In June 2009 the BBC’s ‘Conspiracy Files’ program about the London bombings of July 7th came out. Then in October an evaluation of it’s argument entitled ‘Theorising Truth: What Happened At Canary Wharf on July 7th 2005?’ was published by Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, a lecturer in the Business Studies Department at Sheffield Hallam University.

He compared the likely veracity of the BBC’s 7/7 effort with that of the Ripple Effect video, using what he called two different ‘theories of truth.’ He was comparing two different narratives, against the historical data. He used a ‘correspondence theory’ about how well they explained observed facts, and a ‘coherence theory’ about how well their stories hung together.

Ridley-Duff was especially interested in the Canary Wharf saga (see Appendix 3 of ToT) and did an excellent job of trawling through all media accounts of that morning (using the ‘Lexis Nexus’ archive) to bring considerably more reports on that event than anyone had found hitherto. He concluded that something major had most likely happened there that morning, and that The Ripple Effect’s version where three of the alleged bombers had been shot dead was quite feasible.

His argument very much focused upon the muddled-up train times in the government story. If CCTV film showed the four lads at the car park of Luton at 07.20 putting on their gear, after they had spent 25 minutes in that car park, he thought it unlikely that they would be into the station, up the stairs, getting their tickets, through the turnstile and down the stairs onto the platform, by 07.25 to catch their train. (It was meant to leave at 07.24):

The question arises how the four men could have spent 25 minutes in the car park preparing for their journey and yet be recorded on a CCTV camera near the platform two minutes after the CCTV camera recorded them parking a car.

They supposedly entered the door downstairs at 07.21.54 am, from the well-known CCTV picture:

the question arises whether four men planning to catch the 7.24 train to London to execute a terrorist attack would leave it as late as 7.22 to enter the station. In light of testimony from regular commuters that it takes 3 minutes to reach the platform, this appears to violate the level of correspondence needed to be claimed as true, unless firm evidence is provided that the clocks on the CCTV cameras were inaccurate.

The Ripple version seemed more likely to him, where the lads had been told to catch the 07.40, and then when this did not run they had instead caught the next train, which had not got in until 8.42 – and if the bombs went off at 8.50 we may suppose they were still all together then, or that three of them were, as Ripple has Hasib Hussein splitting off from the others. Concerning the allegedly-crucial CCTV sequence of the Four at King’s Cross – only released three years later, at the ‘July 7 trial’ – Ridley-Duff rightly observed that:

“no date or time stamp appears on the CCTV footage shown by the BBC ..[so]… it could have been recorded at any time, even on another day.”

Or, one could add, anywhere else – nothing locates the film at King’s Cross even.

I went to Luton and King’s Cross to obtain the train times for that morning, together with James Stuart, and we interviewed commuters for the Luton-King’s Cross Thameslink, a few weeks after the event. Together we reconstructed what the actual train times had been that morning. It is gratifying to see that the entire argument is now revolving around these train journey times. As we came to understand the severe delays which all trains had experienced that morning, James and I had no inkling of the ingenious manner in which Ripple would use this fact.

Were the Four coming into town for a game-simulation terror drill? Dr Ridley Duff evaluated the ambiguous terror-drill by Peter Power that morning: were real people involved, or was it only ‘virtual’ as Power later tried to imply? Many have wondered about this! He concluded,

This retraction [by Peter Power] is problematic in light of eye-witness evidence from Daniel Obachike who saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July (Jones, 2007). Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast, Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as he was taken away from the scene. The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports. This suggests that the coverage was planned in advance.

Daniel’s account in the self-published The 4th Bomb is here alluded to. The ‘Jones’ reference is to Daniel’s interview on Alex Jones’ US ‘Prison Planet’ radio show.

BBC servility to Govt’s ‘War on Terror’ narrative
Ridley-Duff found the BBC’s narrative to be problematic:

“It is the BBC / Government theory that has a lower level of correspondence with known ‘facts’, is incoherent to the point of being implausible, and is more likely to distort its reports because of institutional controls and political pressures.”

Here, here! And, he reminds us, in case we needed to be reminded, that ‘the government can acquire editorial control of the BBC under provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1980 whenever there is a “national emergency”… we must remember that is it ultimately controlled by state officials and operates under laws that allow the government to take editorial control in the event of a terrorist attack.’

Following the death/ murder of top UK toxicology expert Dr David Kelly the BBC made a program which followed an unduly independent line in its reporting – with catastrophic consequences: Ridley-Duff cited this débacle as demonstrating that

“Documentaries that call into question the government’s “war on terror” will trigger punitive action by the government. At times of national crisis, BBC outputs will not only be subject to government scrutiny, but also direct editorial control by government ministers.”

In other words, the BBC is not capable of reaching an independent judgment on matters concerning ‘national security.’ I guess we already knew that, but let’s just say I found out the hard way as regards that ‘Conspiracy Files’ program.
Conclusion
Dr Ridley-Duff cited forty-five references to his text – Sir, well done there! He reached the commendably calm conclusion that:

“The thesis put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect remains coherent with available evidence. A social constructivist (critical) perspective identifies cultural and political interests that influence the selection and interpretation of available evidence. While the paper concludes that both documentaries construct truth that supports their political outlook and agenda, the theory advanced in 7/7 Ripple Effect is better able to explain anomalies in the official account as well as the evidence of a crisis at Canary Wharf on the same day.”

A great advantage of the syntax used by Ridley-Duff, I suggest, is that it avoids the hackneyed term, ‘conspiracy theory.’ Instead, he expresses the sheer horror that is false-flag terror in the psychologist’s language of ‘cognitive dissonance’:

… for ethnic British people in particular, the notion that the British government (or one of its security agencies) would bomb its own citizens to bolster support for war may trigger a great deal of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)… As a government bombing its own citizens violates the principles of liberal democracy (government by the people, for the people), there is a ‘common-sense’ impulse to discard any theory based on the idea.

Let’s hope that this quite civilized language will enable larger sectors of our society to debate this matter – which is so essential if civilised values are to remain intact and if integrity and justice are to continue to mean anything.
 (It is up on various sites, but this one may be easier to read).
……………………………………………..
PS – extra Evidence on Canary Wharf
To all the accounts collated so well by Rory-Duffett, this extra one may be added, which only appeared in July of 2008. Were two or three ‘terrorists’ shot at 10.30 am on July 7th at Canary Wharf? Witnesses recall how this was announced once on a news broadcast that morning, then never repeated. The original report on Danish news was timed and dated at 5 pm on 7/7/05. A rather broken English translation appeared on the 4th anniversary of the event which said:
TV 2/news has just spoken with Marianne Member, who is employed in Access Flooring Company in London. Through employees in its firm she has been told, that at Canary Wharf two were shot and presumed killed.

“They have telephoned to one of our Presidents and told him that they have attended two men be shot dead – deliberately, by the police or soldiers,” tells Marianne Member to TV 2/news. The police rejected at a press briefing, that they had received information that any had been shot.

There was a Radio interview with Dr Ridley-Duff, see: on Xmas day with Jim Fetzer,  ’7/7 London Attacks, Fact or Fiction?’

8.3.2010

Share