I Can't Believe It's Not a Proper Inquest!! pt4

Given that the J7 team are doing an excellent job of analysing the material generated by the 7/7 Inquest over at their dedicated blog J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog, I do not intend to duplicate their effort by posting my own version of their work.

I may, however, make occasional posts on issues that I wish to amplify or offer a slightly different take on

The latest post on the J7 Inquests Blog discusses the evidence that there may been more than four people in the group of alleged bombers that visited London on 7/7, and the off-hand treatment of that evidence by 7/7 Inquest officials...

Don't Mention The Fifth (or Sixth?) Man

A commentator underneath one of my recent posts seemed to think that because I and others have issues with the absence of relevant CCTV material that maybe we are under the impression that the four alleged bombers didn't visit London on 7/7.

Nope

There could just as easily have been five, or six, or zero, or, yes, even four bombers who travelled down to London by train on the morning of 7/7

I haven't the faintest idea

That's my problem with the Official Narrative

The only alternative theory I am promoting is that I think the Official 7/7 Narrative is currently unsupported by evidence of a quality that would secure a criminal conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'

and that's putting it mildly

-

Additional 7/7 Inquest analyses that people have made me aware of since my last post include...

Terror on the Tube

Thanks to the commentator who pointed me to Nick Kollerstrom's posting on the 7/7 Inquest. Dr Nick has admittedly assisted with some useful research on 7/7, particularly in establishing that the original version of the Official 7/7 Narrative had the alleged bombers travelling to London on a train that didn't run. An all the more impressive performance from the Official Narrative given that it also alluded to witnesses on that non-existent train

I do, however, have a major problem with the quality of Dr Nick's judgment. Not least the fact that he decided to diversify into a spot of Jewish holocaust revisionism where he put his name to an article which implied that Auschwitz was some kind of Nazi Butlins; complete with swimming pool, water polo and picture postcards. An article that the mainstream and controlled alternative media got righteously steamed up about just before Dr Nick offered himself up for selectively-edited sacrifice by the BBC's Conspiracy Files

Wish You Were There?
Nazi Slave Labour Camps - The Kollerstrom View

Out of respect to the useful work that he has done, I'll link to Dr Nick's current posting on the 7/7 Inquest but I won't be including his site on any permanent link listings, as he has demonstrated that he is more than capable of pulling off feats of outstanding foolishness at the drop of a hat

Personally speaking, I may, on occasions, attempt to use crude humour or a superficially flippant style when writing about issues such as 7/7 but I never forget that this is a serious business and that 56 people died violent deaths on 7/7. This is not some abstract intellectual entertainment and to even hope to achieve some kind of positive result I believe that we sceptics have to educate ourselves to exercise good judgment and common sense

...as demonstrated by Keelan Balderson, producer of 7/7 The Big Picture, over at Wideshut.co.uk

Keelan's just put out a podcast containing a reasoned critique of the 7/7 Inquest (the 7/7 material starts 20 minutes in). The podcast, like 7/7 The Big Picture, is a little rough around the edges but nevertheless contains good information and reasoning. It is clear that Keelan is working hard towards developing an evidence-based analytical approach that tries to avoid the flights of fancy that have been attributed to Conspiraloons in the past


Tom Secker, the producer of another indepedent 7/7 Documentary, Seeds of Deconstruction is another researcher who seems to me to be trying to exercise critical judgment in his handling of the 7/7 material. Tom's take on the 7/7 Inquest thus far can be found over at his blog Howard Beale's News Hour


By their forensic nature, the articles I've linked to above are quite long and detailed. As such they illustrate one of the dilemmas faced by independent researchers who are sceptical of government narratives

If those researchers perform painstaking, meticulous research they are accused of being pedantic, train-spotter types who waste their lives teasing out the kind of tiny inconsistancies that even a completely honest narrative would contain

If those researchers don't perform painstaking, meticulous research they are then subject to the kind of bullshit typified by this comment from an anonymous bell-end underneath a link to J7 on the Indymedia site...


"18.10.2010 14:42
Most of your claims around 77 were around pulling apart the original and sparse CCTV released but now there has been a wealth of it been released your claims are meaningless. All these theories trickle down from Alex Jones, David Icke and others who make a lot of money from books, DVDs and lecture tours. You accuse people of being sheep for following 'mainstream media' but then you get your information from the likes of Infowars a site that tells its readers they need guns and gold to protect themselves, and they happen to sell it! Sorry Troofers, 911 was an outside job, 77 was an outside job. PS Just because you put the word 'truth' on your websites and in the name of your groups doesn't mean it is true."


J7 doesn't plug guns and gold. I don't plug guns and gold. None of us rely on Jones or Icke as primary sources. There is no wealth of CCTV, and the kind of person who posts mendacious nonsense like this is either a natural fucking idiot or a professional fucking idiot

And never, not once, in years of posting hundreds of sceptical articles have I had to resort to misrepresenting the views of people I disagree with. I may be off the mark with some of the views I hold but if that ever turns out to be the case I would have been honestly wrong and I have not lied to others, or myself.

And if I ever found myself behaving in that way I hope I'd be honest enough to ask myself what kind of Truth it is I pretend to be defending through the application of misrepresentation and deceit

.