J7: July 7th Truth Campaign Blog

New J7TC content published

2009-11-03T13:53:00.013Z

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign (J7TC) have recently published three new articles on our campaign website.

Debunking 7/7 Debunking Parts I and II, written by a J7 forum member and campaign supporter, dissects and debunks some of the spurious reasoning and disingenuous attacks against those not convinced by the official story of 7/7.

Read Debunking 7/7 Debunking Part I here and Part II here.

Also, Larry O'Hara and Paul Stott, two of the most virulent anti-truth campaign voices, in their publication 'Notes from The Borderland', were sent a response by J7 to 7/7-related articles printed in NFB issues 7 and 8. We have yet to source a copy of NFB9 to assess how this was received but, if the front cover is anything to go by, we anticipate more of the usual ad hominem smears and baseless accusations from the self-professed 'premier parapolitical publication'.

Our original article 'J7 vs NFB' can be read here.

Rashid Rauf: downright unbelievable

2009-10-08T21:39:00.005Z

Over the summer Ian Cobain of the Guardian gave us a series of articles raising serious questions about the collusion of the British government in torture.

One of the cases highlighted was that of Rashid Rauf who was arrested in Pakistan in August 2006. The official narrative of Rashid Rauf was that he subsequently escaped from the authorities, a narrative greeted with scepticism by Rauf's lawyer who predicted that a few months after the "escape" there would be a report that Rauf had, conveniently, died. Sure enough, a few months later the authorities claimed that Rauf had been killed in a drone strike. The Guardian accurately described this story as "downright unbelievable". It suggested that it was far more likely that Rauf had died in custody as a result of the torture, and that the unbelievable story had been concocted to cover this up.

The Telegraph and Express have come to the government's rescue by assuring us that not only is Rashid Rauf alive and well (and not tortured to death) but, having allegedly masterminded July 7th 2005 and just about every terror plot to have affected Britain in recent years, he is now, according to MI6 no less, as dangerous as Osama bin Laden!

Those who have been following the myth of al-Qaeda carefully will recognise the re-cycling of an old story line, that of al-Zarqawi, who was reported killed on several different occasions, and reported alive again on almost as many.

Craig Murray has given some insight into how MI6 spends large sums of money to obtain the intelligence that sustains this farcical drivel. (If you prefer a more mainstream source, a recent Sunday Times article describes another MI6 man flying around Afghanistan in a helicopter dispensing thousands of dollars in bundles).

Strangely, this waste of money was not targeted in plans for the biggest cuts in public spending for 30 years. The same prospective government is giving a high priority to abolishing our human rights, so perhaps it is not so strange after all.

Martyrdom videos: inconclusive evidence

2009-09-08T18:06:00.012Z

A recently concluded trial, commonly referred to as the "Airline bomb plot", featured as evidence so called martyrdom videos. Excerpts from these are available on the BBC News web site:

Taken at face value, they do suggest that the speakers intended to take their own lives in acts of violence against others. Savant says "I have sacrificed my life", Khan speaks of "shahada" (martyrdom) and Zaman of "jannah" (paradise, the reward for martyrdom).

These videos did not, though, persuade the jury to convict any of these men for conspiracy to murder. More remarkably, this was the second jury which did not believe that the videos constituted sufficient evidence to convict these men. The Daily Telegraph observes that "it indicates that at least three members of each jury chose to believe the men’s defences", namely that they were "simply making a protest 'documentary'".

This has direct relevance to the explosions in London on July 7th 2005. Often it has been asserted that the "martyrdom videos" of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer are conclusive evidence that they were responsible for those explosions. The Official Narrative (published before Tanweer's video) cites Khan's video as evidence of his culpability. Yet in neither video do Khan or Tanweer mention sacrificing their lives or martyrdom. In that respect they are less explicit than the videos referred to above which failed to secure convictions.

The two juries in the "Airline bomb plot" trials have demonstrated that "martyrdom videos" are not decisive evidence of guilt. They are pieces of evidence to be weighed just as all other pieces of evidence must be in order to reach an overall conclusion. They do not automatically trump conflicting evidence. If the weight of conflicting evidence is greater, then a more innocent interpretation must be put upon the videos.

If these "Airline bomb plot" videos with their explicit references to martyrdom are inconclusive, those of Khan and Tanweer cannot be conclusive without corroborating evidence.

War Is A Racket

2009-08-29T11:22:00.004Z

As part of J7's ongoing research into the events of 7 July 2005 and our work on the campaign for a truly independent public inquiry, held outside of the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have discovered many interesting pieces of related information.

One such piece of information is the notable, obscene and undeclared conflict of interests of the chairman of the Review of the Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lord Butler. With the recent announcement of a further Inquiry into the war in Iraq, it is worth reflecting upon this confirmation of the analysis of another Butler that War Is A Racket.

The Kroll company has benefited considerably from the war in Iraq, not least from the British government:

25% of UK Iraq aid budget goes to security firms

· £165m bill includes guards for staff and police training
· Leading beneficiary is company headed by MP

David Pallister
Monday April 2, 2007
The Guardian

The UK has spent £165m on hiring private security companies in Iraq in the past four years - the equivalent to around a quarter of the entire Iraq aid budget, it has emerged. A further £43m has been spent on private guards in Afghanistan since 2004.

The security costs, mainly for guards for British staff and facilities, were revealed in a parliamentary answer from the Foreign Office minister Kim Howells. They reflect the huge quantities of money that Britain and the US have had to divert from humanitarian and reconstruction resources to deal with the deteriorating security environment in both countries.

In Iraq, a total of £145m has been spent on security guards to protect British assets, with a further £20m going on police training and security advisers to the Iraqi government.

Britain's Iraqi aid budget over the same period was £644m.

The big beneficiaries have been the New York-based risk consulting company Kroll and the UK companies ArmorGroup and Control Risks. ArmorGroup, which is headed by the Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, earned 50% of its £129m revenues from Iraq last year.

Source: The Guardian

As part of Kroll, Kroll Security International (KSI) has developed a new security architecture that places your risk management in the context of increasing global insecurity. With an evolving, international capability across a broad spectrum or risks and services, KSI offers a coordinated approach that matches your needs, however they may develop. By working with clients at the outset of the planning phase KSI can provide a holistic strategy, critical in hostile business environments. From a thorough understanding of your risk management needs to creating a dynamic and focused security solution, KSI can take the risk out of your management.

Within Kroll’s portfolio of services, KSI has been actively providing protection and security in Iraq for government agencies and companies involved in the reconstruction. Since April 2003 KSI’s knowledge and understanding of the risks involved in operating in Iraq has resulted in invaluable protection to our clients. The security risk throughout Iraq ranges from very high to high across the country. The deterioration in the security situation throughout Iraq over the past six months has been marked. Various factions are seeking to make Iraq ungovernable by the Iraqi government, with a view to disrupting the pending Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005. Consequently this is impacting on US Presidential elections and precipitating the eventual withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.

The risk is multi-faceted, being both terrorist and criminal in nature. The terrorist aim is to discourage Iraqis from cooperating with the IIG and MNF, through a series of tactics. These include indiscriminate suicide bombings of Iraqi security forces, the assassination of officials and locals deemed to be assisting the interim government and the taking of western hostages with a view to discouraging foreign governments, humanitarian and commercial organisations from participating in stabilisation and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Security is the key to success by generating stability and encouraging inward investment.

KSI, with its wealth of experience of operating in hostile environments, offers a variety of services to create a secure environment in which clients can operate in relative safety. These services range from advisory and security audits, intelligence audits and summaries, risk and project management, hostage and kidnap resolution, emergency medical and evacuation/repatriation, the provision of highly experienced security details and training amongst others. Kroll’s services are tailored to suit client requirements.

Source: Iraq Suppliers

Kroll was acquired in 2004 by MMC (Marsh McLennan Companies):

MMC News

MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE KROLL INC.

$1.9 Billion Transaction Enhances MMC's Position as World's Leading Provider of Risk Services

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, May 18, 2004 - Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Kroll Inc. announced today that MMC will acquire Kroll, the world's leading risk mitigation services firm. The transaction will broaden significantly the range of MMC's risk and insurance services businesses and enhance its leadership position in risk management services.

Source: MMC Press Release

MMC News

MARSH & McLENNAN COMPANIES COMPLETES ACQUISITION OF KROLL INC.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, July 8, 2004 - Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) announced today that it has completed its previously announced acquisition of Kroll Inc., the world's leading risk mitigation services firm.

Source: MMC Press Release

The International Advisory Board of MMC (Marsh McLennan Companies) included:

The Hon. Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO (United Kingdom)
Master, University College, Oxford
Former Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service

Presumably the members of the Advisory Board, including Lord Butler, were consulted about the acquisition of Kroll.

Lord Butler held this position at MMC since at least 2003:

Rt. Hon. Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO
Senior Independent Director

Appointed a Non-Executive Director in 1998. He is the Board’s Senior Independent Director.

Lord Butler is currently Master of University College, Oxford, a Non-Executive Director of HSBC Holdings plc and is a member of the Advisory Panel to the UK Management Group of Marsh & McLennan. He has recently been appointed to chair the Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction. He is also a trustee of the Globe Trust, a trustee of the Rhodes Trust and Chairman of the Churchill Museum Appeal Committee. Aged 66.

Source: ICI Annual Account 2003

The Sunday Times of February 8th 2004 confirms that Lord Butler was paid for his advice to MMC from December 2003:

THE MAN appointed last week to lead the government's inquiry into intelligence on Iraqi weapons is a paid adviser to an insurance company with multi-million pound contracts throughout the Middle East.

Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary who will have access to some of the most up-to-date intelligence as part of his inquiry, accepts there could be a potential conflict of interest. He does not intend to resign, but said yesterday he and the present cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, would review his business contacts after the inquiry is completed.

Butler is a director of ICI and the banking group HSBC, but it is his recent appointment as an adviser to Marsh & McLennan in Britain that could cause most embarrassment. The US-based group is the world's biggest insurance broker and also earns millions of pounds advising companies on international risk and crisis management. Although it has refused to insure businesses in Iraq, it does advise companies hoping to do business there.

Butler accepted the adviser's role in December and notified the House of Lords interests register. Last night he referred inquiries about his business interests to the Cabinet Office. A spokesman said: "Lord Butler is not aware of any conflict of interest at this stage. If a conflict of interest did emerge (he) would discuss with the company how this may be resolved."

Although this article states that the House of Lords interest register was notified, an examination of that register using archive.org shows that his regular remunerated employment from MMC did not appear in that register until 3rd January 2006, and that the date given for the appointment was 13th December 2005. It appears that the information supplied to the register was neither timely nor truthful.

Glen Rangwala also commented upon Lord Butler's paid employment by MMC in an article that appeared in Labour Left Briefing in early 2004 (but is no longer available online):

As even his most devout supporters covered their faces in embarrassment at Blair's confession, a new inquiry was set up. And who better to put in charge than Lord Butler? This was, after all, the man who told the Scott arms-to-Iraq inquiry in 1996 that "half the picture can be true". Blair must be hoping that a tiny corner of the picture can be true as well. In the time since his days of loyally serving Blair as cabinet secretary in 1997, he has been acting as a paid advisor to Marsh & McLennan, the insurance brokers. Their other famous employee is Paul Bremer, chief executive of a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan from October 2001 until he took up his appointment in Baghdad in April 2003. So the man supposedly investigating why Britain went to war on Iraq works for the outfit that provided the person who rules by consequence of that war.

So in 2004 Lord Butler was receiving regular renumerated employment from a company (MMC) with a beneficial financial interest (via Kroll) in the Iraq war.

At the same time, he was chairing a Review of the Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On February 3, 2004, the British Government announced an inquiry into the intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which played a key part in the Government's decision to invade Iraq (as part of the U.S.-led coalition) in 2003.

The committee met in secret and only its conclusions were published on 14 July, 2004.

Source: Wikipedia

When MMC acquired Kroll between 18th May and 8th July 2004, there was a direct conflict between Lord Butler's private interests as a beneficiary of the Iraq war and his role as a public servant reviewing the intelligence relating to that war. Lord Butler never declared this conflict of interest, nor did the government replace him on the review committee because of it, nor did anyone in the media bring this to the attention of the public.

J7 acknowledges the lead given to it by the Kelly Investigation Group for this story.

For more information about Kroll, please see Truth and Justice for Richard Chang.

BBC Conspiracy Files: 7/7 - The view from a non-sceptic of the Official Conspiracy Theory

2009-07-03T10:56:00.012Z

“I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do. There will be some five different Select Committee inquiries into the matter. We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that people—the victims and others—can see exactly what happened.”

-- Tony Blair, 14th December 2005

While it might be expected that those who are pejoratively labelled 7/7 'conspiracy theorists', -- owing to little more than their desire to see what Tony Blair promised as "all the evidence that we have" so that they "can see exactly what happened" -- might take issue with the nature, content and intent of the BBC's Conspiracy Files episode regarding 7/7, there appears to be a general perception that it is only 'conspiracy theorists' who would find the 7/7 episode of the Conspiracy Files objectionable.

This, however, is far from the case, as exemplified by one of the most cogent and coherent comments left on the blog entry of Conspiracy Files producer Mike Rudin where he announced the programme's broadcast.

J7 are in the process of producing our own review of, and response to, the Conspiracy Files episode that we declined to participate in -- a programme that was two years in production and which was still being edited almost up until the time of broadcast. In the meantime, we thoroughly recommend the lucid, concise and highly informative comment made by brynberian on the BBC web site, as reproduced below:

184. At 2:23pm on 02 Jul 2009, brynberian wrote:

I watched The Conspiracy Files programme about the 7/7 bombings on BBC2 on Monday night, and was left disappointed in the standard of journalism therein, and worried by the implications of this lapse in BBC standards.

The series purports to debunk various popular conspiracy theories, in this case the allegations that the 7/7 bombings were carried out not by Islamist suicide bombers as official reports suggest, but by the British Government or Mossad, or both, and that official accounts amount to a cover-up.

I should first point out that I do not personally hold this belief. I dont have access to first hand evidence, but my instinct is that 7/7 was indeed the work of suicide bombers. However I strongly objected to the sloppy manner in which the programme attempted to disprove the conspiracy theory, more akin to political propaganda than investigative journalism.

For a start, when someone levels an accusation against a government, official reports commissioned by that very government cannot constitute evidence for the defence. The evidence needs to come from an independent source. The programme was instead heavily reliant on governmental reports to rebut the claims made by the conspiracy theorists- which weakened its case considerably and made no ground whatsoever in contradicting the allegations. If a source is not trusted, how is more information from that source going to make any difference? It makes no more sense than citing the New Testament as definitive proof to Muslims that Christianity is right. Without independent verification, both parties will simply persist in their mutual mistrust.

Let us suppose (and heaven forbid that this is the case) that the allegations against the government WERE true, that they had orchestrated murder of their own citizens for political gain. In this scenario of course the government would do everything it could to cover its tracks, evidence would be synthesised, false witnesses made to testify, whitewash reports would be produced. We have seen this happening recently in the phony democracies of Iran and Zimbabwe- if our government was as corrupt as these and many similarly unsavoury regimes around the world, such practise would be standard. Therefore, where a governments word is doubted, it is fairly reasonable to assume that cover ups may have taken place. Wed like to think we live in a freer and fairer society than these, yet we can point to many recent instances where our government has been seen to be lying to its people. (We are fortunate indeed to have our relatively free press and media to keep tabs on such things). Regardless of whether these specific allegations are true or false, it is reasonable and objective to question the word of the government. An allegation cannot be refuted simply on the grounds that it dares to do so.

Tony Blairs statement on 7/7 was examined, in particular his seemingly premature claim that those people acted in the name of Islam before any investigation into the atrocity had taken place. What did the programme makers do to reassure us of Blairs innocence? Simply quote the second half of the same sentence; the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.

If a statement is accused of being untrustworthy, how can words taken from later in the same sentence constitute any kind of defence?

It is well known that Blair in office was an expert in the art of rhetoric and spin, and could sell any government action, however unpalatable in reality, with cosy politically correct terms. This was commonly used in support of George Bushs War on Terror- championing freedom, democracy, enlightened Western liberal values, womens rights, keeping the world safe from ideas later proved to be fictitious such as Saddams weapons of mass destruction or his alleged ties with Al-Qaeda through expert media manipulation the minds of the public were kept focussed on these things, not on the civilian slaughter that was being carried out.

That Blair on 7/7 made a speech full of reassuring PC terms is hardly remarkable and does nothing to deflect the valid point that he pinned the blame (whether rightly or wrongly) on Islamists before any evidence had been gathered.

Much was made of a certain internet film 7/7 Ripple Effect, revealing its author (using the pseudonym MuadDib) to believe himself to be Jesus Christ. Another conspiracy theorist, who had pointed out a mistake in the governments version of events (forcing the Home Secretary to revise the time of the train the suicide bomber was supposed to have taken), was revealed in the programme to be a holocaust denier. Examples of anonymous threatening letters that had been sent to various people accused in the film were shown, as well as the revelation that it had been distributed to 7/7 survivors, mosques as well as court houses trying alleged 7/7 accomplices.

The viewer was clearly meant to link scepticism of the governments account of 7/7 with Nazism on the one hand, and quasi-religious insanity on the other, as well as the aggressive psychological intimidation characterised by the threatening letters. The implication being that, to question the governments statements on 7/7 is to ally oneself with such people, to become a dangerous social pariah.

What wasnt mentioned was that 7/7 Ripple Effect is in fact rejected by J7, the July 7 Truth Campaign, the main organisation that affiliates those who question the governments account of the bombings. Their website contains a section entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect- a rebuttal and rejection in which MuadDib is strongly criticised for holding offensive anti-Muslim views as well as his wild claims to be the messiah. The page summarises; J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors.

Why then did The Conspiracy Files, a programme with the veneer of investigative journalism, emphasise the work of a rogue lunatic as the main representation of the 7/7 conspiracy theorists position?

The holocaust denier and the threatening letters were the other main points of identification with the 7/7 sceptics. Again, rogue extremists used to represent a position that for the main part encompasses law-abiding, peaceful and rational people who simply question the governments account of the bombings. It is not objective to characterise a movement by its lunatic fringe- otherwise we would regard all animal lovers as letter bombers, all Labour party members as Stalinists, all Tories as fascists, all Catholic priests as paedophiles.

A cursory glance at the J7 website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html will reveal the attitude of more typical people holding the 7/7 sceptics view. That such people were not represented at all in the Conspiracy Files says much about its objectivity.

The programme reached its climax with the mad old man who uses the name MuadDib being hunted down and confronted, Roger Cook style, by the unseen Conspiracy Files reporter. Why are you bringing the British government into disrepute? he huffily demanded, to a silent response.

A peculiar question, especially now in the wake of the expenses scandal, and almost daily revelations about how the government lied to us on rendition and torture during the Bush/Blair years, not to mention the false WMD claims, and the growing awareness that the evidence on which the case to go to war against Iraq was based was fixed. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself.

As Ive said, I dont personally hold the belief that the 7/7 attacks were government endorsed. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy. But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin.

Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe?

The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully. This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that.

Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate. All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could.

If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed. One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument.

The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism.

BBC2 Conspiracy Files and the Official Conspiracy Theory

2009-06-26T12:16:00.036Z

"Is the Kennedy assassination conspiracy just a lot of hoopla kicked up by "conspiracy buffs"? Most of the independent investigators I have met seem to be serious politically literate people. Their struggle to arrive at the truth is not impelled by a love of conspiracies but by a concern for the political and historic importance of the case. They seek the truth no matter how dirty it might be. That process of confronting the machinations of the national security state is not a conspiracy hobby. It is an essential part of the struggle for democracy."

-- Dr Michael Parenti
from The JFK Assassination, Defending the Gangster State

At 9pm on Tuesday 30th June, we will have the opportunity to watch the BBC's 7/7 Conspiracy Files episode which was delayed due to the retrial of the 3 accused of helping to plan the events in London on 7th July 2005. Despite two trials, which showed for the first time unreleased CCTV and other evidence of these events, the jury found the three accused, Ali, Shakil and Saleem, not guilty of the charges.

Some argued that if the four accused of bombing London were in fact innocent, then their three close friends, Ali Shakil & Saleem, would have challenged the evidence shown and protested that the Official Conspiracy Theory (which, to date, and without any conclusive proof, is all the State's version remains), was false. This is a flawed argument, because if the three knew nothing about the plot, they could hardly argue in their defence that it didn't happen the way we have been told. Yet, while anything other than the official 'narrative' of events is derided as a 'conspiracy theory', it was nothing less than a 'conspiracy theory' which formed the basis of the prosecution's case.

J7 have always maintained that the most dangerous Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorists are those propagated by the State itself, contained within its laws and its actions against those that it chooses to prosecute and imprison, as evidenced in these excerpts from the trial of Ali, Shakil and Saleem:

"In his closing speech to the jury, Henry Blaxland QC, defending Ali, likened the prosecution allegations to the fairy story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

'In the parable, the people are afraid to undermine the status quo by questioning the Emperor,' he said.

'The status of these allegations - the killing of 52 people - put before you with the full weight of the Crown Prosecution Service behind it is such that some of you might have some reticence in saying the simple and obvious thing - that it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is ludicrous.

'The prosecution case is entirely devoid of anything that could be described as reliable evidence and is an exercise in speculation - the prosecution could not decide which way to jump.

'It is straight out of 'Alice through the Looking Glass' when the Queen says to Alice 'you have sentence first, trial later.'

He went on to describe the 'fundamental implausibility' of the theory that Ali, Saleem and Shakil travelled to London seven months before the devastating attacks to scout out possible targets.

He said: 'The prosecution say that the picture that emerges from the phone data is so compelling, but it is strangely quite the contrary.

'The records are positively inconsistent with this.

'Only a hardened conspiracy theorist with an inflexible mindset could squeeze a sinister interpretation out of the phone records.

'They present you with tantalising puzzle and it would be easy for your imagination to get the better of you.'

Andrew Hall QC, representing Sadeer Saleem, told Kingston Crown Court that the case against the three men was

'utterly implausible' and described it as 'a conspiracy theory that the prosecution have been prepared to pursue to the bitter end.'

The Judge in his closing remarks to the jury said:

.. the men claim in their defence they are victims of a 'conspiracy theory without foundation.'

J7 is somewhat dubious as to the ability of the BBC to do justice to the considerable body of evidence which questions the Official Conspiracy Theory (as outlined with little actual evidence in the twice amended official report of the London bombings produced by the Home Office in May 2006) preferring instead to set-up straw men which are easily knocked down. With the participation of Nick Kollerstrom they will also be able to add 'holocaust denial' to the list of reasons why 'conspiracy theorists are dangerous and must be avoided at all costs'. J7's honest, principled and reasoned refusal to participate in this sham of a 'documentary' -- if previous outings of the Conspiracy Files are anything to go -- can be read here.

Will the BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files address, or attempt to answer, any of the following questions:

Will the BBC's Mike Rudin and Tristan Quinn examine the nature of the explosives?

Or 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?

The bombers scattered identity and bank cards around the Tube carriages they targeted before placing their rucksacks on the floor and setting off the explosives inside them, jurors heard.

Source: The Telegraph

Or, how these two women were able to exit the Piccadilly Line train 'within 3 to 4 minutes' whereas the most famous and vociferous survivor of 7/7 Ms Rachel 'North' (who will no doubt make an appearance to castigate those who dare to question these events) claims in her BBC diary: “After about 20 to 30 minutes we started to leave the train.”

Or, why the Metropolitan Police claimed that 3 trains were involved in the Edgware Road incident and that a 'hole was blown through a tunnel wall'?

Or, how the boot of a Nissan Micra:

was able to contain:

Or, how 'Supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar, after undoubtedly coming to the attention of the world's Security Services, was still able to freely travel between the UK and Pakistan to apparently meet with Khan, Khawaja and Khyam.

Or, examine the role played by ex-SBS anti-terrorist operative, Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid in running the Iqra bookshop in Beeston Leeds.

Or, re-interview Richard Jones, an individual given considerable air-time by the BBC, who has given many and varied versions of what he claims to have seen aboard the number 30 bus which means that, at best, he is an extremely unreliable witness. Furthermore, none of his accounts bear any relation to Hasib Hussain.

Or, why no CCTV has been released that shows any of the 4 accused approaching the underground platforms, on the underground platforms or boarding the trains or the number 91 or 30 bus.

One of the released CCTV images of the 4 together leaving KX Thameslink Station (noticeably not the 'iconic' hugging that the Official Conspiracy Theory claims occurred).

Or, why Hasib Hussain would have known his detonator was malfunctioning if he hadn't already boarded a train and attempted to detonate his explosive, thus necessitating a return to King's Cross to purchase a battery.

Or, how young David Foulkes tragically died on a train that had left Edgware Road station, when he should have left the train at Edgware Road station after having arranged to meet a colleague there and, according to his father, travelling the three stops from Euston station.

Or, why Scotland Yard denied the fact of a second controlled explosion on the Number 30 bus.

Or, why none of the drivers of the 3 trains that were involved that day have been interviewed, named or honoured. On the contrary, the driver of the Piccadilly Line train, Tom Nairn, was refused compensation on the grounds that the 'police had no record of him'.

Or, any of the endless list of unanswered questions, anomalies and inconsistencies detailed in the following articles:

Mike Rudin justifies the forthcoming episode of the Conspiracy Files on this basis:

... 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.

We would argue that it is the constant demonisation of the Muslim community, the endless arrests and prosecutions, some for no more than possession of a CD, and the abundance of hideous anti-Muslim propaganda that hinges on the official conspiracy theory about how 7th July 2005 came to be, that really spread 'a highly divisive and damaging message'.

Whatever negative picture the BBC set out to paint of those who question the government about the events of 7/7 -- something we do in precisely the same way that campaigners and activists who challenge the government over the reasoning and justifications for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, ID cards, MP expenses, or indeed any other issue that impacts upon the entire population -- J7 will remain exactly what we say we are, a Truth Campaign.

We have campaigned for the truth about the events of 7th July 2005 for nearly four years, and we will continue to do so until such time as the truth is known. Unless there is evidence in the public domain that proves conclusively the Official Conspiracy Theory, then it remains a conspiracy theory, as outlandish as any other, and we will continue to (in keeping with Henry Blaxland's defence) "question the emperor" even if it does "undermine the status quo".

We leave the last words to Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin, as spoken by lawyer Imran Khan outside the Old Bailey at the end of the Operation Crevice trial.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

The nature of the explosives: from C4 to powdered masala spice

2009-05-17T20:27:00.014Z

On 28 April 2009 Wahid Ali, Mohammed Shakil and Sadeer Saleem were found not guilty of conspiracy to cause explosions at their second trial at Kingston Crown Court. They had been accused of carrying out a hostile reconnaissance of London tourist sites on 16/17 December 2004. BBC2's Newsnight carried a report of the acquittal. Richard Watson claimed that the main charge of the 7/7 bombs was a mixture of concentrated hydrogen peroxide and powdered masala spice. At both the first and the second trial Clifford Todd of the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halsted in Kent had testified that the bombs were made with ground black pepper. However, according to his testimony on 2 May 2008, no pepper residue was detected at any of the four bomb sites.

For about a week after 7 July 2005, media reports, now hard to find, mentioned the military explosives RDX and its plasticised version, C4. With the discovery of an alleged bomb factory at 18, Alexandra Grove in Burley, Leeds and IEDs at Luton Station carpark, the talk turned to TATP, triacetone triperoxide, or HMTD, hexamethylene triperoxide diamine. Official sources were guarded. The Home Office narrative spoke only of home-made explosives while the ISC went only so far as to specify organic peroxides. For more detail, see The Changing Type of Explosives Used.

At the 21/7 trial chapatti flour and pepper were introduced.

The bombs that failed to explode in London on 21 July 2005 were almost identical to the ones that killed 52 people on the transport network two weeks earlier. But why didn't they go off?

Investigators spent many hours examining the devices used on 21 July and comparing them with the 7 July bombs.

There was only one minor difference - the 7/7 bombers mixed ground pepper into the mixture while the gang two weeks later used chapatti flour.

But Dr Stuart Black, an explosives expert who gave evidence at the trial, said that was not the reason the devices failed to explode.
....
Two theories were offered at the trial at Woolwich Crown Court.

The plot's prime mover, Muktar Ibrahim, himself suggested the device would not explode because he had deliberately diluted it with tap water.
....
But the prosecution offered another view.
....
Hydrogen peroxide is well known among experts as a potential bomb ingredient- but only if used in the correct concentration.

Source: BBC

The 21/7 bomb makers failed to achieve the required concentration whereas the 7/7 chemists apparently did.

Given that pepper was mentioned at three trials, it is surprising that Richard Watson neglected to mention that fact when he claimed that the main charge was masala. Web searches have failed to turn up any reference to masala in connection with 7/7. However, the doyenne of J7 researchers found that during the first '7/7 helpers' trial two '7/7 shopping lists', found at 18 Alexandra Grove, had been presented in evidence and released by the Metropolitan Police Service.

There are three occurrences of masala here: masala/citric, masala + citric and masala (15kg).
Citric acid is used as a catalyst in the preparation of HMTD.

There is one mention here: Dews MASALA (Dews = Dewsbury).

Pepper does not appear in these lists and yet was found in the Burley flat.

'Bomb materials' in 7/7 plot flat
Kingston Crown Court heard explosive materials were found scattered in "disarray" across various rooms at 18 Alexandra Grove, Beeston, which the jury heard was the "principle" site for the construction of the bombs detonated on the London transport network.

The jury, who were shown pictures from inside the flat, heard containers of a mixture of black pepper and hydrogen peroxide, used as the main charge for the bombs, were found sitting in the bath and traces of high explosive HMTD were on the cooker in the kitchen.

They also heard that the floor of the lounge in the flat was covered with bags of clothing and other items including heavy-duty gloves, masking tape, a rucksack and containers full of a "brown sludge", which was the pepper and chemical mix.

Empty bags of ground black pepper were found along with ice-cube bags and ice packs in the kitchen, which the court was told were used to keep the devices cool.

And plastic trays containing bicarbonate of soda and citric acid were also discovered.

Source: BBC

This seems to match up with the explosives found in the Nissan Micra at Luton station car park.

Details of July 7 'bomb factory' disclosed
Four intact nail bombs were discovered in a Nissan Micra left at Luton airport [sic], Kingston Crown Court heard, along with four containers of bomb-mixture and four detonators.

Source: The Telegraph

However, the images released by ABC News, accompanying this story on 27 July 2005 show only white explosives. There were no brown sludge bombs at Luton. There were no white mixtures at Alexandra Grove.

The Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police Service has searched several other suspected bomb factories. Traces of explosive were reportedly found at Mohammad Sidique Khan's Dewsbury house and at 111 Chapeltown Road, Leeds.

The sum of £100 million spent on Operation Theseus has failed to establish the nature of the explosives used on 7 July 2005.

Another miscarriage of justice averted by brave jury: Alleged "7/7 helpers" cleared and found Not Guilty

2009-04-28T13:23:00.046Z

"Injustice upon injustice, many others in a similar position || have not been so lucky."
-- Lawyer, Imran Khan

The second trial of the so-called "7/7 helpers" reached its conclusion today. Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, were all cleared of the charges of assisting in 7/7 at Kingston Crown Court. After nearly seven days of deliberation a jury of seven men and five women cleared the 3 accused of helping to plan the events of 7th July 2005.

The not guilty verdict comes as little surprise given the QC for the prosecution, Neil Flewitt, was reduced to admitting that the case centred on purely circumstantial evidence, circumstantial evidence which he alleged created a compelling picture of guilt. Aside from perhaps wondering when circumstantial evidence suddenly become "a compelling picture of guilt", the brave jury appears to have thought the "compelling picture" was far from conclusive.

The prosecution failed to do so much as produce CCTV footage which purported to show the three men on the alleged "hostile reconnaissance mission" and, furthermore, no proof, nor even any evidence, was produced to support the notion that the accused had even been on the underground during the sightseeing visit to London.

Andy Hayman, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police -- who was forced to resign from his senior position with the police ranks after various improprieties came to light about his claiming large amounts of cash in expenses for trips abroad with a woman police sergeant -- said:

"The end of this trial probably represents the last throw of the dice for the police investigation into 7/7. It is extremely frustrating to reach this milestone knowing that people who aided and abetted the murders of 52 innocent people remain at large. || But at the end of that investigation the evidence that could be put before the court was largely circumstantial. That was the only evidence that was found because, perhaps, that was the only evidence there was to be found."

A report on the verdict by the BBC suggests that the decision "raises questions about the evidence gathered in one of the largest investigations ever run by Scotland Yard." In the almost four years that have passed since 7/7, the State has touted a factually inaccurate and twice amended Official Report issued by the Home Office, questionable investigative tactics by the police, and a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on the basis of what was known to be purely circumstantial evidence.

Following the verdicts lawyer Imran Khan issued a statement on behalf of Sadeer Saleem, calling for an inquiry into why the prosecution was brought. J7 fully support Sadeer Saleem's call for an inquiry into why this prosecution was brought. Video below courtesy of the BBC.

J7 also fully supports the demand by the bereaved for fully open and public inquests for the victims to be held immediately, before the new Coroners and Justice bill passes through Parliament.

Reporting restrictions that were imposed on the trial have now been lifted and J7 expect further information to be revealed about the trial proceedings, the events alleged to have occurred on 7/7, and the wealth of links and interconnections between various alleged terror plots and individuals.

When considered in conjunction with the lies told in the ongoing attempts to cover up the hitherto unknown truth about various events in July 2005, including 7/7, 21/7 and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, today's verdict raises yet more questions about the behaviour of the government, police and 'security' services. More recently we have witnessed: The rioting police brutality tactics that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protests, complete with a stream of lies from the police, the IPCC and even the coroners; and the high-profile, armed mass-arrests of 12 Pakistani students against whom the most compelling piece of evidence appeared to be a bag of sugar, all of whom were eventually released without charge and immediately threatened with deportation.

Consequently, one might begin to suspect that the UK has fallen victim to something of a dictatorial State in which any and all members of the general public are guilty, to be held accountable until they can prove themselves innocent, while provably mendacious and guilty public officials are barely even challenged, much less ever justly held to account for their actions.

For updates on the verdict as they happen, please see the J7 People's Investigation Forum thread.

J7 again reiterates its call for an independent public inquiry, to be held outside of the remit of the shameful Inquiries Act 2005, and once again calls on the government and police to Release the Evidence which they continue to claim provides "a compelling picture of guilt" for those that stand accused of being responsible for the events of 7th July 2005.

Please show your support for J7's campaign for truth and justice and sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition.

J7 Exclusive: Interview with political prisoner Hussain Al-Samamra

2009-03-04T00:56:00.010Z

For almost a decade the British government has been engaging in the practice of arbitrarily detaining people, predominantly Muslims, whilst preventing them, and their legal representatives, from knowing exactly what they are accused of doing. The government awarded itself new anti-terror laws and the right to carry out detentions without charge or trial after the September 11th 2001 attacks in the U.S.A. Tony Blair frankly admitted in 2007:

"In the aftermath of such an outrage it was relatively easy to do.

We gave ourselves the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to detain foreign nationals who we believed were plotting terrorism but against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute."

In cases where there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, it logically follows that there is insufficient evidence for for a successful prosecution to occur. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, then it is entirely reasonable to deduce that the allegations are baseless and invalid.

Hussain Al-Samamra is a Jordanian of Palestinian extraction and is one of many individuals who have suffered the torture of this legislation, having arrived in Britain in 2001 and finding himself under arrest twice, in 2004 and 2006. On both occasions being told no more than he was a "threat to national security" yet no charges were brought and no evidence to support the accusations was produced. Hussain spent two years in prison following his second arrest and now lives within the confines of Immigration Bail.

In this exclusive interview, Hussain describes life under the oppressive shadow of being labelled a "terror suspect" without being allowed to know on what evidence, if any, this suspicion is based, thereby making it impossible for him defend himself against any allegations.

Read the full interview with political prisoner Hussain Al-Samamra here.

[Picture above shows a meticulous Andalucian mosque made of matchsticks which took Hussain al-Samamra months to build, as exhibited at CAPTIVATED: The Art of the Interned]

J7 Response to Paul Stott's paper: Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History

2009-01-13T18:24:00.061Z

On 1st September 2008 Paul Stott, via his 9/11 CultWatch blog announced that he, along with Dr. Larry O'Hara, would be presenting papers to the Anarchist Studies Network Conference at Loughborough University. Stott's effort was entitled “Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History”. The following was written in response to Stott's paper, in particular, the following paragraph directly aimed at the July 7th Truth Campaign:

The main body pushing for 7/7 ‘truth’ is the July 7 Truth Campaign which runs the website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/. Given its lineage, it is no surprise that 7/7 truth has been dogged by many of the problems that have effected (sic) the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement. The presence in London on the day of 7/7 of both Israeli politician Benjamin Netanayu and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani, plus the perceived involvement of an “Israeli company” in running security on the London Underground, was a heady brew, leading to all manner of crank theories, although depth is another matter.

Stott fails to enlighten us as to what he understands the 'lineage' of the July 7th Truth Campaign to be. Despite this, it is clear from his paper that what he describes as 'being dogged by many of the problems that have effected (sic) the 9/11 'truth' movement', translates as, 'any mention of Israel or Mossad will be viewed as anti-Semitism'. He also fails to back up his accusation regarding 'all manner of crank theories'. For the record, The July 7 th Truth Campaign choose not to speculate on alternative theories, preferring to focus on the few verifiable facts that exist, while maintaining pressure on the State to present evidence which conclusively proves the 'official conspiracy theory' as outlined in the Home Office narrative. Stott's paper, rather than offer any sort of insightful analysis, has instead exposed his own methodology, a methodology which involves smears, insinuations and unfounded accusations rather than an honest examination and analysis of the facts.

There is only one reason that Israel and Mossad are examined by J7 in connection to the facts of the events in London on 7th July 2005 and that is: we cannot avoid examining these areas if we are to conduct a comprehensive, factual and forensic analysis of these events.

Verint

Stott adds this footnote to the 'Israeli company' running security on the London Underground:

The company concerned, Verint Systems Inc, was appointed in 2004 by Metronet to provide CCTV on parts of the Underground. They are an American company, with headquarters in New York. Truthers suggest it is a subsidiary of Israel's Comverse Technology, and therefore infer Israeli involvement in the attacks.

Verint are in fact a subsidiary of scandal-riven, Comverse Technology, a company started in Israel and with close ties to the Israeli government. This fact can be easily and readily accessed via an impeccable source, the Verint web site, where it states: “Verint is a subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: CMVT).”

Why does Stott choose to claim Verint have no links to Israel?

Furthermore, the business practices of Verint's parent company Comverse, have been some cause for consternation for many, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. As have their operating procedures - Comverse came under scrutiny in a Fox News investigation into the wire-tapping systems provided by the company to the US Government:

'Congress insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.

Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.'

The investigative approach of Stott would seem to dictate that everyone ignore Verint's role in the operation of security systems on the London Underground, purely on the basis that to examine this aspect would be in some way 'anti-Semitic'. Quite clearly, and by their own admission, Verint are indeed linked to the Israeli firm with questionable business practices, Comverse, and Verint were indeed awarded a 'security' contract for the London Underground. Despite the as plain as day evidence existing to sound alarm bells about both the business and financial practices of Comverse, the company of which Verint is a wholly owned subsidiary, this can -- by the same logic Stott presented to the Anarchist Studies Network conference -- be entirely ignored.

A recent Counterpunch investigation into Verint, “How Israeli Backdoor Technology Penetrated the U.S. Government's Telecom System and Compromised National Security” and entitled “An Israeli Trojan Horse” also reveals how any examination of this issue by the CIA or FBI leads to Stott-like accusations of anti-Semitism:

Another anonymous source – a former CIA operative – tells me that U.S. intelligence agents who have aired their concerns about Verint and Amdocs have found themselves attacked from all sides. “Once it’s learned that an individual is doing footwork on this [the Verint/Amdocs question], he or she is typically identified somehow as a troublemaker, an instigator, and is hammered mercilessly,” says the former CIA operative. “Typically, what happens is the individual finds him or herself in a scenario where their retirement is jeopardized – and worse. The fact that if you simply take a look at this question, all of a sudden you’re an Arabist or anti-Semitic – it’s pure baloney, because I will tell you first-hand that people whose heritage lies back in that country have heavily worked this matter. You can’t buy that kind of dedication.”

Verint is by no means the only private company involved in the operation of the London transport system and other such companies are duly highlighted by J7 and afforded similar examination. We also highlight the fact that Transport for London was in the charge of no lesser mortal than the ex-Deputy Assistant to the Director of the CIA, Robert Kiley. Further detail about the private organisations involved in the running of essential public transport services are included in the Private Companies involved in London Transport section of the J7 web site.

It is deeply ironic that, as well as challenging the State in its various guises, challenging the dominance and stranglehold of private organisations on public life was once a core political activity among left-wing and anarchist groupuscules. As was examining the actions and nature of the racist and apartheid State of Israel once possible without the unfounded smear of anti-Semitism.

Binyamin Netanyahu

Another 'fact' that cannot be ignored by J7, or anyone else researching the events of 7th July 2005, is what Stott refers to as the 'presence in London on the day of 7/7 of .. Benjamin Netanyu' (sic). Far from Netanyahu's mere presence in London being of concern, the reason Netanyahu features in our analysis at all is as a direct consequence of it being claimed that he received a warning prior to the attacks.

The facts are that Netanyahu was due to attend the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange / Deutsche Bank Conference in the Great Eastern Hotel in Liverpool Street station (the site of the first explosion) but a prior warning (later denied by Scotland Yard) meant he remained in his hotel in Russell Square, close to the sites of two further explosions.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.”

Furthermore, the same article also notes:

"The Israeli Embassy were quick to deny that this conference could have been the target for such an attack. Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks."

Some questions worth asking, irrespective of whether an Independent Public Inquiry, outside of the pernicious Inquiries Act 2005, is ever held to investigate the events of 7/7:

Was the Israeli Embassy issued a warning prior to the attacks?
If so, who issued the warning?
How did the Israeli Embassy know that this conference was not the target for such an attack?
If the Israeli Embassy did not receive prior warning, how did the story about notification come to be, where did the idea that Israel was the target originate, and which “Israeli official” denied this to be the case?

If anyone were to take Stott's article seriously, possible foreknowledge and forewarnings about 7/7 which had the potential to save the lives of innocent commuters should be ignored and nobody should be asking or demanding answers to questions such as those listed above.

Ex-Mossad Chief, Efraim Halevi

Another Israeli/Mossad connection which cannot be ignored is the article by ex-Mossad Chief Efraim Halevi published on the day and ominously titled, "Rules of Conflict for a World War", in which he presciently announced:

The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.

There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.

It is impossible to know how Halevi was able to claim 'near-perfect execution' on the day, particularly when the timings of the blasts were being reported as anything but simultaneous, but instead taking place over the course of an hour. The last MPS press release issued at 19.15 on the day of 7/7 claimed:

"There follows an outline of this morning's events:

At 08.51 on 7 July at Liverpool Street Station there was an explosion in a train carriage 100 yards into the (Liverpool Street-bound station) tunnel.

At 08.56 there was another incident at King's Cross / Russell Square. Both stations were used to bring out casualties.

At 09.17 there was an explosion on a train coming into Edgware Road underground station approximately 100 yards into the tunnel. This explosion blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform.

Three trains are believed to have been involved.

At 09.47 there was an explosion on a bus at Upper Woburn Square junction with Tavistock Place.

It wasn't until a press conference held two days later, on 9th July 2005, that Tim O'Toole claimed the underground explosions happened "almost simultaneously", within 50 seconds of each other at approx. 8.50am. Oddly, recently released CCTV from Liverpool Street purporting to show the explosion is time-stamped 07.46.58, over an hour before the alleged and revised timings of the explosions.

In March 2005 Halevi, a senior adviser to the US Middle East Project Inc., had been appointed to the Advisory Board of Quest, a UK based Risk Management and Investigation company. The Chairman of Quest is Sir John Stevens, ex-Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Stevens was also the first person to declare in his column for the News of The World on 10th July 2005 that the 7/7 attacks were carried out by British citizens, some two days before the first raids were carried out by police in West Yorkshire. In his News of the World article, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who retired as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in January 2005 and whose tenure would have overseen the Operation Crevice investigation and its alleged connections to the alleged 7/7 bombers, described the likely suspects as:

"apparently-ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics," "They are also willing to kill without mercy - and to take a long time in their planning. They are painstaking, cautious, clever and very sophisticated."

-- Sir John Stevens, 10th July 2005, News Of the World

Furthermore, to ignore the history of what are now well-documented false-flag operations, and to ignore Mossad's previous roles in 'false-flag' operations in the UK would be little short of foolish.

In 1988, 28 year old Ismael Sowan, a research assistant at Humberside College of Higher Education, was discovered by British police to be in possession of a large quantity of arms and explosives. Sowan was working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. Mossad's plan was that Sowan would let off bombs in Britain that would leave sufficient forensic clues to suggest that they were the work of Moslem countries and thus damage Anglo-Arab relations. Sowan had been run by a five man Mossad team operating in Britain under the cover of a private company with the tacit approval of the Foreign Office and MI5. After the discoveries by the police the Foreign Office felt it had to ask the Mossad team to leave the country.

It would appear to be of no concern to Stott that Halevi and Stevens seem to have been several steps ahead of both the police investigation and the unfolding official narrative. J7, however, feel that such items warrant far greater investigation than Stott's instant dismissal.

Rudy Giuliani

Along with dismissing the presence in London of Netanyahu as unworthy of further investigation, Stott would rather ignore the presence of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, in charge at the time of the 11th September 2001 attacks, who happened to be at Liverpool Street that day. Not only was Giuliani in Liverpool Street but he also claims he was told immediately that the explosions were caused by bombs. The first news about explosions on the underground broke at 09:17 for lesser mortals than Rudy, including those travelling on London's public transport system, and even then the explosions were only claimed to be the product of 'power surges':

"I was right near Liverpool [Street] Station when the first bomb went off and was notified of it and it was just to me very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place."

Giuliani happened to be fresh from a speech he had given, in return for the princely sum of £50,000, about the 'battle against terrorism' and his admiration for Blair and Bush to the LGA conference in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, just the day before, in which he claimed:

"... terrorists were too often released in the past by governments because they were afraid of them, comparing it to the mistakes made in the 1930s over Hitler.

"I think their determined response to it, against public opinion very often, has helped keep us safe and I think if they had been more typical of some of our politicians, they would have shifted because of public opinion which would have been disastrous." He added: "I have great respect for their setting a very determined policy as regard to terrorism, sticking with it when it became unpopular and I credit the fact we have been able to reduce terrorism to what they have done."

Outlining his views on the common enemy in 2006 and warning of another attack on America, Giuliani stated:

"You cannot negotiate with them. These are not people — they have demonstrated to us that they despise us. They hate us. They want to kill us. And they want to kill us because we're a modern society. They want to kill us because we give women rights. They want to kill us because we have freedom of religion. They want to kill us because we have elected officials. They want to kill us because we're modern and we can't give that up.”

Wayne Barrett, one of America's great investigative journalists, depicts Giuliani as a cruel, unstable, destructive hypocrite, a man judged by the press to be barely human and inwardly empty. Barrett also investigated Giuliani's business links to Qatar, and in particular, to Qatari Interior Minister, Sheikh Abdullah (Abdallah) bin Khalid Al Thani and thus, Al-Jazeera. Barrett writes:

Abdallah al-Thani remains a named defendant in the 9/11 lawsuits that are still proceeding in Manhattan federal court, but his Washington lawyers declined to address the charges that he shielded KSM, insisting only that he never "supported" any "terrorist acts." Asked if Abdallah al-Thani ever supported any terrorists rather than their acts, his lawyer David Nachman declined to comment further. The Congressional Research Service report summarized the evidence against him: "According to the 9/11 Commission Report and former U.S. government officials, royal family member and current Qatari Interior Minister, Sheikh Abdullah (Abdallah) bin Khalid Al Thani, provided safe harbor and assistance to Al Qaeda leaders during the 1990s," including KSM.

In the same article Barrett also mentions Ali Soufan:

Peter Boyer, whose New Yorker profile of Giuliani appeared this August, quoted D'Amuro and Giuliani about the expertise and work of Ali Soufan, an Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American who also left the FBI to become the international director of Giuliani Security. Both D'Amuro and Giuliani said that Soufan, the lead investigator in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, had been spending "most of his time" in a Persian Gulf country that is a Giuliani client. Boyer didn't identify the country, but another source familiar with Soufan's assignment has confirmed that Soufan has, until recently, been based in Qatar. "The firm has helped the country with training, and with a revamping of its security infrastructure," Boyer wrote. "The locale is an ideal listening post for someone whose expertise is unraveling the tangle of international terror."

Ali Soufan was an FBI agent, accused of entrapment in this sting operation:

Sabir's defense lawyer has cried entrapment. The accused himself later testified he had no idea that the Sheik Osama he was heard pledging his loyalty to was the Qaeda terror chief named bin Laden. But the musician, an accomplished jazz bassist named Tarik Shah who once played with the Duke Ellington Orchestra, has already pleaded guilty to a terror-related charge. So have two other men in the case, a Washington, D.C., cabdriver and a Brooklyn bookstore owner. The FBI counts the case as one more victory in what it considers to be its top-priority mission: finding would-be terrorists before they can carry out their plans.

....

Soufan called the deception a “proactive counter-terrorism operation,” designed, he told the court, “to reach out to individuals who wanted to be Al Qaeda members, make them believe that they actually get their goals in reaching Al Qaeda, and then we stop them before they hurt people.”

This trial has been heard twice and on both occasions the jury have failed to convict. The U.S. administration is now attempting a third re-trial and will presumably continue retrying until such time as it receives the politically expedient verdict it desires. If at first you don't succeed, trial, trial again.

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani continues to face legitimate opposition from the working class in the form of the International Association of Fire Fighters which is taking him to task for “the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11.”

Conclusion

While the likes of Stott and O'Hara, along with their Notes from the Borderland and 9/11 CultWatch efforts, will happily devote their time to hunting down alleged 'cultists', real players wielding real powers using real deceptions and with real contacts to the real powers that be, are able to manoeuvre, often-times in full public view, safe in the knowledge that they will continue to be ignored by those who profess to offer radical views and radical politics. After all, States don't use terrorism, assassination, mass murder and war against innocent civilians often in the name of National Security and protecting their National interests do they? To believe they do might earn you the label 'Conspiracy Theorist'. Additionally, why would anyone chance being accused of anti-Semitism by pointing out that amongst the main beneficiaries of the events in London on 7th July 2005 have been the burgeoning police state in the UK, the profitable and ever expanding 'security businesses' and the illegal, racist and apartheid state of Israel. The Ummah pejoratively referred to by Stott in his presentation, however, has not benefited in any way from these attacks.

Whether or not the left, radical or otherwise, and anarchists alike choose at some stage to recognise that they have been reduced to parroting variants of the official State-sanctioned doctrine of the US/UK alliance 'War of Terror' remains to be seen. If Stott's paper, Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History, is in any way indicative of the positions held by Notes from the Borderland, Class War, the left, anarchists, or any other group, then the outlook is very bleak indeed.

Whilst J7 have no links to any 9/11 truth movement, we do believe that these seminal events require open-minded research and analysis. We are also aware that some spokespeople and proponents for 7/7 and 9/11 truth hold some esoteric, offensive and frankly bizarre views on the way the world works. We would argue that this is the very reason why events such as 9/11 and 7/7 must be understood in their correct historic and political context, something that the so-called left have so far failed to incorporate into their political analyses beyond the official narrative of events.

Cui Bono? Who benefits? Who is really in favour of 'half-truths'? Who watches the CultWatchers?

From this brief critique of Stott's paper the evidence would seem to favour the notion that it is certain self-styled 'cult-watchers' and the authors of Britain's self-styled “premier parapolitical investigative magazine” who, with particular reference to the events of 7/7 and the means and methods of the July 7th Truth Campaign, are the principle proponents of half-truths.

Release the Evidence Petition: an update

2008-12-09T22:13:00.012Z

J7 launched a petition to the British government to "Release the Evidence" to conclusively prove its Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, because the Official Report had been proven to be inaccurate and because the evidence in the public domain was so very limited, particularly in respect of CCTV images.

J7 has since submitted many requests to public bodies in order to obtain more evidence, most of which have been turned down. A common response has been that the evidence cannot be released because that would prejudice any trials in connection with the events in London on 7th July 2005.

Earlier this year, three men were tried on charges of assisting those alleged, but not yet proven, to have carried out the 'London bombings'. During that trial more evidence was indeed released into the public domain, but it was very limited and if anything raised more questions than it answered.

At the trial, it was claimed that the ID of the 'bombers' was not found at the expected locations, indicating that the ID had been deliberately scattered by means other than the explosions. The only images released were of rail cards and tickets (some expired) in the name of Tyrone Smith, with the photograph detached from the card. These were claimed to be of Lindsay, but all accounts of the Piccadilly train agree that it was so crowded that it would have been physically impossible for Lindsay to have scattered his ID around the carriage.

It was also claimed that the 'bombers' were not wearing the rucksacks, but had placed them upon the floor before detonating them. Again, this would hardly seem possible on the crowded Piccadilly train.

The CCTV images released were far from complete.

The image of Tanweer looking directly at the camera at Woodall Services was not released, nor were any of him arguing with the cashier over change, both of which are mentioned in the Official Narrative.

No images of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay have been released later than 0826 at Kings Cross Thameslink. None show them at Kings Cross Mainline or in any part of the Underground. The images of the four suspects parting after hugging each other euphorically, mentioned in the Official Narrative, have not been released.

The only images of Hussain at Kings Cross Mainline show him in shops or on the concourse. There is no image of him purchasing a battery, as claimed by the Official Narrative. None show him in the Underground, and none show him boarding or travelling on any bus.

The images which show the explosions do so only indirectly, limited mostly to showing the expansion of dust, smoke and the flying debris that resulted from the explosions and the reactions of people who were a fair distance from the explosions and who themselves only had a slim chance of directly seeing the explosions. Furthermore the timestamps on those images do not correspond to the times of the explosions given in the Official Narrative (even after allowing for British Summer Time), for example 0746 when the Official Narrative states between 0850 and 0855:

The Official Narrative cites witnesses who saw two of the men fiddling with their rucksacks (presumably Richard Jones and Danny Biddle), but these witnesses were not called upon to give evidence upon oath at the trial of those accused of helping the suspects.

J7 has published an update to its petition to acknowledge that there is now more evidence in the public domain (as a result of this trial). Because the evidence released is still far from sufficient to prove the Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, we are renewing our call upon the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE.

The Miracle of Carriage 346

2008-07-05T17:30:00.008Z

On Monday, the third anniversary of the July 7th attacks in London, Channel 4 will be broadcasting a documentary titled "The Miracle of Carriage 346".

There are indeed some miraculous stories contained within the film, and there can be no denigration of the trauma suffered by those involved and the fortitude that so many have displayed – particularly Gill Hicks, whose courage and inspirational strength of character can only engender admiration.

However, one of biggest 'miracles' of this documentary, which will no doubt not feature in the programme, is that the programme researchers have managed to create a film about a carriage which was not only not bombed on July 7th 2005 but was not part of any affected train at all.

The number 346 seems to have originated with a 2005 article by Mark Townsend for the Guardian, the headline of which was, "Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A"

A response to an FOI request by J7 to Transport For London, however, stated that "There is not a carriage 346A."

Clive Feather wrote,

"The Piccadilly Line train consisted of the following vehicles:

166-566-366-417-617-217

Car 166 was the one holding the bomb.”

Carriage 346A is, in fact, an impossible carriage:

"A note on Piccadilly Line 1973 Tube Stock car numbering.

Each car has four axles labelled A, B, C, D. Each car has an A end and a D end. The couplings at the A end are different from the couplings at the D end. Cars can only couple A to D. Three cars couple to form a half train.

For example, 146-546-346. 146 is the A car of the half train. 346 is the D car.

A full train would be: 146-546-346-4xx-6xx-2xx where xx is odd.

346 would be the third or fourth carriage from the front, depending on which way the train was going.

The consist of train 331 was 166-566-366-417-617-217.

417 is an A car and 217 is a D car. It is the other way round for odd numbers.

The Tubeprune informs me that:

"Unit 166-566-366 was severly damaged, 366 is probably the only possible survivor but it has no other cars to work with at this time."

Car 346 is still tootling up and down the Piccadilly line."

346 without the attached ‘A’ conceivably exists and indeed is probably still now employed on a train on the Piccadilly Line.

To frame an entire documentary around a carriage number which is not the correct one is sloppy journalism at best. Channel 4 have clearly realised their error, for they have since placed a disclaimer on the documentary page:

"It was reported that it was Carriage 346 at the time. However, there has been some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage when the bombing took place."

Source: Channel 4

To amend their originally published article to add that there is "some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage" is a somewhat disingenuous and misleading angle. Any dispute of the carriage number originates not in "some circles" on a whim but with the facts of the matter such as they have been confirmed to be with Transport for London, the body responsible for the running of the tube.

When making a factual film about an actual event into which there has never been a cohesive, coherent independent inquiry, an event which caused loss of life in London on a scale not seen since the Luftwaffe Raids and from which the survivors and bereaved are still having to fight for compensation three years later, establishing the rudimentary facts first is the barest minimum that the victims, the injured and bereaved, and the programme's audience deserve.

Where did the non-existent carriage number 346a originate?
Who gave Mark Townsend this information that no journalist thereafter apparently bothered to double-check?
Why is the myth of Piccadilly Line carriage 346a still perpetuated despite confirmation from Transport for London that "There is not a carriage 346A."?

Secret Inquests and Inquiries - The proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill

2008-06-06T10:57:00.010Z

The Counter–Terrorism Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on the 24 January 2008 and contains a number of provisions which the Government claim are designed to enhance counter-terrorism powers.

Secret Inquests and inquiries

Recent headlines have abounded with regard to the 42 day pre-charge detention proposals, however there has been scant coverage of other specific proposals contained within part 6 of the proposed Bill (Clauses 64 to 67) dealing with (secret) inquests and inquiries.

Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary explained, in a letter dated 21 January 2008, why the changes to the coroners’ inquest system in England and Wales were required: in order to comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The incompatibility of the present coroners' inquest system with Article 2 of the ECHR arose when Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker stated that, in the inquest into the murder of Azelle Rodney, he could not properly discharge his duties and that consequently his ruling would not comply with the obligations enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Azelle Rodney

Azelle Rodney was shot dead in 'an operation' by the Metropolitan Police on 30 April 2005, less than 3 months before the deaths of the July 7th victims and the extra-judicial State execution Jean Charles de Menezes.

The proposals within this new legislation include the following changes to the current system of inquests and inquiries:

Inquests without a jury &/or family members

Inquest without jury

Clause 64 would insert a new section 8A into the Coroners Act 1988 and would enable the Secretary of State to certify, in relation to an inquest, that in her opinion, the inquest would involve the consideration of material that should not be made public:

• in the interests of national security
• in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country or
• otherwise in the public interest.

The certification could be made in respect of an inquest which had not yet started or at any time before an inquest was concluded. The effect of such a certificate would be that the inquest would be held without a jury (and any jury already summoned would be discharged). The Secretary of State would have power to revoke a certificate at any time before the conclusion of the inquest.

Inquests led by a government selected coroner

Specially appointed coroners

Clause 65 would insert new sections 18A to 18C into the Coroners Act 1988 and would enable the Secretary of State to appoint a “specially appointed coroner” to hold an inquest which is the subject of a certificate under section 8A, instead of the coroner who would otherwise have jurisdiction.

The use of intercept evidence

Intercept evidence
a. Inquiries

Clause 66 would amend section 18(7)© of RIPA [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000] to allow disclosure of intercept material to a person appointed as counsel to an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005, in addition to the panel of an inquiry.

b. Inquests

Clause 67 would also further amend section 18(7)© of RIPA, in this case to allow disclosure of intercept material to a coroner or to a person appointed as counsel to an inquest...

The cross-party UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (on page 8 of their report of 30th January 2008) described the above proposals as "an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK’s ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 ECHR to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents.

Readers are reminded that, nearly three years on, all the inquests relating to the victims of the events of July 7th 2005 have yet to take place.

Comments are welcomed as to why an inquest into a 7/7 victim should be subject to unwarranted State interference. Why and how would 'National Security' be compromised in such an inquest? At least one reason might be that the government July 7th narrative would not then stand up to the scrutiny it so richly deserves.

Is the government legislating itself the right to indulge in further malfeasance?

Further background information and research on this subject by the J7 collective is here.

Mind (Plug?) the Gaps

2008-04-22T22:46:00.009Z

Following the selection of the jury of 12 from 150 potential jurors, and some technical hitches the trial of R v Waheed Ali (aka Shipon Ullah), Sadeer Saleem & Mohammed Shakil at Kingston Crown Court began. The three men are accused of one charge of conspiring with the four bombers and others unknown to cause explosions between Nov 17, 2004 and July 8, 2005.

Reports emerged (BBC & Telegraph) at lunchtime on 10th April 2008 of CCTV footage from the 7th July 2005 being shown in court. The Guardian report of 10th April failed to mention CCTV, however as noted here, the fullest account of the CCTV shown in court was provided by Rachel "North" in her blog post on the evening of 10th April.

The next morning J7 submitted a FOI request to the Metropolitan Police to determine if the CCTV evidence material shown in court would be made available for public scrutiny. After all there is, to date, no CCTV or photographic evidence in the public domain showing the 4 accused in London on 7th July 2005.

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:42 AM
From J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To Neil Smith
Subject Release of 7/7 CCTV footage under FOI

Dear Mr Smith

Now that the CCTV footage from 7th July 2005 has been shown during the current trial in Kingston Crown Court can we be assured that this footage will now be released and made available to the public?

As you are undoubtedly aware, the July 7th Truth Campaign has been very concerned over the lack of evidence in the public domain since the events in London on 7/7.

Regards,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Ten days later we received a response (emphasis added):

21st April 2008

Dear J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

As you know the 7/7 trial is ongoing. It would be premature for me to release further footage under FOIA at this stage, but I feel sure that more material will become available once the trial is over.

We understand your organisation's concerns as to the lack of evidence in the public domain pre-trial. The UK judicial system demands that all accused receive a fair trial. If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence'. At trial, that 'evidence' may or may not be established. All the authorities, including the Police, are bound to respect the needs of the Court, therefore release of evidence pre-trial has to be subject to strict limitations. 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.

Regards,

Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
SO15 (Counter Terrorism Command)

While the response did not directly answer the question we submitted, whether the footage shown in court will be released and made available to the public, we have been told that [possibly] more material will become available once the trial is over. (Off the shelf Panorama programmes at the ready?)

Regarding the statement that 'If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence' - is that not what has happened in court, directed by the prosecution, without the scrutiny of the media/public at large?

Whether any media organisations are interested enough to demand the release of any of the CCTV evidence shown in court, remains to be seen. On 9th April, the Metropolitan Police released a statement to the media:

'During the trial the media may apply for material which has been relied upon by the Crown as part of its prosecution. The request will be considered by prosecuting Counsel, Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service.

Defence counsel will be advised of the request and will have the opportunity to raise any issues with the judge, who will make a final decision on whether the material can be released.

Whether any applications have been made and/or refused remains to be seen, however to date no CCTV footage has been released to the general public, nor have any additional still photos been publicly released.

Note the acknowledgement from Detective Inspector Neil Smith of Counter Terrorism Command that J7's scrutiny of the official account, and our ongoing Freedom of Information requests endeavouring to establish the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005, are "drawing attention to some issues in the official account which require clarification" and such queries are "seen as helpful rather than inconvenient".

To date J7 have submitted many FOI requests to the Metropolitan Police with limited success in terms of requests that have resulted in the disclosure of useful information. It would be infinitely more helpful if requests for information were met with the release of the information being requested.

We would like to see the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Judge/judicial system being 'helpful' to the British Public by releasing the CCTV evidence.

J7 looks forward to the release of the CCTV footage shown during the trial, and to any other evidence material, in order that further scrutiny can be carried out and the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005 can be coherently established.

Latest J7 article published - Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

2008-04-14T23:10:00.006Z

Capitalising on Terror: Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

Imagine a day in your life – of no particular value purely due to its sheer availability and mass quantity. Then imagine it was the last day you knew freedom.....

Imagine how it feels to stumble blindly through a closed 'court' process, unable to speak to the person who has the luxury of knowing what you don't; the grounds on which you've been taken away from everything that you knew, whilst the judge sits sighing, having the privilege of knowing exactly what the outcome will be. Imagine being arrested and thrown into jail in one country because another country has demanded your presence, conferring 'suspect' status upon you immediately. Imagine how it would feel to sit alone in a small cell day after day and year after year, knowing that you don't even have the option or means to prove your innocence beyond doubt because there is “insufficient evidence” to charge you with a crime – and because of this, knowing that the general assumption is likely to be that 'there's no smoke without fire'. Especially when there's a 'war on terror' to win.

This is the reality facing hundreds of innocent Muslims in the UK; a reality constantly ignored by the British media, especially in the current season of terror.

"The most elementary requirement of legal certainty demands that you know the case against you. And yet considerable numbers of young men, and some women, are being held in our prisons without any idea of why they are there. They are detained under yet more provisions, for the present deemed lawful, which either forbid or demand no meaningful explanation being given to the accused. The concept of secret evidence and accusations so vague and undefined as to be meaningless has now bedded down in our system of justice."

Gareth Peirce, human rights lawyer, December 2007

In September 2006, Tony Blair described the “global struggle against terrorism” as being “without mercy or limit”......to see how merciless and limitless government oppression against Muslims - and potentially any of us - can be, read the latest J7 article here.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign March 2008 Update

2008-03-31T11:09:00.003Z

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have issued their March 2008 update.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign March 2008 Update

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,

In the slightly tardy J7 March 2008 update: Details of two new articles on the J7 site covering the results of the 7/7 investigation, including details of the recent conviction of Khalid Khaliq and the launch of the FREE KHALID KHALIQ campaign; the overturning of the ‘Bradford 5’ convictions; a J7 petition update; and further expressions of J7 support and solidarity with other campaigns and activist groups.

THREE YEARS OF 7/7 INVESTIGATION - 7 ARRESTS, 3 CHARGES
============================================================
J7 are pleased to announce the publication of two new articles covering the results of nearly three years of the police 7/7 investigation, the arrests made and the charges brought. The official Home Office narrative claimed that the four alleged suicide bombers acted alone in the financing and execution of the attacks, yet seven people have been arrested in connection with the events of 7/7. Of these, charges have been brought against three people. With the trials starting in early April of the alleged 7/7 co-conspirators that the Home Office report claims didn’t exist, now is the time to get informed:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-article-the-7-7-investigation-7-arrests-part-1.html

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-article-the-7-7-investigation-7-arrests-part-2.html

J7 LAUNCH FREE KHALID KHALIQ CAMPAIGN
============================================================
In July 2005 Khalid Khaliq came forward to voluntarily to assist with the 7/7 investigation. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday March 11th 2008 Khaliq, 34, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison for possession of information that is freely available from an American website set up by the US Ministry of Justice. Khaliq stated in court that the disc "had been brought to his home by "others", whom he refused to identify." Furthermore, it appears Khaliq had not even viewed the material on the disc. The court heard how the CD had originally been produced in the Iqra learning centre and it is common knowledge that CD and DVD production, along with other IT issues at the Iqra, were undertaken not by a Muslim but instead by a jobbing former Hells Angel and "IT man", Martin Gilbertson. Full details in another new article, Justice Defiled - the conviction of Khalid Khaliq, on the J7 blog:

http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2008/03/justice-defiled-conviction-of-khalid.html

‘BRADFORD 5’ THOUGHTCRIME CONVICTIONS OVERTURNED
============================================================
The convictions of four Bradford University students, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Ahmed Malik, and Akbar Butt and a London schoolboy, Mohammed Irfan Raja have been overturned in a landmark appeal court ruling. The accused, described ‘impartially’ by the judge as "intoxicated" by radical Islamist propaganda originally received sentences ranging from 27 months to three years for what lawyer Imran Khan called "thought crime". Within weeks this ruling was overturned and the accused were freed. The Crown Prosecution Service is not challenging the appeal court actions of the Lord Chief Justice claiming it did "not see any necessity to clarify a point of law". For further details please see the J7 People’s Inquiry Forum thread:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=1773

J7: RELEASE THE EVIDENCE PETITION
============================================================
The J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition has raced past 2,000 signature mark, exceeding signatories to the official Downing Street web site petition for a Public Inquiry by a factor of four. The petition has already been signed by some notable individuals and organisations including the Patrick Finucane Centre and representatives from the Omagh Support & Self Help Group. If you’ve already signed the J7 Petition, thank you. If you haven’t signed the J7 Petition yet please do so here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/

J7 SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY
============================================================
J7 expresses support for and solidarity with the Patrick Finucane Centre and the Omagh Support & Self Help Group. J7 also supports the Truth and Justice for Richard Chang Campaign.

http://www.patfinucanecentre.org
http://www.omaghbomb.co.uk
http://www.justice4richard.co.uk

Here ends the J7 update for March 2008. We’ll be in touch again soon.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team
--
Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth
Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh
MySpace: http://myspace.com/j7truth
Email: julyseventh@fastmail.net

Justice Defiled - the conviction of Khalid Khaliq

2008-03-12T21:56:00.023Z

Despite reports that Khalid Khaliq denied the three charges which had been laid against him in May 2007, and had not entered a formal plea at his court appearance in August 2007, on the 10th of March 2008, Khalid Khaliq pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a document or record containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. This was the possession of a CD containing an ‘al-Qa’ida training manual’, which was reportedly found in his "family home" in July 2005. The further charge of possession of information likely to be useful for terrorism - a book entitled "Zaad-e-Mujahid" ("Essential Provision of the Mujahid"), which had reportedly been found in the raid on Khaliq’s property in May 2007 was ordered to be laid on file and the judge ordered that Khaliq be found not guilty of the third charge; possessing a book entitled "The Absent Obligation -- and Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula".

On Tuesday March 11th 2008 Khaliq, 34, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison.

Prosecutor David Farrell QC told the court the al-Qaeda training manual included a declaration of Jihad, an interview with Osama bin Laden and information about weapons and how to deal with being interviewed by police.

Source: BBC News

A report in the Yorkshire Evening Post also described the contents of the manual, which differ slightly from the above:

Khalid Khaliq, 34, admitted owning a CD containing techniques on assassination, espionage, torture and interrogation after it was found at his home in Tempest Road, Beeston, Leeds.

The court heard how the CD had originally been in Iqra learning centre and bookshop on Bude Terrace, of which Khaliq was a trustee, but was moved from there to his home nearby after the attack. The court also heard how material on the disc had been downloaded from an American website set up by the US Ministry of Justice following a trial in 2002.

Judge James Stewart criticised the decision to put the material on the internet. He said: "It is like putting pornography on a website when a man is accused of possessing or creating it."

Although Khaliq was in possession of the disc he had never actually downloaded the information onto his home computer. Khaliq claimed he didn't know its content.

Source: Yorkshire Evening Post

Who moved the CD from the Iqra to Khaliq’s house? According to a Daily Mail report, Khaliq had stated that the disc "had been brought to his home by "others", whom he refused to identify."

With regard to the unidentified "others" to whom Khaliq refers, it is common knowledge that CD and DVD production, along with other IT issues at the Iqra bookshop, were undertaken not by a Muslim but instead by a former Hells Angel and " IT man", Martin Gilbertson (pictured left). In interviews given to the media Gilbertson speaks of "the amount of time I spent editing" what newspapers described as "horror DVDs" between 2001 and 2004. Gilbertson happened to be working alongside a former elite Special Boat Service "anti-terrorist" operative, one Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid (pictured right) who, for some reason, "asked for high-security encryption for their computer systems so it would be hard even for government agencies to access e-mails." Quite why an ex-SBS operative might want to hide data from government agencies has never been revealed.

The Mail also reported how the judge, James Stewart, had said it was "extraordinary" that the American Department of Justice had seen fit to publish the terrorist booklet on the internet:

Officials took the precaution of removing a section on "bomb-making" but they allowed chapters on espionage, assassinations, torture and interrogation to remain, Leeds Crown Court was told.

The manual had been published on the U.S. site as part of the transcript of a 2001 terror trial under a freedom of information policy.

Source: Daily Mail

The irony of material on the CD being uploaded to the internet by the US government under the terms of 'freedom of information' and then deemed illegal to possess in this country is self-evident. It is also worth noting that in a 2005 article by Duncan Campbell; ‘The Ricin Ring That Never Was’ describes how an attempt was made to introduce an ‘al-Qa’ida training manual’ into the case:

The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an "al-Qaida manual" into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn't an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act.

Source: The Guardian

Additionally, oddly enough, the CIA produced 'Freedom Fighter’s Manual', which includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination and the CIA produced 'Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual' which teaches how to torture people are both perfectly legal to download, possess and distribute. Are we to conclude that manuals teaching torture, assassination and interrogation are only acceptable when produced by the US, and only 'useful to terrorists' when in the possession of Muslims?

Worth factoring into the consideration are the words of the Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Washington, Guido Giacomo Preparata, who, on page 21 of his book Conjuring Hitler - How Britain and America made the Third Reich writes of "the recent lurking 'threat' of Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda - a true 'Godsend' for America's imperial establishment", further noting, "As known, the evanescent Bin Laden and his lieutenants are from the start an invention of the CIA."

Moreover, less than a month prior to this trial, on February 13th 2008, five young men were freed on appeal having been convicted of very similar charges, including charges of possessing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. When quashing the convictions, the Lord Chief Justice said there was no proof of terrorist intent:

Lord Phillips said that while the men had downloaded such material, he doubted if there was evidence this was in relation to planning terrorist acts.

He said the prosecution had attempted to use the law for a purpose for which it was not intended.

Source: BBC News

Khalid Khaliq had come forward voluntarily to assist with the 7/7 investigation in Beeston in July 2005. This act of social responsibility is presumably how his property came to be searched in the first place. Despite his statement to the police that he did not support al-Qaida and was "shocked by the actions of the 7/7 bombers", despite character witnesses confirming that Khaliq was a "devoted, caring and loving" parent, who had given up work to be the sole carer of his children and did not advocate terrorism, the judge decided that Khaliq was a threat to society and merited a custodial sentence. Yet where is the evidence that Khaliq had the intent or means to commit an act of terrorism. Astonishingly, the judge even used the fact that Khaliq possessed a copy of the Terrorism Act as some kind of additional indictment against him - since when does the possession of government legislation equate to terrorist intent?

On February 13th 2008, Imran Khan; a lawyer for one of the freed Muslim students at the Court of Appeal said that the ruling would have a "significant impact":

He told BBC News: "Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes."

He said section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act had been written in such wide terms that "effectively, anybody could have been caught in it" but prosecutors would now have to prove such material was intended for terrorist purposes.

Source: BBC News

Evidently, the case has not had anything like the kind of impact that it should have; the conviction of Khalid Khaliq -- father and sole carer of three children, two girls aged 11 and eight and a five-year-old son, who has learning difficulties -- for possessing what seems, in actuality, to be mainly US and UK government information, is testament to that.

For further details on the 7/7 "investigation", the seven arrests and the three charges brought please see:

Three years of 7/7 investigation - 7 arrests, 3 charges - Part 1

Three years of 7/7 investigation - 7 arrests, 3 charges - Part 2

J7 EXCLUSIVE: Peter Power Dorset Police Suspension & the DPP File

2008-02-07T23:08:00.000Z

On July 7th 2005, Peter Power was running a terror exercise which, in his own words that evening, was "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!". He has since refused to give a more detailed account of his activities that day, for some reason believing that the commercial interests of his client, which require confidentiality, are more important than the public interest in incidents which resulted in many deaths and injuries. Disappointingly, the media appears to share that belief as it has not insisted on him making a credible full disclosure. Instead, it continues to present him with regular opportunities to propagate his views on such matters as the necessity of a 90 day detention period.

J7 has discovered, though, that Peter Power was once the subject of a file passed to the Director of Public Prosecution as a result of an investigation by Dorset Police. This is all the more remarkable because, at the time, Peter Power was a Superintendent in the Dorset Police Force! Read the full story here. He retired from Dorset Police, which had suspended him on full pay, on the grounds of ill health before any decision was taken by the DPP on whether to act upon the file.

This information dates from 1993, before the Internet was as commonplace as it is today. It is not online, so J7 is grateful for the services provided by public libraries and archives. It is a salient reminder of the importance of these services, which are increasingly under attack.

One argument used by the BBC Conspiracy Files to persuade J7 to participate in its programme (J7 refused) was that it was the same team as produced Panorama. This argument is substantially weakened by the failure of the Panorama team to investigate Peter Power's credentials. For its "London Under Attack" programme it provided the following incorrect biography:

PETER POWER
Crisis management specialist & government adviser
Visor consulting 1995- present
Director BET Group Security 1992-1994
Senior Officer Metropolitan Police 1971-1992

Peter Power was in fact working for Dorset Police 1990-1993.

J7 asks:

What is the explanation for the incorrect biographical information supplied for the Panorama programme "London Under Attack"?

Is there evidence for the claims made by Peter Power about his involvement in the Brixton riots, the Libyan embassy siege, the Oxford Circus fire and the Kings Cross fire?

Was Peter Power prosecuted as a result of the Dorset Police investigation?

Is Peter Power still receiving an ill health pension from Dorset Police, at the same time as he is very actively pursuing a consultancy career?

Why, in view of his apparently glittering career and obvious appetite for self publicity, with every prospect of attaining one of the top positions in the Met, did Peter Power transfer to Dorset?

Not forgetting:

What precisely was the exercise undertaken on 7th July 2005, and which organisations were involved?

Ludicrous Diversion - LD refuse BBC Conspiracy Files offer

2008-01-14T15:14:00.000Z

This is Ludicrous Diversion, a 28 minute film released in September 2006 that remains the single most concise summary of the many issues surrounding 7/7:

Further to J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign's refusal to participate in an episode of the BBC's Conspiracy Files series. the independent film-makers behind Ludicrous Diversion (J7 interview here) have also refused to participate in no uncertain terms and once again call into question the integrity, honesty and remit of the BBC. Below is a copy of the Ludicrous Diversion team's response to the Conspiracy Files offer:

Dear Susan

Thanks for your invitation to come and discuss the 'conspiracy' issues surrounding 7/7. Unfortunately we must decline. The BBC's credibility amongst so-called 'conspiracy folk' is so non-existent that it's laughable. If you don't know why this is, check out youtube regarding the BBC and 911.

So you intend to find the definitive account of 7/7 – why wait until now? The BBC not only never questioned a single fact within the 'Official Story', but was itself responsible for disseminating the information without giving most of it even the most cursory investigative glance.

We draw your attention, for example, to the issue of what train the supposed bombers took into London. For well over a year the BBC continued to publish on its website the time given by the police and offered in the official investigation – despite the fact that particular train was cancelled - and this fact was widely available across the internet. The BBC only changed its story when the official story was itself changed and the train time altered. Worth thinking about. . .

In fact, in matters such as 7/7, i.e. matters of crucial importance to the British public, the evidence strongly indicates that the BBC is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the British government and intelligence agencies, relying on its historical reputation to create in the public mind exactly the picture that these bodies would like the public to see.

You, no doubt, will claim that you are coming at it afresh, with independent eyes. In that case, (after suggesting you wake up and smell the coffee) we think you should really dedicate the entire program not to the validity of the 7/7 `conspiracy theories`, but to an proper examination of the central conspiracy - how a web of lies was presented by the government, police and intelligence agencies and then disseminated without question by the mainstream media, your good selves at the BBC included.

The idea of the BBC presenting any sort of unbiased presentation would be comedic if it was not so tragically absurd. Their 'conspiracy series analysis of 911 was criminally negligent in its presentation of the facts and lapdog acceptance of the official story and will be correctly adjudged so in time. Your latest hitpiece on 7/7 'conspiracies' will sadly, but inevitably, be cut from the same branch.

You will 'consider' a few of the enormous number of lines of investigation, a blend of the most easily dismissed and the most obviously insane. You will do exactly no independent investigation of any kind. And your conclusion will be that most of the questions being posed by 'conspiracy theorists' regarding 7/7 are without any real basis, but some questions do need asking about the role of the intelligence agencies in following the four men before the event. How do we know this will be your conclusion? Because that is the official line. Feel free to prove us wrong.

If you think this is unfair, here is a list of the essential questions to consider – and to use your BBC-backed weight to obtain answers. We'll take a little wager that not one of these issues is seriously and sensibly addressed in the course of your film.

Why did the mainstream media including the BBC, choose not to question a single police report, political statement or any part of the official report? Is this now outside your remit? Is the BBC somehow under the impression that the police, the government and the intelligence agencies with their anonymous leaks are infallible and more importantly trustworthy? Given a verifiable history of deceit by all three, why would the BBC simply report as fact what these organisations claim?

Why won't the police release the enormous number of images and moving footage of the four bombers in London that they have claim to have and which must exist? Surely, with this much time passed, and in a serious documentary by the BBC there can be no harm in showing the moving CCTV footage of these four bombers - the footage which has condemned them, despite having never been seen by the british public?

How is that the police, intelligence agencies and media all falsely reported the time of the train the bombers took into London for over a year, given that the police has by its own statements, actual CCTV footage of the four bombers getting on this non-existent train?

Here`s a suggestion for a very interesting and enlightening sequence for your film.

Take a camera to Luton station, film the entire journey from there to the underground platforms that the bombers departed from (we were denied permission to do this, but we have a feeling the Beeb will be allowed) – time the journey and count the number of CCTV cameras that filmed the four alleged bombers along the way. Then calculate how many hours of footage of these men must exist if the official story of the mens journey to Kings Cross and onwards is true. Then reveal, perhaps with a crescendo of music – that not one single second of this footage has been presented. In fact, other than a still photo of Hussain outside boots, there is not one single frame of the four men in London. Does it exist? It must, if the official story is true. What possible reason could there be for not showing it?

What a scoop for the BBC it would be if they actually got this footage that has been denied from the British public! What a triumph to force the police into releasing the hours of moving images of the four suspects! And if they don't give you this footage straight away, what a wonderful opportunity to try and uncover why they won't! Exciting journalistic opportunities await, if you want to take the leap. Sadly, this won't happen, but again please – feel free to prove us wrong.

Yours sincerely

LD

-----Original Message-----
Subject: BBC Documentary
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:19:19 +0000
From: susan.prichard@bbc.co.uk
To: ludicrousdiversion@hotmail.com

Dear Ludicrous Diversion

BBC 2 Current Affairs is making a documentary about the 7th July bombings. The programme is for the BBC 2 documentary series "The Conspiracy Files".

The programme will analyse what happened on 7th July 2005, and aims to provide a definitive account of events on that day.

We are interested in talking to people who have raised questions about the official account and who are campaigning for further information to be released. We've watched your film and we would be keen to meet you to discuss the issues it raises in more detail.

Many thanks,

Susan Prichard
Assistant Producer,
BBC Current Affairs

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

2008-01-07T23:43:00.001Z

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have issued their January 2008 update.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,

It’s the start of the New Year and time for a long overdue J7 update. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your continued support and to wish all J7 supporters a very happy Gregorian Calendar New Year and all the best for 2008.

In the J7 New Year round-up: J7 turns down the offer of a BBC ‘documentary’; Gordon Brown again refuses a public inquiry into 7/7; Peter Power breaks his silence; J7 reject and dismiss a new 7/7 film by someone who claims to be the new messiah; a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book and J7 launch an updated and redesigned flyer.

J7 & BBC2’s CONSPIRACY FILES
=================================================================
Shortly after the second anniversary of 7/7, the July 7th Truth Campaign was approached by representatives of the BBC and asked to participate in a forthcoming 7/7 documentary. Nearly six months later, the BBC revealed that the ‘documentary’ in question was an episode of the BBC’s risible Conspiracy Files series. Having seen each of the previous four episodes of the formulaic Conspiracy Files, J7ers were unanimously against participating in the show. J7 put together a detailed response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and explaining our reasons why. Much of the response, while specifically addressed to the BBC, is equally applicable to all broadcast and print media. Read the full J7 response to the BBC here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html

THE STATE REFUSES 7/7 PUBLIC INQUIRY – YET AGAIN
=================================================================
A year long petition on the Downing Street web site calling for a 7/7 Public Inquiry has closed and received a response from the government that has, once again, refused an inquiry. J7 has always stated that any public inquiry must be held outside of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, despite the inquiry petition making no mention of the Inquiries Act, the demands of the petition were, unsurprisingly, still refused. The inquiry petition was widely publicised online and in various mainstream media outlets, yet was only signed by a paltry 525 people, clearly demonstrating the British public’s complete lack of faith in a state-run public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

The now-closed inquiry petition can be viewed here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Bombings/?ref=bombings

The government’s response to the petition is here:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14132.asp [archive.org copy]

Meanwhile, the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition continues to go from strength to strength and has been signed by almost 1900 people. If you haven’t signed the J7 petition yet, please do so here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/

7/7 TERROR REHEARSAL MAN PETER POWER BREAKS HIS SILENCE
=================================================================
For only the second time in two and half a years the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, has broken his silence about the exercise he was running the day of 7th July 2005. The latest comment comes after Peter Power was briefly confronted in a hotel lobby by a group called We Are Change and, for some hitherto unknown reason, rather than contacting We Are Change directly, Peter Power chose instead to leave a comment on the J7 web site. You can read the updated Terror Rehearsal article, which includes a link to the We Are Change video and Peter Power’s latest comment here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html

J7 REBUT AND REJECT NEW FILM – 7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT
=================================================================
A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views and the film is littered with unsubstantiated speculation in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the official Home Office narrative. Find out more:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j-for-justice-77-ripple-effect.html

J7 BOOK REVIEW: THE 4TH BOMB
=================================================================
A number of books have been released by people connected, or claiming to be connected with the events of 7/7, and J7 will be reviewing as many of these as possible. The first review has gone live on the main J7 web site and is a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book, The 4th Bomb. Read the review here:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-book-review-daniel-obachike-the-fourth-bomb.html

J7 FLYER UPDATED AND REDESIGNED
=================================================================
The July 7th Truth Campaign flyer has been updated, redesigned (by a proper designer!) and re-published and printed copies are available on request for anyone that wishes to distribute them at meetings, protests and gatherings. As ever, copies of the new flyer can be viewed online and print-quality PDFs can also be downloaded.

View the flyer online:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-truth-campaign-flyer.html

Download Black & White PDF:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/pdf/j7.flyer-v4.0-bw.pdf

Download Red & Black PDF:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/pdf/j7.flyer-v4.0-rw.pdf

J7 EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY
=================================================================
Today, 7th January 2007, would have been the 30th birthday of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was extra-judicially executed by two unnamed State marksmen in July 2005. Our thoughts are with the de Menezes family and J7 supports the quest for justice of the Jean Charles de Menezes family campaign (http://justice4jean.com). J7 also supports the cause of the National Campaign Against Anti Terror Powers.

That’s about all for now. J7 will be in touch again soon and, if all goes according to plan, 2008 will be the year that sees the start of more regular updates from the J7 team.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team
--
Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth
Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh
MySpace: http://myspace.com/j7truth
Email: julyseventh@fastmail.net

J7 Decline to participate in BBC's Conspiracy Files

2008-01-04T21:39:00.005Z

Shortly after the second anniversary of 7th July 2005, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock of the BBC who advised us of plans for a BBC documentary covering the events of 7th July 2005. No detail about the nature of the 'documentary' was provided until five months later, in December 2007, when another BBC employee, Assistant Producer Susan Prichard, advised us by email that the BBC production in question, rather than being a serious documentary effort for which the BBC was once well known, was in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For anyone that missed out on the 'privilege' of watching the first four episodes of the Conspiracy Files, previous programmes have covered the events of 11th September 2001, the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, the murder of Dodi Fayed and the Oklahoma bombing. Some episodes of the first Conspiracy Files series are available to view online and links are provided below:

10 December, 2006: How Diana Died
18 February, 2007: 9/11 (Watch on Google Video | Adrian Connock's rebuttal on Google Video)
25 February , 2007: David Kelly (Watch on Google Video)
4 March, 2007: Oklahoma Bomb (Watch on Google Video)

Upon learning that our assistance was being requested in connection with the production of an episode of the formulaic Conspiracy Files rather than a serious, honest, open-minded and in-depth documentary that examined the official Home Office account of events -- the original 'conspiracy theory' about what happened -- the lack of evidence to support it, the errors exposed by J7's ongoing research and the numerous anomalies and inconsistencies in the story the government has endeavoured to fob the British public off with in place of a full and independent public inquiry outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, J7 issued a response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and outlining our reasons for reaching this decision. What follows is a full copy of the J7 response to the BBC request to participate in its Conspiracy Files series. Much of what is written below is equally applicable to other broadcast and print media:

Date:     Wed, 12 Dec 2007
From:     J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To:       Susan Prichard
Subject:  Re: BBC Documentary
Dear Susan,
As you will be aware, earlier this year, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock with regard to our participating in a BBC programme, although the programme in question was never identified. We cooperated fully with Chris, providing him with links to further information and avenues of investigation and Chris also took it upon himself to directly contact several of the highly respected authors and academics who have written articles for J7 that are published on our web site. In none of these communications was the nature of the programme in question mentioned, although all those contacted were primed for a possible appearance in a BBC documentary examining the events of 7th July 2005.

It is difficult to express how appalled and disgusted we felt when we learnt, as we did from your email of last week, that the 'documentary' for which Chris Alcock was soliciting participants is in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For the sake of clarity, it is worth establishing precisely, according to dictionary definitions, what the term ‘conspiracy theory’ means. While the definition of what a ‘theory’ is requires little or no clarification, in law, for it is under the law which alleged criminals are charged for their crimes, a conspiracy is defined as, “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.” Therefore, by the very definition of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ any theory about how the events of 7/7 came to be that involves two or more people making it happen, is in fact a ‘conspiracy theory’. As such, the official government narrative, which is based on four, young, British Muslim men conspiring to kill themselves and others is, technically, by the legal and dictionary definitions of a ‘conspiracy’, a ‘conspiracy theory’. As there has been no due legal process – recall the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” – by which the four accused have had their guilt established beyond reasonable doubt, nor has there been an Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, the official version of events remains precisely a 'conspiracy theory'.

The July 7th Truth Campaign has never posited an alternative theory of what happened on 7/7, ‘conspiracy theory’ or otherwise. Therefore, the July 7th Truth Campaign cannot be defined, nor dismissed, as ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the traditional, pejorative sense, nor even the legal sense, of the term for the simple reason that, unlike the ‘conspiracy theorists’ which you are no doubt seeking for your programme, we do not promote any alternative ‘conspiracy theory’ about what might have happened that fateful day. Instead, the basis of the July 7th Truth Campaign has, since its inception, been that of endeavouring to uncover real, tangible evidence about the events of 7/7 and to challenge the official government narrative in instances where evidence proves the falsehoods in this narrative.

Furthermore, there exists in the public domain absolutely no evidence to support the Home Office narrative, much less evidence which proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, there is evidence in the public domain that directly contradicts the version of events outlined in the Home Office story, evidence that has twice resulted in the Home Office amending the highly flawed narrative that was ten months in the making. It is worth noting that as a result of these two amendments forced by J7’s questioning, the official Home Office narrative has become more convoluted and even less coherent than it was originally, featuring as it now does, a scenario in which the four accused allegedly don their rucksacks on two separate occasions outside Luton station, once at 0649 and then again at 0714.

The BBC is an organisation funded by the licence-fee paying British public and the State, which itself is funded by the tax-paying British public. The BBC and the State are both public service organisations and, as such, should serve the public who fund their existences. Yet, with regard to the events of 7/7, neither the government nor the BBC can be described to have served the public in any respect, unless promulgating factually inaccurate, unsubstantiated speculations is considered to be a public service. In fact quite the opposite of serving the public has occurred, and both organisations have repeatedly performed a shameful disservice.

The events of 7th July 2005 resulted in the single biggest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second World War and, in the two and a half years that have passed since, the behemoth that is the BBC has never yet found within itself the resources, time or inclination to address -- with the level of detail, gravitas and import that such an event deserves – precisely what happened on 7th July 2005, how it happened, or who was responsible for making it happen. Further, the BBC has never endeavoured to tackle the many unanswered questions, anomalies and inconsistencies in the official version of events outlined in the Home Office report dealing with the subject, despite the plight of the bereaved families whose questions about their loved ones have yet to be satisfactorily answered, and despite the continued efforts of the July 7th Truth Campaign to analyse the validity, or otherwise as is more often the case, of the official version of events. Where is the BBC programme championing the cause of the bereaved families and assisting them to obtain the truth from the authorities about how their loved ones died? As one bereaved family member summed up when they contacted us by email, “Yes, we do need the truth to come out (personally speaking I don't believe it has yet) but truth is what it has to be for proper closure.” Indeed, the father of 18 year old Hasib Hussain, accused of perpetrating the explosion on the number 30 bus, when doorstepped by a BBC journalist and TV crew, despaired at having never been shown any evidence of his son’s involvement or guilt.

It is beyond comprehension that the BBC is not endeavouring to hold the State to account – a state which is already proven to be mendacious, to have lied about Iraq’s WMD, and that has been complicit in the slaughter of over a million Iraqi civilians -- for its production of a speculative, unsubstantiated and entirely evidence-free 'narrative' that is little more than an egregious insult to the victims, their bereaved relatives, and those who survived the event. That the BBC's approach appears instead to be one that will endeavour to portray the July 7th Truth Campaign, or anyone with perfectly legitimate and unanswered questions to which we all deserve answers, as 'Conspiracy Theorists' is still less comprehensible. This approach is as distasteful as it is abhorrent.
We also noted with extreme interest the following line in your email with regard to your proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files:
"Throughout our focus will be on establishing the evidence and building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened."

To the best of our knowledge, "building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened" on 7/7 is not the function of the BBC, for the task of piecing together the story behind what Sir Ian Blair termed, “the largest criminal inquiry in English history”, is the job of the State in the form of the government and police. If you are indeed interested in building up such an account we can only suggest that you, the bereaved families, the survivors who have been all but forgotten as far as the media is concerned and your viewing public would be far better served by an episode of the Conspiracy Files which features representatives from the government and police who have access to information that has hitherto not been made public. After all, it was the Home Office branch of government that produced the official ‘conspiracy theory’ about what happened on 7th July 2005 in the form of a 'narrative' – a story -- that the July 7th Truth Campaign has proven to be based on information that was neither factual nor truthful.

The July Truth Campaign has been consistently appalled by the fact that, with regard to coverage of anything 7/7 related, the efforts of the BBC have been disingenuous, deceitful and downright dishonest and that no effort has been made to rectify this. There are countless examples where the BBC has, either wittingly or unwittingly, placed misinformation into the public domain, whether this be in ‘news’ items or ‘documentary’ programmes. We outline below a few of the more blatant examples of the BBC’s wilful ignorance of the few facts that are known, or dubious tactics employed:

Just one week after 7/7, the BBC broadcast an episode of Real Story with Fiona Bruce which gave considerable time to the eye-witness testimony of Richard Jones, an individual who has given many and varied versions of what he claims to have seen aboard the number 30 bus which means that, at best, he is an extremely unreliable witness. Furthermore, none of his accounts bear any relation to Hasib Hussain. The BBC has never revisited the testimony of Richard Jones.

On the afternoon of 7th July 2005 information came to light via BBC Radio Five Live’s Drivetime programme about a private company running a terror rehearsal operation at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the London transport network. This information was revealed by the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power who, in his own words, was rehearsing, “simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened.” Since the day of 7/7, the BBC has used Peter Power as an ‘independent’ security consultant with monotonous regularity across its entire broadcast media yet, curiously, he has never been questioned about his activities on the day of 7/7 while strenuously making the case for 90 days internment and how the British people must live in fear of another attack as part of what he calls ‘new normal’. Mr Power has also revealed ‘mock broadcasts’ were used as part of his operation and that, “there was a few seconds when the audience didn't realise whether it was real or not.”. Mr Power also featured in a Panorama programme broadcast in May 2004 in which a fictional attack on the London Underground took place, with three explosions occurring on underground trains, followed by another explosion above ground about an hour later. It was the BBC that put together ‘mock broadcasts’ featuring a bona-fide newsreader, Kirsty Lang, who, no doubt coincidentally, just happened to be the ‘relief presenter’ for BBC World on the day of 7/7. This is an irregularity on a par with the efforts of another BBC World presenter, Jane Standley, who announced on 11th September 2001 that WTC Building 7 had collapsed despite it not being hit by a plane, yet the building could be seen standing proudly in the background of her report before the feed fizzled out. WTC7 Building 7 went on to collapse 23 minutes after Jane Standley’s premonitory collapse report announcing it had already done so. Standley and BBC World’s amazing, prophetic foresight was never mentioned during the 9/11 Conspiracy Files and would have made for far more relevant and compelling viewing than the interview with a writer of the X-Files.

BBC news stories about the events of 7th July 2005 have regularly and shamefully been presented with a backdrop that deceitfully shows footage of three of the accused taken from 28th June 2005, some 9 days before 7/7. The severity of this deception is further amplified by the fact that this footage has often appeared in edited form so that the actual time and date stamps are not visible. The lack of any CCTV footage from the day of 7/7 has never been questioned by the BBC, nor has the fact that, in the one CCTV image allegedly showing all four perpetrators outside Luton station, three of the faces are completely unidentifiable.

On 27 October 2005, a BBC Horizon programme aired, “The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation: What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?", featuring forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman and Dr Andrew Silke, which claimed to offer a psychological profile of the suicide bombers. The programme stated that the accused caught the 0748 train from Luton to King's Cross and that they arrived at King’s Cross at 0826. This was not the case and yet no amendment or apology for the inaccurate version of events outlined in that programme has ever been issued by the BBC. In response to a complaint about these factual inaccuracies, the laughable explanation was that while “re-tracing the journey of the 4 bombers, he [Silke] was not re-enacting it so there are some bits of his journey that do differ from the journey of the bombers.” Quite what the point of re-tracing steps that obviously weren’t taken by the accused remains a mystery. That the train times had been supplied to the programme makers by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office was also worthy of comment and investigation.

There are several documented examples demonstrating the BBC’s guilt in editing stories on the BBC News web site where phrases implying details about the alleged bomber’s journey, such as, “Passengers on the 0748 Thameslink from Luton to King's Cross”, have been edited out, yet the ‘last edited’ date and time has, rather disingenuously, not been updated to reflect these amendments. This is in direct contravention of the Press Complaints Commission guidelines which specify, “A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.”

The BBC, along with the Metropolitan Police, claimed that the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train occurred by the first set of double doors on carriage one. The BBC web page containing this information was accompanied by a graphic showing this as the alleged seat of the explosion. Without any explanation, the BBC then changed this information to say that the explosion occurred by the second set of double doors and the graphic was updated accordingly. Curiously the Metropolitan Police – whom one might think would be the source for such information – have never amended or updated their account of the explosion being by the first set of double doors.

While the following information will serve little or no use in the production of an episode of the Conspiracy Files dealing with 7/7, as ‘researchers’ and/or ‘journalists’ you may be interested to note that, while the July 7th Truth Campaign is the only organisation that has been openly and publicly challenging the government on their flawed and inaccurate story of 7/7 since the day the incidents occurred, the government is also being privately challenged by families of the bereaved and survivors with regard to the accuracy of the report. In particular, the government has been taken to task over discrepancies in the alleged locations of the blasts on the underground trains. Another fact that the BBC has failed to investigate is that in August 2006, the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, responded that, over a year after the events occurred, a final forensics report had not yet been received.

More recently, after Coroner Dr Andrew Reid sent, unsolicited and without warning in early December, post-mortem reports to the bereaved, at least one family member has noted that there were "fundamental" differences between what they saw when they viewed their son's body and what the post mortem report said. This too has received no further comment or investigation from the BBC.

By way of conclusion to this communication, the magnitude and importance of the events of 7/7 and the repercussions of those events must not be underestimated. The official yet unsubstantiated story has been seared into the public consciousness as the 'first suicide-bombings' on British soil, a concept only trumped by the fact that this also qualifies the official story of 7/7 as the first 'suicide bombings' in the whole of Western Europe. The Home Office narrative of 7/7 is repeatedly used as unquestionable justification by the State and its corporate advisor apparatchiks to institute increasingly repressive legislation, including the widely abused 28 days detention without charge while the authorities struggle to uncover the evidence required to bring charges in a court of law. It wasn’t that long ago evidence was required before arrests were made.

To understand a little more about the wider context of 7/7 and everything that has happened since, one need only look to the words and wisdom of the Ministry of Defence who, on page 81 of a March 2007 report entitled, "The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036 (Third Edition)", noted what the State considers to be a core threat in the foreseeable future:
The Middle Class Proletariat
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

The official story of 7/7 has been used to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim community, in much the same way that the Jewish community was demonised in 1930s Nazi Germany following a similarly questionable and catalysing event, the Reichstag fire, and has proved to be the enabling factor for the rapid and unchallenged institution of more Draconian laws that impose unprecedented restrictions on the civil liberties of everyone. It is worth remembering that the far-reaching scope of the law, "anti-terrorist" or otherwise, is applicable not just to the Muslim community but to each and every one of us and the State has no qualms about using its laws against anyone and everyone from whom it perceives a threat to what State actors refer to as, “our way of life”.

These factors are testimony to just how seriously 7/7 requires honest, principled and open-minded investigation to get to the facts and the truth about what happened. Only the truth will stand up to rigorous investigation and questioning yet, to date, this questioning and investigation has fallen to ordinary members of the public who have taken it upon themselves to do so, ordinary members of the public like J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

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 Campaign’s 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.

For truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

--

Update 1: The independent film-making team behind Ludicrous Diversion have also refused to participate in the BBC Conspiracy Files and once again call into question the integrity, honesty and remit of the BBC. Read their response here.

Update 2 - 13/06/08: J7 have noted that since our refusal to participate in or co-operate with the making of the BBC's Conspiracy Files, the BBC seem to have approached anyone even remotely connected to the events of July 7th 2005. Many of those approached also declined to be involved. Moreover, a relative of Richard Chang left a very interesting comment on our response to the BBC, suggesting that the BBC have previous form for mendacity when making their 'documentaries' about events which still have yet to be thoroughly, independently and conclusively investigated.

This week, the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign began advertising an event which is taking place later this month, at which prominent author and researcher Nafeez Ahmed is due to speak; the flyer for which was also advertising the presence of "J7 researchers".

J7: The July 7th Truth Camapign were not at any time approached with regard to this event, nor were we asked permission for our website to be included on the flyer. After asking for an explanation regarding this oddity, we were told that the "J7 researchers" was in fact Nick Kollerstrom, a man who we recently discovered is a keen participant in the making of the BBC's 'Conspiracy Files' programme, whose approach to 7/7 research is markedly different to that of J7, who recently discovered that his theories regarding the holocaust of the second world war were rather unpopular and who, needless to say, is not affiliated to or associated with J7. It also transpired that the BBC were due to film the event - something which had not been previously made clear to at least one of the participants.

Mike "I was right away impressed with just how little I knew" Rudin from the BBC stated on Wednesday of this week, "Along with his views of 7/7, Nick Kollerstrom's views about the Holocaust will be scrutinised and challenged in the programme."

How very unsurprising for a programme apparently dedicated to examining 'conspiracy theories' regarding the horrific events in London in the summer of 2005. In order to reiterate J7's position and to avoid any confusion we sent the following email to the producers of the Conspiracy Files:

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 4:22 PM
From "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign"
To "Tristan Quinn"
Cc mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk
Subject Nick Kollerstrom 7/7 Conspiracy Files

Dear Tristan

We recently became aware of a meeting to be held in London on 25th June which you were intending to film for the 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme you are making with Nick Kollerstrom. We were appalled to find that the flyer for this meeting developed by the UK 911 Truth Movement, without our knowledge or consent, advertised a 'J7 researcher' and included a link to our website when no member of J7 knew of the meeting, much less agreed to appear at it. It transpires that this alleged 'J7 researcher' would appear to be one Nick Kollerstrom.

As the BBC has a duty with respect to the accuracy of facts presented to its viewing public, please be informed that Nick Kollerstrom is not a member of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign and therefore cannot be classed as a J7 researcher. Kollerstrom is, if anything, a 9/11 researcher who belongs to the 9/11 Truth Movement UK & Ireland and it is with the operations of that group that Kollerstrom is involved with at a high level.

Over the last few months, Nick has been contacting various members of J7, mostly for information that would be in his possession if he were indeed a serious researcher into the events of 7/7, but also to arrange to collect J7 leaflets. It now transpires that he attended Leeds with your film crew, presumably with J7 leaflets in hand, where he attempted to make contact with the families of the accused.

These events lead us to suspect that efforts are being made either by or for your production to somehow conflate Kollerstrom with J7.

Surprisingly enough, not everyone that has questions about the events of 7/7 is a member of J7 and for the BBC to portray otherwise would be a new level of disingenuousness.

We would like an assurance from you that your Conspiracy Files programme will not be referring to J7 in relation to Kollerstrom or any other researcher.

Regards
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

7/7 Ripple Effect - A Rebuttal and Rejection

2007-12-03T14:09:00.000Z

A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views:

.... Therefore the moslems are calling God a liar, which is a satanic thing to do. Satan called God a liar in the Garden of Eden and God condemned Adam and Eve for believing Satan's lies. These satanic lies are now being continued by the moslems when they contradict God by saying that the True Bible no longer exists....

7/7 The Ripple Effect begins with Muad'Dib saying:

“Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham’s (sic) Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.”

J7: The July Seventh Truth Campaign, who have been researching the events of 7/7 since the day they happened, take issue with any production which can claim to 'understand what most likely really did happen that day', unless this can be backed up with evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis. J7 maintain the view that the official Home Office report into July 7th, released by the Home Office on 11th May 2006, remains totally unproven, as no evidence has ever been placed in the public domain which categorically proves, beyond reasonable doubt, the official version of events. On the contrary, our research has shown that this report contains many errors, inconsistencies and anomalies and, in fact, the Home Office has twice been forced to amend the narrative in response to challenges by J7, resulting in an updated narrative that makes even less sense than the original version did. Our position on attempting alternative narratives which are not based on evidence is very succinctly expressed by a J7 researcher who, after viewing 7/7 Ripple Effect, wisely wrote:

“Reading the transcript, the impression I get is of an attempt to construct an alternative account of what happened. I don't think this is a good approach. It tends to exclude other possibilities from the debate ie the debate narrows to either jforjustice's account or the Home Office account. There are so very many discrepancies in what has been reported (as documented on this forum) that any number of plausible alternative accounts could be constructed, so I think it is unwise to promote one particular alternative.

I think it is significant that the opponents of J7 have persistently used the taunt of "what do you think happened then?"; quite recently someone posted on another forum that we don't put our money where our mouth is. This is a trap. As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account.

As far as I can see, all the material in "The Ripple Effect" has been available for a good two years, so I am curious as to why it is only now that this film has been released."

So, what does Muad'Dib and 7/7 Ripple Effect claim 'most likely happened that day'?

After examining the role played by the BBC and Peter Power in the Panorama programme 'London Under Attack' and Power's subsequent 'terror rehearsal exercise' that he was running on the 7th July 2005, examined in detail by J7 here, 7/7 Ripple Effect states:

“Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.

Who were their Muslim recruits?

These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise”.

No evidence is produced to support this conclusion and no matter how neat and appealing this alternative scenario might be, it remains totally hypothetical and without supporting evidence. Muad'Dib goes on:

“The fake terrorists have been recruited, the suicide videos have been made, and everyone has been given basic instructions, for the day that the exercise is to be put into operation – 7/7/2005.

The four mock-terrorist actors were to meet at Luton Train Station at 07:20 AM on the 7th of July 2005 and catch the 07:40 AM train from Luton to Kings’ Cross Thameslink Station, with their pretend-bomb backpacks, and then split up and catch three tube-trains and one bus, to pre-arranged destinations, where the fake explosions were to take place, as part of the training exercise.

Finally the big day arrived.”

A convoluted attempt is then made to explain why the only image of the four men accused of being responsible for what happened, taken outside Luton station at 07.21.54, has to be faked:

"The four men were supposed to arrive together, on time, at Luton Station, and be caught on CCTV, at 07:21:54 AM, entering the station, but three of them are not on the same video frames as Hasib Hussain, so have to be inserted later, using computer software. Hence the obviously, and very badly, doctored official single frame, time-stamped photo that we have been shown, from the CCTV outside Luton Station.

They can’t show them moving, because it has been faked, that’s why they show only one single frame still photo.

Why did the authorities have to fake this photo? They would have had to fake it, because three of the actors missed the tube-trains that they were supposed to catch, and which blew up without them being onboard, and so there was no video footage from Verint Systems of them boarding the three tube-trains, for the authorities to be able to use, as false evidence, to try to prove to the public that the Muslims were guilty. So they had to doctor and show us the fake photo instead".

Again, no evidence is offered as the basis for the statement “the four men were supposed to arrive together” and this is pure unsubstantiated conjecture in the same way that the Home Office has provided no evidence for its version of events. Further, there is no evidence for why Hasib Hussain would be the only one of the four entering Luton Station at 07.21.54. (Note: 7/7 Ripple Effect correctly states that the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross train, which the original Home Office report claims the accused caught, was cancelled on 7th July 2005. That the Home Office changed the official report on 11 July 2006 to say that the accused caught the 7.25 and that the 7.40 had been based on 'erroneous witness statements' fails to make it into Muad'Dib's version of events). Despite the supposed need to 'fake the photo' to show all four men entering the station together 7/7 Ripple Effect still manages to place the accused in King's Cross together -- again, something for which no evidence has ever been provided by the Home Office or police -- albeit too late to catch the tube trains that 7/7 Ripple Effect claims they have been told to board as part of Peter Power's exercise:

“The first available train the Muslim actors can catch, gets them to King’s Cross after the tube trains have already left without them. Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise. When the tube-trains they were supposed to catch are blown up, the other three smell a rat and realise they have been duped, and are Muslim patsies who will be blamed for the attacks, and everyone knows what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Muslims are not from London. Their homes are many miles away, and so they are like fish out of water, and have no idea what to do, or where to go and hide. They realise that they can’t go home, and do not know anyone in London whom they can trust.”

It would be highly unlikely, even if this scenario were plausible, that any 'exercise' could arrange for 3 'patsies' to board specific tube trains, especially as the tube that day was subject to many delays and line closures. (7/7 Ripple Effect's constant referral to Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay as 'the Muslims' is also highly questionable and we can only wonder if Muad'Dib would refer to these 4 young men as 'the Jews' or 'the Christians' if the official story had alleged that to be the case.)

On 7th July 2005 there were reports that 'suicide-bombers' had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”. Once again, there is no tangible evidence to prove or disprove the reports, or the subsequent denial of these reports by Brian Paddick. However, 7/7 Ripple Effect makes the claim that Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay were all shot at Canary Wharf, with a further stretch that perhaps they were attempting to find sanctuary in the offices of a newspaper:

“If we have at least three of the four "suicide-bombers" shot dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains that blew up, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, then we have overwhelming proof that they did not blow the tube-trains up, and that the blowing up of the three tube-trains was an inside-job.

At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France”.

7/7 Ripple Effect continues on in much the same vein, from which we can only conclude that using every known discrepancy in the reports of the events of July 7th, many of which are examined in detail by J7 in our sections Mind The Gaps I and II, and weaving them into a totally evidence-free and fanciful hypothesis, which would be more honestly described as a 'What If' rather than what 'Really did happen', will do more harm than good in aiding anyone to get to the truth of the events of that day.

In summing up 7/7 Ripple Effect, we leave the final words to a J7 researcher:

"... nor is joining up the loose ends in that wretched government "narrative" in the fashion of a Saturday night fictional TV thriller particularly likely to be viewed positively - drop the fantasy references, re-edit it to play as a 'what if?' docudrama that is clearly self explained/described as an unsubstantiated narrative the same as the official governmentt narrative is and it might get more respect, but as it stands, it's just too damn kooky for me to believe it's accidental.
Sorry Maud, but the people you most need to reach are least likely to take you seriously - if that is a concern of course, and if it's not, then that says quite a lot."

The advice of the J7 campaign and research collective is simple: Question everything.

As an addendum to the rebuttal and rejection of 7/7 Ripple Effect, J7 received email notification from Muad'Dib requesting cash donations and assistance in contacting the bereaved families and survivors in order to send them unsolicited copies of this film.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign immediately responded with a refusal to support or condone the film and J7 researchers universally condemned the intentions of Muad'Dib in the unsolicited sending of the film to bereaved families or survivors, re-iterating the point that J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have never endeavoured to contact bereaved families or survivors. J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors, nor has J7 provided any assistance with locating relatives of the deceased.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign - J7 Flyer V4

2007-11-05T19:35:00.000Z

J7 have published the latest version of the July 7th Truth Campaign flyer. Click on the image below for larger, printable version or download PDF copies of the flyer for printing using the links at the end of this post.

Download Black & White PDF

or

Download Red & Black PDF

If you would like printed copies of the flyer, please contact J7 using the form on the J7 web site.

Home Office 'corrections' to the July 7th Official Report

2007-08-25T10:55:00.000Z

The Home Office finally responded this week with some answers to FOI requests made by J7 researchers for an explanation as to why the erroneous train time in the Official Report, acknowledged by the then Home Secretary John Reid on the 11th of May 2006, had not been amended in the Report.

J7 also sought an explanation as to how this error occurred in the first place, and at which time the four suspects actually entered Luton station, since the Official Report appears to imply that the men entered the station twice.

On January 10th 2007, a J7 researcher asked of the Home Office:

1. We would like to know why the train time of 7.40 has not been amended in the Official Report.

2. We would like to know if a full report has been received from the police explaining how this discrepancy came about.

3. We would like to know when this information will be made public.

A response was received the following day, stating:

Dear The July 7th Truth Campaign,

Thank you for your e-mail of 10/01/2007 1:07:06 PM asking questions about the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005

With regard to the 3 questions you asked:

1: A correction slip is awaiting final approval to be sent to the printers.
2 A report has been received from the police.
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.

Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group

J7 responded, asking for further clarification to this somewhat confusing reply:

Thank you for the prompt response to our FOI request ref: T1131/7.

Unfortunately your response was not readable within the email, but we managed to decipher what it said.

We asked when the Home Secretary will be explaining how the error in the train time occurred, you responded:

3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.

We appreciate that the document may not be published. We are asking for an explanation of how the error occurred, now that you have the police document to explain this.

We are also concerned that the Official Report claims:

07.15: Lindsay, Hussain, Tanweer and Khan enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together.

Yet the only CCTV image published of the 4 together, to date, shows them entering Luton station at 7.21.54.

We therefore make the following FOI requests:

1. Could you please clarify whether the 4 entered Luton station at 7.15 or 07.21.54.

2. Now that the internal police document explaining the discrepancy in the time the train left Luton has been made available to the Home Secretary, could we now have an explanation of how this error occurred.

Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign

After seven months of interim responses, persistence and complaints from J7, the answers eventually arrived on August 23rd:

Dear the July 7th Truth Campaign ,

Thank you for your e-mail of 13/03/2007 4:28:26 PM seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act about the Official Account of the 7 July 2005 Bombings in London in which you requested an explanation of how the error in the Official Account of the July 7 Bombings occurred and also asking for clarification as to what time the 4 bombers entered Luton Station. Your request was handled in accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I apologise for the delay in replying to your information request. After having carefully considered your request and having examined the information that you requested in your letter I am pleased to be able to disclose the following information that you requested.

About your first query, how the error in the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July occurred, I am able to inform you this discrepancy was due to human error. The relevant part of the police report to the Home Secretary explaining how the error occurred says:

“It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train’s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.”

With regard to your second query asking for clarification as to the time the bombers entered Luton station, I can inform you that a correction to the Official Account has been made. As the Official Account is a Parliamentary publication a correction slip has been entered in the Parliamentary library. This correction has also been published on the Home Office official website. A copy of the correction slip is attached.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review any aspect of our handling of your application. During the internal review the department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. An internal review can be requested by submitting you complaint, within 2 months of the date of this letter quoting reference 5642 to:

Information Policy Team
Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act

Yours faithfully
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism

Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005

HC 1087 Session 2005-2006

ISBN 0 10 293774 5

CORRECTIONS

1. Page 4. The time of 07.15 should be changed to 07:14 and the text should read

“Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.”

2. Page 4. The time of 07.40 on the left side of the page immediately preceding the paragraph that commences, “The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station”. The time of 07.40 is incorrect and should be replaced by 07.25 which is the correct time.

August 2007

LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE

Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group

Please see the July Seventh People's Independent Inquiry Forum for the full details and discussion of these requests and responses from the Home Office.

This response has not addressed the specific questions submitted by J7 in the original FOI request.

The Home Office have explained, that the incorrect train time was given due to "human error" based on "what were later found to be conflicting witness statements" - it appeared not to have occurred to investigators to check which trains were actually running that morning, electing instead to base their findings on witness statements and absolutely no other evidence. J7 pointed out in the FOI requests that there is an internal police document, which the Home Secretary was given, explaining how this error occurred, yet this is ignored in the reply.

The response also has still not stated at what time the four suspects entered the station, despite J7's very clear question, as to whether it was at 07:15 or 07:21:54.

Correction 1 in the response above, in fact makes the Official Report even more nonsensical when inserted into the correct section.

With this correction in place, the amended section of the official Home Office narrative now reads:

07: A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton station car park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone in this car. During the 90 minutes or so before the others arrive, Lindsay gets out and walks around, enters the station, looks up at the departure board, comes out, moves the car a couple of times. There are a handful of other cars in the car park. A few more arrive during this period.

49: The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.

One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks. It is not clear what they were for, but they may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey given their size; that they were in the car rather than the boot; and that they were left behind. Also left in the Micra were other items consistent with the use of explosives. A 9mm handgun was also found in the Brava. The Micra had a day parking ticket in the window, perhaps to avoid attention, the Brava did not.

14: Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.

So, having put on their rucksacks at 6:49, the men apparently do so again at just after 7:14, with Lindsay checking the departure board again at this time, having done so previously at 05.07.

1. Did Lindsay enter the station and look at the departure board during the 90 minutes whilst waiting for the others to arrive and then again at 7.14?

2. Did they put their rucksacks on at 6.49 or after 7.14?

J7 will be asking these questions in our response to this rather absurd 'clarification' from the Home Office.

Interview with Thomas Ikimi, cousin of Anthony Fatayi-Williams & director of The Homefront

2007-08-13T12:17:00.000Z

"Anyone who thinks the [Home Office] report is a full account is not being serious or realistic. The holes are so glaring, that even as a story, it isn't a very good one."

-- Thomas Ikimi

On Friday 3rd August 2007, the July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Thomas Ikimi, the film-maker cousin of 7/7 victim Anthony Fatayi-Williams, with details about a newly released film dedicated to the memory of Anthony:

My cousin Anthony Fatayi-Williams was one of the 52 lost in the attacks. I wanted to let you know that I have been working on a project since July 2005 in relation to the bombings and my experiences as a family member affected by it. It is a documentary and it was released two days ago online via the website www.thehomefrontmovie.net

Intrigued that at last one of the families bereaved on 7/7 was trying to tell their story of 7/7 and what followed, J7 arranged an interview with the film's director, Thomas Ikimi.

Read the J7 interview with Thomas Ikimi here.