Last week I was privileged to spend a little time with some members of the July 7th Truth Forum.
Whilst not an active member of the group myself we do share a common scepticism about the Official Narrative of the events of 7/7
I have had great respect for J7 Truth since its inception and meeting some of its core members in the flesh for the first time has only added to that respect.
The focus of J7T has always been to highlight and research the inconsistencies and omissions in the mainstream accounts of what happened in London two years ago.
Aside from an implicit premise that we haven't been the told the truth about 7/7, J7T is not in the business of promoting any particular alternate theories about what happened that day
I support that approach wholeheartedly and in spite of some fairly crude attempts at infiltration by individuals with their own agendas and acts of provocation carried out with collusion of the mainstream media J7T has adhered to this philosophy
It was also clear to me that members of J7T genuinely care about all of the victims of 7/7
On the way home from the meeting last week the one thought uppermost in mind was a sense of regret that there aren't more groups like J7T out there. The public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes is simply crying out for a group of concerned citizens getting together researching, collating and publicising the lies and omissions in the official accounts of what happened in Stockwell. Prosecutions under Health and Safety legislation in which none of the people present at the execution, either the shooters, Tube staff or members of the public, give testimony are nowhere near adequate and represent a disturbing indication of just how bent our system of Justice can be
-
A few days after I attended the J7T gathering I started noticing links and references to a new 'Truth Video' about 7/7 appearing on the net
The film is called 7/7 Ripple Effect
I've watched Ripple Effect through a couple of times now and for anyone concerned about the flaws in the official accounts of 7/7 watching this video is like watching a car crash in slow motion
Whilst the bulk of the information presented in the video has at least some factual basis it is stitched together in the form of a speculative narrative of 'what really happened' on 7/7. Worse than that it is peppered with unfounded claims that certain facts have been 'proven' about 7/7 - that the widely-circulated photo of the alleged bombers allegedly taken at Luton station is a fake or that home-made explosives have been proved not to have been used on 7/7, for example
The Luton photo does indeed look dodgy and the nature of the explosives official accounts say were used on 7/7 is indeed still ambiguous but none of this has been 'proven'
This is most definitely NOT a film that I personally would show to someone I was trying wean off the Official Narrative of 7/7
Where's the mileage in criticizing the flaws of Official Narrative with a film that commits exactly the same sins?
The video is produced by a man who calls himself Muad'dib after the Messianic character in Frank Herbert's Dune. I've noticed that there has been some discussion about Mr dibs' religious views on a couple of specialist forums but to be honest I wouldn't give a damn what he was into if he had produced a decent film
-
The Number One establishment technique for subverting those who question official accounts of atrocious events is to goad them into answering the question...
'How do you think it happened then?'
As soon as anyone is daft enough to answer that question they immediately put themselves into a weakened, defensive position. Instead of being people scrutinizing somebody else's fairy tale they are transformed into 'Conspiracy Theorists', defending their own speculative narrative
This is rarely a good idea
I have seen enough evidence to indicate that we are being misled about 7/7. There is absolutely no requirement for me, and other people who can see the same flaws as I do, to come up with our own fable about what happened that day
(There is a small caveat to be made here, in that speculation is a valid tool when thinking about possible avenues for research and investigation. I wouldn't disagree but a line is crossed when such speculation is presented as being fact in the way the 7/7 Ripple Effect does)
A commonly used criticism of Conspiracy Theorists is that those who believe in nothing will believe in anything ('them who believe in 'nowt with believe in 'owt')...
Bollocks do we
The same rigour we sceptics apply to official narratives has to be applied to competing, alternate narratives. If not, we are at least hypocrites or maybe something worse
-
July 7th Truth has posted a rebuttal to 7/7 Ripple Effect on its website here...
7/7 Ripple Effect - a rebuttal and rejection
And whilst I did not have a hand in the production of the rebuttal I support it totally; particularly as I am starting to hear stories that Mr dib and some of his chums are sending unsolicited copies of 7/7 Ripple Effect to relatives of people who were murdered on July 7th
WTF?!!
If an action like that isn't deliberately intended to smear anyone with concerns about July 7th as being a heartless and insensitive prick it's a bloody good impression of one
And whilst I'm not a big fan of bullshit on-line campaigns I encourage all bloggers and non-bloggers with an interest in 7/7 to watch 7/7 Ripple Effect, reach their own conclusions and keep an eye open to see if this possible wind-up of the bereaved takes place and is transformed into something even nastier
(any co-incidences with the timing of the families of the people murdered on 7/7 being sent unsolicited autopsy details of their loved ones at the end of last week are doubtlessly entirely, well, um, co-incidental)
.
6 comments:
I often wonder whether or not UK intel services, re 7/7, used the technique of, "Analysis of Competing Hypotheses" as described in chapter 8 of Richard Heuer's book, "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis."
If not, why not?
If so, what were the competing hypotheses?
Freedom of information request, anyone?
.. the assumption being that UK Intel Services didn't know precisely who was responsible right away
I saw this a while back and was similarly alarmed by it. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the same tactics that have being used to provoke the 'controlled demolition' of the 911 truth community aren't been used here.
Your point about not coming up with alternative theories is dead right. I have this exact same problem on another forum where I have been arguing about the official account of the Warren Commission into the assassination of Kennedy. The usual response when you dare question official truths like this is to be asked to prove some alternative scenario. With most of these things, what we are actually talking about is a crime, and its up to those that accuse someone of a crime to prove it. It's not our job to do anything, legally or logically, other than point out where the 'prosecution' is wrong. Like lee Harvey Oswald, the men accused of the July 7th bombings have never been tried in a court and are thus, legally innocent. If those that say they are guilty of a crime are unable to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then it is our job to ask why.
By the way, I'd love to know your views on the JFK business Stef. I still think it's crucially important 44 years later, as its arguably the seed of the current mess our 'democracy' is in today.
I was always a Bobby Fischer man, myself. Anyway, ....
@anon 17:23 - nice link, ta
@anon 18:24
I think the mess we're in today goes a lot further back than JFK but I understand where you're coming from
I can understand people's fascination with the JFK assassination but it has been now so thoroughly obscured with theory and counter-theory and so much questionable testimony and evidence it seems hardly likely that anyone will get to the bottom of it
However, in spite of that it seems clear to me that 21st century 'suicide bombers' now fulfill the same function that 'lone gunmen' did in the 1960s and 1970s. Both groups are depicted as being mad (and therefore without rational motive) and more importantly neither group usually makes it to trial
And if even if there were no other reason to doubt the official narrative of JFKs murder there's always, for me, a key unanswered question - 'Why is LHO supposed to have done it?'. I have yet to see a credible answer to that question which can also explain why LHO denied being the murderer as soon as he was caught
Post a Comment