7/7 Ten Years On - An indictment of the State and the state of investigative journalism

As the tenth anniversary of 7th July 2005 materialises much will be written and broadcast around the official 'narrative' of what happened that fateful day. Ten years on and you might think that there would not be much more that could be learned about what happened. Yet, on 6^th July 2015, we learn from the former head of the Counter Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard between 2002 and 2008, Peter Clarke, that:

I spent the weekend before the London bombings of July 7 2005 with my colleagues in the anti-terorism branch, working through our response to the most difficult scenario we could think of. The one we came up with was multiple simultaneous attacks on the Tube. Four days later, our musings became a dreadful reality.

How prescient a scenario this was, mirroring as it did a Panaroma 'documentary' from 2004, as well as crisis management exercises that were running on the day of 7^th July 2005 that were also operating around a similar scenario. The idea of a series of explosions across the underground network seems to have been very common currency for quite some time among the anti-terror brigades.

J7 have received the usual barrage of requests for comment in recent weeks from various media organisations who are forced to care, for a brief time at least, about the events of 7/7 by dint of the fact that an anniversary is on the cards. Some requests have provided questions to which they would like responses from the J7 team of researchers. One such journalist is Jack Sommers of the Huffington Post. In response to his questions and those of other journalists asking for comment on similar issues, J7 offers the following.

Do you regard the official version of events of what happened, on the balance of probabilities, as the most plausible? If not, what version of events do you find most plausible

It's not up to J7 to provide plausible explanations of what happened; our job is to ask the right questions and try to elicit truthful or revealing answers from the authorities. There still exists the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore the burden of proof is on the State to prove its case for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.  Ten years on the State has provided no evidence, other than that which is purely circumstantial, speculative or presumed that would secure a successful conviction of the four accused.  It took almost 4 years for the authorities to fudge a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted 13 days after 7th July 2005 requesting the basis of how the alleged bombers' ID was apparently determined.

Has the momentum behind J7 grown or shrunk in recent years since the inquest into the 52 people killed? Why?

The same momentum will always be there in a search for the truth of what happened. 7/7 is not unique in this regard. The same momentum and movement for truth as possessed by the grand-daughter of Alice Wheeldon who is still pursuing justice after the setting-up of her grandmother in 1916 by MI5. Records and information was hidden behind official secrecy as part of a concerted State cover-up that ran for over 80 years. The same momentum as the relatives of the 21 killed during the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, who have never even had an inquest into the deaths of their loved ones, while the state incarcerated innocent people for over 16 years, as a government 75 year ban on disclosure of relevant material to the case continues.

Truth is a powerful thing and those who seek truth and justice are persistent in their quest and, as history as shown, that quest is passed down through the generations.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

What aspect of the official narrative do you find least convincing and does this make you doubt the narrative overall?

The official narrative is a deeply flawed document and has been amended as a result of information uncovered by J7. Secret and in camera hearings during the Inquest by a specially appointed privy councillor judge cast further doubt on the transparency of the process and the veracity of the story told in the 'narrative'. It is worth remembering that the definition of a narrative is this: "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious." We believe that a story that might be truthful or fictitious is not sufficient explanation for an event the magnitude of 7/7, nor is it sufficient to convict the accused without trial.

Why is an inquest into the 4 men accused of carrying out 7/7 important? Why do you think they have they not happened?

It is not only important, it is a requirement of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. J7 are still waiting for investigative journalists imbued with the tenacity to uncover the facts around quite why the State has failed to conduct an inquest into the deaths of the accused, as well as all the other issues that exist around the truth of what happened on 7/7.  J7 submitted a request for a resumption of the inquests into the deaths of the 4 accused to Lady Justice Hallett during the 7/7 Inquests proceedings.

The inquests into 52 of the deaths on 7th July 2005 commenced over five years after the deaths occurred and only after the government tried to implement the power to use ‘suitably trained and cleared coroners and counsel’ to undertake inquests without juries. André Rebello, Coroner for the City of Liverpool, honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society and the executive officer of the Coroners’ Society confirmed that there had been no consultation with the coroners themselves and was asked in 2008, "What is your view of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State?"  His response is telling:

"I am very uncomfortable about that. I think that it drives a coach and horses through the separation of powers. If a suitably qualified or specially ticketed coroner needs to be brought in, it certainly cannot be any part of the Executive that appoints the coroner. Well, it could be, but our rule of law would be going out the window."

The measures incorporating secret juries and specially appointed coroners passed through Parliament by a slim majority of only eight votes, on Thursday, 12 November 2009. The process was assisted no less by a procedural farce engineered by Jack Straw. The procedural farce included a reported number of Labour MPs who apparently voted the wrong way by mistake.

How do you respond to those who say the promotion of alternative theories has been upsetting for survivors of the attacks? What about those who have attacked those survivors personally? (Such as this: rachel-north-liar-and-charletane.blogspot.ie/)

J7 has always walked the fine line between the official doctrine contained in the narrative and those who ostensibly question the official story but posit their own evidence-free pet theories about what happened.  J7 research and writings are based on facts that we have established through continued research, endless FOI requests, and information placed into the public domain by the authorities along the way.

Have you ever received support from either survivors of 7/7 or the relatives of those killed? If so, what was it?

Yes. Overwhelmingly the feedback we have received from those directly affected by 7/7 have been supportive of our quest to get the truth of what actually happened. Further evidence of this can be seen from the many occasions when J7's research was cited or used during the course of the 7/7 Inquests and presented before the court by the representatives of the bereaved. Survivors and relatives also want to know the truth about what happened and their loved ones. If anything, the truth about what happened is vastly more important to them than it is to those of us who do not accept the official narrative for the reasons we have carefully and painstakingly documented in depth over the last decade.

Ten years on from the events in London on July 7^th 2005, what we know about them remains exactly as it was at the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests back in 2011, which we highlighted again on the 6^th anniversary. Just some of these are mentioned below for anyone that might think an event of the significance of 7/7 should be justly and judiciously investigated to uncover the truth about what happened and how it happened.

Without a full and independent Public Inquiry, held outside of the restrictive remit of the Inquiries Act 2005, it remains the case that:

• The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the 'LifeExtinct' body counts carried out on 7th July by Dr Morgan Costello
• The police viewing of the Luton Station CCTV footage was conducted as early as 10th July, despite the official account clearly stating that the men were identified on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink on 11th July, and that it was this discovery that led the investigation to Luton as a possible site of interest.
• There exist no recorded sightings of three of the men, Khan Tanweer and Lindsay, after the footage from King's Cross Thameslink, some way from the Underground tube network. Apparently, a temporary CCTV system was installed at King's Cross underground and malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30am and 8.50am. Additionally, there is no CCTV footage showing the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence places three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
• No CCTV from pre-incidence tube carriages has been released, despite this CCTV apparently existing, and despite it being crucial evidence which could confirm or deny that three of the men boarded the carriages they are alleged to have boarded.  Why has it not been released? This CCTV should also have been made available to Colonel Mahoney when the expensive modelling of likely injuries sustained by the deceased was conducted to make up for the fact that no internal post mortems of the victims were conducted; the lack of post mortems itself being a jarring anomaly.
• No CCTV exists from McDonald's showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb.  It was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV footage actually turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
• No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the two buses he is alleged to have boarded. There is no footage of Hussain aboard the number 91 bus, nor the number 30 bus he is alleged to have destroyed, nor is there any street or traffic camera footage showing him boarding either of the buses.
• There is a huge discrepancy between the explosives allegedly used, as given in sworn evidence to the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest, and the evidence that Clifford Todd gave to the 7/7 Inquests.  Clearly, not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet about a significant aspect of 7/7.
• There is strong evidence in the public domain to suggest that at the heart of the story behind 7/7 lay at least three operatives for both British and American Intelligence, one of whom served an insanely short period of time in a US prison, before being quietly released, for crimes far greater than the crimes of those his testimonies put behind bars for far longer sentences.

These questions and many, many more can be found on the 7/7 Inquests blog

Without a doubt the State itself will never provide answers to these questions without the dogged persistence of independent researchers in their quests for truth, nor until investigative journalists – if such beings still exist – have the courage to honestly start examining the many unanswered questions that exist and those which are raised by the complete lack of conclusive evidence produced in the story (for that is what a 'narrative' is) so far. Until then we'll all have to put up with the 'churnalism' of official State-dictated 'narratives' that we have all come to know and despise.

Meanwhile, J7's quest for the truth about what happened on the day of 7th July 2005 continues.

J7 Statement Condemning the Vandalism of the 7/7 Memorial in Hyde Park

Since the inception of the July 7th Truth Campaign in 2005 by a dedicated and independent group of researchers, we have been careful to adopt a serious approach to our research and conduct all our research through official channels while maintaining the utmost respect for the victims, the injured and the bereaved at all times. 

Over the course of the last nine years J7 has ensured that our inquiries to get to the truth about what happened on 7th July 2005 are deliberate, concise and aimed at uncovering specific pieces of information that have not or would not have been available in connection with the story of 7/7.  

J7's research is widely regarded and respected to the extent that our research and publications were cited at the opening of the official 7/7 inquests and referenced again at the close of the inquests process.  Our factual submissions to the inquests can be viewed here.

The July 7th Truth Campaign has never supported, encouraged, nor even seen the need for mindless publicity stunts (see addendum here) that ostensibly purport to bring attention to the many still unanswered questions about the events of 7th July 2005, and nor will we ever.

We categorically condemn the idiotic stunt of defacing of the 7/7 memorial in Hyde Park on the eve of the ninth anniversary of 7/7, the only outcome of which can be to alienate survivors and the bereaved.  Such ill-considered and blatantly offensive antics can only serve to cause upset, inflame emotions and further confuse the issue of what happened on 7/7 while smearing the good name and good standing of the July 7th Truth Campaign and our research.

J7 continue to tread the extremely narrow path between the State's still unproven narrative orthodoxy and the transparently lunatic fringe of the 7/7 Ripple Effect disciples, who appear convinced that they know what happened after watching a film by someone who claims to be a messiah and the rightful King of Britain and Israel.

No supporter of the July 7th Truth Campaign would ever promote such evidence-free films that fabricate their own equally implausible narratives, nor any media or articles that purport to offer the truth about the events of 7/7.  Despite 9 years of ongoing research, the July 7th Truth Campaign has repeatedly stated that that there exists insufficient evidence in the public domain for the truth to be known.

As is the way of J7, we will continue to ask the correct, difficult and unanswered questions about the events of 7/7 instead of proposing answers for which there exists as little supporting evidence as there does for the official narrative.

7/7 London Bombings: Eight Years On - Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Facts

July 7th 2013 marks the eighth anniversary of 7/7/2005, the day of the event referred to as the London bombings.  It also happens to coincide with Andy Murray's 7/7 win at Wimbledon, making him the first British man to win Wimbledon for - wait for it - 77 years.  The boy from Dunblane done good.  (The last British person to win Wimbledon was Virginia Wade in the Silver Jubilee year of '77, which was also Wimbledon's centenary year and marked by the queen in attendance at the final for the first time since her coronation.)

In the eight years that have passed since 7 July 2005, superficially, nothing much has changed. The 7/7 narrative stands as it has done since three months after the event occurred, accepted and unchallenged.  Beneath the surface, however, a great deal has changed, albeit not with the official conspiracy theory.  The official 'narrative' of events, aside from amendments the government was forced to make to it as a result of challenges to its authenticity made by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, remains unchanged and, unbelievably, unproven to any degree by any of the evidence released since.  

However, in the wider historical and political context of what are routinely dismissed as 'conspiracy theories' about State vaunted narratives, since 2005 a good number of other political challenges to dominant narratives have been revealed to be not as the imaginings of wild-eyed loons, but 'conspiracy facts'.   The tough question here with regard to these new conspiracy fact things is quite where to start with them and at what point to end to ensure that sufficient depth and breadth of coverage has been given to each, and to an exploration of the logical implications that necessarily follow a new understanding of historically significant events.

The Irish Conspiracy Theories

Before Islam featured in earnest in the list of mythical enemies against which we must all unite, its predecessors were the Irish who, the narrative of the time held, were responsible for unleashing untold violence on mainland Britain in service of clearly stated political objectives.  In some cases they did, but many cases tell a different story.  Since 2005 we have learned that the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, were infiltrated to the extent that as many as one quarter of its membership were in some way cooperating, collaborating—nay, conspiring—with the British police, army and security services.  

If the IRA leadership becomes the focus then the level of infiltration by the British State rises to an incredible 50%. So, with regard to the 'Irish enemy' the chances are that they were nowhere near as menacing as made out to be and, in cases where they might have been, the State would have had - at the very least - oversight of any planned activities, through to involvement in those actions against subjects and UK residents.  This is not to say that the IRA didn't conduct attacks, just that politically motivated attacks tend to be aimed at political targets rather than innocent civilians, the latter has overtones of Operation Gladio's strategy of tension.

Consider also that many of the crimes attributed to the IRA, for which people were illegally and unjustly convicted and whose convictions were eventually overturned, and for which they suffered extended periods of imprisonment, have - like the 7/7 bombings - to this day not yet had one person justly and successfully prosecuted for their commission. 

The conspiracy theories about 'Irish terror' of old are the conspiracy facts of today.

The Iraq Conspiracy Theories

It was in 2005 that Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie became Founding Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition that examined the issue of extraordinary rendition and other related issues of State criminality.  Tyrie quoted the 'right honourable' Jack Straw MP as saying:

"Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States… there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom had been involved in rendition."

In late October 2012 Ian Cobain, in his book Cruel Brittainia, disclosed that Britain had been advised "within days" of 11th September 2001 of the American's plans to abduct 'suspects' and transport them to secret military prisons around the world.  Cobain also revealed that "MI5 and MI6 officers carried out around 100 interrogations at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Guantanamo's Camp Seven didn't officially exist for two years owing to a conspiracy to keep its existence secret, and it is there the CIA abuses and violates 'interrogates' its 14 choice alleged 'terrorists' and for which a $49 million request for a Camp Seven revamp has recently been submitted by the United States Southern Command.

In light of these revelations it's worth re-considering Jack Straw's words:

"Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States… there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom had been involved in rendition."

For the avoidance of doubt and in Straw's own words, everyone was right to believe in the rendition and torture "conspiracy theories"; right to believe "that the officials [were] lying"; right to believe that "[Jack Staw was] lying" and, further, right to believe "there is some kind of secret state which is league with some dark forces in the United States."  

Another so called conspiracy theory was, in a relatively short period of time, exposed as a conspiracy fact.  Better still, we have in the words of Jack Straw official confirmation of the existence of a "secret state" that operates hidden from public view, thereby making the age old "conspiracy theory" about the existence of an international Secret State, officially, a "conspiracy fact".

The Police Infiltrators Conspiracy Theories

Activists, usually of a left-wing persuasion, have long been the common enemy of capitalism and States that exist only to defend capital, property and private interests from those who necessarily have to go without to maintain the imbalance, have routinely been an issue, as far back as the Walsall Anarchists and beyond.  The State tries to persuade us that those that have human rights, workers' rights, animal rights - in fact any sorts of rights that the State, in service of capital, seeks to deny while simultaneously denying it is doing so - are malicious and malevolent people, bent on violence and menace to achieve their goals.  

The reality is very different most of the time, and on the occasions when it isn't, the years since 2005 have revealed many instances when it has been at the behest, not of committed political activists seeking to defend rights, but by State infiltrators who act as the protagonists and provide the means and method by which violent actions can be brought about.

Ongoing revelations about the depth and extent of the infiltration carried out by Bob Lambert, for example - who incidentally also happened to establish the Muslim Contact Unit (MCU) in 2002, whose existence seems to have not been reported until 20 July 2005 before receiving passing mention again in 2013 - offer a small insight into the nature of the State's conspiracy against activists, seekers of justice, the Irish, and now Muslims. Outstanding allegations again Lambert include an act of terrorism, perjury, assuming the identity of a dead child, and we should include his abuse of the women he misled into believing he was something and someone other than he was.

As yet, we have no idea what the real function of Lambert's Muslim Contact Unit, set-up three years before 7/7, might have been.  The parallels between the approach to activists and the way similar methods are applied to alleged 'terrorists' should inform everyone about how the State views challenges to its presumed authority.

Another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact, and it's beginning to look like conspiracy is the default mode of operation in many ruling class circles.

And so it goes on

Many political challenges to State positions are often dismissed out of hand at the time as 'conspiracy theories'.  Recently, many of these conspiracy theories have, not for the first or last time, turned out to be 'conspiracy facts'.  And yet these 'conspiracy facts' are not related to relatively insignificant matters.  They relate directly to the dominant narratives championed by the State and the new Ministries of Propaganda formed by State and mainstream media broadcasters.

Conspiracy facts have overturned many received historical narratives intended to nudge the attitudes and opinions of the people in to a political worldview that ensures the status quo goes unchallenged.  As these illusory narratives melt away in tandem with any illusions that may have existed about the nature of the State and it's role in societies, so too melt away the last vestiges of the credibility of the State, its actors and its corporate co-conspirators.

While there may not be much by way of news and information about anything directly connected to the actual crimes that occurred on 7th July 2005, the story is far from over.  Freedom of information requests from concerned subjects insistent on chipping away at the tablet of State lies will continue; undoubtedly many will be refused as has happened in the past, we can but try. 

Eight years on from 7/7, J7's demand for a fully independent public inquiry, held outside of the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, still stands, with added fervour now that the official Inquests process did not include the deaths of those accused of perpetrating the attacks in its scope.

J7's demand for the State to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE abides.