2005 London bombings

From Wikispooks
Revision as of 09:37, 20 May 2010 by Nimrod (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a priority topic relating to deep politics.  Additions to this page are particularly welcome,
though be advised that the official narrative is particularly suspect.

The 7 July 2005 London bombings, also known as 7/7, were a series of coordinated attacks on London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. The bombings were allegedly carried out by four British Muslim men, three of Pakistani and one of Jamaican descent. At least three bombs exploded within fifty seconds of each other at about 08:50 on three London Underground trains, a fourth exploded an hour later at 09:47 on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty six people including the alleged bombers died in the attacks and about another 700 were injured.

Legal Status of the issue

As of June 2010, nearly 5 years after the events, no judicial proceedings relating to responsibility for the attacks have been concluded. There have been two 'Pre-inquest' hearings into procedural matters [1] concerning a pending Coroners Inquest into the deaths. It remains an open question whether or not an Inquest will be held.

Official Reports

Other than the police investigation, there has been no official public inquiry into the events. There have been 3 major Official Reports published to date:

  1. Home Office Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005 - Published 11th May 2006 [2]
  2. ISC Report report. - May 2006 [3]
  3. Review of the Intelligence on the London Terrorist Attacks on 7 July 2005 - published May 2009 [4]

All take it as axiomatic that the guilty parties have been established beyond doubt. The 2009 report absolves the SIS's of any alleged failures. Darker possibilities are, naturally enough, not mentioned.

It is also notable that, in its rather strange, folksy (not-to-say spooky) narrative style, the first report includes the following paragraph:

07.40: The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station. There are conflicting accounts of their behaviour on the train. Some witnesses report noisy conversations, another believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors. The 4 stood out a bit from usual commuters due to their luggage and casual clothes, but not enough to cause suspicion. This was the beginning of the summer tourist period and Luton Station serves Luton Airport.

To the deep embarrassment of the government, necessitating a convoluted timetable revision and a statement to the House by the then Home Secretary John Reid, investigative reporter Nick Kollerstrom discovered and published the simple fact that the 7:40 train had been canceled that morning so that the alleged bombers had to have caught either an earlier or later train.

Information Sources

The 'July 7th Truth Campaign' [5] is among the most comprehensive and reliable on-line sources of information and documents on 7/7. It is nevertheless careful - editorially - to stay firmly on the 'official narrative' side of a very sensitive line between "elements of the State/SIS knew much more about plans for the attack than has been revealed" and "those same elements were somewhere between 'deeply complicit' and the 'orchestrators' of the attacks". The campaign's "July 7th - Alternative Hypotheses" document [6] is an impressive exploration of nine possible hypotheses that, in varying degrees, fit the available evidence of what happened on that day. The Campaign site has also published an essay by Professor David MacGregor entitled 'J7 as Machiavellian State Terror'. [7] It too is strictly hypothetical but provides disturbing insights into well established historical cases of State sponsored terrorism deployed against domestic populations as a tool of policy.

Wikipedia on 7/7

The main 7/7 Wikipedia article [8] provides useful reference material and links. It is a good primer on the official narrative, presenting it as it does without serious question. It is also a good example of the inability of mainstream media to address deep political issues effectively and is in fact the subject of the WikiSpooks Project article The Problem with Wikipedia. In other words, whilst the article marshalls copious useful facts and information links, it's basic assumption is that the official narrative of the events of 7th July 2005 is broadly accurate.

Videos about 7/7

There have been a number of good videos of the issues surrounding 7/7, notable among them are:

  • 'Mind the Gap' [9] - an early video narrated by David Shayler,
  • 'Ludicrous Diversion' [10] - A reference to Tony Blair's expressed opinion about the need for an official Inquiry - very professionally produced
  • 'Ripple Effect' [11] - an amateur production that caused quite a stir with it's plausible hypothesis of SIS orchestration drawn entirely from public domain information.

The BBC - Gatekeeper of the official narrative

In 2008 the BBC produced its own program as part of its 'Conspiracy Files' series. [12] As quintessential establishment mouthpiece, it did not disappoint. The July 7 Truth Campaign wisely declined to take part. Skeptics who DID take part were rewarded with ad-hominem hatchet job attack making it clear that, 'When your own case evidence is shaky, attack the man' - or kill the messenger - is alive and well at the BBC. The linked video is a small part of the program; the remainder is available from the linked page.

Those so attacked were Dr Nick Kollerstrom [13] for alleged 'Holocaust denial' and Anthony John Hill (aka Muad' dib) for his allegedly wacky spiritual beliefs. The program set out to debunk Hill's video 'Ripple Effect' and the Wikipedia article on the Video [14], true to form, claims that it did just that. Whereas Dr Rory Ridley-Duff of Sheffield Hallam University demonstrates in his essay "What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7 July 2005" that the probability of 'Ripple Effect' being closer to the truth of what happened on 7/7 than the 'Conspiracy File' version (ie the official narrative) varies between 50 and 75% depending on the 'theory of truth' used to analyse the available evidence.