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.


Peter Power Visor Consultants London said...

There has been much nonsense written about why my company ran an exercise on 7 July 2005 that had very close parallels to the real thing that day. Since then I have made several attempts to add my own comments to numerous sites that seem to get increasingly excited about their own conspiracy theories and in the process exclude any rational debate. It seems those who occupy the world of finding conspiracy theories to replace just about any coincidence, do not want to have any dialogue with those offering a different view, but I have not yet given up hope. I am therefore hoping, perhaps naively, that someone might like to read an honest and factual account about a particular exercise my company ran in London three years ago.

Unfortunately, the BBC have just postponed a programme in their ‘conspiracy files’ series that would have done this. Our client three years ago agreed to be named in the BBC programme since the attitude of the producer and his team was very balanced (several conspiracy theorists were also invited to take part). We even allowed our complete exercise material to be made available to the BBC. Regrettably broadcasting it now might jeopardise an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to next year.

Early in 2005 Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London, asked us to help them prepare an effective crisis management plan and rehearse it before sign-off. Several draft scenarios were drawn up and the crisis team themselves set the exercise date and time: 9.00am on 7 July.

The test was planned as a table-top walk through for about six people (the CM team) in a lecture room with all injects simulated. Everything was on MS PowerPoint. The location of their Central London office near to Chancery Lane was chosen as one test site. With many staff travelling to work via the London underground system, the chosen exercise simulated incendiary devices on three trains, very similar to a real IRA attack in 1992, as well as other events.

As there had been eighteen terrorist bomb attacks on tube trains prior to 2005, choosing the London Underground was logical rather than just prescient. With this in mind it was hardly surprising that Deutsche Bank had run a similar exercise a few days before and, prior to that, a multi-agency (and much publicised) exercise code-named Osiris II had simulated a terrorist attack at Bank tube station. Moreover, I had also taken part in a BBC Panorama programme in 2004 as a panellist alongside Michael Portillo MP et al, in an unscripted debate (we had no idea at all what the scenario was to be?) on how London might once again, deal with terrorist attacks, only this time it was fictional (created entirely by the BBC).

In short, some of the research for our exercise had already been done. The scenario developed for our client even started by using fictitious news items from the Panorama programme then, as with any walk through exercise, events unfolded solely on a screen as dictated by the facilitator without any external injects or actions beyond the exercise room. Also factored into the scenario was to be an above ground fictitious bomb exploding not far from the head office of the protected Jewish Chronicle magazine where for exercise purposes, our imagined terrorists would have been aware that commuters would now be walking to work (past a building already considered a target) as some tube stations would have been closed.

Of just eight nearby tube stations that fell within possible exercise's scope, three were chosen that, by coincidence, were involved in the awful drama that actually took place on 7 July 2005. A level of scenario validation that on this occasion, we could have done without.

An exercise that turns into the real thing is not that unusual. For example, in January 2003, thirty people were injured when a tube train derailed and hit a wall at speed. At the same time, the City of London Police were running an exercise for their central casualty bureau where the team quickly abandoned their plans and swung into action to cope with the real thing.

For a surprising number of people such coincidents cannot be accepted as such. There just has to be a conspiracy behind them, despite the obvious point that painstaking research will always identify probable above possible scenarios. By the way, the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of terrorism is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.

Peter Power
Visor Consultants

Rory Ridley-Duff said...

It is helpful to read this page, but as a researcher (working in a university), I am disappointed at the standard of investigation into the 7/7 Ripple Effect video. Whenever I come across a video that I initially disbelieve, I do what any good researcher should do - I check the information that is provided in the video (i.e. try to seek if it is false or misleading).

As the Canary Wharf claims were central to an alternative thesis regarding the day, I checked the information provided in the documentary. Your rebuttal article claims there is no evidence supporting the claim of the Canary Wharf shootings. Such a claim is false. The 7/7 Ripple Effect video provided two sources: The New Zealand Herald, based on report from Reuters, and a TV broadcast that was subsequently never shown again.

I was still not convinced, so I trawled the internet and found two further sources. The South London News carried a story just after the event (8th July). I also located a blog from the 7th July itself that provides a verbatim account of the unfolding events. It stated at 12:34 that:

"Someone here at work has just been phoned by a guy he knows in Canary Wharf (I know, it's a bit removed, but I trust him). He says that marines have shot a man who they think to have been a suicide bomber."

The three sources are: (New Zealand Herald, reported 9th July) (South London News, reported 8th July 2005) (Europhobia Blog, 7th July)

The question arises, therefore, why your rebuttal article misleads its readers by claiming there is 'no evidence'. Whatever else might be written about this video, I can personally confirm that the use of the sources about Canary Wharf were reported in a fair way, without distorting the press reports. It may not be strong evidence, but its appearance in multiple (very different) sources adds to its credibility.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff
Sheffield Hallam University

The Antagonist said...

Perhaps in your hasty researches, you missed this paragraph in the very article that you endeavour to take to task:

"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 you had bothered to follow the links in the above quoted paragraph, you would find the very same links you offered in your comment.

Far from trying to mislead readers, J7 merely highlights the highly speculative nature of the video and its claims.

Bridget said...

Rory, J7's forum has a whole thread on the Canary Wharf shooting.

Where do you think the makers of 7/7 Ripple Effect harvested all the information which was twisted into their speculative narrative?

Rory Ridley-Duff said...

Dear all,

I have access to news databases through my university. Here are all the key press reports of shootings at Canary Wharf on that day.

There is a definite pattern here. All UK broadsheets who did *not* have their own staff witnessing events support the government version. All overseas news reports, and the Daily Telegraph, provide support for the 'unofficial' version.

I don't believe this line of enquiry should be closed as I could not see any distortion of these reports in 7/7 Ripple Effect (whatever else may be wrong with it). The number of reports to overseas papers is significant - these have named sources. The UK papers claiming the reports are untrue do not provide named sources to support the denial.

CNN Breaking News, July 7th, 9:48 AM EST, Transcript Extract
“QUESTION: Can you tell me -- the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf (ph). Do you know anything about that?
BRIAN PADDICK: We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.” (Canada), July 7th, 11:34 AM EST, Start of news item.

Witness Describes Scene After the Attack

Canadian Brendan Spinks sees massive rush of policeman outside the building, and flurry of police cars and yellow-vested men. Unconfirmed report of police shooting suicide bomber at Canary Wharf. Report posted 4:34 on day of attack.

Vancouver Sun (British Columbia), July 8th, Final Edition
Lucy Hyslop, Daily Telegraph (London) editor, and former report for the Vancouver Sun, reports that Canary Wharf is sealed off completely to the public, and that friend reports two suicide bombers shot dead. Telegraph is only UK broadsheet not to report

Ottawa Citizen, 8th July, Final Edition, extract.
Reported by: James Starnes

“The radio is saying they shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf and that's right opposite my apartment across the river (Thames).”

Huntsville Times (Alabama), 8th July, Second Edition
“Nicola's best friend was working in Canary Wharf - London's answer to the World Trade Center. She called in the afternoon, still in the building. Her office had been told not to leave, and rumors were flying. Someone had been shot.”

The New Zealand Herald, 9th July, News Section
Reported by: (Not stated, News section).
“A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London. ..He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.”

Sunday Telegraph (London), 10th July, Feature
Reported by: Nigel Farndale
“One thing about which all we rumour mongers were agreed was that a suicide bomber had definitely been shot by security forces while attempting to blow up Canary Wharf.”

UPI, 11th July, 1:48 EST
Possible suicide bomber attack in London

“The New Zealand Herald reported Monday a man claims police may have shot two apparent suicide bombers in London's East End…The New Zealander, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that police shot and killed the two men unidentified men (sic) wearing bombs strapped to their bodies at 10:30 GMT July 7. The report has not been confirmed. The paper quoted the New Zealander as saying that in the aftermath of the shooting 8,000 HSBC employees were told to stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours. The New Zealander would not release the names of two English colleagues, who he said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower. Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the HSBC building, one of the three tallest in London, following the bombings in the center of the city.”

Bridget said...

Thanks Rory, J7 also believe that this line of inquiry should not be closed.

A fully Independent Public Inquiry and the Inquests into the deaths of the 4 accused must investigate these reports of shootings in Canary Wharf. Their post mortem reports would be a good place to start.

Rory Ridley-Duff said...

Thanks Bridget,

Hope the truth will be established in my lifetime :)

Best wishes

Anonymous said...

I definately remember a comment on Radio 4 and I think it was before 9am on the morning of 7/7/2005 (on the news programme that may have been extended because of the emergency, so it could have been after 9), that the police had shot or were following and intending to shoot a suicide bomber in the Canary Wharf area. It was only announced once and i remember thinking at the time, "how do they know this is a suicide bomber if he hasn't already blown himself up and he's still walking around, unless, they already knew about him before that morning's events?"

Bridget said...

^ Hi Anonymous

It is unlikely that you heard any news on the radio before 9am as the earliest we have found any reports of even the events on the trains was 9.16. We do know that Canary Wharf went into shut down that morning and that Brian Paddick was asked about rumours of a suicide bomber being shot at a news conference later that day.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign | Incident Analysis: King's Cross / Russell Square