BBC Conspiracy Files 7/7 programme

[paul wright]

I'm pretty sure that the BBC can do more than b* any attempt to question the official narrative. That way lies chaos for the land, as it will be surely wrought in an organised fashion at the appointed time, which is quite soon anyway.
In the meantime I'm quite happy to explore the territory with the BBC minions if they offer themselves and see what transpires
It probably won't be good, but if we can ask honest questions about the events, and this projects seems to be about people who ask honest questions, perhaps too much on the individuals, but nevertheless individuals do have questions, then perhaps the raising of the issue is useful
However much they try to project us as dyed-in-the wool barrel-scraping paranoid conspiracy theorists

[Prole]

There are only a handful of people in the UK who have got their heads around the most important discrepancies in the official 7/7 story. It would be tragic if no-one stepped forward. Thankfully several are stepping forward.

None of which include any of the main researchers, campaigners and experts on 7/7, namely J7.

I hardly considered a couple of articles spread over 3 years was evidence of a widespread campaign. It's still an anonymous and toothless campaign.
You really need to come out of hiding and go publc with all the data you have collected over the last 3 years. Go on tv, go on radio, start making some noise, start rattling the cage.
If you managed to get published in a pro Labour paper like the Guardian you should have built on that and got the story into other more newsworthy publications. If you are honest you really cant be happy with the campaign so far. And rather than the never ending bickering start focusing on raising it's profile and getting media coverage.

Karlos, how successful has nineleven.co.uk been in gaining media coverage?

Notably, neither yourself nor Gosling nor Paul Wright have much to say on 9/11 CF, although I assume this is your area of expertise? Did it rock the world, or even cause a tiny schism?

[TonyGosling]

This point-scoring is so silly and not really worthy of the gravity of the subject. The fact is anyone that wants to co-operate with Tristan can do. It's up to each individual, J7 have made their position clear.

Beverley, Ant and Brigit have every right to agree amongst themselves not to co-operate but then they will be in no position to complain about how the documentary turns out

[Prole]

This point-scoring is so silly and not really worthy of the gravity of the subject. The fact is anyone that wants to co-operate with Tristan can do. It's up to each individual, J7 have made their position clear.

Beverley, Ant and Brigit have every right to agree amongst themselves not to co-operate but then they will be in no position to complain about how the documentary turns out

The fact is that the decision not to cooperate in this was made by far more than just the J7 editors, so any claims you make to knowing anything Gosling about how we reached our decision is worthless. A 7/7 CF without J7 is a nonsense in our opinion and we will reserve the right to complain and criticise the documentary and those that collaborate with it.

J7 would be the first to cooperate with any serious investigative documentary on 7/7.

Still silent on the earth-shattering, woke everyone up, 9/11 CF?

[kbo234]

I hope the BBC do make the programme because, as Karlos says, it will air some of the issues and prompt large numbers of people to do their own digging.

However, Prole is also right.

No accuser nor person demanding an Inquiry should speak to the programme. It will be too easy for the producers to ridicule any such critic of the official narrative.

We know the many techniques they can use and that the majority of the audience will be fooled by them.

Let them do their worst but don't play their game.

Personally I wonder about the souls of the kind of people who are happy to deliberately misrepresent such literally vital issues and cheat the public regarding such important matters.

[TonyGosling]

What makes you so sure of that?
I honestly don't know how it will turn out - but since there's a chance of some important issues being raised IMHO - as many 7/7 sceptics as possible should be in there helping point them in the right direction.

No accuser nor person demanding an Inquiry should speak to the programme. It will be too easy for the producers to ridicule any such critic of the official narrative.

[paul wright]

Notably, neither yourself nor Gosling nor Paul Wright have much to say on 9/11 CF, although I assume this is your area of expertise? Did it rock the world, or even cause a tiny schism?

Hell, have you been investigating us?
Anyway nothing makes a dint on the media-presented consciousness.
I'm perfectly well aware that the second most heavily suppressed info from the msm secondary to the true nature of the various attacks is the suppression of the info on the Truthers.
I'm perfectly well aware that Tristan Quinn whatever his good intent will eventually end up making any presented individuals looking like onanists(bad word -blame the self censoring).
Doesn't really matter does it? The perpetrators wave their dicks in the air in full view and the majority of the populace are too busy with survival or circuses to notice. Nevertheless many many people are on the edge and people are by their hundreds and thousands getting the point.
If any of them are pushed over by the slightest modicum of reality presented for a moment on the telly, then that's a score
Too paranoid vibes from some quarters. We have to be willing to talk with the oppressors, to negotiate on their limited terms.
We will succeed and they won't, so let's take the victor's stance and offer these frightened individuals who are bucking and rearing as they are exposed some leeway.
If they offer us an agent to talk to, then why not talk, in a constrained type of way

[TonyGosling]

It was an appalling programe, I would have hoped that was clear. The producer was Guy Smith.

He is not making this one, which may just suggest that the BBC have eaten some humble pie.

[numeral]

Hi dh

CF's purpose is the make you look like a fruitloop. Talk to them by all means. Just don't let them film you.

Just say to them: show me the evidence. Ask them what they have found out about the events of 7/7.

See if they know what was found in the bathtub at 18 Alexandra Grove.
Answer: the Home Office narrative does not claim that any explosive was found at what it describes as "the alleged bomb factory".

Do not go up against them unless you are in complete command of the material.

[TonyGosling]

Dylan Avery appeared in the last CF series and was made to look like a fruitloop by producer A.
Rowena Thursby appeared in the last CF series and was given a fair hearing by producer B.

[kbo234]

Dylan Avery appeared in the last CF series and was made to look like a fruitloop by producer A.
Rowena Thursby appeared in the last CF series and was given a fair hearing by producer B.

...So it would be helpful to have some knowledge of the track record of the producer of the new 7/7 film.

Do you have any insight into this Tony.

We know there are some people inside the BBC who would love to report on this subject honestly and openly.

It's hard to believe anyone would be allowed to do so however.

[Prole]

What makes you so sure of that?
I honestly don't know how it will turn out - but since there's a chance of some important issues being raised IMHO - as many 7/7 sceptics as possible should be in there helping point them in the right direction.

No accuser nor person demanding an Inquiry should speak to the programme. It will be too easy for the producers to ridicule any such critic of the official narrative.

On the contrary Gosling, the more people who take a principled stand against the BBC and refuse to collaborate, the more likely we'd be to force them to make a serious investigative documentary not a risible episode of the CF.

[Frazzel]

the bbc wanting to make a 7/7 docu as part of the c.f says it all! they want to ridicule those that question the 7/7 O.C.T. if they were serious about making a balanced docu, then it wouldnt be made as part of a c.f series. compare how they would have dealt with this a couple of decades ago. this is all part of dumbing down the population and trivialising issues which is not, imo true investigative journalism.

i wonder if they will ask the question how come Benayim netanyahu got a warning on that day when no one else did! (he wqas due to talk at a hotel in bishopsgate that morning.

[Prole]

Whoever the producer is, the nature of the beast is very clear. For those unfamiliar with the stance that the BBC CF takes towards Conspiracy Theories have a read of their website:

Conspiracy Theories

There is plenty of evidence that the human condition is such that we have a need to believe there is something more than the here-and-now. With the decline in organised religions in the West, there has been something of a shortage in this respect and nature, abhorring as she does a vacuum, has conveniently plugged the gap with the conspiracy theory.

Of course, conspiracies do exist. Watergate, for example, and the Matrix Churchill affair (an arms to Iraq fiasco) in the UK. Clinical paranoia cannot be taken as prima facie1 evidence that they are not out to get you. But most of the really long-running conspiracy theories are seemingly based on slavish devotion to a fixed idea in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The best conspiracy theories involve elements of the urban legend, suspicion of the agencies involved, and always the availability of at least one perfectly satisfactory prosaic explanation. One classic example is Roswell.

The Roswell Incident

The Roswell Incident happened in early July 1947 in New Mexico. A craft of some sort crash-landed, and the wreckage was bundled away with some degree of secrecy by the staff of Roswell Air Base. Since this base was used for testing experimental aircraft at the time, this was hardly surprising, but then came the rumours that it was a UFO, bolstered by the release of some rather embarrassingly obvious fake film 'evidence' of an autopsy on an alien being.

Now, UFO's are a reality. A UFO is defined as any unidentified flying object. In these days of saturation radar coverage far fewer flying objects are unidentified, but back in the 1950s it was quite common. Almost all were subsequently identified to everybody's satisfaction, usually being off-track balloons or aircraft. There is nothing which states that a UFO is necessarily of alien origin; in fact, every UFO which has since been satisfactorily identified (ie most of them) turns out not to be.

The crucial point about the Roswell Incident is that absolutely everybody involved refuses to admit that it was anything other than a weather balloon, or materials consistent with a weather balloon. This is taken as evidence that there is a conspiracy. Of course this kind of thinking is not unique; it would require that every single person involved was prepared to tell an orchestrated and consistent lie, even after they had written authority from the President of the United States to reveal the truth of what happened. Consider for a moment the likelihood of a completely leak-free conspiracy.

And it is this which makes the Roswell incident the perfect conspiracy theory; the existence of absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the alien spaceship theory is taken as proof that not only was there an alien spaceship, but that a huge and wide-ranging conspiracy exists to cover up this fact from the American people.

The Tunguska Incident

Like Roswell, the Tunguska Incident is a perfect example of how people will refuse to accept a prosaic explanation for an extraordinary event. At approximately 7am on 30 June, 1908, there was a large explosion in Siberia, near the Lower Tunguska River. Considerable damage was done, and the blast was undoubtedly felt several hundred miles away.

At the time, there was no convincing theory as to what happened, but there were several odd features of the site, including the fact that trees directly under the epicentre of the explosion were still standing, while those some distance away had been flattened outwards. The conspiracy theory is based on the fact that the same singular features were observed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bomb blasts.

Now, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that any air-burst explosion would cause this effect; the trees at the epicentre experience blast directly downwards, so will of course not be blown over. No matter. Despite the lack of debris of any kind, the fact that there is no measurable increase in background radiation, and the fact that the nuclear weapon was not invented until some 30 years later, a nuclear device it must be, say the theorists. The possibility of a re-entrant comet, or a meteorite whose temperature caused it to explode, cannot be considered. And having decided on a nuclear explosion, it must of course be of alien origin.

So in are trotted the usual arguments. People who spotted 'saucer-shaped objects flying through the sky' (why are these only ever observed by lone eccentrics, one wonders?). Speculation as to why the KGB made no statements about it (the fact that they weren't founded until 40-odd years after the event is apparently no excuse). And so on and so forth.

JFK

Here at least is one conspiracy theory which is probably based on an actual conspiracy. There is little doubt that John F Kennedy (JFK) made powerful enemies, and his conduct was such that his powerful friends were in equal danger from his presidency. The problem, for the theorists, is which conspiracy theory to believe. Was it the Mafia? The KGB? The CIA? The FBI? An embarrassment of riches. The conspiracy appears to be that there are so many conspiracy theories as to make it impossible to pin any one of them down. Or perhaps, like Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, they all did it.

The National Enquirer

One key reason that conspiracy theories survive is that they are nurtured. These days the Internet is such that even the most bizarre opinion is likely to find a following somewhere (if you don't believe this, read up on Mike Corley). And one of the key nurturers is the National Enquirer, a magazine which combines the unbelievable with the merely unpalatable. This is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs.

The National Enquirer has its imitators, such as the UK's Sunday Sport, with its 'exclusive' story about a Second World War bomber being found on the moon, but has no real equals.

Survivalists

No consideration of conspiracies would be complete without mention of the survivalist cults of North America. These are people who stockpile arms and food against the day when the American Government will turn against the people. Or in the event of the inevitable nuclear war. Or when the entire planet will be eaten by an enormous mutant star goat, or some such.

However jaundiced your view of early 21st Century American government, and to be fair that can be pretty jaundiced without straying from the mainstream - given that candidates are happy to spend tens of millions of dollars to be elected President, there must be some kind of payback - it is scarcely credible that the future of the world's largest economy could be in the hands of the readership of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Conclusions

Strange and remarkable things do happen, of course, as do conspiracies. But in a world where nature can give us Krakatoa, St Elmo's Fire, and the Coelacanth2, we seem to have a perverse need to look for bizarre explanations when none are required. There can be no other explanation for the observed fact that some people believe that the X files is a documentary.

1 Prima facie means something that is accepted until otherwise proven or taken on face value.
2 This is a fish that was only known via fossils until it was discovered alive in 1938.

[TonyGosling]

Do you honestly think that you can stop this doc?

This is a pivotal topic in the WoT and I suggest you accept that some people will be telling CF all they know about 7/7 in the knowledge that it may be distorted but also knowing that refusing to co-operate is not going to stop the film being either made or shown.

I'm rather boyed up by the fact that the BBC Legal advisers have already tried hard to delay the transmission date.

On the contrary Gosling, the more people who take a principled stand against the BBC and refuse to collaborate, the more likely we'd be to force them to make a serious investigative documentary not a risible episode of the CF.

[paul wright]

Yes numeral. Of course. That's the one point I'd be willing to make to them. Not a single solitary shred of evidence ,or proper enquiry on show. That's the whole point isn't it? That this whole scenario is summed up in the narrative with no publicly available evidence other than a probable falsehood or two
That's what the whole thing of paranoia is towards the Beeb. That's the whole crux of the matter. Not detail the large number of discrepancies. Just show me the evidence. Keith Mothersson's original cry. "Release the evidence" If you look there is none. Only assertion, and then you dig deeper and you find nothing makes any sense within the official version
Simple. That's the most I could do with the BBC
Beyond that why could anybody give a monkeys about being made to look a fruitloop by them. Ones aim is to draw in the folks who are already in doubt about the reality construct. Not the conformists

Hi dh

CF's purpose is the make you look like a fruitloop. Talk to them by all means. Just don't let them film you.

Just say to them: show me the evidence. Ask them what they have found out about the events of 7/7.

See if they know what was found in the bathtub at 18 Alexandra Grove.
Answer: the Home Office narrative does not claim that any explosive was found at what it describes as "the alleged bomb factory".

Do not go up against them unless you are in complete command of the material.

[numeral]

Some tips. Pick your issues. Don't talk about something that is less than 100% like bombs under the trains. If you must, cite Bruce Lait and Lizzie Kenworthy at Aldgate, Avoid the vague reports from Edgware Road about covers flying up. That could have been on the other train.

Re-read the narrative and the relevant chapters in Nafeez's book. Note how much less the narrative says compared to the impression given by the media.

Attack the narrative for all those "must haves", "appears", etc

Good line: "With all those CCTV cameras there should not be a shadow of a doubt. Where are the pictures of the alleged train bombers in London?"

Luton snap: 3 of the faces completely unrecognisable.

Three "simultaneous" explosions within 50 seconds at 0850? Point out that this has been quietly dropped. Piccadilly line explosion at 0853, etc.

Point out that an evidence-based account of the events of 7/7 has not been given?

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-7-7-quiz.html

[LFJ]

Has anyone ever thought about a possible connection between the absurd number of cctv camera's (highest in the world)and the prolonging by the intel service's of the NI trouble's?

[TonyGosling]

Thanks, all helpful pointers there. Main prob I think is that they won't dwell on the evidence, more on those digging it up.

Some tips. Pick your issues. Don't talk about something that is less than 100% like bombs under the trains. If you must, cite Bruce Lait and Lizzie Kenworthy at Aldgate, Avoid the vague reports from Edgware Road about covers flying up. That could have been on the other train.

Re-read the narrative and the relevant chapters in Nafeez's book. Note how much less the narrative says compared to the impression given by the media.

Attack the narrative for all those "must haves", "appears", etc

Good line: "With all those CCTV cameras there should not be a shadow of a doubt. Where are the pictures of the alleged train bombers in London?"

Luton snap: 3 of the faces completely unrecognisable.

Three "simultaneous" explosions within 50 seconds at 0850? Point out that this has been quietly dropped. Piccadilly line explosion at 0853, etc.

Point out that an evidence-based account of the events of 7/7 has not been given?

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-7-7-quiz.html

[paul wright]

Thanks, all helpful pointers there. Main prob I think is that they won't dwell on the evidence, more on those digging it up.

Yes, Tristan said that would be the main focus.
I'm quite happy to flatline for them

[Prole]

Do you honesy think that you can stop this doc?

This is a pivotal topic in the WoT and I suggest you accept that some people will be telling CF all they know about 7/7 in the knowledge that it may be distorted but also knowing that refusing to co-operate is not going to stop the film being either made or shown.

I'm rather boyed up by the fact that the BBC Legal advisers have already tried hard to delay the transmission date.

On the contrary Gosling, the more people who take a principled stand against the BBC and refuse to collaborate, the more likely we'd be to force them to make a serious investigative documentary not a risible episode of the CF.

Without talking heads or famous for 15 minutes wannabees they ain't got no 7/7 CF programme. The BBC would have to rethink their attitude towards 7/7 and their deplorable and shameful neglect of questioning the official narrative. We all deserve better than the risible CF series, it should be pulled and proper investigative documentaries take their place.

(The delay would be due to the trial that starts in April 2008 - sub judice and all that - why on earth would that 'bouy you up'?).

[ian neal]

Given CF and the director's track records I believe J7's stance is the correct one, much as it pains me to turn up a chance to get our message across.

[Frazzel]

if the beeb does make it, then at least it might prompt some members of the public to do their own research even if they make those who question the o.c.t look like 'loonies'.
'first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then .... 'the old quote comes to mind

[TonyGosling]

What exactly is your problem with the Kelly & Oklahoma programmes?
I mean, aren't we on one far tip of the spread of national opinion on 7/7.
Even if we are right the doc has to express opposing views.

Given CF and the director's track records I believe J7's stance is the correct one, much as it pains me to turn up a chance to get our message across.

[landless peasant]

It will be a hit piece that makes people who are asking question look stupid. If you think otherwise go see your doctor. If the beeb made a program on 9/11 or 7/7 that really cuts apart the OCT (totally possible) the govt would DA-Notice it. Wait and see then tell me how right I'm. thx

[paul wright]

I'm totally fence-sitting on this argument.
Perhaps I'm just a Jeremy Kyle-like victim wanting to desparately appear on Tristan Quinns programme in order to be on the telly, no matter how much of a twit, give or take a vowel, it makes me out to be

[karlos]

It wont make you out to be a twit.
You are a brave person for standing up and being counted.

Some publicity is better than no publicity at all.
The show may be watched by a million viewers many of which will for the first time discover that there is in fact a 7/7 campaign and there are people who question the official story.
No matter what the BigBullshitCorporation throw at you alot of people will discover 7/7 truth for the first time.

Standing up for what you believe in is a far more principled stance than hiding your head under the duvet or acting like a gatekeeper trying to stifle debate.

Good luck and well done.

[karlos]

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc30 ... ksvill.flv

this video includes footage from bbc cf show
mesage still gets across

[guzman]

Some publicity is better than no publicity at all.

The two campaigns for a public inquiry into the 7th July attacks have had some good publicity and that's a lot better then the counter-productive publicity that you wish them to engage in.

The show may be watched by a million viewers many of which will for the first time discover that there is in fact a 7/7 campaign and there are people who question the official story.

Then how does that alter people's perception of what went on that day?

No matter what the BigBullshitCorporation throw at you alot of people will discover 7/7 truth for the first time.

Not in a meaningful, honest way. Anyway there's no such thing as 7/7 truth as no-one has given a comprehensive alternate-narrative to the official version. The nearest thing to that is probably the Ripple Effect video. Most serious campaigners don't try and offer up foundationless narratives.

Standing up for what you believe in is a far more principled stance than hiding your head under the duvet or acting like a gatekeeper trying to stifle debate.

Good luck and well done.

Q: So if someone believes in good honest journalism and that the BBC should be an independent public-spirited organisation, then where does that leave them?

A: As a non-participant like J7 and LD.

[TonyGosling]

Surely any possibility of getting across some of the points raised in this 50 minute discussion has to be worth the effort?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=TBO6dWCtu8w[/youtube]