7/7 Conspiracy Road Trip BBC3

[infohousewife]

Hi Guys... I am writing this in response to last nights dilution of facts. I can tell you that 95% of what I said and who I am was dropped. I'm not just some woman who knew them. I'm a researcher, writer, lecturer and radio show host in my own right and I have looked into this deeply as have many people and no one can say they are completely satisfied with the conclusion. Especially not in light of all the evidence and that Tony Farrell is even 100% convinced this is a cover up. It was discussed that this was a false flag inside job terror attack to keep the momentum over the conflicts in the middle east. poo poo'd obviously.. But why is that so hard to believe in light of the arms to Iraq enquiry, the whole catalogue of weapons of mass destruction lies and the Death of David Kelly who was the one person who knew there were no weapons as claimed.

This country is a castle.. a fortress.. a little island surround by water, we have no threat from outside.. we had to have one inside. it's standard patter and we have even seen it as we watched the unrest travel from Egypt in a domino fashion all the way to Lybia.. They will stop at nothing and everyone is an expendable lump of meat in the machine. Last week new Scientist magazine featured an article that stated only 25% of people believe the news is reported accurately and that people like us are creating a wave that cannot be ignored. Everything said is picked apart and checked out and for the most part they are lies. What happened last night was dilution..

I lived next door to Khalid and was trapped in my home for a week by the press, police, army, scotland yard and then a week of reporters. During that week we were all offered money for any story whether it was true or not. One friend who works locally said that they'd been approached and asked to lie and say they had had sex with MSK and they would get paid thousands. this reporter has since been found out to be a major part of the phone hacking scandal and worked for News of the World... go figure.
We were offered £15000 for a story with a photograph of his children.. I told them all to fuck off. Phone monitored, pc monitored.. even 8 months after the fact my mail was blatantly interfered with after a conversation on the 911 forum.. so they stayed with me. I'm so special.

I support John's view entirely. I said as much but none of my really valid points were aired. The fact that we interviewed a white Irish muslim and that was dropped says a million words to me. I commented that he'd been a terrorist twice in essence... The fact that I highlighted the 'bomb factory' in beeston was immediately turned into ashort lived injury claims specialist afterwards.. MOSSAD and isreali cctv companies.. MOSSAD agents spilling the beans of the HO report TWO DAYS BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED un-authored... No footage available? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What is really strange to me but as synchronnicity would have it, is that two minutes after it happened in Tavistock square, a security guard came up to us at work and told us that his friend was in a white van (THE white van) behind a bus in the square when it just "peeled apart" he didn't say blew up, exploded... he said it peeled apart. I get home and later we hear they were from Beeston, then we found out who they were and NO ONE believed it EVER. If MSK was on a watch list for even five minutes.. why the hell was he used by police to calm tensions, why the hell was he in respect for his work in the community taken on a tour of parliament by Hilary Benn? Why did they not say in their videos where they would carry out their jihad? BUT.. if you wanted the ultimate realism for the people involved in a terror exercise you would need those videos and they would be staged. Even if the exercise was never going to happen physically.. they wouldn't have known that would they?

Then we have to look at the exervcise itself. They chose that exact scenario to be run through in an office.. Okay... Well no not really is it? Because they'd already done that run through on the TV the year before and even went to the effort of recording news reports for the programme itself.. all staged...

I bought fish and chips on the tuesday before the attacks on the thursday. I bought them from Shezad... he was talking about going to London.. if he was going to london to kill people.. why the hell would he be telling anyone who could hear in the chip shop?

There are far too many unanswered questions for these boys to be referred to as suicide bombers. I don't think they were at all. I saw them often and they were just lads, not brainwashed by extremists. They reported the white water rafting trip was part of the plot but it wasn't. i have to beg the question, if Khalid had anything to do with anything why was he only given 18 months? If he wasn't involved, then why was he given 18 months? They jailed him for a CD being in his house, that he'd never touched or put in his computer and quite frankly.. I'm not sure if he'd even seen it before.

I emailed Dr Rory Ridley Duff this morning outlining my disgust at the lack of content. He sent this reply and i promised to pass it on.

Hi Sacha,

Thanks for sharing that. I presume you've seen my response to Tony?

A good way to direct the anger over this documentary might be to gather support for Tony Farrell.

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/campaign-to-reinstate-tony-farrell-as-principal-intelligence-analyst

He's just handed himself in to Birmingham police for knowingly contributing funds to South Yorkshire police authority, who he alleges has assisted in covering up the intelligence services / government's involvement in 7/7.

Best wishes
Rory

www.roryridleyduff.com

[infohousewife]

Dr Rory Ridley Duff Sheffield Hallam University BBC 7/7 Roadtrip Broadcast Analysis
Posted on October 1, 2012 by CE5

Firstly, it is necessary to keep examining the evidence with an open mind and where the evidence does not support a particular aspect of a particular theory, then a better explanation is still needed (whichever way it points).

1) Many people skeptical of the official explanation of 7/7 were approached to appear on the BBC TV show on which you appeared (myself included). I - like others - declined after watching the equivalent show about 9/11. The editorial perspective takes for granted that 7/7 happened the way the government says it did, and throughout the programme the four young men are referred to as suicide bombers. The editorial perspective is closed, not open, and the shows agenda is to support the official narrative. The editorial team are trying to put doubt into the heads of the shows participants (and of course, the audience that is watching) to discredit alternative explanations.

Why is that important? Well, imagine a show where skeptical journalists were rounded up by a convinced conspiracy theorist, and the conspiracy theorist picked the 'experts' to try to change their mind? Who would they chose? They would choose experts who would confirm their view (as your shows presenter was able to choose experts that would confirm his view). The editorial perspective influences who is chosen to talk to you.

There are 7/7 survivors (and 9/11 survivors) who do not agree with the presenter, but they would probably not be chosen to talk to you (you'll know more than I on how/why people were selected). I suspect there is a built in bias because those who might support your view would not cooperate with the show. Only those supportive of the shows position would be willing to appear. What footage/discussions were not shown on the broadcast?

The one exception to this - on the show itself - is the woman from Beeston who knew the four young men well. I found it strange that an 'expert' who studies the psychology of terrorism - and who will have never met the four alleged bombers - was presented as more trustworthy than someone who knew them well. Academics (myself included) are just as capable of projecting onto a situation if our professional interests are served by doing so. An expert on the psychology of terrorist is starting from a perspective that the four men are terrorists - he says as much - so he's not open minded when he comes to interpret their behaviour. I'm more inclined to trust someone who knew them well (while being realistic about anyone's capacity to deceive).

2) Train Times. These still don't add up. On the show, you were asked to try to catch the 7.25 after leaving the car park at 7.20. It is significant (to me) that you missed the 7.25 train. The show then sought to establish whether you could still have got to your destinations by catching the 7.32. On the day you filmed, the trains ran on time. On 7th July, they did not. Check the following.

www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-...ain-times.html

The 7.30 train was late, left Luton at 7.42, and arrived at King's Cross 35 minutes late. So, let's assume the government narrative for a moment that the alleged bombers did go onto the platforms and catch the first train. This would be 7.42, arriving King's Cross at 8.39 (not 8.04 as was possible for you). The show never pointed this out to the viewers. So, what happened on the day you filmed did not happen on 7th July 2005. The 'test' proved nothing (but did put doubt in the minds of some participants).

Moreover, why assume the government narrative? The official report from the Home Office said they caught the 7.40. Maybe this was the 7.42 (i.e. delayed 7.30). If you read the press releases, we are led to believe that 'authorities' checked 12,000 hours of surveillance footage, and that there were witnesses attesting to sitting next to the bombers on the 7.40 train. This clearly is not true - there could not have been witnesses on a train that did not run. Either the 'witnesses' are fabricated, or they travelled on the 7.42 that arrived 8.39 (i.e. too late). And if the bombers caught a train after the scheduled 7.40, they would have arrived at 8.42 (even later).

3) Brian Paddick. He gave a poor account on the programme. He did not convince me (or you). I doubt he convinced many viewers either. In my paper you'll see he was the first to deny there was a shooting at Canary Wharf. I think we have to be open to the possibility that he was one of the core group of people that knew what was going on.

Peter Power's statement that only six people were involved in the mock anti-terror exercise has been questioned by eye-witness testimony that people were acting out anti-terror drills at several underground stations. Tony Farrell (Principal Intelligence Analyst in South Yorkshire Police) lost his job after challenging the official account of 7/7. Of the many things he has claimed is a SY Police colleague in London on the 7th July who claims he was part of an anti-terror drill taking place in London. Not sure if this is the same drill that Peter Power organised, but it does mean that people from South Yorkshire - senior police officers - were part of the same (or another) anti-terror drill that day. These glaring inconsistencies remain unexplained, I think.

4) Underground Carriages.

One of the most significant findings from the London inquest (according to Nick Kollerstom) is that one carriage had *three* holes in the floor. Call me stupid, but how does one bomber make three holes in different parts of the carriage with a single bomb? Also, more than four tube trains are reported to have had explosives go off - all this information is detailed on the J7 website (see above) by people attending the inquest.

5) Surveillance of the Alleged Bombers

There have been new documentaries that look into this in further detail, and this is where my thinking has moved on. The inquest showed a Jaguar parking in the same spot on both the late June run to London, and the 7th July. The suggestion here is that the four alleged bombers had an MI6 'handler'. There is a fifth person the US authorities were adamant they wanted to extradite to the US, and the suspicion of people studying this closely is that this fifth person was the person in the Jaguar. Why is this significant? Well, there is plenty of US footage discussing this person - stating clearly that the UK government was protecting them. The only reason they could think for the non-cooperation is that they were working for MI5 or MI6.

So - and this does need further corroboration - there is a theory that MI6 were 'handling' the 4 alleged bombers. That provides a credible reason for records about them at MI6 - it may be for precisely the opposite reason than the official one given (surveillance). It may be these four were working with (not against) MI6. That fits better with the other evidence of their good relations with a Leeds MP. It also accounts for why they would help a mock-drill in London, and why they would not hide that they were going to London. Who, for example, paid for the hire car?

6) Governments Don't Bomb Their Own Citizens.

Plenty of evidence they do - I think there's a documentary (long and detailed, you'll need stamina) by someone called Tony Rourke (I think). He provides loads of documentary footage from other countries where false flag terrorism is admitted by intelligence services. He details the plan regarding Cuba, plans to shoot down US planes over Cuba to trigger a war. We also have the testimony of David(?) Shayler although I appreciate he is now a controversial character.

Tony Rourke's documentary goes into the history of links between the UK intelligence services and Muslims during the Bosnian conflict. We were funding them to fight Milosovic. As in Afghanistan, it is possible that Muslims are not aware of who is funding them. So, there's a remote possibility that MI6 funding was used by dissident Bosnians against this country. I don't think that stacks up myself, but it is a working hypothesis that links remain and account for ongoing communication between people in the Muslim community and MI6.

And lastly,

Since I wrote my paper, John Hill (Muad 'Dib') was put on trial for his account of 7/7. He was charged with fabricating evidence. The jury, however, acquitted him. The only time the evidence has been tested in a court of law by a jury, the 'conspiracy theory' person was more believed than the government lawyers bringing the case. As we've never had an inquest for the 4 alleged bombers - and the families of the alleged bombers were not allowed to organise their own autopsy - there is no independant evidence to say what their remains might tell us about their involvement on 7th July. The ID evidence is laughable - can't believe the BBC used it.

Also, Tony Farrell (worth Googling if you have not already) has gone public an analysis of 7/7 - his analysis covers every claim that he is aware of. He uses skills acquired as Principal Analyst for SY Police to rate every piece of evidence. He comes to a firm conclusion that someone in government (but perhaps not politicians) are the most likely perpertrators of 7/7. You can get his strategic analysis here:

www.richplanet.net/tonyfarrell.php

Against that, there is some evidence presented in my paper that seems less secure to me. Footage from the inquest has been published that does suggest the alleged bombers caught a train shortly after they entered the station at Luton. I am more prepared to believe they made it to London than I was at the time I wrote the paper. Interestingly, the documentary you took part in seems to strengthen the account given in 7/7 Ripple Effect (that they missed the 7.24 train and got the 7.42 - leaving too little time to be where they were supposed to be).

Secondly, I found a passing reference on the internet to Canary Wharf being 'locked down' when the 9/11 attacks took place. That weakens the evidence in my paper that a 'lock down' at Canary Wharf was somehow out of the ordinary or strange. Against that - but not included in my paper because the account was not written contemporaneously - is a detailed account of a person who claims they were allowed to fetch water/food for the people stuck inside Canary Wharf on 7th July. They state an underground car park was cordoned off by authorities with the clear implication that they were 'cleaning up' something that occured there before people inside the building were let out. That account was not strong enough for me to use - I chose only to use contemporaneous material - but it is probably stronger evidence than a 'passing reference on the internet' suggesting a lock down at Canary Wharf on 9/11.

Hope all this helps with your deliberations. Feel free to share it with others, including those appearing on the show with you if you are still in touch with them.

Best wishes
Rory

www.roryridleyduff.com
Educator, Writer, Composer