The J7 post discusses the material covered in my previous post but with a lot more rigour and detail
There's also, and it's a rare day indeed when I link to this site, an interesting comment over at the UK 9/11 forum:
There's a little bit of Carol Vorderman style numerology before the meat of the comment, which after an analysis of Biddle's testimony and train timetables, concludes with...
"A question for Mr Keith QC and his team:
How is it that Danny Biddle, disembarked from a main line train that, in your own words, arrived at Liverpool Street at 8:40 am or as confirmed by Mr Biddle, "there or thereabouts", then made his way along the platform, across the concourse, down the steps to the underground ticket barriers, through the ticket barriers and eventually onto the the Circle Line platform, ignore an overcrowded train and wait for the next Circle Line train, and then travel eight stops including Edgware Road on a Circle Line train in under 10 minutes on 7th July 2005 ?
I presume that, Gareth A Davies at The Telegraph to pick a single example from the media are able to explain how they had Danny Biddle still tapping out (or editing his previous draft of) a text message to work to say he was on the way at 9.17am - the same time as the MPS originally claimed for the Edgware Road incident.
9:17am is now, according to Mr Keith QC, over 27 minutes after Mr Biddle saw MSK's arm move quickly, an action he elaborated upon in his "more detailed" version given in December, by adding that it looked like he [MSK] was pulling a white cord."
Here's a link to another newspaper story that quotes Biddle being injured at 9.17am
So, to recap...
On the morning of 7/7, Mohammed Sidique Khan walked along a rush hour tube carriage, scattering bank cards and other documentation in front of his fellow passengers along the way, before standing up/ sitting down and putting his small/ large rucksack on the floor/ his lap and blowing himself up some distance from/ adjacent to the device, which was made from military grade/ home-made explosives, at 8.50am/ 9.17am
Clear as mud
Unless you're one of those people who goes for the 'Some Muslim nutters did it!!! What more do you need to know?!!' school of intellectual thought, the current state of the Official Narrative is, um, shambolic
As I and others have stated previously, the 7/7 inquest does not appear to be an objective information gathering exercise but, rather, an extended presentation of a pre-established, and seriously flawed, narrative.
The material starting to pile up at the J7 7/7 Inquests blog supports this conclusion very strongly
(originally intended to be a single volume, but that was before the Inquest started)
And now I'm going to ask for a favour
Without rehashing old debates, I personally have been somewhat scornful of certain other 7/7 researchers
From my high-tech secret command centre (a page of RSS feeds running on an abused netbook), I monitor postings on a large number of alternative news websites. What this sophisticated intelligence operation tells me is that those other 7/7 researchers have received, and continue to receive, considerably more promotion on-line than the work of J7 and producers of films that share the J7 ethic
That's the ethic which focuses on identifying the flaws in Official Narratives rather than promoting alternative narratives
Plugs for 7/7 (Raspberry) Ripple Effect and the musings of a certain Nazi apologist and BBC comedy act there are a plenty
Plugs for J7 and films like Ludicrous Diversion and Seeds of Deconstruction ...biff all
I can't remember the last time sites like Alex Jones', David Ickes', What Really Happened and loads of other major conspiraloon portals pointed readers to J7, if ever
You could debate the reasons for this for ages but the fact is J7 is the source of much material that a lot of other researchers include in their own work. Yet credit, or valuable search-engine fodder in the way of links, is rarely given in return.
I can't help noticing that J7 has started to heavily watermark some of the excellent material the group is generating for the 7/7 Inquest blog. I suspect that this has little to do with vanity and quite a lot to do with people ripping off and repackaging J7's work, without offering readers the chance to view the material in the context intended by the people who created it
J7 is a small group of ordinary folk running themselves ragged filling in FOIs, attending hearings, sifting through transcripts and presenting their findings in as clear and as well-documented way as they can. I think they could do with a hand during a period in which they must be absolutely shagged out
So, here's the favour I'm asking for
Over the course of the 7/7 Inquest (and it's set to run for months), and assuming J7 is able to maintain its prodigious effort, please think about posting the occasional link to J7, especially the J7 7/7 Inquest blog, during your travels around the Internet.
I have no doubt that the kind of intelligent, sophisticated, empathic and physically attractive people who pass through here don't need me to elaborate on this request by suggesting that any links posted should be as intelligent, sophisticated, empathic and physically attractive as they are. So I won't
Except that bit where I just did