was supposed to have taken), was revealed in the programme to be a holocaust denier. Examples of anonymous threatening letters that had been sent to various people accused in the film were shown, as well as the revelation that it had been distributed to 7/7 survivors, mosques as well as court houses trying alleged 7/7 accomplices.
The viewer was clearly meant to link scepticism of the governments account of 7/7 with Nazism on the one hand, and quasi-religious insanity on the other, as well as the aggressive psychological intimidation characterised by the threatening letters. The implication being that, to question the governments statements on 7/7 is to ally oneself with such people, to become a dangerous social pariah.
What wasnt mentioned was that 7/7 Ripple Effect is in fact rejected by J7, the July 7 Truth Campaign, the main organisation that affiliates those who question the governments account of the bombings. Their website contains a section entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect- a rebuttal and rejection in which MuadDib is strongly criticised for holding offensive anti-Muslim views as well as his wild claims to be the messiah. The page summarises; J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors.
Why then did The Conspiracy Files, a programme with the veneer of investigative journalism, emphasise the work of a rogue lunatic as the main representation of the 7/7 conspiracy theorists position?
The holocaust denier and the threatening letters were the other main points of identification with the 7/7 sceptics. Again, rogue extremists used to represent a position that for the main part encompasses law-abiding, peaceful and rational people who simply question the governments account of the bombings. It is not objective to characterise a movement by its lunatic fringe- otherwise we would regard all animal lovers as letter bombers, all Labour party members as Stalinists, all Tories as fascists, all Catholic priests as paedophiles.
A cursory glance at the J7 website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html will reveal the attitude of more typical people holding the 7/7 sceptics view. That such people were not represented at all in the Conspiracy Files says much about its objectivity.
The programme reached its climax with the mad old man who uses the name MuadDib being hunted down and confronted, Roger Cook style, by the unseen Conspiracy Files reporter. Why are you bringing the British government into disrepute? he huffily demanded, to a silent response.
A peculiar question, especially now in the wake of the expenses scandal, and almost daily revelations about how the government lied to us on rendition and torture during the Bush/Blair years, not to mention the false WMD claims, and the growing awareness that the evidence on which the case to go to war against Iraq was based was fixed. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself.
As Ive said, I dont personally hold the belief that the 7/7 attacks were government endorsed. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy. But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin.
Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe?
The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully. This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that.
Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate. All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could.
If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed. One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument.
The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism.
Complain about this comment
I am not a theorist of any persuasion but have read all there is to read and seen all there is to see on the web about 7/7 and 9/11. I intend to sit firmly on the fence until there is a proper enquiry into both these crimes and until these are held I shall remain convinced that until we hear the truth, we shall never know the truth. Mr Rudin has made no more of an attempt to get at the truth than all the self satisfied people out there who seem to think that this awful program had any journalistic merit. This producer shouldn't be paid good money to dish out garbage. There are thousands of us out here who just want the facts and we wuld like to be able to rely and the BBC to root them out. Fat Chance!
Complain about this comment
A fine post Mr Not-Ian-Henshall. If I may add a few other points. The BBC on 7/7 (6pm news) stated that the Israeli Embassy warned Scotland Yard that the explosions were about to happen. This begs a rather obvious question.
There is also the issue of the terror exercises conducted by Visor Consultants, in the same stations and at the same time, on behalf of a private client. Who was this client?
The New Zealand Herald ran a story concerning the fatal shooting by police of two Asian men at Canary Wharf on 7/7. Has this been followed up by any UK journalist?
The Independent newspaper ran articles which maintained that two of the "suicide bombers" argued with cashiers over change and even ate a Big Mac. Is this the behaviour of Islamic fanatics about to blow themselves up? Finally, Transport for London say the Number 30 bus was the ONLY one diverted on 7/7. Who diverted it? Did someone know it was about to explode? How did they acquire this knowledge?
David Milliband recently described the BBC as the "soft power" in the foreign policy armoury. In light of the 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme, I would say the BBC is also doing its best to serve the domestic interests of the state as well. But the stink of something not-quite-right persists...
Complain about this comment
Peter Power said on camera at the time that he was conducting an exercise which involved over a thousand people. But now he is saying the exercise involved only six people.
Which time was he telling the truth? Then, or now, or neither???
Complain about this comment
The debunkers are back with a new series I see.
Why didn't the BBC talk to Daniel Obachike, a 7/7 survivor from the bus - he seems confident MI5 had an involvement.. You tell us Rachel North 'speaks for many' of the survivors, but by no means all..
Why not edit-to-pieces sound-bites from professor Nafeez Ahmed, author of books on the subject?
Is the Ripple Effect's maker easier to character assassinate than maker of 'Mind the Gap' former MI5 agent David Shayler?
simply because the London underground system has been attacked several times since the 1800's, doesnt make it any less disturbing that the mock terror drills being carried out by peter powers company happened at almost precisely the same time, on the same day, at the same stations, as well as the location above ground. It is scientifically improbable. The supposed ringleader is also reported to have been an MI5 agent.
the BBC seems to be supplying us half a story, back to front, on everything from the georgia - russia conflict, to the protests in Iran, the economy.. get real.
Complain about this comment
Brynberian
#184
I'd like to thank you for a markedly superior and more constructive effort at neutral explanation of the July 7th conspiracies than Mike Rudin and his motley BBC crew could manage in a million years. It is a pity you were not given the budget and the resources to make the program.
Of course you could make your own DVD, provided you have an absolutely pristine track record of life on this planet, and circulate it via the Internet. I'd polish up the "how to deal with a Cook Report style IYF microphone" and keep remembering what happened to Doctor David Kelly.
I've already said my piece about this latest travesty of Discovery style dross from the BBC who are now clearly unable to find journalists with any degree of integrity or ability and rely on a bunch of overpaid, self serving, untruth peddling mercenaries who live comfortable lives at our expense. That Mike Rudin has alienated just about anyone who could help him to make a reasonable effort of doing his job doesn't appear to stop the BBC from employing him and that says it all really. Neither he nor they care one little bit.
Let me take just one little piece of whimsy that Mike Rudin had the chance to play with in some depth rather than use as an example of how all CTers are nutters.
The "four" used their cars "on the day" to get to Luton where they parked up and used a train. Why? Why did they not take different routes to London well before the day of the attack? Why didn't they stay in London for a day or so as "tourists" for example? The reason I ask the question is that they legally parked their cars by displaying parking tickets; they brought return tickets; they were not discouraged by the delays on the trains. Why was there no CCTV footage inside the tube system with date and time stamp? Why did it take so long for the "new" evidence to appear?
That last paragraph has enough material for a stand alone programme with some terrorist profilers and criminologists chewing it over and there are many other anomalies not even touched on in the BBC film that bear up to similar investigation.
Only Mike Rudin can answer for his banal efforts to show the UK what 7/7 was about. I do not hear, see or sense a word from him. Why?
Complain about this comment
Its so unfortunate that almost everyone commenting here has to hide behind some form of curious identity. For example, CardboardCutout? Having taken part in the programme and made available to the producer all of our exercise material used in 2005, I thought the BBC did well to give so many people the chance to speak, although it would have be interesting to see the reactions of Dr Mohammed Naseem the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque when informed that he had been totally duped by a Mr John Hill, also known as Muad Dib and self proclaimed Messiah who made the 7/7 Ripple effect CD that Dr Naseem felt compelled to copy 2000 times.
I have no intention of adding any more to this site, other than to say to whoever is ninteenseventythree (ref 187) I never once said we were running an exercise for 1000 people. That was the size of the client company. We ran an exercise for 6 people.
Peter Power
Complain about this comment
MI5 tortured man to extract 7/7 confession...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/26/mi5-jamil-rahman-torture-bangladesh
This is why we need a truly independent investigation of 7/7 (and 9/11) - how can modern society rely on torture to obtain "evidence" - a method so successful that it was last successfully used to identify witches!?
Complain about this comment
Mr Power will no doubt be aware that the main 7/7 campaign organisation, J7, have disassociated themselves from Mr John Hill's 'Ripple Effect' DVD.
Perhaps Mr Power is now in a position to tell us exactly who his private client was on 7/7? Such a revelation may help to clear up any suspicion regarding the "remarkable coincidence" of the table-top terror exercise which were soon to be mirrored by real events in the same places and at the same time.
Complain about this comment
re 190 -
Mr Power, it's great you've had the decency to revisit this blog, even if it is to say good-bye! You could teach Mr Rudin a thing or two about manners (perhaps that's a potentially fruitful avenue for your consultancy business : 'War-On-Terror Etiquette In Mass-Media!')
I look forward to hearing from you again when you give evidence under oath at the Full Public Judicial Inquiry which is the only way this matter is ever going to be settled. You wouldn't have any problem giving evidence Mr Power, would you?
Au revoir!!
Complain about this comment
wearechangenorwich/188: See my comments above about the anomalies in Daniel Obachike's account. There are plenty of companies that do the same thing as Peter Power's does, they presumably work all year round, and most hypothetical scenarios would envisage attacks on central London stations. It's not rocket science.
Cardboard_Cutout/189: What would have been gained by going to London earlier? The explosives had to be kept cold with icepacks to keep it stable - staying longer than necessary would have complicated that necessity immensely. A mundane reason for buying parking and return train tickets would be in the case of regrouping/returning home if the mission was aborted or failed for some reason. Clearly there is CCTV evidence, but it and a lot of other material was not released as it was evidence for subsequent trials.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2
Perhaps Mr Power is now in a position to tell us exactly who his private client was on 7/7? Such a revelation may help to clear up any suspicion regarding the "remarkable coincidence" of the table-top terror exercise which were soon to be mirrored by real events in the same places and at the same time.
He did. Reed Elsevier.
Complain about this comment
Mike Rudin wrote: Rachel North, who survived the bomb on the Piccadilly line, tells the programme that the conspiracy theories need to be countered for that very reason:
"If people in mosques think that the Government is so antagonistic towards them that they're actually willing to frame them for a monstrous crime they didn't commit what does that do to levels of trust? That is a problem for the government and for everybody in this country."
Isn't it true that the scene in the mosque, the showing of 7/7 Ripple Effect and the subsequent meeting between Dr Naseem, Tony Gosling and Martin Summer, were all manufactured and staged events which only occurred for the very programme that then chooses to castigate the participants?
To my knowledge, Tony Gosling and 7/7 Ripple Effect, were unknown to the vast majority of Birmingham Mosque goers before the producer of this risible effort at 'journalism'.
Perhaps Rachel North could respond to the point that J7 made in this list of just a few of the many questions that remain unanswered by Mike Rudin & Tristan Quinn:
BBC2 Conspiracy Files and the Official Conspiracy Theory
Complain about this comment
@190.
Hello Mr Power,
I think you came out very well in Rudin's documentary and I welcome your response on this blog. I hope it is not a one off as you indicated. I have defended your statement about "organisation of a 1000 people" elsewhere on the internet so I know how easily things can become misconstrued. However there are a number of mysteries surrounding 7/7 and without trying to offend anyone, least of all Rachel North, I do feel they need to be investigated thoroughly and fairly. We do know that government can and do perform "false flag" attacks and it would be more comfortable for everyone if this doubt could be easily laid to rest. I don't think Rudin's documentary was even handed with the evidence and sort of implies that anyone that asks questions is in some way an agent against the state, (hence I am reluctant to use my name on this blog)
Would you support a truly open and independent investigation of 7/7?
Complain about this comment
#190
However "curious" to you my identity on this site is, Mr Power, I have not at any time made a personal comment or remark about or against you, and if I were about to do so I would not use the Internet as my chosen method of communication. I would write to you using my real name and address and I find your suggestion otherwise offensive and irrelevant.
I can understand your wish not to use this site - my only question to you would be why did you choose to do so the once as your contribution adds nothing to my interest in 7/7 and nothing to the truth about what really happened in my opinion. My view is that you should not even have been in Mr Rudin's programme - so why were you? To add credence to the biased reasoning he presented perhaps? Do you believe that was necessary?
Complain about this comment
Brynberian @ 184
We at J7 were so impressed by your incisive and cogent review of Mike Rudin's abysmal effort at investigating the many anomalies and inconsistencies that surround the events in London on 7th July 2005 that we have published your comment on the J7 blog:
BBC Conspiracy Files: 7/7 - The view from a non-sceptic of the Official Conspiracy Theory
Complain about this comment
J7 'Truth'(sic) wrote:
Isn't it true that the scene in the mosque, the showing of 7/7 Ripple Effect and the subsequent meeting between Dr Naseem, Tony Gosling and Martin Summer, were all manufactured and staged events which only occurred for the very programme that then chooses to castigate the participants?
I don't understand that to be true at all, but I am quite evidently not the director or producer of the programme, only a contributor so perhaps you should direct that question to Mike Rudin or Tristan Quinn or any of the programme team with whom you have corresponded in the past, publicly and privately? Or to Tony Gosling, with whom I see you are in regular correspondence on his forum?
To my knowledge, Tony Gosling and 7/7 Ripple Effect, were unknown to the vast majority of Birmingham Mosque goers before the producer of this risible effort at 'journalism'.
The sentence does not make sense...'before the producer of this risible attempt at journalism...'did what? You need to complete the sentence. But the programme states that Dr Naseem had made 2000 copies of the Ripple Effect DVD for distribution.
Perhaps Rachel North could respond to the point that J7 made in this list of just a few of the many questions that remain unanswered by Mike Rudin & Tristan Quinn
What point? There are 14 questions on the J7 'Truth' site you link to, and a series of rambling paragraphs so it is unclear precisely what you are expecting me to reply to, particularly as the points appear to be addressed to 'the BBC Conspiracy Files', not me.
I have a question though: does J7 'Truth' still retain the position of one of its main contributors/'researchers', Bridget Dunne, who also uses the internet pseudonym 'Prole'. Prole stated on urban 75 message boards on 12th May 2006, 1.28am, referring to the 7/7 bombers
'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it'
and then directed users to J7 'Truth' site, on which Prole is one of the 4 main contributors.
It certainly appears from that statement that Prole and J7 'Truth' have a very definite agenda; rather than campaigning objectively they seek to put forward the idea that the bombers did not attack London and were 'innocent'.
If so, perhaps this should be something that Prole and her fellow J7 'Truth' associates are more honest about, and perhaps they would like to explain to the public why they think this is the case.
I certainly don't see why I should have to answer any questions posited by J7 'Truth' until this is clarified, publicly, and this thread is as good a place as any.
Complain about this comment
Thank you rachel. I wasn't aware that Mr Power had revealed that info.
Re 194. You're involved in a lot of guesswork there - just like the rest of us! Perhaps an independent public inquiry would help fill in all the missing details and stop all this speculation.
I am not saying 7/7 was a "false flag" event. But, as a journalist myself, I cannot avoid the conclusion that there is something not quite right about the official version. There are a few big points (eg Israeli embassy foreknowledge and French insistence that C4 explosive was used) that really do need to be investigated properly.
Complain about this comment
Can I make a respectful suggestion? - it seems such a waste of time and effort for J7 and Rachel North to be at loggerheads here. Aren't you united in calling for a real inquiry? Why not concentrate on getting that sorted first, then attend to whatever disagreements you have?
Complain about this comment
redmichael2/201 - "Guesswork" in what sense? wearechangenorwich was pursuing the hackneyed old line about the "incredible odds" of Peter Power's office-based exercise, which is always presented in absence of any wider context of the number of other companies that do similar work, likely scaneros, etc. Cardboard_Cutout similalry highlighted issues that are usually presented with "why did they do that?!" incredulity, even though there are clearly fairly simple probable explanations. It's ironic that most conpircists seem able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, yet can't recognise the blindling obvious, even when it's pointed out to them.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid that there is very little point in making common cause with a group who are campaigning because they believe the 7/7 murderers were innocent, ianbrotherhood, who seek an inquiry to prove this belief - no inquiry, no evidence will ever satisfy them. As an example, J7 'Truth' demanded the release of the CCTV TV evidence proving the bombers were in London for years - when it was released after having been held back for a 2008 trial, they pretty much went on to ignore it. The core belief of the group is that the bombers were innocent - knowing this is controversial, they seek to obfuscate and hide this belief and present themselves as 'simply asking questions'. Anyone can ask questions, but you do need to be prepared to listen to answers as well, and to be prepared to accept overwhelming evidence that the bombings were carried out by the 4 men as the police investigation shows. If J7 'Truth' can't or won't accept such evidence, then I cannot view them as anything other than agenda-laden conspiracy theorists.
Many families and survivors have called for an inquiry for nearly 4 years but I can't imagine that they would be happy to stand side by side either with a group of people who believe conspiracy theories and think that the bombers were innocent.
I do think it is important that the campaigning for an inquiry is clearly distinguished from the spreading of evidence-free internet conspiracy theories, and I also think that conspiracy theorists try to gain legitimacy by inferring that their campaigning has something to do with the efforts of families and survivors who are asking for an inquiry ie. The 7/7 Inquiry campaign Group, represented by Oury Clark Solicitors, who have judicial review proceedings out to challenge the legitimacy of the government position in not having one. But I do not know of any survivors or families who are supportive of the conspiracy theories, though I do know of several people who have said that they find them distressing and objectionable in the extreme.
Calls for an inquiry are supported by both Opposition parties, and by many senior security and police officers ( Andy Hayman joined the calls for one last week) as well as senior people within the Labour party. Why would campaigning victims need or want to be associated with largely-anonymous people posting on the internet who think the bombers Khan, Lindsey, Tanweer and Hussein didn't attack London on 7/7/05, when it is blindingly obvious that they did?
Complain about this comment
re 204 -
Ms North, I am not suggesting that you 'make' common cause' with J7. I am simply pointing out that common cause already exists i.e. establishment of 'the truth'. No-one expects to see you and members of J7 arm-in-arm, but for the vast majority of people who were not directly afflicted or bereaved by those bombings, and who have no affiliation with pressure-groups such as J7, the waters remain muddier than they need be. We ALL want the truth.
To that end, and while you're still reading this blog, would you share your thoughts on how your contribution to the programme was handled? Do you feel that viewers were given an accurate and objective representation of what you are campaigning for?
Complain about this comment
203, yes, you say "presumably" agencies like Visor do XYZ. Do you know for sure?
Rachel, when you use the phrase "evidence-free" I would reply by saying there appears to be a degree of circumstantial evidence which renders the official version incomplete, if not actually questionable. That is not to say that this circumstantial evidence points towards a "false flag" operation. Many of the following points are based on reputable news outlets:
1) The Number 30 bus as the only one diverted. 2) Israeli embassy foreknowledge 3) French claims of C4 explosive 4) Lack of crucial CCTV evidence. 5) Canary Wharf shootings 6) Train timetable irregularites 7) Suspects behaviour on 7/7 itself (see Independent articles) 8) Bruce Lait testimony 9) Claims that "mastermind" was MI5 double agent.
There are a number of other points, but these, I think, are the main ones.
Complain about this comment
Rachel North @ 200 (your comments in italics)
I'll choose to ignore the attempted smears and concentrate on the facts
J7 'Truth'(sic)
J7 campaign for the truth of what really happened that day. We have always maintained we don't know, despite being pressurised to offer an alternative scenario, which is precisely why we dismissed 7/7 Ripple Effect.
Or to Tony Gosling, with whom I see you are in regular correspondence on his forum?
J7 do engage occasionally on the 9/11 Truth Forum to counter Tony Gosling's misinformation, as do you.
The sentence does not make sense...'before the producer of this risible attempt at journalism...'did what? You need to complete the sentence. But the programme states that Dr Naseem had made 2000 copies of the Ripple Effect DVD for distribution.
Sorry for the typo, I meant 'production' rather than 'producer'.
What point? There are 14 questions on the J7 'Truth' site you link to, and a series of rambling paragraphs so it is unclear precisely what you are expecting me to reply to, particularly as the points appear to be addressed to 'the BBC Conspiracy Files', not me.
Yes I realise that I hadn't made the point to address clear. I asked you as you had chosen to comment here and Mike Rudin & Tristan Quinn didn't address this or any of the other points we raised (such as asking Richard Jones about the discrepancy between his description of the man he saw 'fiddling with wires in a rucksack on the bottom deck of the bus' and Hasib Hussain). For clarity here is the point which perhaps you could address:
Or, how these two women were able to exit the Piccadilly Line train 'within 3 to 4 minutes' whereas the most famous and vociferous survivor of 7/7 Ms Rachel 'North' (who will no doubt make an appearance to castigate those who dare to question these events) claims in her BBC diary: After about 20 to 30 minutes we started to leave the train.
I have a question though: does J7 'Truth' still retain the position of one of its main contributors/'researchers', Bridget Dunne, who also uses the internet pseudonym 'Prole'. Prole stated on urban 75 message boards on 12th May 2006, 1.28am, referring to the 7/7 bombers
'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it'
and then directed users to J7 'Truth' site, on which Prole is one of the 4 main contributors.
Taken out of context that does look like J7 is maintaining their innocence doesn't it. Though written as a response the day after the release of the Official Report, a report which Tony Blair claimed (when refusing a Public Inquiry):
I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do. There will be some five different Select Committee inquiries into the matter. We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that peoplethe victims and otherscan see exactly what happened.
and by omitting the first sentence of the comment you quoted:
"They caught the 7.40 Thameslink train from Luton which as we know was cancelled that day..so all the rest is a crock unless these 4 young men had teleporting abilities", I can see why you might wish to draw the following conclusion:
It certainly appears from that statement that Prole and J7 'Truth' have a very definite agenda; rather than campaigning objectively they seek to put forward the idea that the bombers did not attack London and were 'innocent'.
If so, perhaps this should be something that Prole and her fellow J7 'Truth' associates are more honest about, and perhaps they would like to explain to the public why they think this is the case.
I certainly don't see why I should have to answer any questions posited by J7 'Truth' until this is clarified, publicly, and this thread is as good a place as any.
I do hope that this has cleared up the contention that 'we have a hidden agenda and that we think the 4 accused are innocent'. Until there is open, honest and independent scrutiny of all the evidence, through proper judicial process (aided perhaps by some real investigative journalism?), then it is not in the BBC's, J7's or your power to know the true facts of what really happened that day and how these events came to be.
Complain about this comment
#203
Hi Mr Cooper or Nick - whatever you prefer.
I would quite like to have "six impossible moments" before breakfast. But I think, before you jump to the "blindingly obvious conclusions" that you accuse others of (and label me a conspiracy theorist), you should read my entry at #113.
Perhaps you may understand that my interest in what the four did is not to have it explained away in trivia (you are no more in their heads at the time of their journey than I am) but to try to reach some possibilities about who was behind the attacks. I believe that there may be several clues about who knew about 7/7 beforehand within the four's behaviour and that is what I would like to get at.
You may also understand that no where have I concluded that the four were innocent of the bombings.
I don't expect an apology but I do expect better from a hack.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2
1) The Number 30 bus as the only one diverted.
Kings Cross was being evacuated at the time because a bomb had gone off at 8.50am. Euston Road was gridlocked. The number 30 bus was diverted down Woburn Place. This is not sinister, this is what happens when there is a terrorist attack and police are sealing off the area and diverting traffic and enabling ambulances and fire appliances to attend the scene. If you look at pictures of the terrible scene you will see other buses near the Number 30 too.
2) Israeli embassy foreknowledge
Debunked comprehensively in the BBC programme.
3) French claims of C4 explosive
Unattributed comments but from what I understand, it was speculation based on the ferocity of the explosion. In fact, the type of IEDs used on 7/705 had not been seen in the UK before. The explosions were caused by several kilos of improvised high explosives such as hydrogen peroxide and pepper, cooled by icepacks, comprising the main charge, and carried in rucksacks which had been placed on the floor, with the main charge in plastic bags. HMTD residue was found at 3 of the sites. There was no timeer or remote detonator - they were detonated manually by an improvised manual electric detonator containing HMTD. ( Testimony of forensics expert Clifford Todd, 14 April 2008 in trial of R vs. Ali and others,
4) Lack of crucial CCTV evidence.
CCTv was held back until the verdict had been reached in the 2008 Theseus trial. It was shown in the programme; it has been shown elsewhere. You saw the bombers Micra driving towards London, Tannweer getting out and buying petrol and snacks, the bombers putting rucksacks on in the car park on 7/7 at Luton, getting the train, getting off the train and walking into Kings Cross Thameslink, Hussein moving through the station and heading towards the bus, the Edgeware Rd train explosing as seen from the platform, and the bus exploding at 9.47am as seen through the windows of the BMA.
5) Canary Wharf shootings
Never happened.
6) Train timetable irregularites
Covered in BBC programme.
7) Suspects behaviour on 7/7 itself (see Independent articles)
no idea what you mean here - are you just cutting and pasting this stuff?
Did you actually watch the BBC programme?
8) Bruce Lait testimony
Covered in programme
9) Claims that "mastermind" was MI5 double agent.
You refer to John Loftus on Fox News 29/07/2005? About Haroon Rashid aswat? Aswat was Abu Hamza's sidekick at Finsbury Park, and the security service certainly had meetings with Hamza and his associates. Did they consider him an asset in the loosest sense, a useful source of info when keeping an eye on the place? Pretty evidently yes, but is there any further evidence that he was more? No. If someone has it, let's see it.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2/206 - An examination of Visor's website makes it clear the sort of services they offer. Are you suggesting that they are the only company in London in that line of work?
I'll offer my own observations on the other issues you raise:
1) The diversion was put in place because Euston Road in front of King's Cross station was overcrowded with emergency service vehicles at that time, so the in itself is not "suspicious." If the No. 30 was only bus to be diverted, then it was only because it was the first.
2) Dismissed in the programme.
3) Speculation presented as fact?
4) Mostly withheld while the trials were sub judice, most now released. Much of the speculation in this area is predicated on the idea that there "must" be CCTV footage, rather than on whether there actually is any.
5) Only source for this is a single anonymous person who claimed to have witnessed it from an office block. Thousands of other people in the area that day have failed to report seeing anything similar.
6) Dismissed in the programme. Conspiracists spent too much time concentrating on the fact that the misindentified train was cancelled to notice that the earlier one was running late enough for the bombers to catch it.
7) If you mean arguing over change and eating, a simple explanation is that they were prepared for the posibility that they might have to abort the mission. Even when facing certain death, people will often still act "normally."
8) Dismissed in the programme. Witnesses nearer the site of the explosion did not come to the same conclusion, plus photographic and other forensic evidence.
9) "Claims" are not proof.
Complain about this comment
Cardboard_Cutout/208 - What am I supposed to apologise for? You claim not to know what was in the bombers minds, but clearly speculated an alternative scenario as if it made more sense. Why, then, is it not valid for me to point out the simple reasons why it was not a likely alternative? Also, exactly what sort of "hack" am I supposed to be?
Complain about this comment
Rachel: No I didn't see the programme!
1) "this is what happens when there is a terrorist attack and police are sealing off the area and diverting traffic and enabling ambulances and fire appliances to attend the scene." So the ONLY bus diverted (TfL confirmed that to me on the day) was the one carrying another bomber?
2) Debunked. How?
3) The C4 comments came from Christophe Chaboud, French anti-terrorism co-ordinator.
4) Was the new CCTV footage dated and time-stamped?
5) What info leads you to say the Canary Wharf shootings never happened? I have email verification from a senior business continuity source that police snipers were present at the Wharf "looking for a confirmed threat".
7) Independent claims (three articles) that bombers argued with cashiers over change, ate a Big Mac, and were seen bumping into people on street. Is HTMD not highly unstable?
8) What did Bruce Lait say on programme?
Also I might add that two home secretaries referred to the bombers as "clean skins" (Clarke and Reid in 2005 and 2006) yet the CPS in 2007 said they were known to MI5.
Complain about this comment
J7 'Truth'.
As you now know that the men did not have teleporting abilities, and you also now know (I assume) that they did not catch the 7.40am train, but caught the the earlier one at 7.24am, and you are aware they have now been shown on CCTV doing so, do you now wish to retract your statement that 'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it'?, and explain why you no longer believe this is the case?
Or if you do still think 'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it', can you explain why you think this?
If your answer is that you do not know, can you explain why the results of the biggest ever police murder investigation are not enough for you and what would be enough for you to convince you one way or the other after 4 years of daily internet investigations and review of pretty much everything ever written or stated on the 7/705 attacks?
Do you think that the bombings of July 7th were an example of 'Machiavellian State terror '? If not, why do you give great prominence to an article called 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' on your website?
As to your questions, I'm still unclear why you think I can answer questions addressed to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin, or speak on behalf of Richard Jones about what he saw? If your question is specifically about how two women remember having left within 3-4 minutes, and my recollection at the time was that I left within '20-30' minutes, then I'd remark,
a) It's hard to gauge the exact passage of time when you're in shock and injured because you've been in a carriage where a bomb has just gone off and this should be considered when looking at witness recollections of being trapped underground
b) I would expect the women were right at the front of the train by the driver's cab and thus able to get out earlier than me - we didn't all leave simultaneously, it was a slow, difficult and frightening process following the driver's evacuation instructions in a crowded carriage where a bomb had just gone off causing horrific injuries and 26 deaths,
c) I think 20 mins, looking back was nearer the mark than 20-30 as I said at the time, but quite honestly, checking my watch at the time wasn't exactly a priority. Nor would I have ever thought (and neither, I imagine would the unfortunate women in the clip have imagined) that conspiracy theorists would be poring over the shocked statements of survivors 4 years on looking for evidence of some kind of cover up, and I do wonder at their motivation for doing so.
*sigh*
Complain about this comment
Rachel @ 209
The explosions were caused by several kilos of improvised high explosives such as hydrogen peroxide and pepper,
The explosives used have since gone through another metamorphosis, according to Richard Watson on Newsnight, hydrogen and powdered masala spice were the components.
@ Nick Cooper 210
6) Dismissed in the programme. Conspiracists spent too much time concentrating on the fact that the misindentified train was cancelled to notice that the earlier one was running late enough for the bombers to catch it.
ALL reports from the police and media had either the 7.40 or 7.48 Luton Thameslink train (extremely negligent if witnesses to these 4 men travelling that day were to be forthcoming) - as 'witness statements' are given as the official reason for this error, one can only wonder if any witness statements have ever been taken from those actually travelling on the 7.25 train that morning.
The 7.24 (which left at 7.25) was examined by a J7 researcher.
I do hope Rachel (or perhaps Nick Cooper) might offer an explanation for the discrepancies in the accounts of survivors of the Piccadilly Line train which I detailed in my comment at 207.
Complain about this comment
re 213 -
Ms North, for the benefit of those BBC viewers who have arrived at this blog via watching Mike Rudin's programme and aren't familiar with the intricacies of the argument you're conducting with J7, it might be helpful if you could clarify what precisely you DO want any future inquiry to investigate.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2
Rachel: No I didn't see the programme!
well, watch it then! Why are you arguing about a programme you have not seen, and why are you simply repeating things without checking them?
1) "this is what happens when there is a terrorist attack and police are sealing off the area and diverting traffic and enabling ambulances and fire appliances to attend the scene." So the ONLY bus diverted (TfL confirmed that to me on the day) was the one carrying another bomber?
No, at least 2 other buses were diverted too. Traffic was diverted, following emergency evacuation of King's Cross, and of course, in rush hour, the traffic included uses. Go and look at the flipping pictures of the no. 30 bus, where you will see other buses! Look at their numbers and check their normal routes, it is not difficult. It is galling when people simply repeat things without making any effort to verify it. It is lazy, conspiratorial thinking and repeating things you have seen on the internet is not 'research' or 'evidence'.
2) Debunked. How?
Watch the programme!
3) The C4 comments came from Christophe Chaboud, French anti-terrorism co-ordinator.
And were early speculation based on ferocity of explosion but not borne out by forensic evidence, see sworn testimony of forensic expert Clifford Todd in court.
4) Was the new CCTV footage dated and time-stamped?
Yes, and shown in open court, and accepted as 'common ground' by both prosecution and defence and not challenged
5) What info leads you to say the Canary Wharf shootings never happened? I have email verification from a senior business continuity source that police snipers were present at the Wharf "looking for a confirmed threat".
No, you have an email based on a rumour which was found to be baseless. For heaven's sake, Canary Wharf contains a number of huge buildings, filled with thousands of people, many of whom are journalists. The police did not shoot anyone at Canary Wharf and the idea that they did and managed to cover it up is ludicrous.
7) Independent claims (three articles) that bombers argued with cashiers over change, ate a Big Mac, and were seen bumping into people on street. Is HTMD not highly unstable?
There was no eating of a Big Mac, Hussein stepped into McDonalds as it rained suddenly outside. He went in at 9.15am and left at 9.17am, then proceeded down Gray's Inn Road, making calls on his mobile. He did not bump into anyone on the CCTV footage shown. HMTD is unstable, but it was carried in cooled icepacks and is more stable than TATP, which isn't saying much, but there you go, he was a suicide bomber.
8) What did Bruce Lait say on programme?
Watch the programme and see! Why expect me to explain it to you?
Also I might add that two home secretaries referred to the bombers as "clean skins" (Clarke and Reid in 2005 and 2006) yet the CPS in 2007 said they were known to MI5.
Yes. Finally. This sort of thing, not madcap speculation about peopel being shot at canary wharf or the bombers never being in London is why I support an independent public inquiry.
Complain about this comment
J7 @ 214 - I've cited the sworn testimony of the forensics expert. I'm not Richard Watson from Newsnight, perhaps you should take it up with him? I have answered your questions about leaving the train, and perhaps you'll answer mine.
Ianbrotherhood@215 - yes, I've explained why extensively dozens of times for over 3 years. Try this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/01/politics.terrorism3
Complain about this comment
re Rachel North at 217 -
Thanks for the link, it's helpful. Bearing in mind that this blog is about a specific programme, perhaps I could repeat the question I asked at 205 - do you feel the programme fairly represented you? Furthermore, did it give fair prominence to the legitimate questions your legal team has raised?
Complain about this comment
@ianbrotherhood 218.
The programme was specifically about the conspiracy theories concerning 7/7, whether there was any truth in them, who is behind them and the effect that they have. It was not about the questions raised by the 7/7 Inquiry campaign Group, which are not conspiracy-theory based. It was an hour long programme, and it needed to stick to the subject of the series: examining the conspiracy theories about a specific event.
I hope that by appearing on it I managed to make it clear that the campaign for an independent inquiry has nothing to do with foolish conspiracy theories and so cannot be dismissed as such; that was why I agreed to go on.
Complain about this comment
Rachel_North @ 213
As you now know that the men did not have teleporting abilities, and you also now know (I assume) that they did not catch the 7.40am train, but caught the the earlier one at 7.24am, and you are aware they have now been shown on CCTV doing so, do you now wish to retract your statement that 'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it'?, and explain why you no longer believe this is the case?
In case it wasn't clear in my previous response @ 207, the comment 'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it' was made the day after the official report claimed that the men took the 7.40 train from Luton, and not expecting that the report, which was supposed to tell us 'exactly what happened that day', would contend that the men boarded a train which we knew hadn't run it was therefore the only conclusion to draw. Obviously since this 'error' has been addressed (due to J7's campaign to get the facts into the public domain) that statement no longer stands and is withdrawn. Noticeably it hasn't been made since.
Do you think that the bombings of July 7th were an example of 'Machiavellian State terror '? If not, why do you give great prominence to an article called 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' on your website?
I'm not sure what constitutes 'great prominence' as his article is linked in the right-hand sidebar along with a great many other articles.
Professor David MacGregor who wrote the article, which poses a question rather than makes a statement of fact, has chosen to analyse the events of July 7th 2005 in their historical and geo-political context.
His hypothesis is explained in his introduction:
"Early reports likened the 2005 July 7th London bombings to Nazi air attacks on Britain more than sixty years earlier. A Sun leader on July 8 declared: Our spirit will never be broken: Adolf Hitler's Blitz and his doodlebug rockets never once broke London's spirit." The comparison stuck, though the July explosions appear dwarfish beside savage Luftwaffe devastation of London, Coventry and other civilian targets. Indeed ever since September 11 media commentators have portrayed Islamic fanaticism as an eruption of evil unprecedented since Hitlers bloody European rampage.
In this essay I want to draw a different parallel, though one that returns to World War II aerial warfare and its relation to so-called Islamofascism. July 7th resembles in many respects two other instances of terror on a world-historical scale: the Dallas shooting of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and bin Ladens nightmarish September flights into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Like these earlier incidents, the London bombings may be an instance of what I have called Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself. This form of terror advances domestic and/or foreign policy goals of the established order, and may involve assaults (real or fabricated) on the states own military, on innocent civilians, or on political leaders. Government sources and compliant media rush to blame a convenient foe, whether another nation, a political or ethnic group, or a lone nut. "
It's an excellent essay by a well respected academic and one we would recommend is read irrespective of whether you agree with his hypothesis or not.
As to your questions, I'm still unclear why you think I can answer questions addressed to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin, or speak on behalf of Richard Jones about what he saw? If your question is specifically about how two women remember having left within 3-4 minutes, and my recollection at the time was that I left within '20-30' minutes, then I'd remark,
a) It's hard to gauge the exact passage of time when you're in shock and injured because you've been in a carriage where a bomb has just gone off and this should be considered when looking at witness recollections of being trapped underground
b) I would expect the women were right at the front of the train by the driver's cab and thus able to get out earlier than me - we didn't all leave simultaneously, it was a slow, difficult and frightening process following the driver's evacuation instructions in a crowded carriage where a bomb had just gone off causing horrific injuries and 26 deaths,
c) I think 20 mins, looking back was nearer the mark than 20-30 as I said at the time, but quite honestly, checking my watch at the time wasn't exactly a priority. Nor would I have ever thought (and neither, I imagine would the unfortunate women in the clip have imagined) that conspiracy theorists would be poring over the shocked statements of survivors 4 years on looking for evidence of some kind of cover up, and I do wonder at their motivation for doing so.
Thanks for addressing this Rachel, it isn't 'looking for evidence of some kind of cover up' but rather examining the many inconsistencies and anomalies that exist from the day. As you know, you were disturbed enough to contact the BBC and the anti-terror hotline when the police and BBC were putting out inaccurate information regarding where the explosion occurred on the Piccadilly Line train.
The devil is in the detail!
Complain about this comment
In case it wasn't clear in my previous response @ 207, the comment 'It is a travesty of justice, these men didn't do it' was made the day after the official report claimed that the men took the 7.40 train from Luton, and not expecting that the report, which was supposed to tell us 'exactly what happened that day', would contend that the men boarded a train which we knew hadn't run it was therefore the only conclusion to draw.
Interesting that you considered that 'the men were innocent' was 'the only conclusion to draw. Did you not consider looking at the train time table to see if they could have got an earlier train? Rather than leaping to the conclusion that because the men were not on a train running at 7.40am, they must therefore be 'innocent'? An odd conclusion to come to, after the release of Khan's 'martyrdom' video.
Obviously since this 'error' has been addressed (due to J7's campaign to get the facts into the public domain)
But it was Nick Kollerstrom, rather than J7 'Truth' who discovered the point about the train being cancelled, wasn't it? Yet you describe it as a 'J7 campaign to get the facts into the public domain'. Are the public therefore to assume that J7's campaign and Nick Kollerstrom's discovery are one and the same thing?
Or was the train time discovery not made by Kollerstrom, as he claimed in the BBC programme, and, indeed, always has claimed?
Certainly Kollerstrom was publicly contributing to internet discussions as 'astro3' with J7 'Truth' 'researchers' in April 2006 and giving his website address as 'J7 Truth', without any protest from other J7 people who were writing in the same discussion, and also giving out theeir website address as J7 Truth, so it looks as if Kollerstrom and J7 were part of the same group, working in concert, in 2006. Kollerstrom made a number of controversial claims on the BBC programme, and has published a book stating that the bombers were innocent - the same position J7 had in May 2006. It's interesting that J7's statement that the 7/7 bombers were innocent has only just been publicly withdrawn, today, here, now
that statement no longer stands and is withdrawn. Noticeably it hasn't been made since.
Since Kollerstrom's holocaust denial beliefs and essays were discovered in April 2008, J7 have made strenuous attempts to distance themselves from a man who was once part of their 'research collective', and whose discovery about the train being cancelled went on to be claimed as a 'J7 campaign'.
Since Kollerstrom's holocaust denial beliefs and essays were discovered in April 2008 and covered by bloggers, leading to UCL withdrawing his honorary research fellowship, J7 have made strenuous attempts to distance themselves from a man who was once part of their 'research collective', and whose discovery about the train being cancelled went on to be claimed as a 'J7 campaign'.
I also note that you have complained publicly that Kollerstrom's book, in which he posits that the bombers were innocent, is largely comprised of cut-and-paste plagiarism from your own website. So forgive me for questioning you closely on whether or not you still believe the bombers were innocent - the devil is, indeed, in the detail, and until now, you've never retracted your position.
I also note that you have complained publicly that Kollerstrom's book, in which he posits that the bombers were innocent, is largely comprised of cut-and-paste plagiarism from your own website. So forgive me for questioning you closely on whether or not you still believe the bombers were innocent - the devil is, indeed, in the detail, and until now, you've never retracted your position.
By the way, you still haven't actually answered my question - Do you think that the bombings of July 7th were an example of 'Machiavellian State terror '?
I'm aware that you didn't write the essay, but there it is, on your site, placed there by you, with a recommendation today that you think it is an 'excellent essay'.
Complain about this comment
Rachel, a quote from you on Urban 75 made on 9/9/06 in response to 'Prole': "And I was asked to take you lot on since it was thought that it would be pretty catastrophic to have the sane, rational, clear-eyed campaign for a 7/7 inquiry linked with nutters who think it was an inside job by Mossad, the CIA, M15, lizards, Jews, etc."
You have never publicly stated who asked you, instead, you'll respond with "your lizard handlers".
We at J7 also have a 'job' no one asked us to do it though, we are just concerned citizens, concerned at the changes to our way of life since 7/7, concerned at the lack of evidence to conclusively support the OCT, concerned that the Truth has not yet been told.
Sorry if this is boring and tedious to the majority reading here, but the facts are:
1. Why would anyone assume that the government's own narrative wasn't correct? After all, many FOI's to the Metropolitan Police and complaints to the IPCC had been submitted before the narrative was published, pointing out precisely this error. The government said 7.40 ergo we said not possible. One J7 researcher, not the whole of J7, then made a comment on the Urban75 forum, a comment that has since been retracted, and never repeated since. Certainly this was never a postion that J7 held as a whole, although of course as in any collective there are a variety of opinions.
2. Nick Kollerstrom (and James Stewart of Financial Outrage) had discovered the Luton timetable information, long before J7 as it is now constituted had even been formed, and long before any of the present J7 editors knew each other.
3. One of the current J7 editors set up a research forum in November 2005, which after Blair's refusal to hold a Public Inquiry, evolved into the July 7th People's Independent Investigation Forum.
4. The present editors took over julyseventh.co.uk in January 2006, a site which Keith Mothersson set up and which had many articles written by Nick Kollerstrom on. Many of these articles didn't get transferred to the current site, and after refusing to publish two further articles submitted by Kollerstrom, an analysis of Edgware Road and a profile of MSK, Kollerstrom had no further dealings with J7. It was clear in the few months that we had worked with Kollerstrom that we held many differing views, mainly and importantly that we had no conclusive evidence that proved or disproved the official account - the very reason for a Truth Campaign.
5. J7 did get the train time into the public domain, via our website and also an interview and CiF article in the Guardian. The narrative was changed after these articles were published.
6. The plagiriasm from the J7 website that is contained in Kollerstrom's book is specifically the site analysis and some articles, despite your attempt to infer that this includes conclusions which Kollerstrom might choose to make.
7. We first became aware of this plagiarism by Kollerstrom in a comment left by you Rachel in April 2008: "I understand that he is writing a book about 7/7 (not 9/11) which he is writing, containing material from your site plus his own 'research' into the train times" ..
8. Some members of J7 might have concerns that the events of July 7th 2005 could be an example of 'Machiavellian State Terror'.
9. We have been informed by at least one bereaved family member of how difficult it has been for them to become openly involved in J7:
"Since joining your forum, as amazing as it may sound, i've been taking a lot of heat from various channels. I have defended your position and my decision to continue to join in your debate, but I still have to acknowledge the fallout. The whole 'they are conspiracy theorists' and 'they don't respect the dead when they say there were no bombers' etc. It is VERY serious when you are a family member in family member groups. Things are so emotional, that for me to explain my reasoning is a waste of time."
10. J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign has grown organically, has evolved over the 3 and a half years since it's current inception, has made mistakes and has learnt from them. Many of the J7 collective believe simply that the Official Conspiracy Theory has never been conclusively proved, despite the recent release of further CCTV, on the contrary, ever more questions need answering. Whilst there are questions that remain to be answered, we would suggest through an Independent Public Inquiry outside of the constraints of the IA2005, there will remain doubts. Whilst doubts remain Rachel, we will continue to campaign for the truth.
Complain about this comment
re 219 and posts since -
Ms North, you should be applauded for coming on this thread - you've been very forthcoming, and your answers here have been much more illuminating than any of the edited material used in the programme being discussed.
I have just watched the programme again, and have a simple question I hope you can answer. I noticed that your 7/7 Inquiry Campaign Group was not mentioned once in the programme. You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't hear it mentioned, and you were not introduced to the viewer as their representative or spokesperson. The narrator did mention that you wanted an independent inquiry to establish if the attacks could've been prevented, but the fact that you are part of an organised campaign was not pointed-out.
Was the 7/7 Inquiry Campaign Group aware of your involvement in this programme?
Complain about this comment
THREE COINCIDENCES
1) Visor Consultants conduct terror drills in the same stations at the same time.
2) The ONLY bus diverted by TfL on 7/7 happens to contain the 4th bomber.
3) Three neocon warmongers - Benyamin Netanyahu, Rudolph Giuliani and George Bush - are in the UK on 7/7. Bibi and Jules are in London. Bibi stays in an hotel round the corner from one of the tube stops that are bombed. Jules is in Leeds (yes, as in the home town of 3 bombers) on 6th July giving a talk on - terrorism!
I wonder what the odds on that little lot are? My own favourite is Number 3. In fact, it is worth thinking about that one a little more: Rudolph Giuliani (an alleged 9/11 villain) DRIVES DOWN TO LONDON FROM LEEDS SOMETIME BETWEEN THE 6TH AND 7TH OF JULY 2005.
Remind me again who ELSE made that same journey early on the 7th of July?
They say that, for a novel or film to work, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief.
Complain about this comment
@Rachel North
Having read through some of your posts, I just want to point something out to you. While Kollerstrom may have found out about the Luton train delay in the course of his research, I don't believe he is the sole researcher into the 7/7 bombings. The 7/7 Ripple Effect may be one of the videos made, but isn't the only video that has been made by a conspiracy theorist on the subject.
There is almost no other representation made by other conspiracy theorists in the documentary. The main focus and the way the show was edited, gave you the impression (in my mind) that ALL conspiracy theorists are either nutters or racist. I will just point out that this isn't the first time they have done this. In the 9/11 conspiracy files they also played the anti semitism card, and that being despite any of the conspiracy theorists on the show actually holding such views, or did they name a conspiracy theorist that did. In that episode they also had a lengthy scene of a woman who had lost a loved one from the attacks. This part of the show basically focused on how these conspiracy theories were hurting the loved ones of the victims. This was despite there being many other family members who question the official story. Quite clearly, these were tactics made to discredit the conspiracy theorists and entrench in the viewers mind the notion that all conspiracy theorists are either nutters or racists. In the episode on 9/11 at least, this was totally unfounded and without merit.
There was a campaign for an independent inquiry into 9/11 by family members which they eventually won I might add. However, they were totally unable to do their job as no information or evidence was released to them. personally, to me, that's not acceptable.
As I previously stated, there was an interview with Alex Jones and Guy Smith. Guy Smith was the original producer for the Conspiracy Files.
I would like you to listen to it. You will then understand my criticism of the show.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/bbc_alexjones.mp3
Complain about this comment
@ianbrotherhood
It was agreed back in the early stages of the group starting to come together by myself and others who were desirous of an inquiry - directly affected people - that since conspiracy theories are mainly disseminated online, I would try to use my blog to combat the conspiracy theorists. It seemed to be me the conspiracy theorists mainly had in their sights, and it was agreed then that the campaigning group wanted no part in what they were putting forward. As a blogger I was the obvious person to try to rebut them, (since they approached me via my blog and online), and point out (when it came up) that wanting an inquiry did not mean denying the existence of the threat of suicide bombers in the UK or attributing the tragic and wicked attacks to the security services, or government or anyone else other than the murderers.
How could people in power take the campaign seriously if it was thought that those involved in it were of an accord with the people on internet sites who came out with zany stuff about Mossad, false flags, Zionists, Bilderberg, New World Orders and all the rest of it? As the programme shows, such beliefs tend to come over as pretty strange, uninformed and wholly lacking in any substantiating evidence beyond suspicins and conjecture.
I got involved in the programme in a personal capacity, the 7/7 Inquiry campaign group specifically confines itself to campaigning for an inquiry; this programme did not fall into that specific category, nonetheless as someone who has been harassed and targeted by conspiracy theorists, has investigated them all extensively, and looked into the motivations of those who spread them, it made sense. I believes that it is important that the public understand that wanting an inquiry and believing in or spreading strange and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are quite different things: I thought it was important that I went on and said that they were just not true.
That was why the programme said that I wanted an inquiry but did not go onto details: the programme was just not about the campaign which I am involved in with others, it is solely about the conspiracy theories, whether there is anything to them who spreads them and the impact they have.
As well as being one of the spokespeople for the 7/7 Inquiry campaign group, I also write fairly extensively in a personal capacity about terrorism, politics and civil liberties, as well as other subjects, and have done so for 3 years. I always try very hard to make it clear when I am writing or speaking as myself, and when I am specifically speaking as one of the group's representatives, on the occassions when the group is campaigning in public, such as after the publication of the ISC report.
My blog, my writing, my research, my book are all written by me, not on behalf of a campaigning group.
Complain about this comment
I will make just this one comment. Firstly Rachel North you don't have to defend yourself or lose sleep about what some people might think/say. You gave a good account in the documentary (i watched via iplayer) and in a rare admission, i believe the BBC rebuffed the main allegations that critics have. Peter Power has given a good account on himself and does not need to defend himself further. There is nothing wrong in believing in theories but too much of everything in life is bad. Too much conspiracy theories can affect your health. I won't waste time arguing with some people but once again i commend, the BBC, Rachel North and Peter Power for contributing to this documentary.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2/224
1) The office-based Visor exercise envisaged incidents at three stations - King's Cross, Russell Square, and Liverpool Street. King's Cross and Liverpool street are major Underground/surface stations, and obvious targets (e.g. Liverpool Street was the target of a terrorist attack in the BBC's 2004 drama Dirty War). If I remember correctly, Russell Square was the nearest station to the client's offices. That's incidents at three stations, not between them and three other stations in real live on 7/7.
2) Repeating myself, if the No. 30 was the only bus diverted, it was the first one, and obviously once it blew up no other buses could be diverted along the same route. The bus had to be diverted, because its usual route ahead was effectively blocked.
3) So what? What purpose does their presence serve in your scenario?
Complain about this comment
To repeat: What are the odds on Rudolph Giuliani making EXACTLY the same journey at the bombers at EXACTLY the same time?
Complain about this comment
re Rachel North at 226 -
Thanks for giving a straight, timely and detailed answer to a simple question. I'm sure you thoroughly familiarised yourself with 'The Conspiracy Files' before agreeing to take part - you will therefore have been aware that Mike Rudin's previous efforts (particularly regarding 9/11) were controversial, and that the blog devoted to 'The Truth Behind The Third Tower' remains the busiest blog 'The Editors' has ever hosted.
I will leave it to others to evaluate your role in the programme, and whether or not it has damaged the credibility of your campaign, but I would like to thank you for having the guts to engage in real debate. As you will be aware, Mike Rudin is currently the subject of multiple formal complaints to the BBC regarding his apparent inability/unwillingness to respond to basic questions about his 'Conspiracy Files' 9/11 work. Perhaps your participation in this debate will prod him into a more communicative mode, and for that slim possibility, if nothing else, thanks are due.
(By the way - I understand your reasons for participating in a personal capacity, but perhaps, given your close connection, you could tell us when we should expect a formal response/comment from 'The 7/7 Inquiry Campaign Group' regarding the programme? Thanks again.)
Complain about this comment
I would give the government a let off for 7/7
but would do them for 9/11 - for being so stupid
i.e. tony blair just wanted the world/american glory
big up tony benn clair short robin cook george gallaway
Complain about this comment
That was a serious question. I'm talking now in terms of probability.
1) Visor: Exactly the same station at exactly the same time
2) Number 30: ONLY bus diverted carries a man with a bomb (itself, a very improbable occurance!)
3) Guiliani doing exactly the same journey as the bombers at the same time.
I am no statistician, but I bet the odds on all that are 'Very Big Number'
to 1.
That, of course, doesn't mean its impossible - just highly improbable.
What's Occam's Razor again?
Complain about this comment
@Rachel North
First of all i fully respect your view, and if conspiracy theorists have harassed you, you have my sympathies.
However, i would like to comment on a few things.
"How could people in power take the campaign seriously if it was thought that those involved in it were of an accord with the people on internet sites who came out with zany stuff about Mossad, false flags, Zionists, Bilderberg, New World Orders and all the rest of it? As the programme shows, such beliefs tend to come over as pretty strange, uninformed and wholly lacking in any substantiating evidence beyond suspicins and conjecture."
First of all, false flag attacks have actually happened throughout history and by many different governments.
For example:
In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Both the US and the UK have in the past been involved in such attacks. If you remember Alexander Litvinenko, the guy who was murdered by radiation poisoning, he actually claimed the Russian Government bombed it's own people. He was murdered for such revelations.
In fact Guy Smith in that interview admitted he had no doubt that such attacks have happened in the past, but didn't believe it was the case with 9/11. Unfortunately, the mp3 I linked doesn't show this as it's not actually the full interview. The full interview was over an hour long, but I can no longer find it. It has been deleted from the original PrisonPlanet website.
The link for the full radio interview is dead. It was a while ago now.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/200207producerstruggles.htm
On Bilderberg.
There was actually a really good piece done on it by the Guardian. I believe it's one of the first reports of it done by the Mainstream Press.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-files
I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I anti-semitic or advocate any views of a Jewish conspiracy. That I agree is unfounded.
The false flag thing though, that has happened in the past, and for all we know, still happens now. For that I can't agree with you that they are uninformed, or that it is unsubstantiated.
Complain about this comment
re Rachel North at 226 -
Sorry if this comes across as nit-picking, but your answers throw up yet more questions. Please bear in mind that I'm coming at this from the angle of the casual viewer who happens to tune in to 'The Conspiracy Files' with no baggage, no preconceived ideas, perhaps no awareness at all of what happened on 7/7. (I'm not that viewer, but I'm trying to imagine the average licence-fee payer, trying to see what they see.)
You've already explained that you weren't appearing on the programme as a representative of 'The 7/7 Inquiry Campaign Group'.
Fair enough.
So - why were you on the programme?
You were described - at least twice in the programme - as someone who has 'taken-on the conspiracy theorists'.
What does that mean? The Official Account is 'a conspiracy theory', is it not?
Ms North, you strike me as someone who would not be content to be portrayed as a 'victim' of anything, but I struggle to understand why, if you were not speaking for the Inquiry Campaign, you were given such a prominent role in this production.
You have been extremely open thus far - I ask you, in the interests of accountability, openness, (etc etc, all the usual worthy spiel) - who asked you to particpate? What assurances were you given about the editorial slant of the programme? Did 'The 7/7 Inquiry Campaign Group' okay what you were doing? Did you clear your participation with the lawyers who represent 'The 7/7 Campaign Inquiry Group'?
As things stand (and I believe a brief overview of this blog will confirm as much) the 'Conspiracy Files' series is regarded with almost universal derision and contempt. The episodes are neither documentary nor drama, history nor news. They're a total effing mess. You come across as a very intelligent person with an acute awareness of media, particulary how it deals with catastrophes such as 9/11 and, of course, 7/7. It beggars belief that you weren't aware of Mike Rudin's tainted work let alone involve yourself in yet another sorry chapter of it.
I hope you can answer the questions above.
Complain about this comment
Seems the BBC is up to their propaganda again, spreading their lies and trying to brainwash people again...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20547
"The man behind '7/7 Ripple Effect' - BBC News"
"Video for this story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8124540.stm
The author of an internet conspiracy movie about the 7/7 bombings in London was tracked down to a small town in Ireland by the BBC Two series, The Conspiracy Files.
John Hill, also known as Muad Dib, is the author of "7/7 Ripple Effect".
He has since been arrested and is facing extradition to the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice.
You can watch the full story - The Conspiracy Files 7/7 - on Tuesday, 30 June, 2009 at 2100 BST on BBC Two or catch-up afterwards on iPlayer
Related: The Conspiracy Files: 7/7
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/the_conspiracy_files_77.html"
Complain about this comment
In response to Rachel North @ 226
"Blast survivor and anti-conspiracist Rachel North told Stirrer editor Adrian Goldberg on Talksport last night that she had taken part in the film in the hope that British Muslims would stop denying the fanaticism in their midst - and she also wanted the government to acknowledge that their involvement in Iraq had fostered extremism."
The Stirrer 1/07/09
The closest the 7/7 CF got to mentioning the illegal war and occupation of Iraq as 'fostering extremism':
RACHEL NORTH : Now all this is really inflammable stuff. We have a small minority of people spreading a big powerful idea and the big powerful idea is; there is a war on Islam, there is a war on Muslims it is your duty to fight against those who strike at our people. The idea that the Government actually faked the seven-seven bombings in order to demonise Muslims is just throwing petrol onto flames of this idea.
Surely it is both conceivable and understandable that Muslim's, and non-Muslims alike, could deduce that there is a war being waged against people in some countries that happen to have largely Muslim populations, as well as great reserves of natural resources, and that humane and compassionate human beings feel great pain at these injustices. It seems odd to deride and dismiss this perfectly valid analysis of the international political landscape as nothing more than "a war on Islam".
It has recently been revealed that Bush and Blair discussed the staging of a false-flag incident in order to instigate this illegal and unjust war:
"The two leaders [Bush and Blair] were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 Â when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-plotted-to-lure-saddam-into-war-with-fake-un-plane-465436.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/the+white+house+memo/161410
While the stage continues to be set by lies and subterfuge, life isn't quite so rosy for those not part of the ruling classes. At the end of the Crevice trial lawyer Imran Khan spoke these words for the men who received 40 year prison sentences:
"This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims."
We have been here before. Bea Campbell wrote an excellent article after the release of the McCord report into British State collusion and the running of death squads in the 6 Counties. She made these observations:
"The human-rights advocates are heroes too, because they would not bow to the slur that they were mad, bad or Provo agents provocateurs for investigating the state's patronage of death squads."
"The devastating McCord report that was published yesterday tells us that allegations of collusion once dismissed as rubbish are true. But that epochal admission risks being swamped by an old paradigm: tribal paddies dragging the reluctant Brits into their dirty war. It is time for a paradigm shift. It is time for Britain to be brave and tell the truth about itself. It must narrate a new story about that 30-year conflict."
The issue here, Rachel, is not merely the issue of 7/7 and what happened on that day, but the wider political and geopolitical landscape, the backdrop for which is conveniently provided by a variety of hitherto unproven 'narratives' that have laid the foundations for a war OF terror that masquerades as a war ON terror. Those that shout the loudest about the threats posed by terrorists also happen to be those responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths through their use of terrorism.
The story of 7th July 2005 is but one small piece of scenery on that stage and, as such, J7 will continue to examine it in that context, rather than as if it were an event that occurred in a vacuum.
Let's all hope that we aren't pleading for a 'paradigm shift' in our assessment of the current 'terrorist threat' in 30 years time.
The present paradigm of 'Islamic terrorism' has, shamefully, created too many victims already.
Complain about this comment
for the record nobody is blaming jews for 7/7
the bombers were home grown british muslims & anti-war due to dodgy iraqi war justifications
Complain about this comment
redmichael2/232
1) You're highlighting the "similar" whilst ignoring the disimilar. The exercise was at three stations, rather than between six stations. The odds might seem impressive, but if it was a six-horse accumulator bet, you'd lose.
2) You seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious. The diversion happened only when the number of emergency vehicles in front of King's Cross station has completely blocked the road by around 09:30. If the No. 30 was the "only" bus diverted, it was because it was the first and then the actual explosion prevented any other buses being diverted down the same route. Woburn Place/Tavistock Square is a major road and a regular route for other buses, some of which were in front and behind the No. 30 - it's not some quiet side-street.
3) Highly imporbable things happen every day. After a suburban train, Underground, and the another suburban train to one of the three stations that is convenient for my place of work, that I then got on a particular bus is statistically very improbable. But I was still on that bus.
Occam's Razor is a concept that few conspiracists seem to recognise is their enemy, not their friend.
Complain about this comment
The programme was watched by over a million and a half people, a tiny percentage of them - those who are conspiracy-inclined - are angrily commenting here, as expected. I'm quite aware that the Conspiracy Files upsets people who believe in conspiracies. That is no surprise. Funny that they are so very, very uncomfortable with the spotlight being turned on them, who they are and what they believe, when they are more than happy to turn the spotlight on other people they believe - usually with zero evidence - have something to do with the imagined conspiracy. Perhaps the anger, outrage, sense of persecution and unfairness conspiracy theorists feel when their beliefs, actions, utterances, behaviour are challenged, questioned and examined in forensic detail might - and I am not hopeful of this but you never know - MIGHT make them realise just how unpleasant it is for their victims to be speculated about, discussed, picked over and targeted. I am not very hopeful though as I have noticed a staggering lack of empathy and understanding for the human consequences of their actions demonstrated by numerous conspiracy theorists over the years.
Why was I asked on the Conspiracy Files? That should be obvious. Because I've personally been the subject of conspiracy theories, I've been personally targeted, I've seen others targeted, I'm personally involved in a campaign for an inquiry and I have detailed and relevant personal experience as well as over 3 years detailed and researched knowledge on the subject of conspiracy theories, terrorism and the 7th July attacks in particular. My contribution was shot in April 2008; legal issues - a retrial related to 7/7 - meant the film, and the evidence it contained such as the CCTV of the bombers in London, which was shown in the trial - had to be held back until the jury had reached a conviction.
I hope the programme made people think, I hope it gave people ammunition to challenge conspiracy theories, I hope it showed that you shouldn't trust every conspiratorial rumour or shocking-sounding speculation you see on the internet without challenging it, checking it, and looking very carefully at the source, before passing it on. Some people want to believe a conspiracy theory more than they want to know the real truth. Asking questions is pointless unless you will listen to answers.
A lie can travel halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, never more now than in the age of the internet.
That's it from me, I'm off to enjoy my weekend in the garden.
Complain about this comment
Rachel North has added "explosives expert" to the list of her many talents.
Rachel North interviewed by Adrian Goldberg on talkSport on 1 July 2009.
QUOTE
(10:46) I can tell you, having been on the train, it's wasn't the sort of fiery explosion where it burns everything. It was a different sort of explosion.
....
(11:09) it was a different ... it was an organic peroxide explosion. It wasn't a petrol bomb explosion which would cause a lot of heat and fire.
ENDQUOTE
Where to begin.
I think we can all agree it was not a Molotov cocktail.
Rachel has said before that there was no burning in carriage 1. Offhand, I do not recall reports of burns on train 331 (if this is wrong, shoot me down please). Any reports of a flash?. If it was an explosion with no output of heat and light (an entropic explosion), then it could have been TATP or HMTD. There were certainly burn injuries at Edgware Road but we should not assume without evidence that the explosive used was the same at all four sites. There were, it seems, pure organic perxoide bombs, as well as mixture type bombs, found in the Nissan Micra at Luton.
However, if there was an entropic explosion, the explosive cannot have been a mixture of black pepper/masala spice and concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Such fuel/oxidizer explosives do produce lots of heat and light.
Complain about this comment
Despite the contention that CTs damage the calls for a Public Inquiry (Rachel @ 226) - it appears that it is campaigns such as J7's, which highlight the inconsistencies and anomalies in the OCT, that actually add substance to these calls.
Conspiracy fever: As rumours swell that the government staged 7/7, victims' relatives call for a proper inquiry
"But families of the dead victims and an increasing number of 7/7 survivors claim there are inconsistencies and basic mistakes in the official accounts that need explanation."
"Campaigner Diana Gorodi, whose sister Michelle Otto, 46, was one of those killed, explains: 'It's just very hard for us to believe four people got up in the morning, put bombs together on the basis of information from the internet and managed to throw London into chaos and to create a tragedy. It's impossible for me to believe those four individuals acted on their own.'"
We are proud to be part of the process that may help Diana find out exactly how her sister died that morning and how these events came to be.
A fully Independent Public Inquiry, outside of the constraints of the IA2005, with no limitations on its terms of reference and with the ability to take evidence under oath, is what is needed to answer the many many outstanding questions.
Complain about this comment
228 Hi NickCooper625, long time no see.
This nonsense about the diversion of the bus has to stop now.
Ahead of the no. 30 were a 205 and a 390, both off their normal routes.
The 205: http://www.journalstar.com/content/articles/2005/07/07/top_story/doc42cd2927ea266354483094.jpg
The 390: http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q165/Prole77/bus390.jpg
Complain about this comment
marxoid/242 I had doubts about redmichael2's claim that the No. 30 was the "only" diverted bus, hence I always framed it above as "if it was. The point that clearly no more buses could be diverted along the same route after the explosion obviously still stands in restricting the number of such possible diversions.
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625 - it does seem strange though that buses were being diverted towards Russell Square station where presumably a major rescue and recovery operation would be taking place for at least the previous half an hour.
Why not divert buses travelling North towards Angel such as the number 30 away from both King's Cross and Russell Square?
It would be interesting to know precisely what diverted route these buses were intended to make.
Complain about this comment
J7Truth/244 - That's misleading, given that Russell Square station is in a side street off Russell Square itself. The diverted buses would have passed the end of this street, not the station itself. This would not have affected access to the station from the opposite direction.
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625 @ 245
I realise that Russell Square station is in a side street, very close to the turning off Woburn Place, the direction that these buses were all travelling.
This would not have affected access to the station from the opposite direction.
On the contrary and judging from the direction of every emergency vehicle in this image - they didn't access the station from the opposite direction.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q165/Prole77/Russelsq.jpg
Still, it would be interesting to know precisely what diverted route these buses were intended to make.
Complain about this comment
Examine how this discussion revolves as it evolves around terminology. Concerned citizens divided into defamatory and derogatory categories, if such division(s) wouldn't be imposed, we would already reach the goal and we would have investigation(s) we seek.
Dear Rachel, please hold no grudge, but since your comments here were the only mover which made me take a peek at the files, I'll have to share my thoughts about naïveté you showed therein and I will pinpoint it to the 'powerful idea' you've dismissed in denial of wider context within our common history which you've choose to ignore or you've simply missed while focusing research.
To illustrate, once upon the time there was 'transatlantic bomb plot', imo (as ever), it is by far the most nonsensical idiocy that individuals in this and that administration choose to play against people. It is one of those 'forgotten acts of terrorism' which show that we're living in the pitiful and sad age of global dementia. Placed in 'forgotten' context of US midterm election this poorly written and incompetently staged 'liquid bomb plot' grounded thousands of flights and placed another restriction on our freedom to travel, freedom which is persistently under attack to this day.
At the time, Clinton openly and bluntly told Bush that he overdone it and that blowback will be served. It never happened though, because that particular mockery was never explored by this and that treasonous media which was satisfied to merely report how jury failed to convict.
What we all need to admit in light of this.., this last instalment of Mr. Rudin's irresponsibility which comes after conciliatory moves were made by Obama and thus by the West is that our governments did embark on the quest for unipolar world where our universal diversity would suffer.
Our former leaders did seek confrontation between religions and, although unwillingly, I will bring the 'elapsed terms' brought to remembrance to remembrance once again, so it would be clear that in the age that is behind us 'fascist did sought confrontation with Islamo fasicist'.
To recall the warning of Mr. Bush stated in aftermath of the state sponsored 'transatlantic bomb plot'.
It is "Islamic fascists... [who] will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".
This is just a drop of nonsense we've heard as the 'war on terror' raged, fueled by this or that 'government conspiracy', and to dismiss the existence of this 'powerful idea' and to deny the existence of the known and verifiable history is not the way to bring the facts out. On contrary, when you deny something which is well known you're playing against the goals you're set to make. After all, it is those who envisioned such 'powerful nonsense', it is those folks whose accountability we seek.
'I'm driven with a mission from God' George W. Bush
Complain about this comment
You guys leave Rachel alone. She is not God and does not have all the answers but she has done her best to satisfy every question. I have read her responses and i am satisfied with them. In life you cannot please everyone all the time and this could go on and on. I have a food for thought for all conspiracy theorists: Why do these theories flourish in the west? why don't they flourish in poorer countries? Nobody is disputing the Bali bombings. We don't dispute that the culprits were Jemaah Islamiyah.
If i gave $10m to every conspiracy theorist to find the "real" answers to 7/7 i would have different answers each time and i would trhow more money each time..
So you guys have a break, have a kit kat and chill out.. try not to take things to seriously that it eats into your life and becomes an unhealthy obsession.
Complain about this comment
245 NickCooper625
My post was not directed at you. I was just saying we had not seen you on the J7 forum recently.
246 J7Truth
As I recall, the routes used by buses on diversion are pre-arranged. Drivers are supposed to know them but in my experience sometimes do not. I remember one temporary diversion which required the driver to do a No Right Turn.
Complain about this comment
J7Truth wrote/246 - You're overlooking the simple reality of the one-way system in that area. Vehicles coming in from Herbrand Street on the left and right would then turn in the direction the parked vehicles (and the parked taxis, for that matter) are facing, as Bernard Street is one-way in that direction. Similarly, since Russell Square itself is one-way anti-clockwise, the single line of traffic crossing from left to right at the end of Bernard Street would not have presented any great issue for emergency vehicles coming in from that end, either (with all other vehicles being made to turn left up Woburn Place.
Complain about this comment
Rachel North's magic bullet theory as told to Adrian Goldberg on talkSport on 1 July 2009.
QUOTE
People who think - and this is going into really quite horrible detail now - but people who think that when you put a bomb on a metal floor of a carriage the bomb will punch down, out, up and around. It will explode in all directions. Underneath the floor of the carriage is the ground, the earth - you know with metal tracks on it that the train runs on. So when an explosion happens the explosion powers down, it doesn't - the ground underneath the train isn't made of jelly - it doesn't absorb the blast and suck it into the earth's core. What happens when you put a bomb on a floor as it punches down and if there is something underneath it - in this case - um - the earth with the train tracks on it - it bounces up again. So you get - the metal will go punch down, punch up as the explosion ricochets down from the metal - thin metal carriage of the train - down onto the floor, mangles the tracks and pushes up again back into the carriage. So what you'll see is a twist turny mangled hole where the explosion was and -um- yes, that was how it happened.
ENDQUOTE
Rachel does not dispute Bruce Lait's description of the metal being twisted up but is trying to explain how this can be caused by a bomb on or near the floor. I do not think that analogies with bouncing balls or ricocheting bullets are helpful in understanding the propagation of supersonic shock waves. When a bomb explodes close to the ground the direct and reflected waves interfere to form a near vertical wavefront that propagates horizontally outwards. Those interested can look up the Mach stem effect.
I do think such a bomb will behave like a yo-yo.
I wonder who has been giving Rachel a crash course in bad science?
Complain about this comment
saga4 @248 wrote:
"You guys leave Rachel alone."
Why would we do that? Are we not allowed to ask questions? Are we not allowed to have rachel clarify her statements?
"She is not God and does not have all the answers but she has done her best to satisfy every question."
Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't, the point really is irrelevant.
"I have read her responses and i am satisfied with them."
And by implication, since you are satisfied with them everyone else should be? Is that it? Do you really believe that?
"In life you cannot please everyone all the time and this could go on and on."
Again, completely irrelevant
"I have a food for thought for all conspiracy theorists:"
I have a link for everyone who keeps using the term "conspiracy theory/theorist"
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Conspiracy.aspx
"An agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal or unlawful act, or to achieve a legal act but by illegal or unlawful means."
So the governments theory of what happened on 7/7 (and 9/11) are "conspiracy theories"
So you should stop using that term, since it only comes off as an attempt to put us in an odious category in an attempt to scare people away from the discussion.
"Why do these theories flourish in the west? why don't they flourish in poorer countries? Nobody is disputing the Bali bombings. We don't dispute that the culprits were Jemaah Islamiyah."
So you have been to these poorer countries to know what they believe? You have been to Bali to know what they believe? You seem to simply be going by what the Mainstream Media tells you you should be believing.
You have no way of knowing if "conspiracy theories" flourish in poorer countries or not, if you did you would have posted proof, so this was a statement you were hoping everyone would simply believe.
Let's pretend for a second that it is true that "conspiracy theories" do not floorish in poorer countries, why could that be? Maybe few people can afford a computer and the internet to do their own research and are stuck with getting information from their own governments and MSM!
"If i gave $10m to every conspiracy theorist to find the "real" answers to 7/7 i would have different answers each time and i would trhow more money each time..
So you guys have a break, have a kit kat and chill out.. try not to take things to seriously that it eats into your life and becomes an unhealthy obsession."
wowzers, what a whopper of a statement, and again it was just thrown out there to try and discredit any theory that does not jive with the "Official Conspiracy Theory" without actually any proof.
Here...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/MENUFILES/menu.html
check under "cover-ups/deceptions" then under "false flags" then you will find "The 7/7 London Bombings: al qeada's confession" and about a dozen other articles beneath it. Read them, then come back and repeat what you said
Complain about this comment
251
Make that "I do NOT think such a bomb will behave like a yo-yo."
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625
The image I posted of emergency services outside Russell Square station must have been taken some time after 9.38, as, according to the GLA 7/7 Review Committee Report:
2.62 The initial deployment of ambulances and fire engines to Russell Square was much slower than at the other sites, and it took longer to establish what had happened. The first 999 call was not received until 25 minutes after the explosion, and a major incident was not declared until 9.38 am.
3.41 The information given to us by the London Ambulance Service shows repeated instances of London Ambulance Service officers requesting more ambulances, supplies and equipment and receiving no response. The British Transport Police reported that there were at least 200 casualties at 9.18 am. A Fast Response Unit arrived at the scene 12 minutes later, at 9.30 am. At 9.38 am a London Ambulance Service Professional Standards Officer declared a major incident - reporting 50+ casualties and six to 15 fatalities - and stated that there was only one ambulance at the scene, along with the Fast Response Unit.
Strange, because the BTP claimed they had Survivors from the Piccadilly Line train in their HQs in Tavistock Place as early as 9.09
Complain about this comment
J7Truth/254 - So that means there was around 16 minutes between the major incident being declared, and the bus explosion. Given that the diversion occured at several minutes before the latter, is that really enough time to expect - in the confusion on the ground on the day - the diversion to be rescinded or altered?
Complain about this comment
Who'd have thought it...
The Daily Mail puts the BBC to shame in its coverage of this issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197419/Conspiracy-fever-As-rumours-swell-government-staged-7-7-victims-relatives-proper-inquiry.html
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625 @255
In response to a FOI request:
"Nine person were brought to the British Transport Police HQ and were either suffering from shock and/or very minor injuries which did not require hospital attention. If they had required hospital treatment that would have been arranged.
They were brought to BTPs HQ as it was a secure location, bearing in mind that very quickly the whole area was cordoned off, making it very difficult for anybody to leave the area, particularly as all bus and underground services had been suspended."
So at 9.09, the BTP had passengers from the Piccadilly Line train from Russell Square in their HQ in Tavistock Square due to the 'whole area being cordoned off', yet the first 999 call wasn't until '25 minutes' after the explosion. The MPS stonewalled efforts to find out precisely at what time 'the whole area was cordoned off'.
Confusing? You bet.
Complain about this comment
ynda20 @256
LOL, you often beat me to those other stories. I was going to link it and then saw you had already posted it.
Well how about this then...(and this is relevant because it shows how biased the BBC are, and how much deliberate propaganda the BBC will put out about any topic and proof you cannot trust the 7/7 shows)
Here's more proof of BBC propaganda and spin...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8131851.stm
Read the article. Here is one of my questions...
"The Israeli military said the boat was trying to enter Gaza illegally.
The US-based Free Gaza Movement has breached the blockade five times since August 2008."
So BBC, is the israeli blockade of Gaza legal? Because if you actually look at it and do just a tiny bit of research you find out that the blockade is illegal and an act of war.
So how is the boat trying to enter the Gaza strip illegal? Please explain!!
Again a blockade like the isrealies have had on Gaza is illegal, an act of war, and because it results in collective punishment it is also a war crime.
So tell me again BBC how come "The Israeli military said the boat was trying to enter Gaza illegally."?
I mean it's nice to quote what israel says, but without clarifying if what they say is true or not you are by default saying it is true.
Complain about this comment
J7Truth/257 - Where does the "9.09" time come from? Then again, "5 minutes after the explosion" is 09:15, so at six minutes we're looking at another relatively narrow window.
Complain about this comment
NickCooper625 @259
J7Truth/257 - Where does the "9.09" time come from? Then again, "5 minutes after the explosion" is 09:15, so at six minutes we're looking at another relatively narrow window.
I presume you mean 25 minutes after the explosion rather than just 5. (Although 8.56 was the original time given for this explosion).
9.09 is the time that passengers from the train at Russell Square arrived at the BTP HQ in Tavistock Square - due to the 'cordoning off of the whole area'. See posts @ 254 & 257.
9.15 first 999 call
By 9.18 BTP reported that there were at least 200 casualties.
Not until 9.38 was a major incident declared with reports of 50+ casualties.
Complain about this comment
RE 238. nick, I notice in your riposte that you ignore my point about Giuliani's journey very possibly being EXACTLY the one taken by the bombers at very possibly the approximate time. Doubtless you will focus on my "very possiblies."
I quite go for a smidge of Jungian synchronicity myself, but gee whizz...
Complain about this comment
redmichael2 @261
If you like coincidences:
My week: Rudy Giuliani
Mumbai, London, New York: terrorism is part of my life
"I was also recovering from jet lag after an eight-day trip to India and Dubai for my consultancy business. Id left India just four days before the attacks on Mumbai, so I felt very moved as I watched the events unfold on the internet. I was surprised by the scale of the attacks.
I was in London when the 7/7 bombings happened and near Liverpool Street station when the first bomb went off. Those followed the classic pattern of attacks in three or four bursts, not at such a concerted level right across the city as happened in India. I dont think Mumbai was prepared for a terrorist attack and I would have said that even before what happened.
Whenever I visit a city, one of the things I do is try to assess how ready it is for catastrophe. Before 9/11 my role as mayor of New York meant that I always judged other cities in terms of cleanliness, order, policing and traffic. After 9/11 I still tried to gauge all those things, but I also started to look at how ready they might be for a terrorist attack."
Classic pattern eh?
Complain about this comment
This may seem a rather crude and cynical point, but I can't help wondering about the involvement of Rachel North and Peter Power in this programme. They were both relaxed, were not subjected to questioning (so far as the footage shows) and allowed themselves to be filmed walking around subway stations, at their homes/workplaces etc. What terms were offered to these participants? Were they paid anything over and above 'expenses'. More importantly, what meetings took place prior to the production proper? Were any assurances given regarding the editorial tack being taken? Were the participants made aware of the possible inlcusion of the others involved? Was any 'blueprint' or story-board for the programme shown to North and Power? As Rachel North and Peter Power are both closely acquainted with 7/7 and the 'conspiracy theories' relating to it, were they asked for any input/advice regarding the narrative of the programme? Who wrote actual script for the final cut, and were North and Power given prior viewing of it, asked for their approval? Did Rachel North and Peter Power ever meet Mike Rudin to discuss their role in the production, and if so, do minutes of their meetings exist? Would such data be within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act?
These questions relate directly to the programme and its production, and Ms North body-swerved several of them before going off to enjoy her garden. Perhaps - if there is anyone who knows anyone who has a pal who knows someone who worked on the programme - the supporting documentation could shed light on the nuts and bolts of how this appallingly shoddy programme was constructed.
Complain about this comment
263 ian
I do think Ms North is very, very het up about 'conspiracy theories'. (I won't go yet again into the whole psychology behind the use of this phrase, we've all been there numerous times). Her post yesterday on her blog about the issue is very lengthy and I think exhibits a slightly hysterical antagonism to anyone who questions the OCT to the point where I am asking myself why does she want an inquiry? If the official version is so trustworthy what is there really to add? She seems excessively exercised about all this - what is the motive? What would be the point of an 'official' inquiry if not to shut everyone up, as with the 9/11 commission (failed).
Much is made of the new CCTV images but as far as I can see with my obviously limited awareness they add nothing and complicate the issue of proof even further. Take the 6 images on the Mail website for instance (not putting links as I don't know whether they will get through the mods). The third, bombers walking out of Kings Cross Thameslink: apart from Tanweer having changed his trousers en route (small point) there's no (visible) date, and how can you honestly identify who any of them are? The quality is lousy, unlike the shots of Tanweer in the service station. No.4: Bombers embrace. Oh really? But granted these are the same four as in pic 3. No 5: Hussain at Kings Cross. Again, how can you possibly identify who this is? Plus no date at all. No 6: Lindsay at Luton - get real!! Blob at Luton would be an accurate description. But dated! Hallelujah!
How can any of this possibly prove anything? It's a joke, or am I missing something?
I'm no crazy wackjob, just an ordinary person who is asking reasonable questions. I fully admit there are some worrying people out there on the internet who do not help the cause of truth, but why is it Ms North makes me feel somehow guilty of having an enquiring mind? Her campaigning zeal feels very wrong somehow but I can't put my finger on it. Just a gut reaction.
Complain about this comment
Whilst we are all entitled to know the background of people "investigating" conspiracies and form our own opinions about them, it does not alter their ability to find error in official reports or inconsistencies in material offered as evidence.
If we had known more about a certain prime minister's reputation for dishonesty and deception would we still have illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? It may be a closer call but I still believe the answer would be "Yes".
And so I find it difficult to understand what this anti-conspiracy theorists propaganda is intended to achieve if it isn't further restriction of the right to free speech to protect the State. Mike Rudin and the people outside the State who made and appeared on his "show" should bear that carefully and profoundly in their minds.
Let us just suppose that the police investigation had revealed that one or a number of state officials or operatives did know about 7/7 beforehand and were in a position to stop it. Let us also suppose that "conspiracy theorists" were an illegal breed and that the police decided, for reasons unknown, to suppress this knowledge. The "free media" are on the case but are gagged by the judiciary. Just how does the "truth" ever emerge?
The parallels (other than scale) between 9/11 and 7/7 are very strong and both have many loose ends. Does anybody seriously believe that a world without "nutters" would be better than a world with them? Isn't it easier to discredit the individual than it is to discredit their message?
Complain about this comment
Good Lord, I check in briefly today to read the thread and discover certain contributors to this thread now appear to be speculating in a conspiratorial way about my involvement in the programme! Why am I not surprised?
No, I wasn't paid for participating, I have never met Peter Power,or Mike Rudin. After meeting the producer for an exploratory chat my contribution and involvement extended to recording an interview over a half day last April, during which time I was bought a ham and cheese sandwich and an apple juice when we broke for lunch. I went on the tube to film that section using my own Oyster card, I didn't bother claiming the journey back, and I certainly did not approve or see the programme before it went out.
If I seem rather irritated by all the conspiracy speculation, it's because
a) I've personally been the target of conspiracy theorists for years, and yes, it is annoying, and this programme brings all that to the fore so I've written about it on my personal blog this week,
b) having investigated the conspiracy theories about Mossad/CIA/M15/Israeli involvement, Canary Wharf shootings, bombs under trains, power surges, mysterious bus diversions, and all the rest of it I have discovered that they're just not true
And I happen to think the truth is important.
Crystal_Gaze: Since when is challenging a lie publicly an attack on free speech, for heaven's sake? Conspiracy theorists are free to spout off all over the internet and in meetings and in leaflets and DVDs. If anything, the threats and attempts at bullying I've had from some conspiracy theorists - such as attempts to publish my home and work address along with threats to 'pop round' - are an attack on my freedom of speech, and my right to privacy. Do I let it get to me? I try not to let it negatively impact on my life. If it gets too threatening, then I contact the police. One conspiracy theorist was arrested, tried and eventually jailed because their harassment of me became so extreme.
I'm afraid I can't see much point in contributing further here. I daresay some people here will continue to speculate about why someone campaigning for an inquiry into 7/7 - and I've set out why I campaign many times over the last 3 years - would be antagonistic to people who spread nonsense and lies about real events that affected hundreds of people, including me. I expect some people will continue to object to me continuing to challenge their false theories. I've learned that there's no point continuing to argue the toss - if people can't understand why I campaign for an inquiry in my free time, blog and write and study and now and again, where appropriate challenge conspiracy theories, then I doubt they ever will.
Complain about this comment
Obviously some theories should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a golf ball.
Other theories may have some truth in it and should be formally pursued and challenged in a court of law.
Heres a blast from the past:
http://www.copi.com/articles/lockerbie.html
Remember Ollie North?
Complain about this comment
Rachel North @ 266
One conspiracy theorist was arrested, tried and eventually jailed because their harassment of me became so extreme.
Rachel this is patently not true. Felicity Jane Lowde was totally anti-conspiracy theory and she was at one time a rather frequent, sycophantic if strange commentator on your blog.
I found the tone of your blog article disturbing and after read this statement on here can only ask, what on earth are you playing at?
Complain about this comment
#266
Thank you for taking my remarks out of context and demonstrating my point for me.
Nowhere do I say you cannot challenge a lie - what I am concerned about is the tactic used in the "show" (it was not intelligent) to emphasise the effect CT can have in stoking up more unrest. If we are to have free speech we must take the bad with the good, especially if any of it is likely to provoke more free debate.
As someone who has had more than their fair share of injustice based on lies in my lifetime you learn to deal with it in whatever way you can and no, it isn't easy. But that is not a reason for me to take the moral high ground on everything surrounding my experiences.
We were taken into the war on terror by lies and that act may have been much more relevant to what happened on 7/7 than anything else. We were lied to and we didn't have a chance to challenge that lie before much more severe and irreparable damage was done. The aftermath of that poor judgement in Parliament is what we had in 2005 and what we have now.
If we knew everything about 7/7 then why would you be campaigning for an independent investigation? Like you I want the truth. The difference is that I do not believe that we have a chance of getting to the truth without challenging the official story. When a State lies to me then I learn pretty quickly not to trust anything they say or do. That is their fault not mine. And I do not appreciate the BBC trying to ram down my throat their own distorted outlook on life especially since the Corporation has "blood on its hands" already.
Complain about this comment
re Rachel North at 266 -
'Good Lord, I check in briefly today to read the thread and discover certain contributors to this thread now appear to be speculating in a conspiratorial way about my involvement in the programme! Why am I not surprised?'
I assume that comment is partly directed at me?
In the hope that you may see this before abandoning the thread, let me make a couple of points which I hope you'll take on board.
First off, 'certain contributors...appear to be speculating in a conspiratorial way...' Previously in this blog you have taken issue with other bloggers' careless use of language, so perhaps you could explain what 'speculating in a conspiratorial way' actually means? It's as if you've come to believe that the pejorative use of the word 'conspiracy' in any form instantly wins whatever argument you're engaged in. If you are implying that 'certain contributors' have been getting together to 'speculate' about your involvement in the programme before raising their questions, then that would indeed involve a real conspiracy, and communication outwith this thread. Who's being 'conspiratorial' now?
You may find it all rather distasteful, this business of people asking rude questions about your motivation and involvement in the programme, but the fact remains that you voluntarily hitched your wagon to a production which has a track record of intensifying conspiracy-related controversies. I don't believe it is unreasonable for anyone to assume that you were familiar with Mike Rudin's previous work, and that you considered the programme a suitable vehicle for your 'campaign' as a self-styled Conspiracy-debunker. Programmes such as this do not appear out of thin air - they are carefully constructed and involve a lot of people, a lot of expense, and much behind-the-scenes debate before they are released for public consumption. As has been mentioned many times, Mike Rudin is (for reasons unknown) simply not available for discussion regarding these matters - those of us with questions ask whoever we can, and you have made yourself available. In any case, you answered most of the questions I asked - wasn't too traumatic, was it? And by stating that you've never met Peter Power or Mike Rudin you've killed another couple of potential conspiracies stone-dead. Wasn't that easy?
I wish you well in your efforts to establish a full inquiry into what really happened on 7/7, but it may be worth bearing in mind that any such inquiry would only be of any value to anyone if it avoids a prioi positions such as 'it's blindingly obvious' that the four accused were guilty. That is your view, and you've made it very clear many times. Unfortunately, the guilt of those four is NOT 'blindingly obvious' - your saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
One final comment - I'm sure it's not intentional, but you do have an intensely irritated tone in your contributions to the programme, and in your posts to this blog. It may be simple weariness at constantly having to deal with the same 'nutters', but it makes you sound patronising and dismissive and does your campaign no good.
Complain about this comment
The power surge on 7 July 2005
Initially, staff in the Network Control Centre (NCC) of London Underground thought they were dealing with a power failure. There was indeed a power failure but it was caused by the bomb on train 204 at Aldgate Junction. A passenger on the train described seeing sparks and flames moving along the tunnel wall. This was a 22KV cable, damaged by the explosion, breaking down. The cable ran from Mansell Street Bulk Supply point towards Moorgate. The protection circuitry at Mansell Street should have detected the high current due the the cable failure and within 20 milliseconds, caused the circuit breaker to operate. Unfortunately, due to a "sticky" Translay relay, the circuit breaker did not operate. Consequently, there was a voltage dip on all the 22KV cables fed from Mansell Street. Many pieces of equipment powered from Mansell Street detected the voltage dip and tripped off.
There were widespread failures. People were stuck in the lift at Mornington Crescent and traction power was lost at Stratford Market Depot. All stations on the Northern line between Bank and Kentish Town except Moorgate and Euston had to be closed.
A very similar power failure had occurred on 17 May 2005 just after 6pm. It involved a Translay relay at Mansell Street and a very similar pattern of disruption.
Complain about this comment
#266
Thank you for taking my remarks out of context and demonstrating my point for me.
Nowhere do I say you cannot challenge a lie - what I am concerned about is the tactic used in the "show" (it was not intelligent) to emphasise the effect CT can have in stoking up more unrest. If we are to have free speech we must take the bad with the good, especially if any of it is likely to provoke more free debate.
As someone who has had more than their fair share of injustice based on lies in my lifetime you learn to deal with it in whatever way you can and no, it isn't easy. But that is not a reason for me to take the moral high ground on everything surrounding my experiences.
We were taken into the war on terror by lies and that act may have been much more relevant to what happened on 7/7 than anything else. We were lied to and we didn't have a chance to challenge that lie before much more severe and irreparable damage was done. The aftermath of that poor judgement in Parliament is what we had in 2005 and what we have now.
If we knew everything about 7/7 then why would you be campaigning for an independent investigation? Like you I want the truth. The difference is that I do not believe that we have a chance of getting to the truth without challenging the official story. When a State lies to me then I learn pretty quickly not to trust anything they say or do. That is their fault not mine.
Complain about this comment
re 262. My, what an unfortunate individual is our Rudy!! Everywhere he goes there's a terrorist attack!! It would make you think twice about ever leaving the house...
I wonder where his next holiday is?
As I said earlier, for a contrived narrative to work, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief. The mainstream media help sugar the pill.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What sort of explosion on the Piccadilly line?
Here is part of the account of some-one in carriage 1.
QUOTE
8.15am: Tube arrives. Arnos Grove is one of the first stops on the Piccadilly so I always get a seat.
8.22am: End up waiting for several minutes at each Tube stop as there has been a fire alert at Caledonian Road. Our train is packed because of the delays holding people up.
8.50am: Finally get into King's Cross where the platform is heaving. Only a few more people can fit into our carriage.
8.56am: Leave King's Cross. We never make it to the next stop.
About 10 seconds after leaving the station the bomb goes off at the end of the carriage I'm in.
There's a very bright light to my left followed by a huge noise.
The next thing I remember is looking up. All the lights were off. People were screaming.
I glanced down to see I was alive. Perhaps I was in shock.
I knew my earphones for my iPod had fallen out. When I actually realised what had happened I didn't know what to do at first.
ENDQUOTE
He saw a bright light but does not mention heat or burns.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re- my referred comment at #269 and for information
My entry was verbatim the one at #272 with the exception of a final sentence that commented on the BBC failure to protect its source in the incident involving Andrew Gilligan, Susan Watt, and others which lead (directly or indirectly) to the resignations of several people at the BBC and the death of Dr David Kelly. The wording I chose was perhaps over emphatic for a BBC website.
Just so you are aware.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
WOW the mods are really going overboard with all the "this comment has been referred to the moderators"...I don't know about everyone else's comments but I know mine did not break any of the rules, but I of course do understand why they would not want my comment to get through.
266. At 10:09am on 05 Jul 2009, Rachel_North @266 wrote (in italics):
Before "A lie can travel halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on", Ms North:
One conspiracy theorist was arrested, tried and eventually jailed because their harassment of me became so extreme.
Economy with the truth, or something rather more grand? The person whom you describe and dismiss as a "conspiracy theorist" that was "arrested, tried and eventually jailed" was, as you will be only too aware, a believer in the Official Conspiracy Theory who believed entirely the government's story of 7/7.
The truth is not merely 'important', it is absolutely crucial.
Complain about this comment
Anyone get screenshots of the comments that have since been censored? Specifically the comment @279
If so can you please post them elsewhere...like at whatreallyhappened.com or at my groups website at truthactionottawa.com
It will be interesting to hear why the BBC would even think that those comments need censorship.
Complain about this comment
You say that to point out the person who was jailed for harassment is a conspiracy theorist is 'economy with the truth or something more grand?'
What would you call someone who believes that Barack Obama is an Antichrist who is conspiring to microchip the world's population? What would you call someone who believes the Jack the Ripper murders were a false flag operation, actually committed by Special Branch, if not a conspiracy theorist?
Are only people who disbelieve the 7/7 police account 'conspiracy theorists' now? In which case, J7 Truth are self-styled 'conspiracy theorists', are they not?
I'm not really sure where you are going with this line: by the way, it's not a great idea to accuse me of lying on the BBC, and being a liar - it's untruthful and defamatory.
Complain about this comment
And SteveAustin87 - before you get the wrong end of the stick - the comments by J7 'Truth' were reported for breaking the house rules by basically accusing me of lying on the BBC programme and elsewhere - this is an untruthful allegation which means it is defamatation. The BBC moderator removes libellous or defamatory comments when advised that a comment falls into that category. The comments are not 'censored' - just defamatory and untruthful, specifically directed against a named visible individual.
Complain about this comment
Rachel, do you have any idea how very many times I have been accused of lying right here on the BBC blogs? And how very many times I have complained to the BBC mods about it, about it being libellous, only to have the mods let the libellous comments stand because it apparently did not violate their rules?
So why are you so special?
As for your constant use of 'conspiracy theorist' label you might want to scroll up and re-read the legal definition of the term 'conspiracy'
Here let me make that easy for you...
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Conspiracy.aspx
Now as for those censored statements, I no longer believe anything you say Rachel and for good reason, it has been shown that I should not believe you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rachel_North @284 wrote:
"I'm not really sure where you are going with this line: by the way, it's not a great idea to accuse me of lying on the BBC, and being a liar - it's untruthful and defamatory."
And what you have said here on this blog is not defamatory? Of course it is Rachel, just because I don't use my real name here makes no difference, in my case because it takes less than 10 minutes work to find out who I really am, I have advertised my groups website often enough on the BBC blogs over that past 10 months.
So you are allowed to be defamatory towards me but not I towards you? Seriously?
If you honestly believe your comment was not defamatory in any sense then you need to re-evaluate your beliefs. If you want a completely open and honest discussion about things then please I would be happy to oblige, but do not come here and defame myself and others who do not share your beliefs while at the same time crying foul when the tables get turned. Before you try that with me you might want to go over my post history and see exactly what that will get you, IT WILL NOT WORK WITH ME!!
Complain about this comment
Steve Austin87, please calm down - I did not report your -282 comment or cardboard cutout's comment, which have not been published upthread. I don't know why they were moderated - I've not seen them. I reported only J7's repeat-posted comment, which repeatedly made the defamatory and false claim that I lied on BBC national television, and elsewhere. I then explained to you, Steve, *why* the comments had been reported.I did so because I don't think there is much point in you asking for J7's defamatory comments to be reposted somewhere else.
That's not 'censorship', that's just sensible moderating of libellous defamatory comments. I have no idea of your posting history, who you are or why you are now saying you 'no longer believe anything I say', but whatever, you can think what you want.
J7, if you are disturbed by my opinion of conspiracy conspiracies, and conspiracy theorists and their behaviour then you might want to consider why I have formed this opinion over the years? You might also wish to consider why many, many other people express negative opinions about conspiracy theorists, including the ex senior police officer in the programme, who worked on the 7/7 investigation at a high level. You might want to think about why the BBC thought it would be a good idea to make a programme examining the 7/7 conspiracy theories, the credibility of their sources and the effect they have as a public interest programme.
Or you might want to carry on posting here instead without a thought as to why many people are concerned about conspiracy theories and what impression is being formed of your J7 'Truth' campaign by your posts. It's up to you, but I suggest your the programme would be better directed to the producer and series producer, who produced it, rather than the contributors.
Complain about this comment
Heheh Rachel, yes me calm down...because I am not calm right? Is that the picture you want everyone to have of me? Do you really believe I am not calm? Somehow I doubt it, but that would not fit with your agenda.
You know a wise man once said...
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all" - Mike Rivero
Tell me Rachel are you one of those that truly believe or one of those that know the truth but spread false information?
I never said you reported my comment or anyone else's comments, but once a comment gets reported the mods will look at that comment and other comments as well and moderate those as well.
It's sensible moderating if there is consistency in it's application, and it is very easy to show that if these comments here on this blog over the past 20 comments or so are kept out that it is censorship based on other comments on another BBC blog that are far worse libellously than anything that was mentioned here...and I actually saw the comment @279 before it got removed.
Rachel please answer me this one question, what is a conspiracy theory?
I'll get into the rest of your comments once we get this one out of the way.
Complain about this comment
Common Purpose graduate Cressida Dick issued the 'shoot-to-kill' order to police officers that led to an innocent Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes [being shot].
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hi all, just passing by, heard the ruckus and boy what a pie fight going on here, no time to disect it all, haven't seen the show and would not trust it anyway, given the history of the producers.
I have only formed an opinion about 9/11 where, I think, about 27 British were murdered with many others. (10 Aussies)
Hi Rachel! at 289 you mention your attitude to conspircay theorists which I take it, is expressed somewhere up above in the 'commentray' stratosphere adn not too favourable.
I have mentioned this idea before, but for you I will again; I am a conspircay theorist, I commenced many years ago (1980 thereabouts)when I pepared a prosecution that was an alleged offence; being a conspircay to defeat the course of justice. In due course it became a conspircay as the conspirator eventually pleaded guilty. (got three months)
Of course you would be aware that the greatest conspiracy theorist in the Commonwealth is Her Majesty the Queen, as she has people all over the globe running her conspircay cases every day.
So whilst you seem to have a dim view of conspircay theorists, may I remind you it is really a matter of looking at the facts, generally referred to as 'overt facts'. (dots if you like) A conspiracy is usually only laid when the substantive crime cannot be proven directly, such as, "I saw him shoot gandma". If that is not seen we have to put together a circumstantial case with such acts as; running from the scene, prior expressions of intent, flight, lying, not giving a satisfactory explantion when one would expect the accused to be able to give one, hiding/not disclosing material/evidence, etc.(if there is more than two accused involved in an agreement, we can call it a conspircay)
So there you are Rach