Skip to content or view screen version

Summary of gaping holes in UK government's official 7/7 narrative

Tony Gosling | 08.03.2008 18:36 | Anti-racism | Terror War | London

I don't pretend that this is 100% accurate or entirely comprehensive but it's my attempt - following the Press TV 'London Bombings Enquiry Debate' to sum up the most cogent holes in the official 7/7 story. What are your general thoughts about what I might have missed and/or over-egged? Any peer reviewing by your good selves the public and experts which will help me hone it down appreciated. As you may remember I put out a pledge appeal for some dosh to make a film on this subject but didn't get enough takers.

London Bombings - appeal for testimony and further investigation

Tony Gosling. 10-12 Picton Street, BRISTOL. BS6 5QA. 0117 944 6219

British broadcasters have not made any documentaries which either seriously examine flaws in the official 7/7 story or look at suggested alternative scenarios. However there are at least five films circulating on the internet: BT Final Version; Mind The Gap; Ludicrous Diversions; The Homefront and 7/7 The Ripple Effect which make a case that the four bombers accused by Sir Ian Blair may not be responsible for the attacks.

There are four horrifying holes in the British government’s official ‘narrative’ of 7/7. Any one of these should prompt a public enquiry into the attacks but, as part of an apparent cover up, the government has been extraordinarily resistant to one.

1. Peter Power says his company Visor Consultants' exercise at the same three tube stations on the same day as the attacks was a coincidence. There is a 7,600 million to one chance that he is telling the truth about his exercise having no link to the attack.

2. A warning 15 minutes prior to the explosions relayed to Associated Press (AP) and subsequently published under the title 'Netanyahu Changed Plans Due To Warning' by several English language newspapers. AP's Jerusalem desk were told by the Israeli Embassy that the warning had come from Scotland Yard and that as a result Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't leave his hotel to head for Liverpool Street that morning. Scotland Yard have denied making the call.

3. The cancelled Luton to Kings Cross train implies the four alleged bombers could not make it in time to where they were supposed to have blown up the bombs.

4. Despite the number of cameras there is no CCTV evidence in the public domain that the four alleged bombers were anywhere on the tube network that day - CCTV snaps released to the press being from a 'dummy run' nine days before.

There are at least twenty more minor questions which also throw serious doubt on the government's 2006 'narrative' including evidence the famous Luton CCTV picture was 'Photoshopped', that the alleged bombers may have been terrorist exercise 'actors' and survivors' reports that the bombs exploded underneath the trains. There is also the fact that tube privatisation in October 2004 allowed an extremely secretive private Israeli business, Verint Systems, 24hr. access to London's entire Underground System. There have been no inquests for the alleged bombers as the law demands. Nobody will put their name to the government 'narrative' which is supposed to explain the attacks.

There is also the overall modus operandi in which the targeting of ordinary people, two-and-a-half million of whom turned out two years previously to protest against the attack on Iraq, contradicts the bombers supposed motives. With recent revelations that David Cameron's think tank 'Policy Exchange' has been caught fabricating evidence of Muslim extremism there is an alternative hypothesis developing: that God fearing Muslims have replaced the Soviet Union as establishment's 'bogey-men' and are being 'set-up' for far right interests, much like the Jews were demonised by the Nazis.

I am concerned about the racist overtones of the Government/Metropolitan Police's version of events which hasn't been properly tested in court amounting to a extra-judicial 'trial by media' of the four bombing suspects.


London Bombing Inquiry Debate part 1 of 5

Tony Gosling
- Homepage:


changes to the above

29.05.2008 22:18

Re items 2 and 3 above.

Since penning the above piece last year I want to make two corrections.

2. Benjamin Netenyahu's warning telephoned through from Scotland Yard was 8 minutes, not 15 minutes before the first bomb

3. Though the official narrative's train times were wrong it is concievable that the four lads could have made it to the locations where the bombs exploded. The implication remains though that the police investigation was not as thorough as one might expect for such a serious attack.

I honestly believe we need somehow to conduct investigations in parallel with Scotland Yard police, or go round them, because anti-terror cops appear to be corrupt and go into the 'investigation' primed to lay false trails.

They keep journalists from the scene and from the victims in these crucial time.

Does anybody remember 'Operation Countryman'.

And this statement by Met. Commissioner Paul Condon to a House of Commons Committee in 1997 about how many Scotland Yard Officers are corrupt.
"There is a spurious precision to that, but I would say somewhere between 100 officers and 250 officers would be the range in which we are operating."

Tony Gosling
- Homepage:


Display the following 6 comments

  1. Just a quick answer — skunk
  2. Here is the picture : — skunk
  3. more 7/7 debunking — Paps
  4. The obvious question — John
  5. Odds — high roller
  6. Train Timetables — skunk