Friday, May 02, 2008
Doubting my doubts? Not quite
Contrary to how anyone who has doubts about the Official Narrative of 7/7 is being depicted by the mainstream media and other bloggers, I do question my own scepticism
Maybe things really did pan out on 7/7 the way we are being told they did - plus or minus some human error and a little arse-covering in the retelling
At this stage I think that's unlikely but it is possible
I doubt the Official Narrative for a whole pile of reasons. One of which, though it's nowhere near the only reason, has been the paucity of relevant CCTV footage released into the public domain
That lack of relevant CCTV material appears to be being addressed during the current trial of three men accused of assisting the alleged 7/7 bombers
Headlines like this, for example, appear to indicate that definitive CCTV evidence of a bomber actually setting off one of his bombs has now been made available...
CCTV footage of 7/7 explosion shown in court
CCTV images showing one of the three July 7 bombers setting off his bomb as a tube train pulled out of Liverpool Street Station have been shown in court
And, honestly, when I first the ran the clip I was perfectly prepared to seriously modify my view about the flaws in the 7/7 Official Narrative
Given that the prosecution in the current case has already revealed that the alleged bombers conveniently weren't carrying the bombs (or their ID) and therefore couldn't be shown 'setting off' the bombs', I should have realised the headline was going to be deceptive bollocks
And, lo, it was so - the clip does not show anyone setting off anything; unless you're the kind of prick who enjoys playing lawyers' tricks with the English language
If fact, all of the 'evidence' released in recent days is either circumstantial or inconclusive and, I strongly suspect, extremely selective
but, of course, that hasn't stopped the mainstream media and other bloggers trying to pass it off as a something which it is not
Whilst deceitful wordplay and misdirection are not direct evidence of establishment deceit over 7/7, it does suggest someone is trying to obscure something
And no, I don't believe that any of the videos or stills released so far have been photoshopped to be more incriminating. They would be a lot more convincing if they had. Someone might be pissing around with the times and dates claimed for certain clips but that's a different game
Maybe something more convincing will be presented as the trial progresses; at least one psychic blogger out there appears to think so. Maybe I and others who try their best to be open-minded will be less sceptical as a result
but that still wouldn't explain WTF any of this has to do with the current trial
This material has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. In a very real sense this appears to be a show trial which has been hijacked for the purposes of state propaganda. Quite unashamedly so
Why is the defence team letting this continue?
and I'm no lawyer and I may very well be missing something, but how can you try and potentially convict three people for allegedly helping four alleged bombers who themselves have not been found guilty by any form of judicial process - be it a trial, an inquest or an inquiry?
Wouldn't the current trial only make sense after the people the defendants are accused of conspiring with have been formally found guilty of something?
Is that what all this seemingly irrelevant, bollocks 'evidence' is about? A half-arsed attempt at a short-cut around due process and probity?
WTF is going on with the country's system of justice?