Friday, 6 May 2011

7/7 Inquests: The 7 July Inquest Verdict

At the start of the 7 July Inquests process, J7 wrote:
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.
Sure enough, this is precisely what has happened. Today, Lady Justice Hallett has returned her verdict of unlawful killing and has absolved the corporate State and Security Services of any blame or responsibility. The Rule 43 report can be read here [PDF].

While we analyse the contents of the report in detail, it is initially important to seize on the following paragraphs taken from the Introduction to the report:
8. It is not generally a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals, nor is it a proper function of a Coroner to express opinions in the verdicts returned. The Rules are clear and I have not strayed from those restrictions in the verdicts I have delivered. However, the exceptional circumstances of these Inquests mean that it is appropriate to name the bombers within this Rule 43 report, which is not subject to the same constraints. There are three principal reasons: the bombers are dead. There can be no question of prejudicing any criminal or civil proceedings against them and I cannot defame them. Further, I cannot consider the issue of preventability, one of the most important of the issues I have set, without stating in positive terms that they were the bombers. Finally, the evidence is utterly overwhelming.

9. To argue or find to the contrary [i.e. that Khan, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were not the bombers] would be irrational. It would be to ignore a huge body of evidence from a vast array of sources. Had there been a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot, as some have suggested, it would have been of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country. It would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service. It would have cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence. Independent barristers and solicitors who have had access to the source material (for example the CCTV footage) during the criminal trials and these proceedings would have had to be involved. Just to state the proposition is to reveal its absurdity.
We will gloss over, for the moment, the fact that there was no need to fabricate CCTV evidence for the simple reason that there was no CCTV evidence at all of three of the accused on the London Underground on the morning of 7 July 2005, however the fact that the police lied about when they viewed some footage from Luton is certainly noteworthy.

Much of paragraph 9 is the standard fare of objections trotted out routinely by official 'conspiracy theorists', in a not fantastically intellectually clever way, to quiet the objections raised by those who suspect something is not quite right with whatever story the general public are being fed. Similar methods were used to try and suppress the questioning of those who suggested that Colin Powell's cartoon evidence of Saddam Hussein's vast caches of 'weapons of mass destruction' (which he would have acquired from Western-sources) was largely fabricated. That evidence would also "have cost millions of pounds to fabricate", yet that is indeed what happened.

Conspiracies to "falsely implicate" individuals and groups of individuals that are "Simply unthinkable in a democratic country" are in fact quite routine and commonplace in democratic countries. The British State has a particularly exemplary history of "conspiracy to falsely implicate" through "independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service." We need not look terribly far back in history to find the cases of the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, Danny MacNamee, Judith Ward, and many others of Irish descent against whom the State conspired for its own politically expedient gains. Countless similar examples exist. Just to state the proposition (that the aforementioned were falsely implicated) was also dismissed as absurd at the time.

That the inquests did not uncover any such conspiracy comes as no surprise, for the function of an inquest is to determine how an individual died, where they died and when they died. The function is most certainly not that of a criminal investigation, in much the same way as the function of an inquest -- as re-stated both by Hallett and her Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith QC -- is most certainly not "to attribute blame or apportion guilt to individuals". Yet, in both instances of improper function of an inquest, this is what has occurred and the inquests have masqueraded as a legitimate form of investigation, trial and prosecution of four unrepresented men accused of a heinous crime.

Instead of "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot... of such massive proportions as to be simply unthinkable in a democratic country" that "would have involved hundreds of ordinary people, members of the bombers’ families, their friends, their fellow terrorists, independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service" and "cost millions of pounds to fabricate the forensic evidence", what the public are left with is the same tidy, if inconsistent, unsubstantiated and unproven, 'narrative' that we started with and a proxy investigation, trial, prosecution, and judgement "that cost millions of pounds" that "involved hundreds of ordinary people... families, their friends...independent experts, scientists, as well as various police forces and the Security Service."

The very same process succinctly described by Lady Justice Hallett outlining why "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in a murder plot" could not have occurred, is exactly the process by which the four accused have indeed been implicated, accused, tried and found guilty.

Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, courtesy of Newsnight

Franz Kafka would have been justly proud of such a convoluted and contorted conclusion to the 7 July Inquests process.

Meanwhile, on the subject of the resumption of the inquests into the four accused:
The only submissions I have received have come from an organisation calling itself the July 7th Truth Campaign. I have considered those submissions, but in the light of all the evidence I have heard during the 52 inquests, I consider they have not provided any sufficient reason to resume the inquests into the four bombers.

One would hope, therefore, that these proceedings will be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7.
The inquests may well be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7 as far as the State is concerned, but the vast number of testimonies and evidential submissions generated by the inquests are just the beginning of the investigation of what happened on 7/7 for those who desire to know the truth.


  1. We need a proper inquest into the deaths of the 7/7 Four.

  2. Some bizarre logic being used by the dolly Hallett. She starts by saying it's not her business to be attributing blame (which it aint), but she'll take the liberty anyway. The first two reasons being.. one, they can't sue her anyway by virtue of being dead.. and two (which is even funnier), it allows her to talk about preventability. Some lawyers out there must be laughing their heads off. (there should be survey done to see just how many 'accused' are happy to take the blame just so the coroner can talk about 'preventability').

    Anyway, her third reason is that the "evidence is utterly overwhelming".. of course the natural question is, what evidence exactly would that be? If the evidence was 'utterly overwhelming' then you wouldn't need the previous two nonsensical arguments then, would you? 'Utterly overwhelming' would be enough in itself. But clearly she has to be self conscious of the fact that 'utterly overwhelming' is just not enough. So, the poor dolly has tried her best to 'pad it out'.

  3. In the case of the CCTV they wouldn't have to fabricate anything, just be very selective about what they showed the public. For example, an ABC article shortly after 7/7 said:

    "At least two men who have connections to last week's London bombings are alive and still at large.

    The first is a man, who was seen on surveillance tapes at Luton station, located outside of London, as he bid farewell to the four bombers the morning of the attacks."

    Presumably the man at Luton seen on the 'surveillance tapes' (perhaps a slip of the keyboard) is visible on the CCTV, but given the various edits of that footage we might never have seen an image of him. Or it might refer to the mystery Jaguar that y'all spotted.

  4. The initial cases "against" the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, the Maguire 7, et al, where not supported by anything like the amount of evidence relating to 7/7, and it is utterly preposterous of you to somehow invoke those earlier cases in the manner than you do.

  5. Utterly preposterous... but only if you understand nothing about the gangster nature of the State and its 'security' and military apparatus.

  6. Thanks for another very perceptive post. I sense that your judgement of the entire matter is shifting further away from mere 'embarrassing State cock-up culpability cover-up' - per the J7 quote at the start of the inquest - towards outright Machiavellian planning and execution.

    For anyone with career, rank, position or place to nurture and protect in polite society, that can be a hard, near impossible, road to travel. However, I suggest that unless the latter possibility is properly considered and researched outside the rigid taboos of the 'official narrative', there is ZERO possibility of the real story ever seeing the light of day.

    The inquest, far from providing 'closure' (nasty, trendy word that is too) has actually provided substantial further evidence of the absurdity of the official narrative; so I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph too.

  7. Hi Sabretache,

    Maybe now is the time to address these preconceptions you appear to have about J7; preconceptions which you have posted in various parts of the Internet, and again here.

    Contrary to what you appear to think, there is no need for J7 "shifting further away from mere 'embarrassing State cock-up culpability cover-up'" for the simple reason that we have never claimed this to be the case. Nor have we claimed that any version of events is definitive.

    The reasons for this are quite plain and we have stated them many times - the evidence available in the public domain does not categorically prove this to be the case in the same way as the evidence does not categorically prove that the four accused are guilty by the legal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Nor does the available evidence categorically prove any other version of events. If nothing else we must all endeavour to be consistent across all parties with our requirements for the burden of proof.

    J7's starting point is that, based on the evidence available in the public domain, the official story cannot be the case. This is a vastly different position to many vocal others, and their fellow Internet echo chamber inhabitants, who have as a starting point their own preconceived ideas about the way in which the world works, from which point they endeavour to make 7/7 fit into their preexisting template. And I'm sure we all know who they are.

    There are many self-professed 7/7 'experts' who will quite happily trot out any version of events that best fit a series of preconceived ideas about what happened, often to sell equally misguided and fanciful books or make some other financial gain from their efforts, but they are all equally unable to prove anything with evidence, and fall back instead on the speculation of mays, mights, maybes and probablys; all of which are no closer to any sort of provable truth than the official yarn.

    You have often alleged that we do not factor in the Machiavellian machinations of States, yet this is way off the mark too. It is J7 who were the first to use the term 'Machiavellian State Terror' in connection to 7/7 in an article written for us by Professor David MacGregor, who originally coined the term in relation to 9/11.

    Further, from the outset -- to the point that it is even written on the front page of the J7 web site -- J7 have used previous, well-documented examples of State-sponsored terror in which there is no doubt that States had a hand, to demonstrate that there are significant precedents in history in which the ruling class enemy du jour is blamed for crimes that later transpired to be State-sponsored terror.

    Still, if nothing else, at least we are in agreement that the people's investigation into 7/7 now begins in earnest with the volumes of testimonies and evidence adduced and released during the inquests process.

  8. @ Anonymous 12.02AM - In actual fact, much more forensic evidence was used in the trials of those previously convicted of terrorism and later found to not have been terrorists at all. Some defendants (e.g the Guildford Four, Maguire Seven) confessed their guilt, and even though these were later retracted, were still used against them. There was certainly far more evidence available than in the case of 7/7 - both the evidence that was fabricated by the state and the other evidence that proved their innocence which was suppressed by the state.

  9. I would like to thank J7 for keeping me abreast of this subject when the MSM and the BBC consistently failed to adequately report.

    The events of 7/7 have as many anomalies as those of 9/11. Like 9/11, the attacks of 7/7 fit the profile of state crimes before they can be claimed to be utterly and overwhelmingly the work of Muslim militants.

    Lady Hallett, by reading the introduction of the report, had absolutely no intention of contradicting the official myth of 7/7.

    Thank you to all involved with J7 and J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

  10. Thanks, Rock, for your kind comments, and for keeping up with the J7 inquests coverage.

  11. Following on from Kier's comment above, there's also the small issue that, in all the historical cases referenced, criminal trials of the alleged perpetrators ensued, for which evidence, irrespective of how dubious it was, was presented for examination and some (however insufficient) degree of scrutiny.

    Conveniently, for those who would rather there was no examination of any of the evidence, much less judicial scrutiny of such, criminal trials have been effectively done away with by the invention of 'suicide bombers' who, like the evidence, all but evaporate in the attacks.

  12. Apologies for a fairly cursory reply - I have a family emergency to cope with and will be incommunicado for a weeks or so.

    Briefly: I think there is far less clear water between us than your comment suggests. My problem with J7 was related to its description of Ripple effect as “scandalous and utterly reprehensible”. John Anthony Hill is many things but "Utterly reprehensible", he and his DVD are most certainly not IMHO.

    What it comes down to is our respective starting points: By default mine is that the ANY official narrative is - by definition and at the very least - deceptive. In the case of both 9-11 and 7-7, both of which I have studied in very considerable depth, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both were facilitated by Western Deep State elements working to an agenda that by now really ought to be clear to anyone who is paying attention and unencumbered by the need to stay on-side with 'The Establishment' .

    I am NOT offering an alternative narrative. What I do contend however, is that Ripple-Effect fits the evidence rather better than the absurdities of the official narrative; that's all - and Rory Riddly Duff clearly agrees.

    I see no utility in pressing for a further 'official inquiry' for the reasons so eloquently stated in this post.

    I also know that this is an all-or-nothing play for "The Establishment" anyone posing a real threat to its continued widespread acceptance WILL be dealt with - period. And that is a sobering thought.

    I recommend the following very recent video (a German interview with Daniel Ganser of 'Operation Gladio' fame and Mike Ruppert whose "Crossing the Rubicon" remains a must-read for any serious 9-11 researcher even though it is over 8 years old) for an over-arching resume of where we are at right now so far as the entire Human/world predicament is concerned.

  13. I'm afraid the J7 approach to alternative narratives isn't quite the Holy Grail J7 polishes it up to be, however, in some cases, it does have its real power points. E.g. J7 hasn't had to spend its (presumably) limited time and resources in composing one, neither has it had to keep defending an alternative narrative which it is publicly seen to leans towards, and J7's approach will have avoided any deliberately dangled red-herrings straw men.

    So what of the problems?

    Lets face it, who did 7/7 is almost certainly going to be (1) Muslims doing a terror attack (2) The state body (3) A non-state body.
    There are theories which cover all, well, almost all of those.

    Now, a serious flaw with J7's approach is that ONE of those WILL be the correct force behind 7/7, and consequently, ALL truthful information about 7/7 WILL point to that culprit. J7, by its stance and rather bitter attack/ridicule of alternative narratives (or even suggestions) must therefore be dismissing the ONE correct force that was responsible for 7/7.

    Because of what 7/7 was, it is clear that 1-4 must have access to a certain level of sophistication (e.g. the bomb: bomb material procurement/synthesis, bomb constriction, bomb literature, bomb testing, bomb training, bomb storage, transport stability etc)

    On that point alone (1) already begins to look rather week [but not impossible] given the total absence of the procurement of actual explosive chemicals.

    Within (2) we may get single or cooperating nation states working. We may also get elite units working within those states to the ignorance of some or all of the official state apparatus. These units may also work within (3).

    It is perfectly rational and appropriate that concerned citizens, much to J7's dislike, propose theories as to why/who/how this happened, in order to stop a rather horrible (IMHO) and lie soaked state (not my opinion) from being able to stonewall what really happened that day and to seek justice.

    A major part of J7 is actually testing a narrative, and to me, J7's been quite good at showing that govt. narrative has many lies within it to support a one-track-minded establishment useful pre-conclusion that Muslims did it.

    What looks like rather ugly 'name calling' is done by J7 when it accuses others of that same one-track-mindedness. That's fair - but only to a point, because remember, ONE of those scenarios IS going to be correct. Is there any feasibility in expanding categories (1-4) above? Like the Peoples Judean Front?

    Let those alternative narratives come forth. The nonsense ones will quickly wash away and the serious ones will remain as they deserve too.

    Well done Ripple Effect and ALL other 7/7 publicly exposed discussions/documentaries 'Mind the Gap' etc... on the matter. Such works, unlike J7 won't always have themselves almost entirely captivated by what the government says and does. And of course the Govt is 'getting bored' with this now. It's practically set the narrative in stone.

    Again frankly speaking, the attacks on the unusual Muad dib in the J7 context are to me quite an ugly thing to see coming from J7. I, unlike others, don't give a toss about things NOT in RE and I think sending the DVD to victims was an act of pure conviction that what he believed to be true in the face of an establishment that covers up the truth. Of course if one wants to look for an alternative narrative of his notices, well...

    I'm going to end by saying well done J7 as what they have done has proved valuable - in it's niche capacity to do so. Now it time to move to the next step. Looking at a second narrative.

    Even though I am quite sure that's not going to happen.

  14. The issue is far simpler than all that, LWTC, and it all comes down to definition; if words have any meaning any more that is.

    A 'narrative' is just that: "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious."

    Replacing one unsubstantiated story with another unsubstantiated story is an exercise in futility, which is why there are so many entities trying to palm off equally evidence-free alternative narratives as truth.

    This approach was summed up when someone put it far better than I ever could, "If you're going to rip government lies apart its very important that you fill in all the blanks with stuff you just made up. Otherwise you're just shilling. The quicker truthseekers here on earth realise this the better."

    In addition to avoiding the substitution of one fiction for another, a distinction must be drawn between 'alternative narratives' and 'hypotheses' against which the evidence can be tested.

    J7's interest and objective, from the outset, has always been the Truth.

  15. The problem I see with Muad'dib's narrative is that he offers it as the 'truth of what really happened that day' rather than as a hypothesis. This requires that people accept his version of events or the government's - J7 do neither. J7 are a campaign - a campaign for the truth and certainly not a campaign to see Muad'dib crowned as 'the rightful king of Britain and Israel' by using his so-called 'martyrdom' and the events of 7/7 as his platform.

    It is worth bearing in mind, and as was shown in the BBC's 7/7 CF episode, that 'The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.'

  16. ok guys i like some of the points raised here,ever thought about the science of bomb blasts? hmm every time the ira let off a bomb the ptb tell you what kg weight it is! wheres the forensic report on this?ie was it homemade poormans c4,or a nitrate perclorate flash mix,half kilo,or kilo?the blast damage looks about in my estimation to be about a kilo this is a guesstimate as i dont have the ability to test this out anymore,but with flash you get a rapid oxidization i.e there would be a grey shadow around the blast area, i dont remmember seeing evidence of this in any off the pics or footage!so im thinking military grade explosive,c4,pe noble,and it would have been a small charge as it seems to have a limited radius,of blast and fallout,this suggests to me that some expertise was used,and it was limited in its effect,it strikes me as a bit odd!? because suicide bombers pack as much as possible on there person to cause maximum damage and loss of life! does anyone have this info?also how was it triggered?what about the remains of the bombers? or were they conveaniantly vaporised?there are to many unfurnished details like 911,i cynically believe this was an attempt at bringing the public on side with justifying the wars in iraq,and afganistan, regards jimster

  17. "Replacing one unsubstantiated story with another unsubstantiated story is an exercise in futility, which is why there are so many entities trying to palm off equally evidence-free alternative narratives as truth."

    This is the oft said J7 but now gets nowhere new, plus doesn't address the points I made. The guilty party is still going to be groups (1-3) or of course, the PJF. {or combinations thereof)

    If narratives are an "exercise in futility" why have J7 been looking at one for so long?

    One particular narrative: the truthful one, can never be a 'palm off' in the slightest. And by whose decree is something a palm off and others not?

    J7's approach although useful and very good to a point. It does make some progress towards a final destination but by it's nature, will always end up in a cud-de-sac. The end goal never fully realisable. It's purely negative approach.

    Isn't it impossible to instantaneously deliver the truth lock stock and barrel? Isn't the truth something that is arrived at by following the evidence and discarding the false clues, occasional contradictions and ambiguities which quite naturally - it seems - get caught up and incorporated in every single complicated investigation in known history (just an educated guess, I don't happen to have such a compendium)

    There are a number of narratives J7 has been openly hostile to and it seems to me that one of them is going to be right, including (God forbid) the central theme as supported by the govts (God forbid) yet J7 and fiends have taken sarky and at times plain nasty shots at the messenger as well as the message. However a number of these narratives could still maintain their underlying thesis on cutting out what J7 finds questionable, I'm sure there'd be substantive evidence to back it up.

    Just as one should treat circumstantial information with caution and not morph it into the facts (until proven otherwise), one should not rule it out and it out either as it can give leads and ideas for firmly establishing the dots that have many missing links in between them.

    I understand why you say J7 interests have been for the truth, but J7 methodology washes its hands of one well exercised way of finding that truth.

    And if it isn't case #(1), you can bet your bottom dollar that multiple instances of false evidence which will be designed specifically to be non-provable are going to be out there. The magnitude of the crime demands that does it not?

    As time passes, the truth is getting harder to find (unless of course you believe the govt as many people actually do, including the friends and relatives of the victims, (yet no pot shots are taken against them). Identifying and explaining possible errors and impossibilities in alternative narratives is far more helpful… Don't you think?

    Whether MD's documentary is a hypothesis (I’m not interested in playing word games) doesn't mean it must have a claim to truth must be rejected.

    MD;s silly claims/behaviour (stones and greenhouse anyone?) are irrelevant. Those kind of things are exactly what pro-narrative people say about J7 etc... Perhaps some are more equal than others after all.

    'The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.'. If one takes what is said as an absoluter rather than a 'working model' manner then perhaps. The solution is simple… Don’t take it in such a way.

  18. 7/7 RE wouldn't exist without J7 - and neither would NK's book ToTT - all garnered from our research resources and website. I would be interested to know who actually made 7/7 RE as it obviously wasn't Muad'dib/Anthony John Hill/Jahtruth.

  19. "Jewish/Israeli (it doesn't matter really, they're all the same, aren't they?) Space Alien Bankers from the Pyramids on Mars did it from a hollowed out moon using holograms and Jedi mind tricks. Muad'Dib is the rightful King of Britain and Israel and he and David Shayler are human incarnations of G-O-D HIMself, follow their ways or face the fire; for every utterance of theirs is the gospel. You shall forever more worship Spice!"

    There, are you happy now?

    Have you got what you wanted?

    Is that why you come here pretending to be interested in truth when all that is wanted is a nice simple story that makes it all very easy to understand without having to work very hard because someone else (no matter who they are or what else they say) has invented a story you like more than the State's one?

  20. @Anonymous, May 9, 2011 12:05 PM

    Thanks for the comment.

    Even now, the nature, construction and operation of the devices remains something of a confused mystery.

    You could start here and follow the links for information about their story so far.

  21. B said: "7/7 RE wouldn't exist without J7 - and neither would NK's book ToTT - all garnered from our research resources and website."

    I said the opposite to what you have implied. I have said for a long time now that J7 has made progress to the final truth goal. I have even supported the method, but like crumpets, it has a sell by date. This date has arrived. But there is no reason why others can't use some the work J7 has done just like you used the work NK did about the train time did you not? Is it truth(TM) we are talking about here?

    "Jewish/Israeli (it doesn't matter really, they're all the same, aren't they?) Space Alien Bankers from the Pyramids on Mars did it from a hollowed out moon using holograms and Jedi mind tricks. Muad'Dib is the rightful King of Britain and Israel and he and David Shayler are human incarnations of G-O-D HIMself, follow their ways or face the fire; for every utterance of theirs is the gospel. You shall forever more worship Spice!"

    There, are you happy now?

    Have you got what you wanted?

    Is that why you come here pretending to be interested in truth when all that is wanted is a nice simple story that makes it all very easy to understand without having to work very hard because someone else (no matter who they are or what else they say) has invented a story you like more than the State's one?"

    That's really quite pathetic.

    So we're at the point where now you also get to decree who palms things off and who is a real truth seeker, the truth that is, as you see it. One cannot express queries and finding in your method without such outbursts?

    "come here pretending to be interested in truth" My point is proved; some are indeed more equal than others.

    A successful scientific strategy when trying to identify unknowns - with some inkling of what one is looking for - is to conduct 'positive outcome' based tests, as it's dreadfully inefficient to trawl through a potentially infinite number of poorly efficient negative tests - the process of investigation exclusively by elimination.

    Bets on that the government will forever roll out falsehoods to prevent the truth coming out becasue surely, nobody at this stage believes option #(1).

  22. lwtc247, it is dreadfully inefficient to trawl through your interminable comments. Make your points eloquently and succinctly.

  23. lwtc247 - J7 have no objections to others using our work, but we do object to plagiarism and uncredited use of our hard work.

    If you seriously think that someone claiming to be the Messiah or the 'rightful King of Britain and Israel' should not have his approach questioned, it makes me wonder how interested you are in the truth yourself.

    7/7 RE was about as representative of the truth of 7/7 as 'Top Gun' was about the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School, although I'll give Maud his due - it was equally as entertaining, despite the disappointing lack of locker room scenes.

    "Whether MD's documentary is a hypothesis (I’m not interested in playing word games) doesn't mean it must have a claim to truth must be rejected."

    Not quite sure what you're saying in the last part of this sentence, but none of us are playing word games. It IS a hypothesis and until he figures out quite how he intends to test it, it can only ever be a hypothesis. A bit like that hypothesis he's got that he's the rightful king of Britain and Israel.

  24. I'd just like to say that I greatly admire J7's research and think you do a fantastic job analysing, as objectively as possible, the official narrative.

    Before dismissing lwtc's comments, I personally think that there is a case to be made in at least attempting to dabble in the realm of conjecture by analysing more fully the alternative hypotheses already posited on this site.

    Of course, a blind acceptance of RE's narrative, or indeed any other unproven hypothesis, would be as pointless as blindly accepting the official narrative; however, given the fact that the 7/7 Inquests have recommended no further Enquiry, shouldn't we take the essence of lwtc's point that the thrust of a truth-seeker's attention, pending the possibility of an increasingly-unlikely Public Enquiry, should now be to investigate alternative hypotheses more fully? Such a focus would not have to entail J7 making the arrogant claim 'This is what really happened', but could instead offer some sort of hierarchy to the credibility of certain hypotheses over others, given the available public evidence. I'm aware that there is already a limited level of evaluation in the currently listed alternative hypotheses on the J7 website, but I think this work now needs to be taken further.

    In essence, we cannot deductively ascertain what happened on 7/7/05 with the public evidence available, but we can inductively theorize and categorize likelihoods of certain hypotheses being the case, as Dr. Rory Ridley-Duff's 'What really happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005' paper attempted.

    The reason I believe this venture into philosophical conjecture is necessary is twofold: firstly, as a pragmatic point, because a clearly organized list of fully evaluated alternative hypotheses, categorized in a hierarchy of truth-potential, would give more uninformed members of the public, who are perhaps visiting the site for the first time, a clearer access to the issues at hand. I say that this is a pragmatic point because I simply believe that first-time visitors would be more likely to come 'on board' with J7 and hopefully sign the petition for a Public Enquiry if a more evaluative approach was offered. I personally only discovered J7 a few months ago, and my only disappointment was in its lack of clear evaluation of alternative hypotheses. Rather than people venturing elsewhere to find out 'what really happened', and stumbling upon ToTT or RE, I believe J7 should at least attempt to go further in their evaluation than they already do.

    My second reason is that a philosophical evaluation of alternative hypotheses, if explicitly compared against the official hypothesis, may provide further reason to doubt the official narrative if the official version of events is shown to correlate less with the available evidence than alternative theories x, y and z. As J7's primary practice is to demonstrate the flaws and inconsistencies in the official narrative, I believe such an analysis would be incomplete without explicitly comparing it to other hypotheses. The result of such a comparison would likely be naturally skewed towards the official narrative's version of events because the government has controlled what evidence is released to the public; so the body of evidence publically available, we should probably presume, is tailored to fit with the official narrative (unless, of course, the official story is true).

    I hope you will consider my comments because I have become a passionate supporter of 7/7 truth and J7 are easily the best organization out there to access useful information about the 7/7 bombings, from my perspective. I just really do believe that the focus of this movement, now that the Inquests are over, should be to develop the most clear and philosophically sound evaluation possible of alternative hypotheses to 7/7. It would give J7 even more credibility, in my opinion, and would all but complete the work that we, as a public, can do with the evidence available to us.

  25. Explain then, if you will, how MD's peculiar personal claims affect the content and info presented in RE.

    Just how does the weekly delivery of used ladies underwear to the bloke at the end of the street affect his job as head of a successful food franchise is beyond me.

    Some people do some weird stuff (most do, I imagine) but that doesn't mean everything they do is questionable. It does provide a soft target however to detract from what he says on 7/7 however. I resembles the stuff I sued to see in the school playground, I decided to fight it then and I'll not stop now. What some of you have done is no different from pointing and screaming "conspiracy theorist!".

    That you choose to pick on a weird issue of MD's personal life (something that's wholly irrelevant and inconsequential to me) to question my wanting of the truth of 7/7 to have its day, is pretty miserable Kier, as was Ant's pathetic display earlier.

    How tetchy some of you are for me expressing a reasoned and logical opinion. I expected a reasoned discussion, not these infantile grabs of presumed weapons to throw at me to try and shut down what was said; None of the personal attacks answer any of the points I raised.

    But my comments aren't about RE (no matter how much some privileged monopoly holders and definers of truth may like) Beyond RE (and actually including RE), the fact remains that ONE narrative WILL be the truth. We're all sensible enough to realise the patsies theory is by far the strongest and the lone bombers one one of the weakest.

    Fair enough that the hard work J7 has done (and it must be said J7 has done a lot, for which I am thankful) should be credited, but as you will have seen from reading NK's book, there is certainly credit given to J7.

    Nafeez Ahmed's compendium featuring wads of highly questionable MSM reports and spineless censorship - "The London Bombings - An Independent Inquiry" doesn't acknowledge J7 - or certainly none that I can remember in amongst his hundreds of references. And even if tht's because he didn't use any of the work J7 ferreted out (I can't quite remember), I see no attack on his narrative.

    Instead of criticising peoples hard work who have attempted to make a plausible narrative, why not help them to remove/improve upon the weakest aspects which turn out to be false and caution them to caveat their claims. You could also campaign for the injustice they suffered instead of gloating over the fascist state that's pressed down on someone whose personal life you ridicule.

    My view, which seemed to put ants in Ants pants, is that if J7 doesn't adapt a new approach, it will forever be within the confines of the governments arena, that is, stuck responding to an infinite number of semi-false (and deliberately so) narratives until anyone who may ever be prosecuted is dead.

  26. Lwtc247 Unfortunately Muad's belief that he is the rightful king of Britain and Israel is not just some private perversion but central to the whole 7/7 RE project.

    The British State's agenda has been to use 7/7 to increase repression via Anti-Terror laws, justify their wars and divide & rule through Islamophobia, Muad's agenda is to de-throne Betty and have himself installed. J7 are part of no-one's agenda - our only agenda is the truth and the process of truth.

    The real cul-de-sac for truth is to support either of these simplistic, evidence-free versions of the events in London on 7/7.

  27. Rhys apologies for not moderating your comment earlier - blogger's spam filter hid it. Thanks you for the kind words and appreciation of J7's hard work.

    It is important to state that J7 are a Truth Campaign and as such we insist on holding the British State to account for its narrative of events. The many questions anomalies and discrepancies along with many unasked & unanswered questions were submitted by J7 to these proceedings in the 'voluminous submissions' referred to by Hugo Keith QC in his opening statement. J7's submission for the resumption of the Inquests into the 4 accused, as mentioned by Lady Hallett in her closing statement, outlined many of the new questions that had arisen during the course of the Inquests.

    J7 will continue to campaign for the truth despite the State's wishful words via Justice Hallett that 'these proceedings will be an end to the investigation of what happened on 7/7.'

    J7 have already offered 9 possible alternative hypotheses which can be read here.

    J7 will not be distracted diverted and dismissed by using our precious time and energy, all given freely and often at great personal sacrifice, fantasising ala 7/7 RE about what might have happened that day.

    Instead, J7 will continue to campaign for the Release of the Evidence, which, if the State's version of events is true, should have been forthcoming during the 7/7 Inquests, but as J7 have shown, was not.

  28. lwtc247 I agree with you! Maud's personal life is entirely his business and indeed I couldn't give a flying one about his proclivities, be they wearing frilly knickers under his slacks, a secret talent for cordon bleu cooking or a slavish devotion to "The Only Way is Essex".

    But we're not talking about his personal life, we're talking about his pronouncement that he's the rightful King of Britain and Israel - that's not personal, because he's made that everyone's business by declaiming it. He's put that out there himself, and of course it's a statement that will draw interest - be realistic!

    "Instead of criticising peoples hard work who have attempted to make a plausible narrative, why not help them to remove/improve upon the weakest aspects which turn out to be false and caution them to caveat their claims."

    So, if I've got this're suggesting J7 stop criticising the government, who, as we all know, attempted to make a plausible narrative, and you suggest we help them remove or improve upon the weakest aspects of their claims? Okay, we'll let's see....we could help them by getting them to explain exactly what explosives were used instead of fudging the issue, or how even the most observant passengers failed to see Hasib Hussain on the No.30 bus or any of the other three, despite them conspicuously scattering their identifying documents about the place before crouching menacingly over a rucksack, or how all those CCTV cameras came to fail on 7/7.......yes, yes, brilliant idea! We'll do that!

  29. This is where a mistaken belief that one is all-knowing and all-seeing, as in the case of the would-be Messiah Muad'dib, can lead:

    One of the packages included a letter to John Hyman telling him his daughter Miriam did not die in the Tavistock Square bus blast but was murdered by the security services at Canary Wharf in London, Southwark Crown Court was told.


  30. Why is this turning into a comment forum about JAH/MD?

    One of my main points is that J7's method is encapsulated by whatever framework the government chooses to splurge out, and that framework looks pretty much hard-set already.

    All this despite monumental inconsistencies and indications that lies are being told within their narrative, and the inquest simply expanded those inconsistencies did it not?

    Eventually, if need be, alternatives may replace clear cut lies (which shamefully, not many really care about) E.g. 'Oh, if they couldn't' have got that train, then the 'bombers' could have actually bought tickets and ran to catch the other train in three minutes.' - QED. For many, that's accepted.

    And as you well know, lies can (and have in my opinion) be covered up in the catch-all of the 'national interest' with xyz disclousre time?

    But right now, The vast majority of people are in acceptance of the govt narrative at this stage, allowing the govt to smother the issue. Expect the 'conspiracy wack nut-job' type of accusations to increase for people who pursue the matter.

    I am aware of J7's work quite well, despite some things slipping from memory on occasion. I've followed it from almost the very beginning. I was aware of 'voluminous submissions' Well done.

    And even if some of it formed the basis of Hugo Keith's questioning (which I doubt) and it uncovered a new inconsistency, what came from that? Is it incorrect to say 'nothing'?

    In my eyes, as was predicted, J7's stuff was largely ignored by the establishment. Apparatchiks rarely upset the Apple cart. To do so would force a radical restructing of that narrative/framework to include government and corporate/private involvement. That ain't gonna happen here.

    Hallett's words may be wishful but they are very likely to prevail, unless of course, something massively significant arises causing an unavoidable reverse of her desired termination of the matter.

    J7's activities of course have a chance of making that happen, and God willing you will succeed in it, and I support your persistence, but my own view is that now it's game set and match - no matter how many wrong calls were made during the 'game'.

    It's good that J7 has given some working alternative's (hypotheses) but have they have been put to side have they not? - or are they works in progress? Whatever, J7's lack of constructive criticism [with plenty of slurs and name calling!] when others have done what J7 did is, definitely not a pretty sight.

    If say some startling revelation does ever happens, IMHO, the next most likely thing the govt will do is to throw an intelligence cock-up/negligence fish into the pond. E.g. Nafeez Ahmaed thesis, and seemingly Rachel Norths approach. It seemed for a while in the broader sense of things that steps heading off in that direction were happening for a while, but have since back-tracked w.r.t. 7/7. Itself an interesting situation.

    But the 'intelligence cock-up' senario ever did come about, it's even less likely ANY further shift from that position would happen.

    These 'startling revelations' may come about if specific and genuine documentation comes to light or a whistle blower steps forwards. Re: documentation - if you had partial responsibility for 7/7 would you keep such documents lying around? And what do you think would happen to a whistle blower and those he/she loved? Same for 9-11. The stakes are THAT high.

    The narrative is settling - for the long foreseeable future - that 4 men did it somehow with some very poorly defined 'AfPak help' and some other fuzzy 'home grown developing terrorists' help.

    J7 is forever boxing itself into that.

  31. /2

    Quick comment about MD/JAH...

    I'm pretty sure I read that stuff about the stone of Scone (with curiosity it must be said) some time ago. When I watched RE, let me reassure you the stone of scone didn't pop into my head not once. Either did the identity or personal life of it's creator (other than the unusual beginning). How exactly the link you gave affects the info delivered in RE escapes me... Please enlighten me.

    You say "fantasising ala 7/7" but once again. you are not recognising the implications that ONE version of events that happened that day is NOT a fantasy. Neither will the elements that transpired within that event fantastical either, which remain fantasty-free even if are incorporated into other incorrect overall narratives of that day.

    SOMETHING evil did transpire that day. It had many elements. Many of which point to (2) (3) and perhaps (4) too.

    I hope J7 continues doing what others are not doing. but it's my contention it will just be ignored by the govt as many other horrific wars, crimes, oppression and injustices are.

    Even (unintentionally)wrong alternative narratives can encourage people to adopt a sceptical mind. I note how Loose Change developed it's story in the light of new information and on reflection of speculative items present in past editions. With many specpical minds behind you, it's possible to get the govt to budge slightly.

    It's interesting to see the methodology on discrediting 'Loose Change' took place. Personal attacks on one of it's 'High school drops outs'. Hummm..

    Force of numbers can be a powerful thing. Thing is, it's the govt that has those numbers even with all the swathe of questionable points in its narrative.

    RE has actually managed to chip away at those numbers, because it contains elements of the truth. I believe RE was a sincere effort and therefore I applaud it. I don't claim it's error free or actually what happened (but actually I think it's likely to be very close) but that's not going to stop some people form trying, and wrongly, trying to claim it's "evidence free".

  32. /3

    "So, if I've got this right." - No Kier. I'm not suggesting "stop criticising the government, who, as we all know, attempted to make a plausible narrative" - You got it wrong, very wrong, and I honestly can't believe you truly believe you really though that's what I was calling for.

  33. /4

    Re: B on May 10, 2011 7:10 PM

    The 'newspaper' you quoted from certainly involves something horrific and would obviously traumatise, upset and probably inflame Mr. Hyman, but if that version of events is the "truth" as someone perceived it, then to act on that and inform the grieving father of the "truth" of how his daughter died, well, I don't think I can say much against it.

    If I was ever in a similar situation (God forbid) right now I'd imagine I'd want to know too.

    To call it sick though? I'd call 'sick' - which for the sake of discussion may perhaps may be described as gaining pleasure from the suffering of others. On that basis, 'sick' isn't an appropriate word.

    The post mortem of course revealed exactly how and where the terrible death of Ms Hyman occurred.

    And surprisingly, that doesn't relate to the stone of scone either or some king of britian or some other crap place.

    Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing 'things MD', despite the rather 'inductive invitations' to do so.

  34. The post mortem of course revealed exactly how and where the terrible death of Ms Hyman occurred.


    Let’s listen to the bewildered comment from pathologist Dr. Awani Choudhary, one of the first doctors on the scene from the BMA at Tavistock Square, who testified to the Inquest about his attempts to save the life of Gladys Wundowa:
    ‘I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere … So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprised…
    Q. Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, they don’t –
    A. I… I’m absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I’m absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.
    Q. Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn’t a matter to concern you.
    A. Sorry.
    Q. … we don’t need to concern ourselves about that matter. (Jan 20 am, 63:22- 65:6)

    No, of course not. 52 dead and no post-mortems, nothing to worry about.


  35. Brian123

    You'll find the original of that article here:

    Colonel Mahoney, in Porton Down, with the flawed d...

    your quote is from the Nick Kollestrom plagiarised version.

  36. "NO POST MORTEMS HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON THE DEAD" - Exactly Brian123. Now, in that context, it might benefit you to re-read what I wrote.

  37. @Lwc247/Brian123 No internal post mortems had been carried out which is not quite the same thing. It's important to be accurate, which is why we raise such strong objections to Kollerstrom's plaigarism.

  38. I am not an active member of the J7 research team but I have followed their work pretty much since the begining. Anything I say is my own opinion and not necessarilly supported by J7

    The efforts to try and pressure and/or trick J7 into adopting or endorsing an alternative 7/7 narrative have long since passed the point where I personally can attribute them to ill-judged enthusiasm

    J7 has repeatedly explained why it is not proposing an alternate narrative. The explanation is rational and makes good sense. Yet I still see people elsewhere on the web accusing J7 of being a disinfo outfit because of its stance whilst, at the same time, merrily (and inaccurately) ripping off the huge amount of work J7 has put into analysing the flaws in the Official Narrative

    Several attempts have been made to associate J7 with a certain alternative narrative and its alleged producer. After J7 dodged those crude attempts to throw it off course the smearing began

    And, if commentatators pretend that they can't see why J7 is obliged to distance itself from inaccurate, fictionalised accounts of 7/7 attributed to people who claim to be Jesus, dress up like the Blue Fairy and whose court appearances have coincided with key points in the 7/7 Inquest, then I personally cannot escape the conclusion that they are either fools or knaves

  39. 1/3
    "The efforts to try and pressure and/or trick J7 into adopting or endorsing an alternative 7/7 narrative have long since passed the point where I personally can attribute them to ill-judged enthusiasm"

    Hi Stef. If you are referring to me, I contest your subjective prefix "ill" here. I also contest what you imply as heavy-handedness/forcefulness or trickiness/deceit against J7 - the latter is absolutely inaccurate. That substantiated opinionating ends up as fabricated projections is rather worrisome. Neither do I accept what I said was 'crude' or a 'smear'.

    On the contrary, the quite nasty smears from J7 and its staunch supporters in the direction of JAH (being cast as tool for those that would prefer the end of the inquest to not get much discussion, which is a little along the lines of what some have accused J7 of) are quite plain to see. That JAH's detention-cum-release was expedient is probably even more fanciful and evidence-less conjecture than what some have accuses JAH of with his RE. Given the daggers thrown at him, it's little wonder people have written simple web posts about him, especially given the end of the (alleged)inquest had all the magnitude of a wet chappati flour bomb [as, really, we all knew it would]. Plus, there have been a fair number of articles on the content of the inquest itself. The closing of the inquest had little else new to discuss, but conclusion of the inquest HAS occurred.

    Another thing, I don't appreciate the BuShism; fools or knaves. Both 'choices' are invalid, whether such things irritate you or not.

    To my eyes, and I think it's a valid point, J7's novel methodology will be subject to the law of diminishing returns.

    It will forever be at the mercy of what ever drawn out obfuscation the Govt so chooses, because now, !The establishment has ruled!

    - And to most people, that's going to be the end of it. Heck even the North squad shut up shop.

    All this is deeply shocking considering the fragility the Govts cock'n bull tale, sold as a definitive and factual account of what actually happened, with all the flaws it contains.

    I really don't think people are able to turn the corner and face the possibility that TPTB might have done this. I think they would, and have, wrangle every which way in order to avoid seeing the deadly truth, because it has potentially monumental consequences , It could possibly (albeit with a pessimistically slim chance) 'earthquake' its way through organised administrative society. But for people who stand to lose the perception of 'benevolence UK' shoved into most of their heads since a child, is simply a bridge too far.

  40. 2/3
    Hence the J7 Govt narrative has been cemented.

    If that is indeed the case, I predict that now or later, the only to way to raise this '7/7 titanic' is by popular support, and that's most likely to come about by laying out a narrative for them to follow and understand by stitching together the facts as we know them with cautioned, stated suppositions to bridge the gap. Such a tale should be devoid of the Govt's errors. Such a thing can be done and of course, is going to have significant overlap with the actual scenario of what happened that day with pointers to the guilty party(s)

    As we know, J7 have already offered a number of skeletal scenarios, so it's a wee bit odd that they then stonewall them and attack anything that does something similar which doesn't correspond to their approval. Criticise by all means the factual errors - of course, for the purpose of improvement and advancement.

    Once again, what's likely to achieve the quickest result is an alternative narrative free of the proliferous govt's errors. We;ve already seen the long and winding road of Govt/establishment action here, where one lame Govt story is swapped for another to stall the emergence of the truth. J7 are putting themselves at the Govts mercy, and we all know the extent of that.

    Time, obvously, has an important role to play in all this. Do J7 REALLY think their method will not be savaged by time?

  41. 3/3

    Last bit:

    You probably know I am a staunch anti-Zionist, and I know perfectly well what Zionism is. It seems to me, J7 are intelligent enough to have a fairly good idea as to what Zionism is too. So it sure looks odd whenever 'Israil' or Zionist connections to evil acts are raised and pursued, to slur it by pretending it's anti "THE JEWS", is an utter nonsense. And I don't care if you can point out a few people who don't draw the distinction. Being anti-Zionist or anti Israil isn't anti-Jew and to actually make that association is in itself is spit on what one may loosely call 'Judaism'

    There are a lot of other people who try that tactic. Consult the Book of Foxamn. And IF 'Israil' was invloved (which I suspect they are) they'll no doubt be singing in the occupied valleys tonight about all this.

    If J7 want to continue THEIR method, then fine, they should be allowed to that, freedom and all malarkey. Some reciprocation would be nice however towards those who see things differently. Personally, I think it'd be interesting to see BOTH methodologies proceed in the future. I'm sure there's potential for mutual benefit.

    There. I hope what I've said will stop being reinterpreted.

    The lack of sensible discussion and near avoidance of 'take up' on the points I've raised wasn't what I was quite expecting here.

  42. Lwtc247 as you are a supporter of both 7/7 RE & Nick Kollerstrom's (plagiarised from J7) book, can you tell me what they both advocate as solutions to the problem?

    As far as I can tell Kollerstrom advocates Orwellian "Ministries of Peace developing around the world, and hope the responsible companies and industries would want to fund such ministries" (TOTT, p234). Corporate Capitalism funding State ministries really the solution when they are far more likely the problem? Wasn't Mussolini's definition of Fascism the merger of State and Corporate power?

    Muad'dib and his disciples, who have used the events of 7/7 in a cynical attempt to make him (or should that be Him) the story, advocate his crowning as the Rightful King of Britain and Israel - what utter monarchist nonsense.

    Truth is a process Lwtc247, a process that J7 embarked on back in 2005 and truth is what J7 continue to campaign for - we don't know yet where that leads but certainly not down the blind alleys and cul de sacs that the aforementioned individuals would lead you.

  43. B.

    Once again my points go answered and J7's fixation with RE and NK result in 'discussion takeover'.

    I "support" RE in as much as I believe it was a sincere effort which made a plausible connection between the dots. IMHO, the patsy theory disguised by mock terror drills that others planned to go live, is streets ahead of any other narrative.

    I "support" NK's book (not sure what part is plagiarised) in that I find it documents and discusses to a personally satisfying degree aspects of 7/7.

    I don't know what their solutions are, I'm not their groupie and I'm not interested in being sucked into this silly bipolarism.

    I "support" J7T too as I believe they have done a great job thus far in getting the Govt to get off its couldn't care lees disgraceful attitude.

    Re: p234, are you serious [that in order for Ganser's words to come true] you understood NK's Ministries of Peace to be of the Orwellian kind??? Good grief B. Your beef with NK has seriously affected your comprehension.

    Your 'bent' on these matters shows further when you graft the big-bad of NK connecting to Corporatism nay, Corporate Capitalism - your double whammy, NK says (as you knew perfectly well): "To help make this happen, let us try to imagine national Ministries of Peace developing around the world, and hope that responsible companies and industries would want to fund such minitsties" - very different from your rewriting of it.

    To enclose industries into Corporate Capitalism is lame. John Perkins references Corporations and honestly believes they can be petitioned/pressurised into doing good. In fact he says the WANT to do the right thing. So you'd be better off taking your idea of Corporate Capitalism and trying to correct John about it, not NK who said nothing about it.

    I share hold a view that JAH's claim to be the rightful King of Israil is plain silly and nonsense, but nowhere do those personal beliefs have any bearing inside of RE narrative of 7/7. None at all.

    Truth is indeed a process. I believe J7T should be praised for what they have done. I look forward to being proved wrong about your methodology. I look forward to other people concerned about 7/7 put their sincere version of events forward and may the best of those thrive.

    "... the aforementioned individuals would lead you. " are not leading me anywhere. If this statement is supposed to build upon the earlier use of the word "disciples" to case me into some peoples beloved bipolar world (that a number are unable to clamber out of), then you have made another mistake.

    It seems my suggestions have been strongly rejected. Fair enough. I hope J7 make great future progress - but at this juncture, can't see how. Pity however J7's sharp defence appears to have happened in a closed minded manner, without any calm and reasoned reflection.

    So keep up the good work but it would be nice to have the ummm, rather 'ungracious' false slurs against ordinary people cease, no matter that they don't share the same view as J7T.

    All this has the air of a competition about it.

    I think any more discussion on this will just be a waste of everyones time.


  44. Bridget,

    I'd just like to develop on some of lwtc247's comments. He said:

    "IMHO, the patsy theory disguised by mock terror drills that others planned to go live, is streets ahead of any other narrative."

    Can you please respond to his opinion without ad hominem attacks against Mr. JAH? They will get us nowhere. I'd be interested to hear your reasons for exactly why the theory mentioned by lwtc247 is less credible than the official narrative via simple reference to the relevant facts.

    I'll add that I happen to disagree with lwtc247's opinion that RE's hypothesis is 'streets ahead' of any other - your RE rebuttal article clearly shows that many of JAH's assumptions and assertions lack credibility in the same way as the official narrative's; however, given all the available public facts, I do see it as actually more likely to be true that the official narrative.

    I said it in an earlier post and I'll say it again: I think J7 should address more fully the alternative hypotheses about what happened on 7/7. This needn't, and shouldn't, entail JAH-esque claims of 'THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED'; instead, what we need is something like 'the probability that x happened is more likely than the probability of y happening, all things being equal, because of z'. I've read your alternative hypotheses article and there is already a general hint of evaluation present in terms of comparing the relative merits of each theory - I just believe that this needs to be taken to the next level and made more explicit. The general public who question the official narrative want to know what most likely happened on 7/7 - it's human nature to be curious. This is probably why RE is so popular. Rather than maintaining your position of avoiding conjecture altogether, I think you should attempt to tap into the public's curiosity in a way that you still maintain your integrity as a group which simply campaigns for truth. This would be done, as I've said, by providing a more explicit comparative analysis of the various hypotheses. It would be no easy task as it would require high levels of philosophical reflection in conjunction with a deep knowledge of all the events of 7/7 to give a credible analysis. But surely there are none more knowledgeable about 7/7 than the J7 team. This is why I am appealing to you. Tapping into the general public's curiosity, as RE has shown, is a powerful tool - and it goes without saying that the more public support J7 gets, the larger its petition grows and the more credibility and traction its campaign for a public enquiry becomes. Thus, analysing the various hypotheses more evaluatively would indirectly further J7's core purpose in campaigning for truth as long as it is true that it would attract more support.

    And I do believe that the campaign for truth is crying out for a credible analysis of the most likely events of July 7th 2005 given all the knowledge we have. J7 providing such an explicit analysis, including recognising the gist of RE's narrative in its scope - even if to show its lack of likelihood compared to other theories - can only increase its credibility as a truth campaign for the public.

    So in summary, I would very much appreciate if you could answer:

    1. Why you believe RE's hypothesis is less credible than, for example, the government's narrative without ad hominem attacks on JAH.

    2. Why J7 will not adopt a more detailed analytic approach to the various existing hypotheses in the model of '"x hypothesis" is more likely to have happened than "y hypothesis" because of "z fact"', if my assertion is true that this would attract more public support without damaging or compromising J7's credibility.


  45. Rhys said... 1. Why you believe RE's hypothesis is less credible than, for example, the government's narrative without ad hominem attacks on JAH.

    What is this? The year of exercises in futility?

    Maybe you would be so kind as to explain why anyone should think one lot of made up nonsense with no compelling supporting evidence is better than another load of made up nonsense with no compelling supporting evidence?

    Rhys said... 2. Why J7 will not adopt a more detailed analytic approach to the various existing hypotheses in the model of '"x hypothesis" is more likely to have happened than "y hypothesis" because of "z fact"', if my assertion is true that this would attract more public support without damaging or compromising J7's credibility.

    J7's approach is detailed, analytic, and credible. There are plenty of corners of the Internet where you, LWTC and the dozen or so members of the Muad'devillian muppet troupe can all hang out together and make up whatever stories your inquisitive minds are content feeding themselves until He becomes King. And, while you're doing that J7 -- who, regrettably, don't have a J7 of their own to leech off -- will probably do what they've always done and get on with research and analysis.

    The truth and "what more likely happened" aren't the same thing. Anyone having trouble understanding this very basic concept should refer to the answer given in response to question 1.

  46. (1)

    The aptly named Antagonist said:

    "Maybe you would be so kind as to explain why anyone should think one lot of made up nonsense with no compelling supporting evidence is better than another load of made up nonsense with no compelling supporting evidence?"

    Well, this is what I was hoping you could explain to me actually. I'm just a simple member of the public who wants to try to understand, as anyone would, what might have happened on 7/7 if the government narrative is false. Why have J7 already written an article listing nine alternative hypotheses - including the official hypothesis as a possibility - if any attempt to piece together evidence is as hopelessly futile as you portray?

    "J7's approach is detailed, analytic, and credible."

    It is. However, it may be more detailed, more analytic, and more credible with a fuller evaluative analysis of your nine existing hypotheses plus the broad gist of the RE hypothesis. I appreciate that you must have lots of work to do that you deem more important. It is simply my feeling that as time goes on - and particularly now that the Inquests are over - there will only be increasingly less information to analyse over time. Fully evaluating how well each alternative hypothesis we can imagine fits with the available evidence is surely the way forward, ultimately.

    "There are plenty of corners of the Internet where you, LWTC and the dozen or so members of the Muad'devillian muppet troupe can all hang out together and make up whatever stories your inquisitive minds are content feeding themselves until He becomes King."

    Well, this is just insulting. They don't call you The Antagonist for nothing I suppose. I've got absolutely nothing to do with whatever this 'Muad'devillian muppet troupe' is that you refer to; I'm simply curious about whether the reported shootings at Canary Wharf can possibly fit into an alternative hypothesis which provides a credible alternative to the government's narrative, as, I'm sure, anyone would be.

  47. (2)

    "And, while you're doing that J7 -- who, regrettably, don't have a J7 of their own to leech off -- will probably do what they've always done and get on with research and analysis."

    I'm sure you will. Unfortunately, your lack of fully exploring alternative hypotheses in more evaluative detail will put some, if not many, members of the public off investigating 7/7 more thoroughly and signing your petition. J7's ambition to achieve a full public enquiry rests on public support. Evaluating the credibility of alternative hypotheses wouldn't make you a straw man but would only increase your credibility. Antagonising members of the public such as myself, who signed your petition, by your tribal labelling of me as a "Maud'devillian", does nothing to further your aims and somewhat damages your public rapport. People who are more easily insulted than myself would simply be put off the whole thing, but I'll personally continue to try and point people towards this site and your petition because your noble goal to achieve a public enquiry is more important than personal spats.

    "The truth and "what more likely happened" aren't the same thing. Anyone having trouble understanding this very basic concept should refer to the answer given in response to question 1."

    I very much understand that 'the truth' and 'what more likely happened' are not the same thing. What you seem to not understand is that human beings in general have a very troublesome task in connecting with that elusive notion of 'truth' in the world. A scientist can only loosely call her theory 'truth' as long as no better theory comes along to replace it. All we can ever do is say what is most likely the truth given all the evidence available. I'm sure you are not naive enough to believe that even the achievement of a full public enquiry outside of the Enquiries Act will be guaranteed to yield a 100% truthful account of what happened on 7/7. I repeat, any empirical claim of truth is only, in reality, an inductive process which posits what 'most likely is the case'. If you are unwilling to recognise this concept, you may be going in circles for a long time.

  48. Rhys J7 have always maintained it is the State that must prove its narrative not ours to construct alternatives. As there must be a mass of evidence not adduced to the Inquests nor released to the public it remains impossible to offer an alternative hypothesis that we can credibly construct. Therefore we call on our supporters and the wider public to continue to campaign for the release of the evidence. If the State has the evidence to support it's narrative then that shouldn't be a problem. Thank you for signing the petition and asking others to do so.

    In the meantime J7 have much work to do still, analysing the Inquests transcripts and evidence and have many articles to write based on this. Hopefully we can then at least say with some certainty what didn't happen. (That we are exhausted after the 5 months Inquests is also true.)

    As for going in circles, I think this is unfair. As this blog alone shows we have collectively worked hard in examining the evidence thus far. As the Antagonist stated, without others 'to leech off', as Kollerstrom and 7/7 RE do with J7. That there is work still to be done is true, but rather than waste time and effort (as I've commented previously) attempting to construct alternatives, this is where our energies will be focussed.

    As we said in our rebuttal and rejection of 7/7 RE:

    As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account.

    This remains true. A people who question the State are far more empowered and dangerous imo than those who shift attention away from it.

  49. Bridget,

    Perhaps it was unfair of me to say that you're going in circles. Of course, J7 makes progress every time it catches the government's narrative in a lie or an inconsistency. My point is simply that I don't think your campaign for truth can get anywhere near the critical mass of public support required to make the government take notice and conduct an enquiry without offering more analysis of alternative hypotheses. It is really a pragmatic matter of long-term strategy above anything else.

    You said,

    "As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account."

    I completely agree with this, but my point is that J7 needn't have its own 'official narrative' which it then has to spend time defending. It would simply be more informative and interesting for members of the public who stumble upon this site if there was at least some sort of hierarchy of possible alternatives - at least it would have from where I was standing when I first visited this site a few months ago. You need as many signatures on your petition as possible, and my name almost didn't make it on there because I was initially nonplussed by the lack of evaluative assessment of what could more probably happened if the official narrative is false. The public, I think, has a tendency to stick with 'what it knows' unless there is a compelling amount of evidence to persuade it otherwise. I think that unless more credible hypotheses than the government's are explicitly stated, many people will just assume their natural trust in the government.

    You also said,

    "A people who question the State are far more empowered and dangerous imo than those who shift attention away from it."

    I believe that evaluating the credibility of one hypothesis against another is a fundamental part of the very process of questioning the State. It is one thing to pick faults in a narrative, but another thing to demonstrate how other hypotheses fit better with the available evidence. Such an evaluation wouldn't shift attention from focusing on the State's version of events, but if anything intensify the State's need to release more evidence (if it exists) to prove its own theory over the credibility of others. Surely it was this concept that led you to offer nine alternative hypotheses? All that is missing is some further evaluation. As I said, this could take the form of a hierarchy of likelihood in terms of how well each hypothesis fits the evidence, rather than any one official narrative which J7 must then try to defend.

    If you disagree with me then fair enough. I just wanted to make my point because I think it would fit with your long-term goal of holding the government to account. Obviously, it's your opinion that counts. I just ask that you consider my points. If nothing else, it would be useful if you just listed your nine alternative hypotheses in order of their cohesion with the currently available evidence.

  50. Hi Rhys,

    You will have to forgive my curt reply; the whole Home Office 'narrative' Vs the Messianic Muad'Devillian Muppet Ministries 'narrative' is by now somewhat stale. We stated at the outset why this was a futile debate, and why we have no interest in expending much time or energy arguing the toss. We have not shifted from that position.

    What people seem to neglect is that there are a great many parties interested in the events of 7/7 and what has transpired since. This includes the families of the bereaved, both of the victims and the accused, the State and various other entities all of whom have fairly transparent objectives ranging from "I’m doing it to try and sell my book, OK?" all the way through to being recognised as the Messiah, not forgetting of course the equally as grand pretensions to being appointed to the throne as the Rightful King of Britain & Israel.

    Ignoring those latter clearly transparent entities for the wastes of time that they are, this leaves the State and its 'narrative' of events which has repeatedly been proven to be contrary to the facts; the bereaved families who have not only lost loved ones but been further chastised and antagonised by the State and its machinations to steadfastly avoid the detailed investigation that an event of such magnitude of 7/7 automatically deserves; the general public all going about their daily businesses, and J7.

    The highly-orchestrated and stage-managed theatre of the inquests process, as contemporaneously documented on this blog, rather than satisfy the families' desires to understand how they came to lose their loved ones, has achieved precisely the opposite and has led to renewed calls for a public inquiry.

    A public inquiry may or may not happen, but the potential exists for an inquiry of some description to be held. If an inquiry were to be held, the opportunity would exist for further scrutiny of the evidence that is so crucial any sort of investigation. J7's position on an inquiry, as stated at the very outset of the J7 campaign back in 2005, is that an inquiry should be held and it should be held outside of the restrictive limitations of the Inquiries Act 2005.

    J7 continue to support entirely the families' calls for an inquiry as, now that the inquests have happened, an inquiry represents quite probably the last opportunity there will be, short of a people's revolution that releases all the evidence into the public domain, to examine whatever evidence is adduced or otherwise presented.

    The story of 7/7 is far from over. As the indefatigable and ever inspiring Gareth Peirce put it recently in relation to another case filled with subterfuge and secrecy:

    "If any case is ever reopened, it is usually down to the absolute dogged stamina of one or two people who wont take no for an answer ... In the past it hasn‘t needed any more people than that to lever an opening into something that seemed shut tight forever. All of this is screaming out for an inquiry. The ingredients that make up the prosecution’s case are really so rotten. They can’t and they shouldn’t sustain the weight of a presumed safe finding. You can see that they are utterly contaminated. They have no integrity.

    "The forensic findings lack all the ingredients that should make them safe. The continuity of exhibits is all over the place. The only other pillar on which it is held up is this non-identification. It is just a catastrophe. The whole edifice is rotten, and it is astonishing it was ever stood up in the first place."

    I am most flattered that you think I am aptly named.

  51. Re: "Instead of "a conspiracy falsely to implicate any of the four in the murder plot... "

    This paragraph provides an excellent summing up.

    I have not followed the 7/7 story in detail, but I am glad that there are some who are doing so.

    However, since there has been no official forensic or judicial inquiry into the event, we cannot expect to reach a definite verdict based on hard evidence. We are compelled, therefore, to consider the circumstantial evidence, and that is overwhelmingly against the official story.

    (1) Why would Islamic terrorists bomb a tube train? What was the effect of killing a bunch of innocent people going about their daily lives, doing no harm to any Islamic interest? Obviously the effect was to stiffen public antagonism to Islamic extremists and Islam in general.

    So if the official story is correct we have to assume that four Islamic terrorists sacrificed their own lives in a mass murder that was counter-productive to their own cause.

    (2) Why would the state not immediately have undertaken a forensic investigation when there was the possibility of discovering others involved in the plot as organizers or suppliers of material or information (how to make an unknown explosive from pepper, for example)?

    So, if the official story is correct, we have to conclude that the authorities were simply too stupid to find out as much as possible about the event with a view limiting the risk of a repetition involving some of the same agents.

    These points alone, stand out as near to conclusive evidence as one could expect in such a case that the Tube bombings were an act of state sponsored terrorism to control public perception of Islam.

    Paul Craig Roberts has a fine piece on rule by manipulation of public perception.

  52. I think what some commentators, here and elsewhere, fail to appreciate is that the end of this inquest marks the start of the period when J7's work will be most crucial

    Those most directly affected by the 7/7 atrocity, the victims and victims families, will have waited for a properly executed inquest to document the findings of the huge investigation that followed the bombings. They would have reasonably expected due process to follow its course and provide a full and open account of what happened that day

    This clearly hasn't happened and it will take time for that realisation to sink in

    Some of those affected will decide that any further efforts to find out what really happened will only cause them more pain. However, history shows that there are always those who believe that their feelings for their lost loved ones are best served by pressing on and holding the state to its responsibility to undertake a proper investigation

    And when those relatives start thinking about what further action they will take it will be work like the research documented in this blog and the J7 website that they will turn to

  53. I haven't been following the 7/7 saga, but on reading this forensic blog, it is all becoming all too predictable,confirming my prejudiced assumptions. One thing I can't get out of my head is this possible connection. I wondered why it was all so hush hush involving D notices and an inquest which took eight years to get airborne.

  54. J7 have a thread on the death of Terry Jupp here.

    You're right though, there's something more than a little fishy about Mr Jupp's death and the saga that ensured.