They’ve been around as long as I can recall; those people who question the official version of events to the point of deranged lunacy. The most recent variant has been causing Rachel form North London some angst. An earlier variant caused havoc over at the NO2ID discussion fora – constantly shouting that Bush was responsible for the Twin Towers attacks. To the point where all such threads were immediately removed should they discredit the campaign. As someone who was there on July the 7th, Rachel quite naturally takes umbrage at these outpourings of utter drivel. The process seems to be to ask seemingly logical questions and then fill in the gaps with leaps of faith that defy belief. Let’s take an example:
R from north London was in the bombed carriage of the tube train travelling from King’s Cross to Russell Square on the Piccadilly Line.
“Everything went totally black and clouds of choking smoke filled the tube carriage and I thought I had been blinded.
It was so dark that nobody could see anything.
I thought I was about to die, or was dead. I was choking from the smoke and felt like I was drowning.
Air started to flood in through the smashed glass and the emergency lighting helped us see a bit. We were OK.”
Source: ‘R’, Blast Survivor, BBC News
“Totally black” suggests no remnants of a fire from whatever type of blast occured.
Er, no. It suggests nothing of the sort. Trauma has a habit of playing tricks with memory. The carriage was filled with smoke, debris and confused passengers. Being disorientated in this situation translated as "totally black". It is just a turn of phrase to describe a chaotic condition. The blast would have killed the lights and it is somewhat dark in the underground tunnels when the lights go out. We call this lack of light; darkness or sometimes "totally black" because that is a reasonable description that others will understand. Nothing can be drawn from the statement beyond that – nothing. Certainly no rational analysis of the statement could come to the conclusion that there was not a bomb in the carriage. Yet this person draws exactly that conclusion.
The other rational question that has been asked it this one: why was there an exercise covering just that scenario being played out on that very day? Reasonable question. The answer is devastatingly simple as explained by Channel 4 – these things are being played out by various agencies throughout the country on any given day. That it happened to be in London and happened to involve a terrorist attack on the Underground was a coincidence – and a fairly likely and predictable one at that.
The apparent fragmentation of information regarding the cause in the early stages of the incident wasn’t because of "disinformation" it was because that is what always happens in the early stages of an incident – chaos and confusion lead to distorted information and peoples’ early guesses become the accepted theory until proven otherwise. As time progresses, so too does the flow of information leading to a reassessment and more realistic indications of cause. And nowhere is there any evidence that anyone other than the bombers identified had anything to do with it. Certainly the “power overloads” originally cited as the cause was quickly dismissed – because, gasp, it wasn’t that at all, it was a series of bombs.
Another question asked – and again, a good one; is why was the surveillance on the suspects downgraded? I would expect any subsequent investigation to revisit that decision. Those who made it analysed the risk – and, based upon the evidence available to them made a decision. That it was the wrong one is now painfully apparent. So, what information was available to them and why did they reach the conclusions that they did? These are all questions that will need analysis. However, that they made that decision is not an indication of malice aforethought – simply that someone weighed up the risk, balanced it against the evidence and made a decision. Really, that’s it and all about it.
Having had some involvement with emergency planning and management from a rail industry perspective, I have attended emergency exercises. The casualty union that provides the casualties for the day would cease to provide people if they were terminated as a part of the exercise – not to mention the Health and Safety Executive asking awkward questions. Consequently, I treat the theory that the victims were all part of an exercise with the derision that it deserves.
Yet, despite a dearth of evidence to support their wild claims, the conspiracy nuts want us to believe that the Blair government actively indulged in a false flag operation on the 7th of July; cynically murdering over 50 people for its own ends. Now, I’m more than ready to accept that the Blair regime is nasty and despotic – certainly they have used the attacks for their own political advantage. So, opportunism in abundance; yes. But murdering people to achieve it? Ye Gods, that would involve a degree of competence I’ve yet to see. A conspiracy of this magnitude would require a high level of competence and secrecy. Before believing that, I’d have to rid my mind of the “45 minute capability” and the Kelly affair, the burying of bad news, Blunkett, Mandelson and Byers. Indeed, of all the incompetencies that have plagued this administration since 1997. I’m sorry, but anyone who seriously believes that these buffoons are up to anything of this level of proficiency hasn’t been paying attention for the past eight years.
The reality here is that some people with a fevered imagination have taken snippets of the official version of events, recognised that there are some outstanding questions and completed the gaps with their own fabrication. This is far more exciting than the simple fact that four young men killed themselves and those nearest to them in order to make a political point – which is what happened. That all of this was both predictable and yet not prevented is not surprising. Sooner or later an attempt will succeed – the odds favour the determined terrorist.
Rachel has been campaigning for a public inquiry – in part to answer some of the questions and in part to put a stop to the conspiracy theorists. Personally, I don’t believe it would achieve that end. These people would simply accuse it of being a whitewash. They do not operate in the same planetary system as the rest of us, so will never be appeased. The best thing is to ignore them… Which, unfortunately, I just failed to do…
—–