We were lucky enough to be offered an interview with ATS over the holidays, which you can read below. It was also discussed on their forum here.
Every member of ATS will remember July 7th 2005. That morning, many of us UK members went straight into chat to discuss the bombings. The fear of what happened touched us in many ways and many of us asked questions to what happened to that day. Many members of ATS found holes in the official story that was issued by the UK Government. To find out more about July 7th, I have conducted an interview with the July 7th Campaign. These guys have campaigned long and hard to get a public inquiry to what happened that day, even when the Government has said no. Below is the interview that i conducted
ATS: Thank you for taking time to answer some questions regarding July 7th, many at ATS will enjoy this interview. July 7th was a tragic day for the United Kingdom and many have demanded a public inquiry to what happened, but the Government has said no. Why won't the Government hold one?
Thank you for offering J7 the interview and the opportunity to respond to your questions about 7/7 and the July 7th Truth Campaign.
Why the government won't hold a public inquiry is a good question and one to which the government have given a number of responses, none of the which are particularly valid and none of which can be excused given the severity and magnitude of what happened.
For the answer to why a public inquiry into the events of 7th July 2005 has not been held so far, it is perhaps best to refer to the words of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who said: "If we ended up having a full scale public inquiry... we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time and I don't think it would be sensible." Indeed, Downing Street has also dismissed the whole notion of a public inquiry as "a ludicrous diversion" so the government has made perfectly clear its opinion on an inquiry into the largest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second world war.
The nonsense of excuses presented by the government for not holding a public inquiry is further compounded for anyone who has any knowledge of other far less serious events into which the British government has held public inquiries.
Tony Blair said: "I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened. We will make sure they do." Yet, to date, the people do not know exactly what happened, nor how it happened, nor who was responsible for making it happen. Yes, there is an 'official version' of events, the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July' as released by the Home Office on 11 May 2006, but that story is flawed and inaccurate if the established facts have anything to do with it. Furthermore, the government account is not backed up with any tangible evidence - merely hearsay, speculation, assumptions and presuppositions - nor could it be because of the huge and glaring factual inaccuracies contained within it which, to this day, remain uncorrected and unclarified. J7 suggests that if the official account of events were the truth, then there would be no discrepancies, no errors, nor any inconsistencies in the account. Facts, after all, are facts but you won't find many, if any, of those in the official Home Office report.
ATS: What do you say to those who have branded you and your team "Conspiracy Theorists", who are making outlandish theories and are refusing to accept the official story?
The simple answer is that such a charge is completely invalid because, quite simply, we don't have a theory about what happened on 7/7! Our position from the outset has been that precisely nothing about the government and media versions of events makes any sense at all and, further, their story is entirely unsupported by evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Without a full and independent public inquiry, the events of 7th July 2005 will never face the judicial scrutiny that they deserve. Additionally, the judicial system in the UK operates on a presumption of innocence; that is, "Innocent until proven guilty". In the case of July 7th and the four young British men accused by the government of perpetrating the attack on London, there is no evidence in the public domain that conclusively proves their guilt and in this perhaps one might find at least part of the reason why the government has thus far refused to hold a public inquiry.
Furthermore, it is imperative to understand exactly what a conspiracy theory is, for the actual definition is rather different to the conventional perception of what one is. While definitions of the word 'theory' are generally consistent, J7 always recommend that anyone who wishes to believe we are 'conspiracy theorists' refer to a dictionary and check the meaning of the word 'conspiracy'. An approximate legal definition of the word conspiracy is, "An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action". If one applies that definition in the context of the term 'conspiracy theory', then any theory about what happened on 7/7 which involves more than one person conspiring to undertake the criminal activity that occurred that day is, technically, a 'conspiracy theory'.
As we have no theory at all the allegation that we are 'conspiracy theorists' is unfair and unwarranted. The British government, however, has published their theory of how 7/7 came to be, which involves 'two or more persons' conspiring to commit a crime, the truth of the matter is that the British government better fit the true definition of the term
ATS:Was The July Seventh Truth Campaign influenced in anyway shape or form by the 9/11 truth movement in the United States?
The answer to that question might surprise a lot of people as the 9/11 truth movement in the United States has been an influence, but not in the way that people might think. From a purely UK perspective, the 9/11 movement in the U.S. appears to be divided on more issues than it is united on and there appears to be a lot of discussion and argument about
what might have happened if the official version of events is not what actually happened. Without a full and thorough investigation that examines all the available evidence, we think it is unwise to speculate what might have happened because, without a proper examination of the evidence, it is impossible to know. So, in terms of the influence of the U.S. 9/11 truth movement on the July 7th Truth Campaign, rather than speculate and further confuse issues we have chosen to highlight that there is no evidence in the public domain that could be used to prove conclusively one story or another about 7/7. This is precisely why we are calling on the government and authorities to release the evidence that either proves, or disproves, the official version of events as outlined in the Home Office 'narrative'.
ATS: The official story is that a al-Qa'ida mastermind recruited British born Muslims to carry out the attacks on July 7th. But there are holes in the official story, such as return tickets and one of the targets is a large Muslims area in London. My question is this, is the official story some sort of "scary story" to support Government's anti-terror
There are so many holes, speculations, inconsistencies and outright factual errors in the official story that it isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. We recommend that anyone who is interested enough to investigate further reads the official account of events as a starting point and decides for themselves whether or not the 41-page document could be considered credible or sufficient explanation for how 56 people were killed in the heart of London.
Until 7th July 2005, so called anti-terrorist legislation in the UK was largely riding on the back of the events that occurred in New York on September 11th 2001, with occasional reference to the Madrid train bombings. Since 7th July 2005, British anti-terrorist legislation has undergone several revisions, all of which has sailed through Parliament, without question nor challenge, precisely because of 7/7.
So, in answer to your question, yes, the official story - if the errors and anomalies in it are ignored and the story is taken at face value - has absolutely provided all the justification the government needs to roll out any legislation it requires. In addition to facilitating the unhindered passing of 'anti-terrorism' legislation, 7/7 has also resulted in the demonisation, dehumanisation and vilification of Muslims by much of the mainstream media. This unquestionably racist propaganda has been ramped to such a level that barely a day goes by without the news featuring stories, usually with little or no basis in fact, about the perceived threat from young, British-born Muslims.
ATS: On that the day, the four men traveled to London via a train from Luton. Metropolitan Police confirmed that they took the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th. However, The July Seventh Truth Campaign has called this "the impossible train journey". What do you mean by that?
"The impossible train journey," means precisely that, an impossible train journey. Any credible theory about what happened on 7th July 2005 requires facts upon which it should be based, yet the official government account of events places the accused on a 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train which, categorically, was cancelled and did not run that day. This might seem like a minor detail, but if the government, with all the 'intelligence' and 'security' resources it has at its disposal, cannot obtain and report such a basic and easy to verify fact correctly, how much faith can anyone place in the rest of their story?
J7 researchers had confirmed from the Thameslink train operating company that the 7.40am train was cancelled on the morning of 7th July and this information was placed in the public domain in August 2005. Yet, when the official report was published, some 10 months after the incidents to which it referred, the government still got it wrong. We believe that this level of inaccuracy cannot be allowed to stand and, in fact, the British Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, stood before Parliament two months after the release of the official report and admitted this error existed in the government's account. As a result of this admission, we learnt
that the Home Office did not obtain the train time information from the train operating company. It then transpired that the Home Office had not even bothered to check the train details with the police, so one might be tempted to ask quite where they obtained the erroneous information about what we refer to as the impossible train journey.
Since then, Dr Reid has been forced to acknowledge additional errors in the Home Office report, including crucial details such as the precise locations of the explosions on the trains involved. In fact, as far as the Home Office report goes, they are expecting the British public to believe that they have not yet managed to determine the type of the explosives used. Well, the forensic testing processes that would determine the type of explosives used would produce results in anything from a few minutes to a few hours. A worst case example might require a couple of days to produce the results so, yet again, the British public would do well to wonder why the government was unable to identify the explosives in 10 months of investigation.
It beggars belief that any true and just account of events could be so hideously flawed and lacking in information, especially when the government is expecting the British public to accept their 'narrative' of events in place of a full and independent public inquiry. We have documented many of these factual errors, inconsistencies and anomalies on the July 7th Truth Campaign web site in a feature called Mind The Gaps Part 1 and Mind The Gaps Part 2. See:
ATS: Last question. The Government has said no to a public inquiry and is still refusing the calls to have one by many groups. A public inquiry, in the eyes of the Government, would be waste of time and effort that will distracting for them. In your own words, why is a public inquiry so important?
On this point we are in agreement with the government for, in the eyes of the July 7th Truth Campaign, a public inquiry would be a waste of time, but not for the reasons that the government specify. Precisely one month before the events of 7/7, a new piece of legislation came into force, known as the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14
times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder. There were also allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion. As a result of the Inquiries Act 2005, Mr Finucane's widow wrote to the judiciary calling on them to boycott any inquiry held under the terms of the act into her husband's death.
Congressman Chris Smith named the Parliamentary bill that preceded that act "the Public Inquiries cover-up bill" and the act that was passed effectively renders ultimate control of all public inquiries to the executive, meaning that any inquiry held under its terms would result in the government investigating itself and determining which aspects of 7/7 are investigated and reported, or if they are investigated at all. The Inquiries Act also prevents investigation of the security services and grants the government the right to shut down any or all avenues of inquiry at their discretion. As any reasonable person will understand, this is a less than desirable position and will not produce anything that vaguely resembles a truly Independent Public Inquiry.
What is interesting to note is that, of all the diverse groups calling for a public inquiry, only the July 7th Truth Campaign has raised the issue of the Inquiries Act 2005 as being a major obstacle to obtaining an independent inquiry.
For the record, Amnesty International has called for the boycott of inquiries proposed under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, to date, no judges have been found that will agree to participate in an inquiry into the killing of Patrick Finucane. J7's position is that if the Inquiries Act is not fit for the purpose of investigating state collusion in the killing of one man almost 20 years ago, then it is certainly not fit for the purpose of investigating the killing of 56 people on 7th July 2005. Consequently, the July 7th Truth Campaign's calls for a public inquiry specifically state that any inquiry into the events of 7/7 must be a public inquiry and that it must be conducted outside of the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, further, that this piece of legislation needs to be repealed.
and our research forum at:
The July 7th Truth Campaign has launched a petition calling on the government to Release The Evidence that will conclusively prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the veracity, or otherwise, of the Home Office's account of events. We would urge Above Top Secret readers to sign the J7 Release The Evidence petition at: http://petitiononline.com/j7truth/
There is also an excellent summary of the official story and the evidence - or lack there-of - in a documentary called Ludicrous Diversion which can be viewed on Google Video:
In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7 - The July 7th Truth Campaign
The July 7th Truth Campaign
I would like to thank the July 7th Truth Campaign for taking time to answer questions and to take part in this interview for ATS
Related News Links: