Whilst agreeing that the official narrative is lacking and that an independent inquiry should be a natural course of action, I personally advise readers to approach the website above with much caution regarding its hypotheses:

 http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-hypotheses.html

Throw a dart at it and see if you can miss a loony theory.

 http://julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-cctv-evidence.html

The assertions of image fakery are technically nonsense to anyone with any expertise in compositting.

 http://julyseventh.co.uk/7-7-profile-mohammad-sidique-khan.html

As are the claims of the technical ease of video & audio fakery.

All-in-all, I would classify this as a classic conspiraloon site... one with ties to Ex(?)-spooks that are the Intelligence equivalent of Mr & Mrs Neil Hamilton.

This site is not looking for an inquiry, it's already prejudged any investigation.

"On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?"

 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719

@ spook plant

quote: "All-in-all, I would classify this as a classic conspiraloon site... one with ties to Ex(?)-spooks that are the Intelligence equivalent of Mr & Mrs Neil Hamilton".

What information is this based on? I think you mean the 9/11 Truth Campaign rather than July 7th. If you wish to attack the July 7th site for inaccuracies please at least have your own facts correct.

This video, has been posted to this site:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350822.html

No need to watch it on Google Video :-)

spook plant you've planted ex-spooks in the July 7th truth campaign where they're not actually connected.

Try getting your facts straight if you wish to have any credibility in your argument.

I think the links I posted and the observations I made are quite self-explanatory.

If you want it made clearer: the site makes bold assertions that are little more than hypotheses unsupported by any actual evidence. They are often based on selectively quoting minority accounts of events as though they must be some significant lead.

The site makes thoroughly ill-inforrmed boasts about the ease in which fake audio/visual evidence can be achieved.

It cites prisonplanet... a right-wing gun nut militia-mentality business concern.

Without you asking me to reinforce specifics in my observations then I can only assume that you aren't interested in debate but just here to troll. When I saw your name I got that same sinking feeling I got when famous trolls appeared in my usenet groups.

Again, any claims that this site is seeking an unbiased inquiry are plainly ludicrous. The site is a club for people who think they are so much cleverer than anyone else in the world that they have spotted some sinister conspiracy. And all that based practically, entirely on news analsys.

Having been the subject of International coverage recently, I can tell you that the amount of innaccuracy thrown up by the media was astounding. Most of it was inconsequential (wrong name, wrong age, wrong address etc.). Most of the consequential stuff was obviously due to poor journalism or even poorer editing. One very major innaccuracy actually stemmed from a member of our affinity group being a bit loopy and being convinced of something that never happened at all!

The world is not an episode of Columbo, Brigit, where Peter Falk chomps his stogey and squares every loose end away. Some things have no meaning. Some things reiterate through journalistic plaigarism. Some things just never actually happened- sometimes that is a deliberate deception, often is just plain error.

As stated, please flag up any specifics you wish me to address in my assertion that the site can in no way be resolved to the notion on unbiased, unprejudiced and informed inquiry!

It starts with conclusions and tries to reverse engineer support for them by any means necessary.