Richard Wilson's blog

richardcameronwilson AT yahoo dot co dot UK

Calling time on the 7/7 fantasists

with 20 comments

Less well-known than the ubiquitous 9/11 conspiracy theories, but equally offensive to those personally affected, are the persistent “7/7 truthers”, who claim that the July 7th 2005 London bombings were – or could have been – carried out by UK government agents. Or that the explosions were not actually bombings at all but were caused by a “power surge”.  

Like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the 7/7ers  characterise themselves as “sceptics”, and seek to advance their alternative theory by presenting minor inaccuracies in official statements as gaping holes, demanding answers to more or less unanswerable questions, or by smearing eyewitnesses as government stooges.

There are even 7/7 conspiracy theorists who seize on the weaknesses in claims made by other 7/7 conspiracy theorists, as evidence not that the whole thing is baloney, but rather that their rivals are themselves government stooges, who are out to “throw you off the trail with half-baked theories. While giving conspiracy theory a bad name”.

About these ads

Written by Richard Wilson

July 8, 2008 at 1:59 pm

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Oooh, those kooky kids. That last link was so out there I thought it was a joke. Is it a joke?

    Do any of these guys suggest a motivation for the ‘criminal spooks’?

    I agree. These guys should drink up, log off, and then go and think long and hard about what they’ve done.

    da finks

    July 18, 2008 at 9:03 am

  2. I’m afraid to say that it’s not a joke (unless there’s some sort of double-conspiracy going on and these guys are winding us all up!), and neither, believe it not, is this: http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/2007/08/controlled-demolition-of-david-shayler.html

    rcameronw

    July 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  3. I am a sceptic.

    I am sceptical of the claims you make.

    I am sceptical about your motivation for defending an uproven 7/7 fable from the same government that fabricated Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and 45 minutes to imminent doom.

    I am sceptical about your understanding of the word sceptic.

    I am sceptical about you being the best person to write a book on scepticism.

    Sceptic

    September 11, 2009 at 1:29 am

    • “I am sceptical about your motivation for defending an unproven 7/7 fable”… So what do you think my motivation is, then?

      Richard Wilson

      September 12, 2009 at 12:26 pm

      • What a strange question.

        That is something only you can answer.

        Sceptic

        September 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm

        • Well I’d thought the issue was fairly transparent, but obviously not… Can you at least elucidate the question?

          Richard Wilson

          September 16, 2009 at 1:21 pm

          • I didn’t ask a question.

            Sceptic

            September 16, 2009 at 8:32 pm

            • OK – but you did bring up the issue, so to “elucidate”, my motivation was, I think, that I’m sceptical of the claim that the most-widely accepted account of what happened on 7/7 is ‘an unproven… fable’, just as I’m sceptical of the claim that David Shayler is the messiah – I tend to put the 7/7 ‘truthers’ in a similar bracket to the 911 ‘truthers’, the AIDS denialists, the Holocaust ‘skeptics’ and the Obama Birthers. And the way that some of these 7/7 conspiracy people have behaved towards, for example, Rachel North, seems pretty reprehensible… I could of course be wrong, but the impression I’ve gained is that this is a classic case of a small, vociferous group of cranks so caught up in their fantastical (self-indulgent) nightmare visions about a particular historical tragedy that they become blind to the moral reality of what they’re doing. When people behave that way towards survivors of horrible atrocities, I find it kind of annoying but I’m also intrigued by why they do it. So there you go, that’s my motivation. Though doubtless Freud would say that there was some other, super-unconscious motivation going on there too. He’d be wrong, but he’d probably still say it…

              What’s your motivation?

              Richard Wilson

              September 16, 2009 at 9:25 pm

              • “I’m sceptical of the claim that the most-widely accepted account of what happened on 7/7 is ‘an unproven… fable’”

                The fable has never been tested in a court of law, nor has the fable, or the evidence on which it is claimed that it is based, received any judicial scrutiny. Nor has the author of the fable ever been named. That might be good enough for you and the scepticism to which you seem to lay definitive claim, but it is insufficient for an honest sceptic, or anyone with an interest in justice.

                Can you produce evidence to support your statement about “the most widely accepted account of what happened on 7/7″? A Channel 4 News / GFK NOP survey of British Muslims found that 59% of those surveyed “believe that the government has not told the public the whole truth about the 7th July bombings” and “52% believe that the British security services have “made up” evidence to convict terrorist suspects.” “Oh, but they’re Muslims, they would say that”, I can hear you thinking. The latter of those two statistics is the only sensible position given the great mass of evidence that shows this to be the case. Regarding the former statistic, the journalist who produced the report stated, “And of course, it’s not just Muslims who question the official version of events.”

                There have been many “most-widely accepted” accounts of terrorist attacks that later turned out to be completely false. As someone who offers “The Sceptics Guide to Life”, I would hope that you are aware of the cases of the Maguire 7, Danny McNamee, Judith Ward, the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6. No doubt the families of those falsely accused, convicted and imprisoned as being responsible for those crimes were the “conspiracy theorists” of their day, long before the term became common, pejorative, dismissive currency, but they and their claims turned out to be correct.

                More topically, the September issue of the London Review of Books features an article by the leading and well respected lawyer Gareth Peirce headed “The Framing of Megrahi”. The article offers an insight into how an innocent man was accused, tried and convicted for an attack he did not commit. As the July 7th Truth Campaign correctly point out on the front page of their web site:

                “History more than amply demonstrates that there exist a concerning number of terrorist attacks in Britain from which much political and legislative capital has been made by the State for which the actual perpetrators have never been arrested, charged, prosecuted or brought to justice.”

                A true sceptic would wonder how it might be possible that such horrendous and murderous crimes could be committed without the actual perpetrators being honestly brought to justice and why such great efforts were put into convicting innocent people for crimes they did not commit. So, if you want to bandy around the term ‘denialist’, I suggest taking a look in the mirror first.

                “just as I’m sceptical of the claim that David Shayler is the messiah – I tend to put the 7/7 ‘truthers’ in a similar bracket to the 911 ‘truthers’, the AIDS denialists, the Holocaust ’skeptics’ and the Obama Birthers.”

                As is your perogative. If pigeonholing all these groups into one homogenous “group of cranks” makes the world easier to understand and deal with, so be it. However, you must also accept that conflating those groups and individuals speaks volumes more about your mindset and perception than it does about any of those groups, or any of the issues that any of the groups might choose to raise. You seem more content to apply your scepticism to sceptics than to those whose reputations are more deserving.

                “the impression I’ve gained is that this is a classic case of a small, vociferous group of cranks so caught up in their fantastical (self-indulgent) nightmare visions about a particular historical tragedy that they become blind to the moral reality of what they’re doing.”

                As a sceptic that description better fits the government.

                “What’s your motivation?”

                Truth.

                Sceptic

                September 17, 2009 at 2:13 pm

                • Richard Wilson wrote: “Heyho – nice comeback on the above being a better description of the UK government.”

                  Thank you. Truth often makes for a “nice comeback”.

                  Richard Wilson wrote: “You’re also right that something being widely believed doesn’t necessarily make it true – I was just using that as shorthand.”

                  Considering the gravity of the subject matter that type of ‘shorthand’ is sloppy.

                  Richard Wilson wrote: “I happen to agree that 7/7 probably wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the Blair clique’s self-deluded fanaticism – I just don’t believe they did it. These people can’t even run an NHS computer system – I don’t think they’d have the competence to do something as complicated as 7/7 and then cover it up afterwards.”

                  Again you expose the flawed logic endemic among those who reserve their scepticism for folk who quite rightly attempt to hold governments to account for transparently false official narratives.

                  What sort of a bipolar world do you live in?

                  According to your statement, if 7/7 wasn’t the work of the four men accused then it must have been the “Blair clique”. The implication is that there are only two groups in existence in the world, Muslims and the “Blair clique”; a contention that is blatant nonsense.

                  Sceptic

                  September 21, 2009 at 4:25 pm

                  • You’ll have to forgive me for using shorthand in blog comments on my own blog, notwithstanding the gravity of the subject matter…

                    Richard Wilson

                    September 21, 2009 at 7:03 pm

                    • …but please enlighten me – who do you think are the most likely culprits behind 7/7?

                      Richard Wilson

                      September 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm

  4. Heyho – nice comeback on the above being a better description of the UK government. I happen to agree that 7/7 probably wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the Blair clique’s self-deluded fanaticism – I just don’t believe they did it. These people can’t even run an NHS computer system – I don’t think they’d have the competence to do something as complicated as 7/7 and then cover it up afterwards. You’re also right that something being widely believed doesn’t necessarily make it true – I was just using that as shorthand.

    Richard Wilson

    September 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    • Could you, for the sake of clarity, do me and any other readers you may have the small courtesy of at least replying to the actual comment to which you are responding?

      Sceptic

      September 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  5. I’ve studied 7/7 in great depth. Did you know that the WBI Sarasoa Florida found Adnan El Shukrijuma being in London 2 weeks before 7/7 and left on the morning of. What is also interesting is that ‘theorists’, ‘Fox news’ had Haroon Aswat as the 7/7 mastermind who had exactly the same movements as Adnan El Shukrijuma. Please note Haroon Aswat has never been convicted of any involvement and awaits extradition to the U.S. all this is fact

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 8:46 am

  6. What the WBI also found is Shezad Tanweer linked to one of the the british suicide bombers (Tel Aviv). apparently they attended Cranford College together.

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 8:49 am

  7. I have recently found pictures of carriage 6505 which shows depression in the floor of the carriage. I’m not an explosive expert but supposed explosives under trains do not cause downward pressure. The twisted metal upwards as described by Bruce Lait simply does not exist on any train and is the testimony of a man long after the event.

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 8:55 am

  8. Daniel Obachike supposed 7/7 witness who claims to never have seen Hasib Hussain while at least 3 others did took a year to give an interview about ‘the evidence the police didn’t want to hear’ to the Newnation newspaper. He then goes on to appear on the Alex Jones show. He now claims MI5 are watching him and filming him? What is it about Daniel 7/7 in the bible and Obachikes involvement that are so similar? Remeber he is religious.

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 8:59 am

  9. The supposed fake 7/7 still from the cctv? Study it. The dummy run day was fine weather while the attack day was wet. What difference does this make? The wet days picture is the one used to claim ‘cut n pastes’, ‘photoshop’ but clearly on closer examination we can see water running down the cctv lens alongside the signpost in the picture which is claimed is evidence of photoshop. The blurred images are put down to photoshop by theorists.

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 9:09 am

  10. The claim the israeli companies provided cctv across all the london underground before and during 7/7 is bogus. Firstly, prior to 7/7 companies had to prove who had the better cctv and software to be rolled out across all london underground and no israeli firm were ever in the running to supply it. A british firm called IPSOTEK were head and shoulders above all competitors at the time with superior capturing technology. Remember this was being installed due to an increased terror threat after what happened in Madrid. Holding terror drills around public transport also not unsual given the then terror threat.

    john

    May 24, 2011 at 9:25 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: