Debunking 7/7 Debunking
'What Really Happened' - 17th July 2013
A new website has sprung up in recent weeks purporting to explain 'what really happened' in the 7/7 bombings of 2005. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is largely an attempt to recycle once again the simple-minded, misleading conspiracy theories propagated by some of the weaker-minded members of the 7/7 truth movement. It is important to explain precisely why these alternative theories are misleading, and why a different approach yields far more incriminating results.
The website in question is available here and was pointed out to me by Keelan of WideShut. Its title is 'July 7 London Bombings: what really happened' and it describes itself as 'A Simple Quiz with Information about what really happened in the July 7 London Bombings'. 'Simple' is the only word that is accurate. The further description on the front page of the site 'The idea isnt to bombard you with information, but to get the most essential and easy-to-understand points across, and then point you in the right direction if you want to look into the 7/7 London Bombings further' is unintentionally appropriate.
However, the claim that 'There is a distinct lack of such websites around' is rather disingenuous given that the site only links to two principle resources for those who 'want to look into the 7/7 bombings further'. Those resources are the amazon page for the Terror on the Tube book and the first version of the 7/7 Ripple Effect video. There is no mention of the July 7th Truth Campaign, or my own sites or films, or Keelan's site or films, or of the groundbreaking film Ludicrous Diversion. Just The Same Old Shit.
The quiz on the site presents 10 questions presumably designed to arouse interest and suspicion in the case. Taking these one at a time demonstrates just how misleading the site is (and possibly intends to be).
Q1) One of the very few CCTV images released is of the 4 Muslims entering Luton train station. What appears wrong with the CCTV image?
The problem with this argument is that a lot more CCTV has been released, video that shows these men (sometimes identifiable as the four alleged bombers and sometimes not) moving around in a realistic way. To ignore this other footage in the name of not 'bombarding you with information' is ignorant at best. However unconvincing the original still CCTV image might be, it has to be evaluated in the context of the moving video now available:
Instead of letting you know about this video, which has been available since 2008, the quiz instead 'simplifies' things and only lets you choose options implying that the single CCTV image is fake.
Q2) The official report states that the 4 Muslims took the 07:40 train from Luton to London. What is offered as proof that they caught the 07:40 train?
The quizee is offered the choice between CCTV footage from Luton station, witnesses from the train, both of the above or neither of the above. When I filled out the quiz I chose the 'witnesses' option, because that is the one cited in the official report:
07.40: The London Kings 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. - Home Office Narrative
But I was told that I got this answer wrong, on the basis that a news report happened to say that Luton CCTV showed the men catching the 07:40 train. Of course the question wasn't 'what evidence was cited by the official report and some random news report that I'm not going to tell you about until you've answered?' but hey, this website admits it is for simpletons, and so you've got to make sure even experts on the topic get at least one questions wrong, right?
Q3) What did the Home Secretary, John Reid, do when the government realised their evidence of 4 Muslims travelling to London was incorrect?
Naturally, none of the options available to answer this question are accurate, as indeed the question itself is misguided. In reality, the government must have known their information was inaccurate before they published it, as they had the CCTV from Luton showing the men catching the 07:25 train rather than the 07:40. They were forced to admit this due to the diligent efforts of independent researchers and truth campaigners, not because they 'realised' their evidence was wrong. What then happened is that John Reid admitted the mistake to Parliament, before stalling on publishing an amendment admitting the time was wrong, a document which is no longer available on the government's website even though the old narrative with the original time is still available.
Q4) Shehzad Tanweer is alleged to have performed his suicide bombing on an underground train close to Aldgate tube station. What evidence is available that Tanweer was on the tube train?
This question comes reasonably close to being fair, because the answers do make it clear that there is no CCTV showing Tanweer boarding the train, nor any witnesses to his presence there. However, the evidence available is that his remains were found on the train, blasted to smithereens. The site for simpletons doesn't mention this, or mention that it was not found until 2 1/2 days after the bombing, or that when a forensic anthropologist examined Tanweer's remains she described a much more complete body than was reported found at the scene.
Q5) What type of explosives were reportedly found at the blast sites?
While this question is basically accurate in that multiple different types of explosives were reported found at the bomb sites, the question includes a picture of the notorious bathtub from the 'bomb factory' in Alexandra Grove in Leeds, stating unequivocally that it was a 'part of the bomb factory'.
In reality, none of the substances found in this bathtub were found at the scenes in London, with the liquid in the bottom not even showing any signs of being part of a chemical explosive. But never mind all that, what's important is to show how media reports are contradictory, because no one who has ever looked into 7/7 has noticed that before.
Q6) Watch the following clip. What are the chances of this man not being connected to the actual bombings?
(insert well known ITV Peter Power clip)
You are given the choice of 1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 1 million, with the 'correct' answer being 1 in 1 million. No analysis is made of the calculation cited (which is by Nick Kollerstrom, and contradicts all his other calculations, none of which are realistic in any case), leaving you with nothing but the claim that it is statistically unlikely that there's no connection between Peter Power and the real bombings. One is tempted to ask: So what? Statistically unlikely things happen all the time, which doesn't prove anything about anything.
Q7) Within 5 seconds of the explosion, Daniel Obachike fled from the Tavistock Square explosion. What does he claim to have witnessed as he ran from the bus?
What Daniel Obachike (not his real name) claims to have seen is hardly relevant, since he admits to have fictionalised large parts of his account, and numerous claims he has made have been shown to be inaccurate by other witnesses and available evidence. That he leapt to notoriety and then disappeared into nowhere, just like certain other attention-seeking figures in the 7/7 truth movement, suggests that he's far from the committed eyewitness activist he liked to portray himself as. It appears from the 'additional information' for this question that the only reason for including Obachike was to try to tenuously connect his statements with Peter Power's terrorism exercise.
Q8) Canary Wharf is one of the tallest office buildings in the UK. What reportedly happened at Canary Wharf on 7/7?
This of course ties in with the same old nonsense from Kollerstrom, Ripple Effect and the rest that the alleged bombers were shot at Canary Wharf, based entirely on a few rumours in newspapers, a few random anonymous blog posts and an 'academic' essay by a man who teaches business studies for a living. There is simply no evidence of any shootings at Canary Wharf on 7/7, and the theory is inherently stupid because it would be far easier for the authorities to simply arrest the men and then kill them in secret. Also, why they would simply let the men run loose around London for over an hour after they were meant to be dead having suicide bombed tube trains has never been explained. It is a stupid, absurd and baseless theory that has no place in a serious discussion about 7/7. Most likely it is a planned distraction, particularly since the media reports of the rumour were the first mentions of suicide bombings, helping to shape the official story at a very early stage.
Q9) Benjamin Netanyahu claims to have learned about the attacks when?
Aside from the grammatical problems with this question, Netanyahu himself has never claimed to have heard about the attacks before they happened (the 'correct' answer according to this quiz). His spin doctor explicitly denied it on the BBC's Conspiracy Files show. But regardless, he's a Jew and therefore has to be suspected in any available crime, because otherwise you just don't alienate enough people and make yourself look sufficiently racist to be considered a proper conspiracy theorist.
Q10) On 28/06/2005 the alleged bombers are believed to have performed a dry run of the bombings. Who was the driver of the Jaguar that was present on 28/6 and on 7/7?
Hallelujah! The website finally managed to ask a vaguely pertinent question based on real research by real investigators, not rumour-mining by Jew-baiters and idiots. In reality we'll never find out who was in the Jaguar, most likely, but it is nonetheless a curious question.
So what is missing?
What is missing from this site, supposedly devoted to informing the public about 7/7 because there just aren't many sites doing that, is any mention of 90% of the evidence compiled by the people who have genuinely investigated this case. There is no mention of Junaid Babar, Martin McDaid or Q, the three probable secret agents hanging around the alleged bombers for several years before 7/7. There is no mention of MI5's repeated and easily-demonstrated pattern of lies when asked what they were doing and why in the years running up to the attacks. There is no consideration of how mainstream fictional TV shows were used to shape the dialogue and seed conflicting theories before the bombings, and afterwards. In short, this website is missing everything that actually makes a case against the security services.
After all, if Peter Power was just running an office exercise, and Daniel Obachike has fabricated a few things, then what is left of the argument present by this website claiming to tell you 'what really happened'? Very little. Whereas the argument I've presented in my films and more recently in my book is based on hundreds of pages of documents, which will still say the same thing in 10 years that they say today (unlike eyewitnesses and the news media in general). It is also based on recordings of TV shows and the statements of the people who produced them, and those recordings will still say the same things in 10 years time.
Furthermore, who are we trying to take on here? The news media and management consultants like Peter Power, or the security services who lie to our faces, imprison innocent people, carry out extrajudicial murder, collude in torture and generally wreak havoc and insecurity on the world? Peter Power wouldn't have the means, motive or opportunity to spend five years manipulating the targets through a network of secret agents while using the BBC to pre-emptively condition the public to accept certain stories about the attacks. MI5 would have the means, motive and opportunity, but the makers of this website don't care about that. They care about encouraging you to believe the same baseless, misdirecting conspiracy endorsed by not one but two 'ex' intelligence officers who claim to have converted into truthers.