1. We would like to know why the train time of 7.40 has not been amended in the Official Report.
2. We would like to know if a full report has been received from the police explaining how this discrepancy came about.
3. We would like to know when this information will be made public.
Dear The July 7th Truth Campaign,
Thank you for your e-mail of 10/01/2007 1:07:06 PM asking questions about the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
With regard to the 3 questions you asked:
1: A correction slip is awaiting final approval to be sent to the printers.
2 A report has been received from the police.
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Thank you for the prompt response to our FOI request ref: T1131/7.
Unfortunately your response was not readable within the email, but we managed to decipher what it said.
We asked when the Home Secretary will be explaining how the error in the train time occurred, you responded:
3: As it is an internal police document it is not designed for publication.
We appreciate that the document may not be published. We are asking for an explanation of how the error occurred, now that you have the police document to explain this.
We are also concerned that the Official Report claims:
07.15: Lindsay, Hussain, Tanweer and Khan enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together.
Yet the only CCTV image published of the 4 together, to date, shows them entering Luton station at 7.21.54.
We therefore make the following FOI requests:
1. Could you please clarify whether the 4 entered Luton station at 7.15 or 07.21.54.
2. Now that the internal police document explaining the discrepancy in the time the train left Luton has been made available to the Home Secretary, could we now have an explanation of how this error occurred.
Regards
The July 7th Truth Campaign
Dear the July 7th Truth Campaign ,Thank you for your e-mail of 13/03/2007 4:28:26 PM seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act about the Official Account of the 7 July 2005 Bombings in London in which you requested an explanation of how the error in the Official Account of the July 7 Bombings occurred and also asking for clarification as to what time the 4 bombers entered Luton Station. Your request was handled in accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I apologise for the delay in replying to your information request. After having carefully considered your request and having examined the information that you requested in your letter I am pleased to be able to disclose the following information that you requested.
About your first query, how the error in the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July occurred, I am able to inform you this discrepancy was due to human error. The relevant part of the police report to the Home Secretary explaining how the error occurred says:
“It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train’s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.”
With regard to your second query asking for clarification as to the time the bombers entered Luton station, I can inform you that a correction to the Official Account has been made. As the Official Account is a Parliamentary publication a correction slip has been entered in the Parliamentary library. This correction has also been published on the Home Office official website. A copy of the correction slip is attached.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review any aspect of our handling of your application. During the internal review the department’s handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. An internal review can be requested by submitting you complaint, within 2 months of the date of this letter quoting reference 5642 to:
Information Policy Team
Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act
Yours faithfully
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005
HC 1087 Session 2005-2006
ISBN 0 10 293774 5
CORRECTIONS
1. Page 4. The time of 07.15 should be changed to 07:14 and the text should read
“Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.”
2. Page 4. The time of 07.40 on the left side of the page immediately preceding the paragraph that commences, “The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station”. The time of 07.40 is incorrect and should be replaced by 07.25 which is the correct time.
August 2007
LONDON: THE STATIONERY OFFICE
Yours faithfully
Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
05.07: A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton station car park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone in this car. During the 90 minutes or so before the others arrive, Lindsay gets out and walks around, enters the station, looks up at the departure board, comes out, moves the car a couple of times. There are a handful of other cars in the car park. A few more arrive during this period.
06.49: The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday.
One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks. It is not clear what they were for, but they may have been for self-defence or diversion in case of interception during the journey given their size; that they were in the car rather than the boot; and that they were left behind. Also left in the Micra were other items consistent with the use of explosives. A 9mm handgun was also found in the Brava. The Micra had a day parking ticket in the window, perhaps to avoid attention, the Brava did not.
07:14: Lindsay walks through the entrance foyer of the station, walks to the ticket hall and appears to check the departure board. Lindsay then walks back out of the station to rejoin Tanweer, Khan and Hussain at the rear of their vehicles. The 4 then put on their rucksacks and walk towards the station. They enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.
"Anyone who thinks the [Home Office] report is a full account is not being serious or realistic. The holes are so glaring, that even as a story, it isn't a very good one."
-- Thomas Ikimi
On Friday 3rd August 2007, the July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Thomas Ikimi, the film-maker cousin of 7/7 victim Anthony Fatayi-Williams, with details about a newly released film dedicated to the memory of Anthony:
My cousin Anthony Fatayi-Williams was one of the 52 lost in the attacks. I wanted to let you know that I have been working on a project since July 2005 in relation to the bombings and my experiences as a family member affected by it. It is a documentary and it was released two days ago online via the website www.thehomefrontmovie.net
"There is no evidence at the bomb sites of remote detonation, nor of any material at the bomb factory which would suggest that they intended to construct remote detonators. The fact that Hussain seems to have bought a battery that morning may provide further indication that they were using self-detonating devices."
"Mobile phones were an important forensic element in the July the 7th bombings of two years ago. Since the detonators there were mobile phones and bits of phones were recovered, and SIM cards were also recovered, which are very vital."Professor Michael Clarke
Professor of Defence Studies, Kings College London
Channel 4 News, 2nd July 2007
- "Well done Ch4 and thanks for bringing the survey and a number of important issues to the attention of the British public. Do bear in mind many British non-Muslims also question the official version of 7/7."
- “I am white and middle class, and I also think that the government has not told us the truth about 7/7.
- "Why don't you ask the same question of non-Muslims? i.e. 'do you trust the authorities and the government?' - you might be surprised by the result, as its not only Muslims who no longer believe the Bliar government."
- “Why only ask Muslims about this? It isn’t only Muslims who believe this.”
- "I am a white female atheist and I don't believe the government has told us the whole truth about the 7/7 bombings. I don't believe the conspiracy theories either. So, for this survey you could also have asked Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and atheists what they thought. I'd be prepared to bet that the answer to the question 'has the government told the truth about 7/7' would be broadly similar in all of those."
- “You need to carry out a survey of non-Muslims - you might get a result that is not all that different.”
- “I think you’ll find the majority of non-Muslims living in Britain would give the same answers.”
- "The government and security services lied about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the reason for the war, and after the shooting of an innocent man on the tube, more lies were told. Is it any wonder that many Muslims do not believe the government?! So do many non-Muslims."
- "I think you have missed the point somewhat, as it is not only a view commonly held among Muslims but also among many English nationals and people around the world."
- "You will find massive support for the Muslim view, and not just from Muslims."
- “You don’t need to look only at the Muslims community to find people (a) believing in conspiracy surrounding that particular event or (b) feeling let down, manipulated and betrayed by their own government.”
This statement is provided on behalf of Salahuddin Amin:For other statements made by Crevice defence lawyers, and additional information about Operation Crevice, please see the Operation Crevice section of the J7 web site.In the name of God, the most compassionate, the merciful.
I am innocent.
An outrageous confidence trick has been played on the jury, and against me.
I was convicted by false evidence and the fruits of torture.
I am innocent.
I told the jury the truth.
I am innocent.
I told the jury I had been tortured and mistreated by the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence services, over a ten month period of illegal detention in Pakistan during 2004.
I told the jury how the British security services were responsible for my illegal detention, mistreatment, and illegal transfer to the UK.
Even though I am a British Citizen, the British government did not lift a finger to protect me from abuse and torture.
In fact, the British authorities made it worse by interrogating me at the same time as knowing I had been tortured.
The British government have been able to hide their shameful involvement in my illegal detention and torture in secret sessions which occurred during the trial.
These hearings cannot be reported to you, the public. They continue to hide behind this veil.
I demand they tell the truth about what they did to me.
I demand the truth about the other people who are still in secret detention and being tortured as part of this misguided war on terror.
I was illegally detained with some of these people. I know that some of them were treated far worse than I was, while British, American, and Canadian intelligence officers stood ready to benefit from the unreliable fruits of torture.
I demand an apology from the head of the security services and the British government about what they did to me.
I demand an explanation as to how this could have happened.
My wrongful conviction has given a green light to those who carry out the heinous act of torture on behalf of civilised western governments.
I will continue to fight to clear my name.
Thank you.
I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.
This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.
Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."
And that's the end of the statement. Thank you.
"If a country like the former Soviet Union, armed to the teeth and with the massive resources of the state could not achieve the alleged objective of overthrowing capitalism after seventy-five years, it is reasonable to ask the question, why has the British state embarked on a policy of creating a de facto police state replete with laws which have more than a passing similarity to those passed by both Hitler and Mussolini?"
"Oh well......I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway"
However, it is fair to say that the psychological effects of such events vary across the general population. With the constant “When, not if” type warnings ringing in the ears of the British public, almost relentless news coverage of 'terror raids' and 'foiled plots', it is virtually impossible not to feel that we should be fearing for our safety. But how do we know we're being given an accurate picture of exactly what the threat is and from where it's coming? How do we know that if we live in a major city, every time we step out of doors or use the public transport system we will not be met with 'death and destruction on an unprecedented scale'?
Alternatively, how likely is it that we will? In today's Britain, people are now charged – and in some cases jailed - for even thinking about terrorism and details of suspected terrorists' plans can be revealed to the media even though it is also admitted that the intelligence that led to the raids "could be wrong" . The J7 campaign is extremely concerned that the measures put in place that are supposedly designed to protect the public could actually present a bigger threat to our safety and freedom than terrorism itself, and constructing more of a climate of fear than the terrorists ever could........
Recently the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, suggested that modern day Britain is comparable to Idi Amin's regime in Uganda. Around the same time the leader of Birmingham Central Mosque, Dr Mohammed Naseem, compared life for Muslims in the UK to that of the life of Jews in Nazi Germany. In among the furore that ensued among the liberal intelligentsia, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, gently reminded everyone that the laws don't just apply to Muslims, or terrorists, the laws apply to everyone. If you are reading this in Britain, that means you.
We were lucky enough to be offered an interview with ATS over the holidays, which you can read below. It was also discussed on their forum here.
Every member of ATS will remember July 7th 2005. That morning, many of us UK members went straight into chat to discuss the bombings. The fear of what happened touched us in many ways and many of us asked questions to what happened to that day. Many members of ATS found holes in the official story that was issued by the UK Government. To find out more about July 7th, I have conducted an interview with the July 7th Campaign. These guys have campaigned long and hard to get a public inquiry to what happened that day, even when the Government has said no. Below is the interview that i conducted
ATS: Thank you for taking time to answer some questions regarding July 7th, many at ATS will enjoy this interview. July 7th was a tragic day for the United Kingdom and many have demanded a public inquiry to what happened, but the Government has said no. Why won't the Government hold one?
Thank you for offering J7 the interview and the opportunity to respond to your questions about 7/7 and the July 7th Truth Campaign.
Why the government won't hold a public inquiry is a good question and one to which the government have given a number of responses, none of the which are particularly valid and none of which can be excused given the severity and magnitude of what happened.
For the answer to why a public inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005 has not been held so far, it is perhaps best to refer to the words of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who said: "If we ended up having a full scale public inquiry... we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time and I don't think it would be sensible." Indeed, Downing Street has also dismissed the whole notion of a public inquiry as "a ludicrous diversion" so the government has made perfectly clear its opinion on an inquiry into the largest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second world war.
The nonsense of excuses presented by the government for not holding a public inquiry is further compounded for anyone who has any knowledge of other far less serious events into which the British government has held public inquiries.
Tony Blair said: "I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do." Yet, to date, the people do not know exactly what happened, nor how it happened, nor who was responsible for making it happen. Yes, there is an 'official version' of events, the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July' as released by the Home Office on 11 May 2006, but that story is flawed and inaccurate if the established facts have anything to do with it. Furthermore, the government account is not backed up with any tangible evidence - merely hearsay, speculation, assumptions and presuppositions - nor could it be because of the huge and glaring factual inaccuracies contained within it which, to this day, remain uncorrected and unclarified. J7 suggests that if the official account of events were the truth, then there would be no discrepancies, no errors, nor any inconsistencies in the account. Facts, after all, are facts but you won't find many, if any, of those in the official Home Office report.
ATS: What do you say to those who have branded you and your team "Conspiracy Theorists", who are making outlandish theories and are refusing to accept the official story?
The simple answer is that such a charge is completely invalid because, quite simply, we don't have a theory about what happened on 7/7! Our position from the outset has been that precisely nothing about the government and media versions of events makes any sense at all and, further, their story is entirely unsupported by evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Without a full and independent public inquiry, the events of 7th July 2005 will never face the judicial scrutiny that they deserve. Additionally, the judicial system in the UK operates on a presumption of innocence; that is, "Innocent until proven guilty". In the case of July 7th and the four young British men accused by the government of perpetrating the attack on London, there is no evidence in the public domain that conclusively proves their guilt and in this perhaps one might find at least part of the reason why the government has thus far refused to hold a public inquiry.
Furthermore, it is imperative to understand exactly what a conspiracy theory is, for the actual definition is rather different to the conventional perception of what one is. While definitions of the word 'theory' are generally consistent, J7 always recommend that anyone who wishes to believe we are 'conspiracy theorists' refer to a dictionary and check the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'. An approximate legal definition of the word conspiracy is, "An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action". If one applies that definition in the context of the term 'conspiracy theory', then any theory about what happened on 7/7 which involves more than one person conspiring to undertake the criminal activity that occurred that day is, technically, a 'conspiracy theory'.
As we have no theory at all the allegation that we are 'conspiracy theorists' is unfair and unwarranted. The British government, however, has published their theory of how 7/7 came to be, which involves 'two or more persons' conspiring to commit a crime, the truth of the matter is that the British government better fit the true definition of the term
'conspiracy theorists'.
ATS:Was The July Seventh Truth Campaign influenced in anyway shape or form by the 9/11 truth movement in the United States?
The answer to that question might surprise a lot of people as the 9/11 truth movement in the United States has been an influence, but not in the way that people might think. From a purely UK perspective, the 9/11 movement in the U.S. appears to be divided on more issues than it is united on and there appears to be a lot of discussion and argument about
what might have happened if the official version of events is not what actually happened. Without a full and thorough investigation that examines all the available evidence, we think it is unwise to speculate what might have happened because, without a proper examination of the evidence, it is impossible to know. So, in terms of the influence of the U.S. 9/11 truth movement on the July 7th Truth Campaign, rather than speculate and further confuse issues we have chosen to highlight that there is no evidence in the public domain that could be used to prove conclusively one story or another about 7/7. This is precisely why we are calling on the government and authorities to release the evidence that either proves, or disproves, the official version of events as outlined in the Home Office 'narrative'.
ATS: The official story is that a al-Qa'ida mastermind recruited British born Muslims to carry out the attacks on July 7th. But there are holes in the official story, such as return tickets and one of the targets is a large Muslims area in London. My question is this, is the official story some sort of "scary story" to support Government's anti-terror
legislation?
There are so many holes, speculations, inconsistencies and outright factual errors in the official story that it isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. We recommend that anyone who is interested enough to investigate further reads the official account of events as a starting point and decides for themselves whether or not the 41-page document could be considered credible or sufficient explanation for how 56 people were killed in the heart of London.
Until 7th July 2005, so called anti-terrorist legislation in the UK was largely riding on the back of the events that occurred in New York on September 11th 2001, with occasional reference to the Madrid train bombings. Since 7th July 2005, British anti-terrorist legislation has undergone several revisions, all of which has sailed through Parliament, without question nor challenge, precisely because of 7/7.
So, in answer to your question, yes, the official story - if the errors and anomalies in it are ignored and the story is taken at face value - has absolutely provided all the justification the government needs to roll out any legislation it requires. In addition to facilitating the unhindered passing of 'anti-terrorism' legislation, 7/7 has also resulted in the demonisation, dehumanisation and vilification of Muslims by much of the mainstream media. This unquestionably racist propaganda has been ramped to such a level that barely a day goes by without the news featuring stories, usually with little or no basis in fact, about the perceived threat from young, British-born Muslims.
ATS: On that the day, the four men traveled to London via a train from Luton. Metropolitan Police confirmed that they took the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th. However, The July Seventh Truth Campaign has called this "the impossible train journey". What do you mean by that?
"The impossible train journey," means precisely that, an impossible train journey. Any credible theory about what happened on 7th July 2005 requires facts upon which it should be based, yet the official government account of events places the accused on a 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train which, categorically, was cancelled and did not run that day. This might seem like a minor detail, but if the government, with all the 'intelligence' and 'security' resources it has at its disposal, cannot obtain and report such a basic and easy to verify fact correctly, how much faith can anyone place in the rest of their story?
J7 researchers had confirmed from the Thameslink train operating company that the 7.40am train was cancelled on the morning of 7th July and this information was placed in the public domain in August 2005. Yet, when the official report was published, some 10 months after the incidents to which it referred, the government still got it wrong. We believe that this level of inaccuracy cannot be allowed to stand and, in fact, the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, stood before Parliament two months after the release of the official report and admitted this error existed in the government's account. As a result of this admission, we learnt
that the Home Office did not obtain the train time information from the train operating company. It then transpired that the Home Office had not even bothered to check the train details with the police, so one might be tempted to ask quite where they obtained the erroneous information about what we refer to as the impossible train journey.
Since then, Dr Reid has been forced to acknowledge additional errors in the Home Office report, including crucial details such as the precise locations of the explosions on the trains involved. In fact, as far as the Home Office report goes, they are expecting the British public to believe that they have not yet managed to determine the type of the explosives used. Well, the forensic testing processes that would determine the type of explosives used would produce results in anything from a few minutes to a few hours. A worst case example might require a couple of days to produce the results so, yet again, the British public would do well to wonder why the government was unable to identify the explosives in 10 months of investigation.
It beggars belief that any true and just account of events could be so hideously flawed and lacking in information, especially when the government is expecting the British public to accept their 'narrative' of events in place of a full and independent public inquiry. We have documented many of these factual errors, inconsistencies and anomalies on the July 7th Truth Campaign web site in a feature called Mind The Gaps Part 1 and Mind The Gaps Part 2. See:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html and
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-2.html
ATS: Last question. The Government has said no to a public inquiry and is still refusing the calls to have one by many groups. A public inquiry, in the eyes of the Government, would be waste of time and effort that will distracting for them. In your own words, why is a public inquiry so important?
On this point we are in agreement with the government for, in the eyes of the July 7th Truth Campaign, a public inquiry would be a waste of time, but not for the reasons that the government specify. Precisely one month before the events of 7/7, a new piece of legislation came into force, known as the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14
times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder. There were also allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion. As a result of the Inquiries Act 2005, Mr Finucane's widow wrote to the judiciary calling on them to boycott any inquiry held under the terms of the act into her husband's death.
Congressman Chris Smith named the Parliamentary bill that preceded that act "the Public Inquiries cover-up bill" and the act that was passed effectively renders ultimate control of all public inquiries to the executive, meaning that any inquiry held under its terms would result in the government investigating itself and determining which aspects of 7/7 are investigated and reported, or if they are investigated at all. The Inquiries Act also prevents investigation of the security services and grants the government the right to shut down any or all avenues of inquiry at their discretion. As any reasonable person will understand, this is a less than desirable position and will not produce anything that vaguely resembles a truly Independent Public Inquiry.
What is interesting to note is that, of all the diverse groups calling for a public inquiry, only the July 7th Truth Campaign has raised the issue of the Inquiries Act 2005 as being a major obstacle to obtaining an independent inquiry.
For the record, Amnesty International has called for the boycott of inquiries proposed under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, to date, no judges have been found that will agree to participate in an inquiry into the killing of Patrick Finucane. J7's position is that if the Inquiries Act is not fit for the purpose of investigating state collusion in the killing of one man almost 20 years ago, then it is certainly not fit for the purpose of investigating the killing of 56 people on 7th July 2005. Consequently, the July 7th Truth Campaign's calls for a public inquiry specifically state that any inquiry into the events of 7/7 must be a public inquiry and that it must be conducted outside of the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, further, that this piece of legislation needs to be repealed.
The July 7th Truth Campaign has launched a petition calling on the government to Release The Evidence that will conclusively prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the veracity, or otherwise, of the Home Office's account of events. We would urge Above Top Secret readers to sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition at: http://petitiononline.com/j7truth/
There is also an excellent summary of the official story and the evidence - or lack there-of - in a documentary called Ludicrous Diversion which can be viewed on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719
=============================================
In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7 - The July 7th Truth Campaign
--
The July 7th Truth Campaign
Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/
I would like to thank the July 7th Truth Campaign for taking time to answer questions and to take part in this interview for ATS
Related News Links:
www.petitiononline.com
z13.invisionfree.com
julyseventh.co.uk
A new, updated profile of Mohammad Sidique Khan is now on the J7 Site, including information from Khan's personnel file at Hillside School correlated with conflicting information from other FOI disclosures, which in turn conflict with the Official Report. The profile also covers the revelations of an IT expert who claimed to have worked with Khan and Khan's alleged links through the Iqra to white Muslim converts, one of whom is a former anti-terrorism operative and the other with reported links to al-Qa'ida. Neither of these men are mentioned in the Official Report, despite their apparent connection to Khan and Beeston. Also included is an analysis of the supposed 'bonding mission' of a white-water rafting session in Wales, the erroneous reports of his involvement with 'terrorist activities' abroad and the apparent prior knowledge of Khan by the security services, who curiously sat back and did nothing, despite deciding he was worthy of quite intense surveillance.On the hypothesis of the article on London bombings
The article, “London bombings: the unasked and unanswered questions” was written on August 8, 2005, a month after the July 7th bombings. At that time, it was submitted to only one group in the UK, Red Pepper. They decided not to publish it.
On October 28, 2006, I submitted that same article, without any changes, to the Indymedia in Oxford. Through their link to the www.indymedia.org.uk, it also got published there.
Later, I was informed by the July 7th Truth Campaign www.julyseventh.co.uk, that it was also published on www.rinf.com, here. That is how I came to know about July 7th and RINF.
Nine comments have been posted, so far, on the article on the above Indymedia web sites. Some are very nasty, mindless, and vulgar, with the intent to provoke, smear, and disinform; a couple are supportive of the basic premises of the article’s hypothesis; while others reproduce the government information and conclusions, totally uncritically and unquestioningly, expressing annoyance that someone is raising some questions about those Absolute Truths!
On October 30, I found that the article had been abruptly removed from the front page of Oxford Indymedia! That is unusual as the articles there, as well as on the other web sites, normally run their course, descending gradually under the newly published articles. On October 31, I could not find the article on the Oxford Indymedia site at all in the archives. It seems that they have completely removed it! They only allowed it to stay on their site for a couple of days. We may never know why it was done or under whose pressure. One of the basic purposes of such web sites is to promote debate through diversity of comments and opinions. During the short time this article was allowed to stay on the front page of Oxford Indymedia, more comments were sent about it than any other article on the front page during that time. And yet, they selectively and deliberately removed it from the front page and, one day later, from the archives altogether!
I have now visited the www.julyseventh.co.uk web site and found excellent research data, information, and analysis of all the matters connected with the London bombings. Among other things, they have presented official and alternative hypotheses and correlated all the known facts with these. Their impeccable scientific approach to this whole matter is self-evident.
Whatever the nasty and vulgar as well as other critics have reproduced, in their comments, from the government sources, has already been logically, factually, and scientifically addressed and analyzed on the www.julyseventh.co.uk . I cannot do a better job of that and, therefore, would like to refer all the conformists and firm believers in the government information (disinformation) to that site. There, they will find a lot more than the logical and factual refutation of their “facts” and “arguments”. In this brief article, my focus is on the nature of the hypothesis I presented in the above article and its similarities and affinity with some of the independently arrived hypotheses of the July 7th group.
My focus in the article-written a month after the bombings - when almost all the details and specifics were being kept in the dark, and selective contradictory information was being released - was on outlining a brief logical and historical hypothesis. As is stated clearly in the article, it is a hypothetical analysis, with the following four specific and concrete logical, factual, historical, and philosophical premises, some explicit, others implicit, in it:
1. In the London situation, there was no need for a suicide bombing. It could have been, and most probably was, carried out, relatively easily, without endangering oneself.
2. Muslim resistance has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by engaging in such acts in Europe.
3. US and UK imperialists are the main beneficiaries of such terrorist actions in Europe.
4. Both the imperialists and the leaders of Muslim resistance understand and know these political, military, and logical facts and their policies and actions include these.
These are the essential premises of the hypothesis involved in the above article. I contend that these are apodictic and irrefutable. I invite the conformists and firm believers in the mainstream hypothesis to try to refute these and make my day. They can probably attempt to do so with part of the 4th premise and, attributing irrationality, incompetence, and ignorance to the leaders of Muslim resistance, may argue that they do not understand and implement these in their policies or actions. But that would only prove their own ignorance, arrogance, irrationality, and incompetence, rooted in racism and national chauvinism. During the early years of Vietnam War, the West was full of such idiots, who, projecting their own ignorance, irrationality, and incompetence to the Vietnamese, were loudly broadcasting and claiming that no Asian nation could stand up to and resist the superpower of US. As it turned out, the Vietnamese were far superior in strategy, tactics, planning, and their implementation, as well as in fighting, than the technocratic elites of the superpower. However, obviously, the imperialists have become intoxicated again and forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. They are relearning them the hard way, with great loss of life and other damages.
As pointed out by the July 7th group, the government’s position, in regard to the London bombings, constitutes only one of many alternative hypotheses. It does not constitute the Absolute Truth, which the conformists and firm believers are making it out to be. Logically and philosophically, that insight is of fundamental importance in this whole matter. If one remains ignorant of that, one remains trapped in the disinformation.
What the July 7th group seems to be demanding is that all the facts be investigated, revealed, and utilized in the construction or validation of alternative hypotheses, and not just some of them, self-servingly selected, to fit into the implicit or explicit hypotheses of the officialdom. That is precisely what the British government and mainstream media have done. The July 7th group has made a concrete factual and logical analysis of this matter and more details can be found on their web site. The key point here is that facts are facts only when they are integrated and related to each other in their common logical structure (paraphrasing Hegel here). Only in that form, they fit into and are consistent with an appropriate hypothesis or theory. “Facts” that are fragmented, abstracted, and isolated from each other and their common logical structure, can be implanted into a variety of false and erroneous hypotheses.
In the London bombings, there were three train explosions and one on a bus. There was contradictory information about the timings of these explosions and the nature of the explosives used. The authorities were, somehow, quickly able to associate these bombings with four dead Asian Muslims and determine their identities, while overwhelming majority of the rest remained unidentified at that time. From there, they started fitting these facts into the prefabricated hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for what had happened. Alternative hypotheses of the involvement of imperialists, their secret services, organized crime etc., along with the four dead men, were totally ignored and remained uninvestigated. For example, everyone knows that the CIA is one of the major instruments of US imperialism and it has a long history of subversion, sabotage, terrorism, overthrow of governments, assassination or attempted assassination of the popular and democratic leaders of other countries, and the use of organized crime in some of these actions, e.g., having obtained the services of Mafia for the assassination of President Fidel Castro of Cuba during the early 1960s. All that is well documented. It even caused some conscientious ex-CIA agents to leave the agency and expose its real nature, plots, and crimes. Philip Agee has been the most conscientious, courageous, knowledgeable, and internationalist of those ex-CIA agents, who has shed very important light on such operations of CIA, in his various writings, lectures, and solidarity work. If the CIA could do that in so many other countries, why it would not do the same in UK or other European countries, when needed? Of course, it would be totally hopeless and unrealistic to expect the British government and secret services to investigate such connections. To the contrary, they should be expected to do the opposite, i-e. to leave such a possible connection totally untouched and to cover it up if any facts or evidence emerge. Hence, the importance of great public service by groups like July 7th, which are keeping the flame burning. Just imagine, what will happen to the known facts, and the mainstream hypotheses-listed on July 7th site- of which they have been made part of, if some evidence emerges of the involvement of organized crime or some CIA front group with the four dead Asian Muslims, in the London bombings? In such a situation, the context of these facts will totally change and so will the meanings and nature of these facts. Right now, these are part of an illogical structure, as part of the mainstream hypotheses, the basic premises of which are, as indicated above, in diametric contradiction with the required logical-factual-philosophical-historical premises of this matter, explicitly or implicitly inherent in the hypothesis of the above article or some of the alternative hypotheses proposed by the July 7th group.
The July 7th group has also documented the profiles of the four dead Asian Muslims, accused of having committed that crime, as well as of their families. If these profiles are even halfway accurate, it is hard to imagine how such human beings could carry out such violence against themselves and so many others.
The following three alternative hypotheses have been listed, among others, on the web site of the July 7th group and their numbers below are also those that are given there:
6. The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.
7. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.
8. The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.
These hypotheses are more of a factual nature in contrast with the hypothesis of above article, the premises of which are more of logical, historical, and philosophical nature. Some of the hypotheses of the July 7th group and that of the article complement each other and make each other more wholesome and holistic. For example, if viewed from the perspectives of aforementioned four premises of the hypothesis of the article, these three hypotheses from the July 7th group are consistent with those premises, while the other five-not listed here, which are various concoctions of the mainstream and the officialdom-are not. There is a natural and organic compatibility and fit between the general hypothesis of the article and the above three specific hypotheses of the July 7th group.
Within the framework of the above-mentioned four premises of hypothesis of the article, with some modifications and combination of the three hypotheses of the July 7th group, a new hypothesis, Hypothesis #9 can be constructed:
Hypothesis #9: In this hypothesis, #6 and #8 or #7 and #8 are proposed to be combined. #6 and #7 would remain essentially the same while #8 would involve a secret service, coordinating and guiding a front organization and an organized crime group. Here four possibilities are proposed:
1. As exactly in #6, The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs, money, confidential documents, or other material etc. to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.
2. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.
3. As in the July 7th group Hypothesis #8, proposed by Fintan Dunne, the four men were murdered before any explosions took place and then their body parts were planted on the sites of the explosions. In this scenario, the involvement of an organized crime group or some secret service front organization is more likely than that of the police, as proposed by Fintan Dunne.
4. There was a fifth man who followed the four men to one of the trains. This man was carrying the explosives. He left them near the four men and then got off the train. He noted down the car number and its location, etc., so that his contacts in the secret service knew exactly where to find the body parts of the four men, who then, through some key contact in the police, managed to link each of the four to the different sites of the explosions.
Third and fourth possibilities require the involvement and cooperation of some key police officials. The first and second possibilities do not need the involvement of any police official or organized crime. These would have required just one secret service or its front organization contact person with the four men. These seem to be the most likely possibilities.
Some of the above possibilities would have been relatively easy to arrange and implement for some resourceful, experienced, and powerful organization, with long global reach and presence. It would not even be too difficult to arrange something like that even for an individual, with some means at his disposal. For example, if Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city Federal Building bomber, had thought about it and wanted to, he could have lured and trapped some Muslim men into his plot by arranging to meet with them near his explosives-filled vehicle. Just before the explosions were set to occur, he could have excused himself for having to go to the bathroom or something like that, leaving the men near his vehicle. After the explosion and devastation, their body parts would have been found and they would have been identified. If that had happened, all the other facts would have been concocted and tailored to fit into the hypothesis of Muslim terrorism being responsible for that act and McVeigh would have been walking free, planning his next move. The official investigation would have ended right then and there at that point. It is almost certain that no other alternative hypotheses would have been considered in such a situation. Even at that time, there was hysteria about Muslim terrorism and in the aftermath of the explosion, in the absence of any evidence, Muslims were being blamed for that act of terrorism. It was only after the unexpected arrest of McVeigh that Muslims were exonerated from the responsibility for that terrorist act.
Regardless of the practical results, it is most important to continue to struggle for truth and justice against all odds. At this diabolical stage of history, the power of truth, justice, spirit, intellect, and authentic human nature is diametrically opposed and overwhelmed by the power of capital, in the form of imperialist corporations, governments and their agencies in various advanced capitalist countries. Under such conditions, the inner ecology of human nature itself has been powerfully and drastically disrupted, to variable degrees and forms. More than any other time in human history, it is essential to preserve and express one’s authentic human nature, to the best of one’s ability. Speaking and uncovering the truth is a most important part of that process and that is what is also involved the matter of London bombings. So many people lost their lives in that tragedy. Lies, concoctions, fragmented and abstract “facts” and tailoring them to fit into illogical structures of incompatible hypotheses, refusal to consider alternative hypotheses or to discover other facts that these point towards etc. desecrate and disgrace the dead victims. Only a thorough and in-depth investigation, oriented towards uncovering all the facts and their logical analysis, with the objective of discovery of truth on that basis, will honor and do justice to those victims. Poisonous and mindless “patriotic”, national chauvinistic, and racist prejudices not only damage the Muslims and other minorities, they also damage and desecrate all the victims of that tragedy, regardless of race or religion, as well as obstruct justice and truth.
The above is first draft of this article.... I will receive any constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement or modifications of this article or its hypothesis with gratitude.
"...at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for, er, over, a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!"
Ludicrous DiversionOn the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.
The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.
The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.
The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
