7 July Inquests: It's A Conspiracy, Stupid!

"Although the plotters plainly designed their plot in a way that would add the fuel of worldwide publicity to their aims, these inquests have at their heart, however, the single fact that there was a conspiracy to murder. Each of these 52 inquests is concerned with an act of murder. We have found no evidence to the contrary. It is also clear from the evidence that is available that the four men who detonated the bombs were Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. To reflect the reality of the position and to avoid legal sophistry, I intend to call them "the bombers". [page 13, lines 9-20]

...

"But again, I must emphasise it is not a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt, or a proper function of mine to express opinions on impermissible areas. [page 15, lines 2-7]

...

"Some of the questions may never fully be answered and some may of course also fall outside the scope of these inquests, but what we can say is that a great deal of time, energy and resources has been devoted to finding out what happened to each deceased. Thus it is to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists." [page 22, lines 8-16]

-- Hugo Keith, Counsel to the 7 July Inquests

11 October 2010

It's the end of the first week of the 7 July Inquests process. It's been a long and busy week for the J7 research collective as we endeavour to look beyond the largely throwaway headlines the mainstream media are happy to churn out to fill the spaces between adverts -- as cunningly crafted for them by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith^* -- and examine the minutiae of the proceedings.

Each day the Inquest sits results in approximately 200 pages of transcripts and a varying amount of evidential submissions that need to be diligently worked through and examined in light of the research work that J7 has been conducting during the five years that have passed since the events of 7 July 2005. And, quite frankly, if J7 doesn't perform this function, it's probably not going to happen in any other public forum.

Followers of J7's work -- which, if this week's activities at the inquests are anything to go by, undoubtedly include the counsel to the inquests -- will know that we recently published our submissions to the inquests. Our apparently "voluminous" submissions, as Hugo Keith described them on Day 1 of the inquests proper, outline many of the outstanding discrepancies, anomalies and inconsistencies of the still unproven 7/7 "narrative". The evidence on which this narrative of 7/7 is said to be based has, prior to the inquests, received absolutely no judicial scrutiny in over five years, although it has repeatedly been taken at face value, including in courts of law, and the contents of the "narrative" being taken at face value has been extended by the counsel to the inquests to the actual inquests themselves.

It is perhaps opportune to note at this stage quite what the definition of a "narrative" is:

Narrative; -noun
1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.
3. the art, technique, or process of narrating: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

So, a "narrative" of any sort may, or may not, by its very definition, be true, and is equally as likely to be fictitious. In this particular regard, if no other, the official Home Office report covering the events 7 July 2005 is very clear indeed and openly refers to itself as a "narrative", rather than what many presume or perceive it to be, a factual account of events. As such, the burden of proof lies with the narrative's hitherto anonymous story-tellers to make the case, not with anyone else to prove it to be false, as is commonly argued by the "conspiracy theorists" who champion the conspiracy theory touted by the Home Office.

Judicial Scrutiny?

While the inquests may count, technically, as judicial scrutiny, it is judicial scrutiny that is occurring without the benefit of a jury. This apparent judicial scrutiny is in turn being orchestrated and funded by the State, overtly to appease the concerns of bereaved families who feel they have not yet had the truth regarding the deaths of their loved ones. From the outset, it must be understood that the State cannot in any way find itself to be culpable for anything that would reflect badly upon it, and history is littered with countless examples of the State absolving itself of responsibility, illegality, or immorality in all degrees.

Further, if these concerns aren't by themselves sufficient to sound alarm bells, the Counsel to the Inquests has quite a history of forcefully defending the interests of Queen and State in many instances where these entities have been deemed to be under attack. High profile examples of Keith's work include defending The Queen, no less, at the inquest into the death of Diana; the DPP in the case of a judicial review brought by a member of the family of the mercilessly savaged Jean Charles de Menezes and, more recently, the "merciless savagery" of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the inquest into the murder of the barrister Mark Saunders.

Evidently, Mr Keith has no qualms defending "merciless savagery" when it suits the interests of the highest levels of the State, so one might be prompted to wonder quite why a counsel so wedded to the staunch legal defence of the realm against all-comers might be required for what, superficially at least, is an open inquest into the deaths that occurred on 7 July 2005.

Keith also specialises in extradition and his notable extradition cases include "Abu Hamza, the Natwest 3, David Mills and Silvio Berlusconi in Italian mutual legal assistance proceedings and the Secretary of State in the cases of Ian Norris [PDF] and Gary McKinnon."

The Inquest Process

An intrinsic and vital part of any inquest process is to not prejudge any aspects of the factors leading up to and involved in the cause(s) of death. It would appear, given the contents and areas for further examination listed in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, that the causes of death have already been pre-judged to be linked in some way to explosions occurring on three underground trains and a bus and, further, that these explosions have been prejudged to have been made to occur by the four accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain, and Lindsay. Indeed, over 60 percent of the contents of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues relates to the area of 'Preventability'; that seemingly being the potentiality for the preventability of an attack by four young, British, Muslim men, these specifically being Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay. Therefore, the bulk of the Inquest's Provisional Index of Factual Issues is based around a substantial deviation from the core purpose of the inquest process, seemingly in favour of using the brutal and horrific deaths of 56 people, and the inquest to which they are entitled, as a cynical stick with which to beat the police and security services. While there may well have been significant involvement and failings on the parts of the various organisations, and while some of these areas may well be touched upon as evidence is presented and connections are made during the inquest process, having such activities comprising the bulk of provisional inquest investigation before the inquest has even started seems somewhat counter-intuitive to the notion of not having prejudged any aspects relating to the manner in which the deceased came about their deaths.

With these concerns about the narrative and the structural arrangements of the inquest process recognised and stated, in addition to the overwhelming lack of evidence that has been released and the great many concerns outlined by J7 in the five years since 7/7, it appears that the judicious aspect of judicial scrutiny that passes even the media by, falls to the general public.

Thanks to the Internet the 'ordinary' people of the general public no longer need to rely entirely on sneaking the odd letter past lowly editors into low-circulation newspapers, or the efforts of what were once known, and are now sadly lamented, as investigative journalists. Ordinary people have at their fingertips their own means of production and dissemination of information, along with the ability to produce analysis and content at least on a par with, if not far in excess of, that which the media and all its corporate interests foist upon us. This is what J7 have been doing for over five years now, and we have been doing so with sufficient vigour, transparency and credibility that the Counsel to the Inquests feels the need to make repeated, if indirect, references to the research we have conducted and the information we have published.

And so the next phase of this process, the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog, has been born, following on from the J7 web site, blog, petition, Facebook campaign, and research forum, established specifically to provide coverage and examination of the inquest proceedings, along with analysis of the evidence that is being released as part of the inquest process.

Contributions to the blog will be made by various members of the core J7 research team and the blog will be updated as regularly as possible during the duration of the inquests. As always, we welcome contributions from non-J7 affiliated parties who are taking the time and making the effort to follow the inquest proceedings.

Inquest Resources

• J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests
• Coroner's Inquests into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005
• Inquest Hearing Transcripts
• Inquest Evidence

---

^* "Merciless savagery" is one of Keith's descriptions of the events of 7/7 that springs immediately to the fore, and one which received a great deal of coverage after the first day's proceedings. Without doubt all acts of premeditated murder are acts of "merciless savagery" and this applies equally to the victims of 7/7 as it does to any other murdered human beings. However, when the words are uttered by someone who has repeatedly and steadfastly defended for personal profit the actions and the interests of a Monarchy and State that is itself responsible, in just the last decade alone, for in excess of a million acts of "merciless savagery", orders of magnitude greater in number than those that occurred on 7/7, it could reasonably be argued that Keith's words are bereft of meaning.

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests

J7 PRESS RELEASE

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

7/7 INQUESTS BEGIN

===========================================================

Over five years on from the events of 7th July 2005 and, finally, the inquests into 52 of the deaths that occurred that day are about to commence in earnest. In a preliminary Inquest hearing on 23 June 2010 the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, stated that she would accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquest to consider.

J7 decided to seize the opportunity presented by Lady Justice Hallett's generous offer to accept submissions suggesting lines of inquiry to the 7 July Inquest process. The J7 submissions were sent to Martin Smith, the Solicitor to the Inquests on 23 July 2010, and subsequently to the Counsels for the bereaved and survivors.

Our submissions detail suggested lines of inquiry and questions which we believe should be proposed and considered by the Coroner in the process of the Inquests relating to 7 July 2005.

Today J7 have published our submissions so that the general public can be aware of at least some of the many unanswered questions that still exist about the events of 7/7. Our submissions were prepared in response to the publication by the 7 July Inquests of a Provisional Index of Factual Issues.

Copies of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, along with J7's Submissions to the 7 July Inquests can be downloaded using the links below:

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests

http://julyseventh.co.uk/J7-Inquest-Submission/index.html

or alternatively:

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2658993

NOTES FOR EDITORS

===========================================================

• J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was established shortly after the events of 7th July 2005, when it transpired that the unfolding story was giving rise to more questions than answers.
• J7's ongoing research efforts have twice forced the government to amend the official Home Office narrative which, on one occasion, required the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, to stand before parliament and announce a major factual inaccuracy to the house.
• J7 do not accept that the Inquests into 52 of the 56 deaths should stand in place of Inquests into the four men accused of perpetrating the events of 7/7.
• J7 are dismayed that the families of the accused have been refused the legal aid that would have allowed them to be represented at the current round of Inquests.
• J7 fully expect that the Inquests into the four accused should be opened and conducted publicly once the Inquests into the 52 have been completed.
• J7 are concerned that some witnesses called at the Inquests may have already been presented with the Metropolitan Police site reports from each of the four locations. We have requested that any witnesses called to give testimony at the Inquests are asked to state for the public record whether they have viewed and/or read the Metropolitan Police reports as it is highly unusual that witnesses called to give evidence in any case would be privy to such reports. J7 are deeply concerned about the impact and effects that having access to these reports prior to giving their testimonies will have on their recollections of events and the witness testimonies that will be given to the Inquests.
• In November 2005, after repeated refusals by the government to hold an independent public inquiry into 7/7, and given the paucity of evidence presented to support the official narrative of events, J7 established its People's Investigation Forum to coordinate our ongoing research efforts and track the progress of the many Freedom of Information requests we have issued in order to try and uncover the truth.
• Over 3,200 people have signed our petition calling on the government and police to release the evidence they claim to have. J7 supports all calls for an independent public inquiry, and are the only organisation calling for a public inquiry who specifically stipulate that any inquiry should be held outside of the remit of the Inquiries Act 2005 that subjects all public inquiries to full government control.
• The fruits of J7's research, along with articles by respected writers, academics and researchers are published on our main web site at www.julyseventh.co.uk.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

They lie to you: Jack Straw and secret inquests

After the conclusion of the second "7/7 helpers" trial in April 2009 (which, like the first, failed to convict anyone of conspiring to produce the explosions in London on July 7th 2005), there was no reason for the inquests into the deaths in those incidents to be delayed any longer. But further delayed they were.

At the time, the Coroners and Justice Bill was passing through parliament. It made provision to hold inquests in secret, without a jury, just as the previous year's Counter Terrorism Bill had. At the committee stage in the Commons, the secret inquest clause was retained by a single vote thanks to the abstention of the leader of the Scottish Nationalists, Angus Robertson. Coincidentally, the government had just agreed to an amendment to permit inquests of Scottish military personnel to be held in Scotland.

The lack of cross party support did, though, eventually result in the government dropping the secret inquest clause, as it had done from the previous Counter Terrorism Bill. At least, that is the impression that Jack Straw gave to everyone.

But as well as removing the clause, the government went on to add others that re-introduced secret inquests. In fact, Andrew Dismore MP (Labour) said that the new proposals were worse, and David Howarth MP (Liberal Democrat) that they were in many respects worse, when the government finally forced them through.

During the final debate in the Commons, Jack Straw was insistent in his replies to his own backbenchers (Graham Allen and Robert Marshall-Andrews) that the new secret inquest provision would only apply to a single outstanding inquest, namely that of Azelle Rodney. Mr Marshall-Andrews replied that if this was the case "The disproportionate remedy in the circumstances is obvious to everybody."

Although it was obvious to everybody that Jack Straw was misleading parliament (indeed the whole debacle was described as a procedural farce), it was confirmed beyond doubt a few days later when arrangements for the inquests into those who died on July 7th 2005 were announced, and the Guardian informed us that:

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has said the government wants the option of a secret inquest when evidence of what the security services knew about the bombers is heard.

The fact that all progress on these 56 inquests was blocked while secret inquests were not lawful, and yet as soon as secret inquests became law plans were put in motion to hold them, strongly suggests that they (rather than the Azelle Rodney case) were the true targets of the secret inquest provision, and that Jack Straw was not being truthful when he claimed again and again that the Rodney case was the only one that would be affected.

Aside from the secret aspect, the arrangements being made leave much to be desired.

A judge has been appointed who has never conducted an inquest before, and who has not read the Coroners and Justice Act.

The inquests of the alleged perpetrators are being combined with the others, causing offence to some of the relatives of the victims. This may have the effect (intentional or otherwise) of intimidating or embarrassing the relatives of the alleged perpetrators into not pursuing matters too vigourously. A suicide verdict requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the individual intended to take his own life, and one parent has expressed publicly his view that he has not seen such evidence.

The bereaved families are likely to be denied public funding for legal representation at the inquests, but the Metropolitan Police, a public body, will have legal representation even though there is no obvious reason why it needs it in these cases.

Even now, the inquests are scheduled for autumn 2010, with no explanation for the further delay.

To echo Ludicrous Diversion, if 7/7 happened the way they said it did, what is the reason for all these machinations?

They lie to you: the bogus home affairs committee inquiry

The fourth anniversary of the explosions in London on July 7th 2005 was marked by the announcement in the media of an inquiry into those events by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.

The Evening Standard had the headline "MI6 chiefs to face tough inquiry over 7/7 attacks" and explained:

The most far-ranging parliamentary inquiry into the 7 July bombings and other terrorist incidents in Britain was launched by MPs today.

MI5 and MI6 chiefs, as well as terrorism experts, will be asked to give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

The inquiry will re-examine what security services knew before 7/7, what should have been done and the Government's response — including the emergency Cobra committee.

MPs will assess any “common threads” between 7 July, the failed bombings on 21 July and other terrorist incidents. These include the Crevice case, which saw five men jailed for life for an al Qaeda-linked bomb plot whose targets included a nightclub and shopping centre. Some of the Crevice plotters met two of the 7 July suicide bombers. The inquiry will re-open questions over the report by the intelligence and security committee, which cleared MI5 and the police of blame for 7/7, despite new evidence revealing their knowledge of some of the bombers.

The Telegraph carried direct quotations from senior members of the committee:

Patrick Mercer, a Tory member of the committee, said: "This will be the biggest inquiry in July 7 and terrorist incidents in Britain.

"What we are going to try is to look at the links between failed attacks before 7/7 and right the way through to the latest successful and unsuccessful attacks that have been plaguing our security services."

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, added: "The Committee will be inviting MI5, MI6 and terrorism experts to give evidence with the aim of gaining a detailed picture of what the security services knew before 7/7, what, if anything, could have been done to prevent the attacks and the Government's response to the attacks."

Rachel "North", who coincidentally is "always ending up on things with the nice Patrick Mercer", applied her cross media marketing expertise to the announcement, declaring that "The campaigning is working. Another major breakthrough.". Despite closing that blog post with the words "More soon", nothing has been heard from her since on the subject.

So what became of the biggest inquiry into 7/7 that would assess common threads between 7 July, 21 July and other terrorist incidents including the Crevice case?

According to the clerk to the committee:

"Unfortunately, these press reports were misleading. The Committee had decided to hold an inquiry into counter-terrorism but had not then decided on its terms of reference. It has subsequently published its terms of reference, which focus on the Home Office's response to terrorist attacks. It does not intend to launch any other inquiries in this area before the end of this Parliament."

In other words, Keith Vaz and Patrick Mercer cynically exploited the unveiling of the memorial to victims of July 7th by pretending to launch a far-ranging inquiry into those events, giving the misleading impression that parliament would be investigating them.

Patrick Mercer ("a compassionate, thoughtful, principled man" according to Rachel "North") is no stranger to manipulating the media when it comes to "Islamic terror" stories. Bloggerheads has documented Mercer's close links to Glen Jenvey and Vigil, following Jenvey's exposure as a false flag "Islamic extremist" in January 2009.

(J7, by the way, picked up on Jenvey and his entrapment affiliates back in November 2006).

21/7: devices not capable of exploding

On Tuesday 1st December 2009, ITV1 presented "Bombers on the Run" in its Real Crime series, describing the case of the incidents on the London transport system on 21st July 2005.

The last section of this programme covered the related court case in 2007, but omitted some important details.

The prosecution case on the explosives was presented, including the assertion that 70% hydrogen peroxide devices detonated explosively every time in tests. The video footage that was shown in court of one of these test explosions was shown in the programme.

The defence testimony of Professor Hans Michels, who stated that the devices used on 21st July 2005 were not capable of exploding, was not mentioned by the ITV programme. This testimony had a significant effect upon the trial because it resulted in the prosecution dropping the charge of conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

The programme also failed to mention the significant assistance given to the prosecution by the cut throat defence of mysterious defendant "Asiedu" (who claimed he had abandoned the device found in a park in Wormwood Scrubs). His true identity has never been formally established; in a Ghanaian news article two people claiming to be his biological parents state that he is Ishmael "Sumaila" Abubakar and that they had contact with UK security operatives. If so, it is very strange that he was tried under the alias "Asiedu" when the UK authorities knew his true identity. Curiously, at one point "Asiedu" tried to join the British Army.

According to a BBC Report:

At times during the 21 July trial earlier this year the barrister for Manfo Kwaku Asiedu was landing heavier blows to his co-defendants than the prosecution.

It was Asiedu's counsel, Stephen Kamlish QC, who actually made the link between the 21 July plot and the 7 July attacks.

That was a line of attack which even the prosecutor, Nigel Sweeney QC, had chosen not to go down.

In fact, during legal argument out of the jury's earshot, at least one of the other defence barristers suggested Asiedu and Mr Kamlish be excluded from the trial.

Without this "defence", the prosecution may not have been able to secure the convictions for conspiracy to murder against the four principal co-defendants.

The jury could not reach a verdict on "Asiedu", but before the re-trial "Asiedu" conveniently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause explosions (the charge that had been dropped in the first trial, presumably because the prosecution were no longer confident that the evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt after the testimony of Professor Hans Michels). Coincidentally, the charge against "Asiedu" for conspiracy to murder was dropped. Since plea bargaining is technically illegal, this can only have been a coincidence!

The ITV programme omitted the similar assistance given to the prosecution by the alleged confession of defendant Hussain Osman. This occurred after submission of evidence in the trial had concluded, but the judge stopped the closing speeches and allowed the case to be re-opened so that the "confession" could be admitted as evidence. The "confession" was not provided in court by Osman himself, but by two prison officers who claimed to have heard it. The judge did not permit defendant Muktar Ibrahim's lawyer to cross examine this evidence, ruling that it was "irrelevant" to the case against Ibrahim, even though the substance of the confession was that "Ibrahim was the brains behind making the bombs and trying to destroy parts of London" and that "Ibrahim had bullied [Osman] into making the bombs and the distribution of such items"!

The ITV programme also showed footage of a liquid boiling in a saucepan, whilst the narrator informed us that the "bombers" boiled the dilute hydrogen peroxide in order to increase its concentration. We can be fairly sure that the boiling liquid shown was not, in fact, hydrogen peroxide since the vapour produced would be liable to detonate spontaneously, just as it would have done in the "bomb factory" if the "bombers" had been boiling it.

Whilst the trial was in progress, there was an interesting thread on AnswerBank:

Tube bombers, Hydrogen Peroxide Reaction?

Any one else a bit curious about the composition of the explosive that the tube bombers have been reported to use? I have worked using concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide ,100 vol, to decompose organic materials for analysis.

I can not understand how a mix of concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide and flour did not begin reacting as soon as it was mixed. I would have expected such an unstable mix to spontaneously ignite, there would be no chance to transport it any where. Also , how did they concentrate the Peroxide? the reported answer that they boiled down huge quantitys of dilute peroxide on a kitchen stove also seems unbeliveable!

In my expierience Hydrogen Peroxide decomposes and loses Oxygen on heating, you end up with water!

It is many, many years since I worked with 100 vol Hydrogen Peroxide so prehaps my memory is not as good as it was but every time I read about this story it gives me an uneasy feeling that we are not being told the full truth. Any one like to comment ? , Prof, we could do with your insight and knowledge on this!!

The response of "Prof" is illuminating, especially as he appears to be convinced of the guilt of the defendants, calling them "criminals" and "idiots":

I'll start by saying that like you, I was extremely sceptical about the lack of any reaction between the concentrated hydrogen peroxide and the chapatti flour when I read the press reports. Like you, I thought that spontaneous ignition should have occurred if the conditions were reported correctly in my copy of The Daily Telegraph. Here’s another report that’s more enlightening:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21071971-2703,00.html

Hydrogen peroxide does indeed lose water on heating and decomposes into water and oxygen. Because of this, concentrating the stuff is not easy and requires considerable expertise as well as equipment. The usual method employed in concentrating the stuff commercially is via specialised vacuum distillation, but these people don’t seem to have had the skill or equipment to carry out this method and although I won’t go into details, believe me, it’s not an operation that can be carried out over the kitchen sink. Even laboratory vacuum distillation is hazardous..

Concentrating “concentrated” hydrogen peroxide solutions in a kitchen environment is not viable because if the correct temperature and pressure is reached, the vapour will either detonate or ignite with catastrophic consequences.

Other methods of concentration do occur, but again you need the equipment and expertise. No mention of such equipment has been made and only one of the criminals seems to have had anything like a rudimentary general science college education.

Either way, it could be said that if these idiots poured the neat hydrogen peroxide as purchased into a saucepan and did nothing else, “concentrated” hydrogen peroxide could be said to be in the saucepan, simply because it’s stronger than the OTC product. The strength of the processed hydrogen peroxide has not been disclosed.

With regard to Law Student's point, I can think of a number of explosives with shortened names, some of which are colloquially referred to by the name or acronym of one of the components. However, I very much doubt that the press were referring to the finished mixture in this way when they discussed the peroxide. Why refer to it as such? When you mix sugar and salt, I doubt whether the press would refer to the combination as salt (or sugar). The press do try their best to be reasonably accurate when describing substances to avoid criticism.

It’s also incorrect to consider that because peroxide stability increases with molecular weight, the mixture is more stable. It's not always the case. Furthermore, the nature of the fuel also needs to be taken into account. Only then can the stability of the resultant “peroxide” be assessed.

Like Mortartube, I'm inclined to think that acetone peroxide or its homologues were involved here.

We have yet to be given a credible explanation of how concentrated hydrogen peroxide could be produced in a domestic kitchen, and this is as true for the July 7th and airline plots as it is for the July 21st incidents.

New J7TC content published

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

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

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

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

“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

"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:

• Mind The Gaps Part I & Part II
• Liverpool Street/Aldgate Summary
• Edgware Road Summary
• King's Cross/Russell Square Summary

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

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.