BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

The Conspiracy Files: 7/7

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 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.

Bus in Tavistock Square destroyed by bomb, 7 July 2005But 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


Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    "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.

  • Comment number 2.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 3.

    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.

  • Comment number 4.

    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.

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    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.

    "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.

  • Comment number 7.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 8.


    "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.

  • Comment number 9.

    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.

  • Comment number 10.

    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.

  • Comment number 11.


    "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."


    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.

  • Comment number 12.

    "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?

  • Comment number 13.

    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.

  • Comment number 14.

    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.

  • Comment number 15.

    '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.

  • Comment number 16.

    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.

  • Comment number 17.

    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.

  • Comment number 18.

    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?

  • Comment number 19.

    "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?

  • Comment number 20.

    "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?

  • Comment number 21.


    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.

    So, after looking at these results, are you still surprised that I do not really know what Muslims are supporting and what not?

  • Comment number 22.


    Did you even read the comment I was referring to ?

    In case you missed it:
    "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.

  • Comment number 23.

    #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.

  • Comment number 24.

    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.

  • Comment number 25.

    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.


    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.

    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.

  • Comment number 26.

    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":
    (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.

  • Comment number 27.

    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.

  • Comment number 28.

    Excuse me, that last comment was directed @ 23

  • Comment number 29.

    "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.

    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.

  • Comment number 30.

    " 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.

  • Comment number 31.

    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.

  • Comment number 32.

    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.

  • Comment number 33.

    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 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.

  • Comment number 34.

    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?

  • Comment number 35.

    "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.

  • Comment number 36.

    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.

  • Comment number 37.

    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?

  • Comment number 38.

    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

  • Comment number 39.

    #38 siralantheoracle...

    Excellent response.

  • Comment number 40.


    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.

  • Comment number 41.

    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.

  • Comment number 42.

    Unfortunately there are many examples of Muslim ideological extremists planting bombs, often intended to kill fellow Muslims.

    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.

  • Comment number 43.

    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?

  • Comment number 44.

    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.

  • Comment number 45.

    My friend works at the Daily Star and he said it's common knowledge that Prince Phillip was involved in all this.

  • Comment number 46.

    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

  • Comment number 47.

    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.

  • Comment number 48.

    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...

  • Comment number 49.

    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?

  • Comment number 50.

    "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.

  • Comment number 51.

    "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?

  • Comment number 52.

    So, Streaky81: 'Islam did invent the suicide bombing'. I didn't realise Kamikaze pilots were muslims.

  • Comment number 53.

    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!

  • Comment number 54.


    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.

  • Comment number 55.

    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

  • Comment number 56.

    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.

  • Comment number 57.

    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...

  • Comment number 58.

    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?

  • Comment number 59.

    I'm afraid your post (5) has been censored
    Watch your back son as they might start deleting your life works

  • Comment number 60.

    #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.

  • Comment number 61.


    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.

  • Comment number 62.

    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.

  • Comment number 63.

    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.

  • Comment number 64.

    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.

  • Comment number 65.


    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.

  • Comment number 66.


    '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. :)

  • Comment number 67.

    #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?

  • Comment number 68.

    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 " be shown on BBC Two at 9pm on Tuesday 30 June .." will be able to deliver.

    waste of time.

  • Comment number 69.

    Doogletastic #67.

    "..but does that mean nothing has changed in 56 years?"

    no. things have gone from bad to worse.

  • Comment number 70.

    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.

  • Comment number 71.

    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.

  • Comment number 72.

    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

  • Comment number 73.

    "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.

  • Comment number 74.

    @Rhubidium (72.)

    Congratulations on an outstanding piece of satire, or commiserations on an outstanding failure of logic.

    It's difficult to tell which.

  • Comment number 75.

    "#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.

  • Comment number 76.

    #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).

  • Comment number 77.

    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.

    The entire program may be available as it was broadcast on CNN on Youtube as well.

  • Comment number 78.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 79.

    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

  • Comment number 80.

    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.

  • Comment number 81.

    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: 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.

  • Comment number 82.

    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.

  • Comment number 83.

    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?

    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?

  • Comment number 84.


    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.

  • Comment number 85.

    @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.

  • Comment number 86.

    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?)

  • Comment number 87.

    82- jon112UK - I respectfully suggest you buy yourself some tin foil.

  • Comment number 88.

    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

  • Comment number 89.

    (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.)

  • Comment number 90.

    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

  • Comment number 91.

    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.

  • Comment number 92.

    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.

  • Comment number 93.

    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.

  • Comment number 94.


    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?

  • Comment number 95.

    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.

  • Comment number 96.


    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

  • Comment number 97.

    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.

  • Comment number 98.

    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.)

  • Comment number 99.

    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.

  • Comment number 100.

    It might help you to know that nano-thermite is an explosive.


Page 1 of 4

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.