Monday 3 December 2007

7/7 Ripple Effect - A Rebuttal and Rejection

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.

Monday 5 November 2007

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

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.

Saturday 25 August 2007

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

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.

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

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


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


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:

05.07: 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.

06.49: 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.

07:14: 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.

Monday 13 August 2007

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

"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

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.

Wednesday 4 July 2007

Professor Michael Clarke identifies 7/7 detonation devices

"There is no evidence at the bomb sites of remote detonation, nor of any material at the bomb factory which would suggest that they intended to construct remote detonators. The fact that Hussain seems to have bought a battery that morning may provide further indication that they were using self-detonating devices."

Speaking about last weekend's terror alerts in Haymarket and Glasgow airport on Channel 4 News earlier this week, Professsor Michael Clarke of King's College London said:
"Mobile phones were an important forensic element in the July the 7th bombings of two years ago. Since the detonators there were mobile phones and bits of phones were recovered, and SIM cards were also recovered, which are very vital."

Professor Michael Clarke
Professor of Defence Studies, Kings College London
Channel 4 News, 2nd July 2007

What does Professor Michael Clarke know about the events of 7th July 2005 that the rest of us don't know and aren't being told?

Sunday 1 July 2007

New J7 Website Content - King's Cross/Russell Square Analysis

After many months of research J7 are pleased to publish a detailed analysis and summary of the events that occurred around the King's Cross and Russell Square areas of the London Underground on 7th July 2005. This analysis covers the official version of events including a timeline, how the story broke in the media, how the story changed dramatically, an analysis of the two train numbers, confusing accounts from the first responders and eye-witness accounts that contradict the official version of events.

The suicide-bomber theory is also examined including the strange identification of Germaine Lindsay as the person responsible for this explosion. The article also examines the fiasco of the Casualty Bureau and further anomalies surrounding the incident with a summary of the many unanswered questions regarding this incident.

For the full details, please visit the J7 site and read the article here.

Sunday 10 June 2007

J7 interviewed on Channel 4 News

A specially commissioned Channel 4 survey shows 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. The survey of 500 British Muslims, carried out by GFK NOP, found that nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks and 52% believe that the British security services have "made up" evidence to convict terrorist suspects.

While the Channel 4 news survey focused on beliefs among the Muslim community, the J7 group of independent public researchers is comprised predominantly of non-Muslims and includes people of all races, colours and creeds indicating that similar research among the non-Muslim community would be likely to show similar results.

Indeed the comments submitted by Channel 4 News viewers who saw the piece seem to support this. Darshna Soni’s follow up blog makes the point, “But dozens of you pointed out that it isn’t just British Muslims who question the official narrative.”

A few of the non-Muslim commenters who are also sceptical about the official version of events include:

  • "Well done Ch4 and thanks for bringing the survey and a number of important issues to the attention of the British public. Do bear in mind many British non-Muslims also question the official version of 7/7."
  • “I am white and middle class, and I also think that the government has not told us the truth about 7/7.
  • "Why don't you ask the same question of non-Muslims? i.e. 'do you trust the authorities and the government?' - you might be surprised by the result, as its not only Muslims who no longer believe the Bliar government."
  • “Why only ask Muslims about this? It isn’t only Muslims who believe this.”
  • "I am a white female atheist and I don't believe the government has told us the whole truth about the 7/7 bombings. I don't believe the conspiracy theories either. So, for this survey you could also have asked Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and atheists what they thought. I'd be prepared to bet that the answer to the question 'has the government told the truth about 7/7' would be broadly similar in all of those."
  • “You need to carry out a survey of non-Muslims - you might get a result that is not all that different.”
  • “I think you’ll find the majority of non-Muslims living in Britain would give the same answers.”
  • "The government and security services lied about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the reason for the war, and after the shooting of an innocent man on the tube, more lies were told. Is it any wonder that many Muslims do not believe the government?! So do many non-Muslims."
  • "I think you have missed the point somewhat, as it is not only a view commonly held among Muslims but also among many English nationals and people around the world."
  • "You will find massive support for the Muslim view, and not just from Muslims."
  • “You don’t need to look only at the Muslims community to find people (a) believing in conspiracy surrounding that particular event or (b) feeling let down, manipulated and betrayed by their own government.”

Also worth looking at is the list of over 1300 signatories of the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition which, once again, seems to indicate quite clearly that it isn’t just Muslims who don’t believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7.

In another piece on the Channel 4 web site, Darshna Soni highlights a few of the more egregious errors and inconsistencies in the official Home Office report, something that hasn’t been done since the Guardian article by Mark Honigsbaum which featured J7 (the J7 response to the article is here).

You can watch Darshna Soni's original report, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7', here, read viewer comments on the piece here and Darshna Soni's follow-up blog here. See also 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the anomaliles in the official story and Conspiracies and Cover-Ups.

Given the historical and widely accepted history of terrorism on the British mainland, particularly with regard to alleged instances of 'Irish terrorism', it would be unwise not to acknowledge the lessons learned from the cases of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny McNamee and Judith Ward, amongst others. All of these people were convicted of terrorist crimes for politically expedient purposes and served long prison sentences on the basis of State-manufactured evidence and the suppression by the State of evidence that proved their innocence.

The barbaric sentences handed out to five young men in the Crevice trial, based on the evidence of a Supergrass, the likely involvement of an intelligence services agent, as well as the use of forced confessions extracted under torture abroad are more recent examples of how similar tactics to those developed in Northern Ireland are now being used against British Muslim subjects, the perceived enemy of the day.

It will be interesting to see if and how Channel 4 follow up the piece.

Friday 8 June 2007

New J7 Website Content - Edgware Road Analysis

After many months of research J7 are pleased to publish a detailed analysis and summary of the events that occurred around the Edgware Road and Paddington areas of the London Underground on 7th July 2005. The analysis covers the official version of events including a timeline, how the story broke in the media, the confusing eye-witness accounts of sighting Mohammed Sidique Khan on the train, the MPS account of three trains being involved including 'a blast through a tunnel wall' and the discrepancies in the journeys of some of the victims. We also analyse the Resilience Mortuary and the strange use of two hotels as temporary morgues. The article also examines the TrackerNet images from the morning of July 7th, further anomalies surrounding the incident and a summary of the unanswered questions regarding the incident site.

For the full details, please visit the J7 site and read the article here.

Tuesday 29 May 2007

New content added to J7 web site

After many months of research, J7 are pleased to publish a detailed analysis and summary of the events that occurred around the Liverpool Street, Aldgate and Aldgate East areas of the London Underground on 7th July 2005. The analysis covers the official version of events including a timeline, how the story broke in the media, the confusing accounts of where exactly the blast occurred, the conflicting accounts of which line the train was travelling on and in which direction it was travelling and a look at the witness reports. The article also looks at companies involved in TFL, the TrackerNet images from the morning of July 7th, further anomalies surrounding the incident and a summary of the unanswered questions regarding the incident site.

For the full details, please visit the J7 site and read the article here.

Sunday 13 May 2007

Tayab Ali's post-Crevice Trial Statement on behalf of Salahuddin Amin - Video & Transcript

Below is full transcript of the statement given by lawyer Tayab Ali, on behalf of Salahuddin Amin, as given outside the Old Bailey at the end of the Crevice trial on 30/04/07:

This statement is provided on behalf of Salahuddin Amin:
In the name of God, the most compassionate, the merciful.

I am innocent.

An outrageous confidence trick has been played on the jury, and against me.

I was convicted by false evidence and the fruits of torture.

I am innocent.

I told the jury the truth.

I am innocent.

I told the jury I had been tortured and mistreated by the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence services, over a ten month period of illegal detention in Pakistan during 2004.

I told the jury how the British security services were responsible for my illegal detention, mistreatment, and illegal transfer to the UK.

Even though I am a British Citizen, the British government did not lift a finger to protect me from abuse and torture.

In fact, the British authorities made it worse by interrogating me at the same time as knowing I had been tortured.

The British government have been able to hide their shameful involvement in my illegal detention and torture in secret sessions which occurred during the trial.

These hearings cannot be reported to you, the public. They continue to hide behind this veil.

I demand they tell the truth about what they did to me.

I demand the truth about the other people who are still in secret detention and being tortured as part of this misguided war on terror.

I was illegally detained with some of these people. I know that some of them were treated far worse than I was, while British, American, and Canadian intelligence officers stood ready to benefit from the unreliable fruits of torture.

I demand an apology from the head of the security services and the British government about what they did to me.

I demand an explanation as to how this could have happened.

My wrongful conviction has given a green light to those who carry out the heinous act of torture on behalf of civilised western governments.

I will continue to fight to clear my name.

Thank you.
For other statements made by Crevice defence lawyers, and additional information about Operation Crevice, please see the Operation Crevice section of the J7 web site.

Tuesday 1 May 2007

Imran Khan's post-Crevice Trial Statement

Below is a transcript of Imran Khan's statement, given outside the Old Bailey, on behalf of the 5 (of 7) men convicted in the Crevice trial that ended on 30/04/07:
I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:

In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

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.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."

And that's the end of the statement. Thank you.

An MP3 audio recording of Imran Khan's statement can be found here, courtesy of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

The July 7th Truth Campaign believes that the complaints and allegations made by the defendants in their statement should be taken very seriously, especially in the light of the numerous miscarriages of justice in cases of alleged Irish terrorism.

The end of the Crevice trial has resulted in renewed calls for an Independent Public Inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005. J7 wish to reiterate the point - as previously made by Amnesty International, the Law Society of England and Wales and Geraldine Finucane, the widow of murdered Irish Human Rights lawyer, Patrick Finucane - that under the Inquiries Act 2005, which passed into law on 7 June 2005, full control of all inquiries is held by the executive, meaning there can be no such thing as a truly 'independent' or 'public' inquiry.

Monday 26 February 2007

The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained

"If a country like the former Soviet Union, armed to the teeth and with the massive resources of the state could not achieve the alleged objective of overthrowing capitalism after seventy-five years, it is reasonable to ask the question, why has the British state embarked on a policy of creating a de facto police state replete with laws which have more than a passing similarity to those passed by both Hitler and Mussolini?"

Writer and journalist William Bowles on The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained in an article written specially for the July 7th Truth Campaign.

Saturday 24 February 2007

New J7 Article: Capitalising on Terror

"Oh well......I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway"

Capitalising on Terror: Who is really destroying our freedoms?

The threat of terrorist attacks cannot fail to be embedded into the consciousness of almost all who reside in this country. The UK has been under the shadow of terrorism for many decades from one 'enemy' or another. Even as the emergency response was still under way on the 7th of July 2005, politicians and public figures were praising the defiant spirit of the British public in the face of atrocity.

However, it is fair to say that the psychological effects of such events vary across the general population. With the constant “When, not if” type warnings ringing in the ears of the British public, almost relentless news coverage of 'terror raids' and 'foiled plots', it is virtually impossible not to feel that we should be fearing for our safety. But how do we know we're being given an accurate picture of exactly what the threat is and from where it's coming? How do we know that if we live in a major city, every time we step out of doors or use the public transport system we will not be met with 'death and destruction on an unprecedented scale'?

Alternatively, how likely is it that we will? In today's Britain, people are now charged – and in some cases jailed - for even thinking about terrorism and details of suspected terrorists' plans can be revealed to the media even though it is also admitted that the intelligence that led to the raids "could be wrong" . The J7 campaign is extremely concerned that the measures put in place that are supposedly designed to protect the public could actually present a bigger threat to our safety and freedom than terrorism itself, and constructing more of a climate of fear than the terrorists ever could........

Recently the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, suggested that modern day Britain is comparable to Idi Amin's regime in Uganda. Around the same time the leader of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr Mohammed Naseem, compared life for Muslims in the UK to that of the life of Jews in Nazi Germany. In among the furore that ensued among the liberal intelligentsia, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, gently reminded everyone that the laws don't just apply to Muslims, or terrorists, the laws apply to everyone. If you are reading this in Britain, that means you.

Read the full article on the J7 site here.

Tuesday 6 February 2007

J7: The London Bombings Dossier, A forensic analysis by David Minahan

J7 are pleased to announce a major new area of content on the J7 web site, the J7 London Bombings Dossier - A Forensic Analysis of the London Bombings. The dossier was compiled and researched by former National President of the MSF Union (now Amicus), David Minahan. David also worked as a claims investigator for an insurance company and also a leading firm of solicitors and has extensive experience of 'forensic' investigation.

From the dossier's introduction:

A Forensic Analysis of the 7/7 London Bombings,
by David Minahan


The London Bombings dossier is a well-researched study and analysis of the events of 7th July 2005 and was received by the July 7th Truth Campaign in hard-copy format. Since receiving the hard copy version of the dossier, J7 have managed to obtain electronic copies of the dossier's summaries from the author. J7 researchers have verified the research contained within the dossier and converted the in-depth printed dossier into the electronic version that is reproduced here.

The July 7th Truth Campaign are reproducing this dossier for the wealth of information it contains, the depth of research and its compilation of related pieces of information that, in the time that has passed since the events to which the dossier refers, seem to have disappeared from the public consciousness. J7 does not necessarily endorse the views, findings or conclusions contained in the dossier and is making the dossier available here for informational purposes.

The original dossier consisted of “print offs” of various internet items, arranged into folders. Each individual folder consisted of around ten “exhibits” annotated with reference numbers in the top right hand corner of the page. The folders were divided into twenty six subject headings, and in five cases into two sub folders. There were, therefore, a total of thirty one folders, and approximately three hundred and ten exhibits.

Although other relevant items came to light during the research, for ease of reference, each folder was restricted to ten items only. It is appreciated that different press reports may have come from the same agency source resulting in some duplication.

As with the original dossier, in reproducing the information contained within it, wherever possible, priority has been given to the statements of named witnesses, either quoted in the press or, ideally on their own blogs. Also contemporaneous, (or near contemporaneous) reports from local papers, in particular the Evening Standard and the Hampstead and Highgate Express, rather than national newspapers, feature significantly.

Each folder contains the writer's summary of its contents with reference made to certain of the exhibits. Hopefully, however, all the items are of relevance and not just those commented upon. The majority of the folders deal with sites of explosions, or suspected explosions. In addition there are eight that deal with background items - “advance warnings” “media restrictions” etc.

As far as possible the folders have been arranged so that related sites and subjects follow chronologically.

To read the complete dossier, please click here.

Saturday 3 February 2007

J7 Petition reaches 1000 signatures

Launched under six months ago, the J7 'Release the Evidence' petition has now been signed by over 1000 people. This is a clear indication of how strongly people feel that we need to see the facts about this atrocity. Thanks to everybody who's taken the time to sign and distribute the petition....all of you are a force for change.

Saturday 20 January 2007

Above Top Secret interviews the J7 Campaign

We were lucky enough to be offered an interview with ATS over the holidays, which you can read below. It was also discussed on their forum here.

ATS interviews the July 7th Truth Campaign

Every member of ATS will remember July 7th 2005. That morning, many of us UK members went straight into chat to discuss the bombings. The fear of what happened touched us in many ways and many of us asked questions to what happened to that day. Many members of ATS found holes in the official story that was issued by the UK Government. To find out more about July 7th, I have conducted an interview with the July 7th Campaign. These guys have campaigned long and hard to get a public inquiry to what happened that day, even when the Government has said no. Below is the interview that i conducted

ATS: Thank you for taking time to answer some questions regarding July 7th, many at ATS will enjoy this interview. July 7th was a tragic day for the United Kingdom and many have demanded a public inquiry to what happened, but the Government has said no. Why won't the Government hold one?

Thank you for offering J7 the interview and the opportunity to respond to your questions about 7/7 and the July 7th Truth Campaign.

Why the government won't hold a public inquiry is a good question and one to which the government have given a number of responses, none of the which are particularly valid and none of which can be excused given the severity and magnitude of what happened.

For the answer to why a public inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005 has not been held so far, it is perhaps best to refer to the words of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who said: "If we ended up having a full scale public inquiry... we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time and I don't think it would be sensible." Indeed, Downing Street has also dismissed the whole notion of a public inquiry as "a ludicrous diversion" so the government has made perfectly clear its opinion on an inquiry into the largest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second world war.

The nonsense of excuses presented by the government for not holding a public inquiry is further compounded for anyone who has any knowledge of other far less serious events into which the British government has held public inquiries.

Tony Blair said: "I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do." Yet, to date, the people do not know exactly what happened, nor how it happened, nor who was responsible for making it happen. Yes, there is an 'official version' of events, the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July' as released by the Home Office on 11 May 2006, but that story is flawed and inaccurate if the established facts have anything to do with it. Furthermore, the government account is not backed up with any tangible evidence - merely hearsay, speculation, assumptions and presuppositions - nor could it be because of the huge and glaring factual inaccuracies contained within it which, to this day, remain uncorrected and unclarified. J7 suggests that if the official account of events were the truth, then there would be no discrepancies, no errors, nor any inconsistencies in the account. Facts, after all, are facts but you won't find many, if any, of those in the official Home Office report.

ATS: What do you say to those who have branded you and your team "Conspiracy Theorists", who are making outlandish theories and are refusing to accept the official story?

The simple answer is that such a charge is completely invalid because, quite simply, we don't have a theory about what happened on 7/7! Our position from the outset has been that precisely nothing about the government and media versions of events makes any sense at all and, further, their story is entirely unsupported by evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

Without a full and independent public inquiry, the events of 7th July 2005 will never face the judicial scrutiny that they deserve. Additionally, the judicial system in the UK operates on a presumption of innocence; that is, "Innocent until proven guilty". In the case of July 7th and the four young British men accused by the government of perpetrating the attack on London, there is no evidence in the public domain that conclusively proves their guilt and in this perhaps one might find at least part of the reason why the government has thus far refused to hold a public inquiry.

Furthermore, it is imperative to understand exactly what a conspiracy theory is, for the actual definition is rather different to the conventional perception of what one is. While definitions of the word 'theory' are generally consistent, J7 always recommend that anyone who wishes to believe we are 'conspiracy theorists' refer to a dictionary and check the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'. An approximate legal definition of the word conspiracy is, "An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action". If one applies that definition in the context of the term 'conspiracy theory', then any theory about what happened on 7/7 which involves more than one person conspiring to undertake the criminal activity that occurred that day is, technically, a 'conspiracy theory'.
As we have no theory at all the allegation that we are 'conspiracy theorists' is unfair and unwarranted. The British government, however, has published their theory of how 7/7 came to be, which involves 'two or more persons' conspiring to commit a crime, the truth of the matter is that the British government better fit the true definition of the term
'conspiracy theorists'.

ATS:Was The July Seventh Truth Campaign influenced in anyway shape or form by the 9/11 truth movement in the United States?

The answer to that question might surprise a lot of people as the 9/11 truth movement in the United States has been an influence, but not in the way that people might think. From a purely UK perspective, the 9/11 movement in the U.S. appears to be divided on more issues than it is united on and there appears to be a lot of discussion and argument about
what might have happened if the official version of events is not what actually happened. Without a full and thorough investigation that examines all the available evidence, we think it is unwise to speculate what might have happened because, without a proper examination of the evidence, it is impossible to know. So, in terms of the influence of the U.S. 9/11 truth movement on the July 7th Truth Campaign, rather than speculate and further confuse issues we have chosen to highlight that there is no evidence in the public domain that could be used to prove conclusively one story or another about 7/7. This is precisely why we are calling on the government and authorities to release the evidence that either proves, or disproves, the official version of events as outlined in the Home Office 'narrative'.

ATS: The official story is that a al-Qa'ida mastermind recruited British born Muslims to carry out the attacks on July 7th. But there are holes in the official story, such as return tickets and one of the targets is a large Muslims area in London. My question is this, is the official story some sort of "scary story" to support Government's anti-terror

There are so many holes, speculations, inconsistencies and outright factual errors in the official story that it isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. We recommend that anyone who is interested enough to investigate further reads the official account of events as a starting point and decides for themselves whether or not the 41-page document could be considered credible or sufficient explanation for how 56 people were killed in the heart of London.

Until 7th July 2005, so called anti-terrorist legislation in the UK was largely riding on the back of the events that occurred in New York on September 11th 2001, with occasional reference to the Madrid train bombings. Since 7th July 2005, British anti-terrorist legislation has undergone several revisions, all of which has sailed through Parliament, without question nor challenge, precisely because of 7/7.

So, in answer to your question, yes, the official story - if the errors and anomalies in it are ignored and the story is taken at face value - has absolutely provided all the justification the government needs to roll out any legislation it requires. In addition to facilitating the unhindered passing of 'anti-terrorism' legislation, 7/7 has also resulted in the demonisation, dehumanisation and vilification of Muslims by much of the mainstream media. This unquestionably racist propaganda has been ramped to such a level that barely a day goes by without the news featuring stories, usually with little or no basis in fact, about the perceived threat from young, British-born Muslims.

ATS: On that the day, the four men traveled to London via a train from Luton. Metropolitan Police confirmed that they took the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th. However, The July Seventh Truth Campaign has called this "the impossible train journey". What do you mean by that?

"The impossible train journey," means precisely that, an impossible train journey. Any credible theory about what happened on 7th July 2005 requires facts upon which it should be based, yet the official government account of events places the accused on a 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train which, categorically, was cancelled and did not run that day. This might seem like a minor detail, but if the government, with all the 'intelligence' and 'security' resources it has at its disposal, cannot obtain and report such a basic and easy to verify fact correctly, how much faith can anyone place in the rest of their story?

J7 researchers had confirmed from the Thameslink train operating company that the 7.40am train was cancelled on the morning of 7th July and this information was placed in the public domain in August 2005. Yet, when the official report was published, some 10 months after the incidents to which it referred, the government still got it wrong. We believe that this level of inaccuracy cannot be allowed to stand and, in fact, the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, stood before Parliament two months after the release of the official report and admitted this error existed in the government's account. As a result of this admission, we learnt
that the Home Office did not obtain the train time information from the train operating company. It then transpired that the Home Office had not even bothered to check the train details with the police, so one might be tempted to ask quite where they obtained the erroneous information about what we refer to as the impossible train journey.

Since then, Dr Reid has been forced to acknowledge additional errors in the Home Office report, including crucial details such as the precise locations of the explosions on the trains involved. In fact, as far as the Home Office report goes, they are expecting the British public to believe that they have not yet managed to determine the type of the explosives used. Well, the forensic testing processes that would determine the type of explosives used would produce results in anything from a few minutes to a few hours. A worst case example might require a couple of days to produce the results so, yet again, the British public would do well to wonder why the government was unable to identify the explosives in 10 months of investigation.

It beggars belief that any true and just account of events could be so hideously flawed and lacking in information, especially when the government is expecting the British public to accept their 'narrative' of events in place of a full and independent public inquiry. We have documented many of these factual errors, inconsistencies and anomalies on the July 7th Truth Campaign web site in a feature called Mind The Gaps Part 1 and Mind The Gaps Part 2. See: and

ATS: Last question. The Government has said no to a public inquiry and is still refusing the calls to have one by many groups. A public inquiry, in the eyes of the Government, would be waste of time and effort that will distracting for them. In your own words, why is a public inquiry so important?

On this point we are in agreement with the government for, in the eyes of the July 7th Truth Campaign, a public inquiry would be a waste of time, but not for the reasons that the government specify. Precisely one month before the events of 7/7, a new piece of legislation came into force, known as the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14
times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder. There were also allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion. As a result of the Inquiries Act 2005, Mr Finucane's widow wrote to the judiciary calling on them to boycott any inquiry held under the terms of the act into her husband's death.

Congressman Chris Smith named the Parliamentary bill that preceded that act "the Public Inquiries cover-up bill" and the act that was passed effectively renders ultimate control of all public inquiries to the executive, meaning that any inquiry held under its terms would result in the government investigating itself and determining which aspects of 7/7 are investigated and reported, or if they are investigated at all. The Inquiries Act also prevents investigation of the security services and grants the government the right to shut down any or all avenues of inquiry at their discretion. As any reasonable person will understand, this is a less than desirable position and will not produce anything that vaguely resembles a truly Independent Public Inquiry.
What is interesting to note is that, of all the diverse groups calling for a public inquiry, only the July 7th Truth Campaign has raised the issue of the Inquiries Act 2005 as being a major obstacle to obtaining an independent inquiry.

For the record, Amnesty International has called for the boycott of inquiries proposed under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, to date, no judges have been found that will agree to participate in an inquiry into the killing of Patrick Finucane. J7's position is that if the Inquiries Act is not fit for the purpose of investigating state collusion in the killing of one man almost 20 years ago, then it is certainly not fit for the purpose of investigating the killing of 56 people on 7th July 2005. Consequently, the July 7th Truth Campaign's calls for a public inquiry specifically state that any inquiry into the events of 7/7 must be a public inquiry and that it must be conducted outside of the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, further, that this piece of legislation needs to be repealed.

For anyone that is interested in learning more about the events of 7th July 2005, please see the July 7th Truth Campaign web site at:

and our research forum at:

The July 7th Truth Campaign has launched a petition calling on the government to Release The Evidence that will conclusively prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the veracity, or otherwise, of the Home Office's account of events. We would urge Above Top Secret readers to sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition at:

There is also an excellent summary of the official story and the evidence - or lack there-of - in a documentary called Ludicrous Diversion which can be viewed on Google Video:

In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7 - The July 7th Truth Campaign
The July 7th Truth Campaign

I would like to thank the July 7th Truth Campaign for taking time to answer questions and to take part in this interview for ATS

Related News Links: