Keelan talks with independent terrorism researcher Tom Secker about the BBC’s Conspiracy Road Trip episode on the 7/7 London Bombings. The pair dissect the distortions, fallacies and inaccuracies in the BBC’s research and their experience with the producers of the show, who tried to deceive them in to appearing on it. They also discuss the 7/7 subject as a whole, and other terrorism related topics.
SUBSCRIBE
Once again the BBC have rounded up a bunch of “Conspiracy Theorists” to take them on a condescending bus trip; this time to show them their conspiracy theories about the July 7th, 2005, London Bombings are incorrect and the official Government account is true. As with the 9/11 episode, comedian Andrew Maxwell plays the role of school teacher, ferrying the naughty children around to apparent “experts” who supposedly know better.
The premise itself of course is a logical fallacy, just because four people, who may have watched some speculative Internet videos or read some articles, are presented as being ill-informed or incapable of arguing their points, doesn’t therefore mean the Government’s version of 7/7 is true. It just means they’re ill-informed and incapable of arguing their points, or even deliberately edited to look that way.
Participant Jon Scobie mentions the BBC & Renegade Picture’s crude cutting job during an interview with Paul Joseph Watson:
Participant Jon Scobie on Infowars.
Analyzing such an important event through the limitations of a one hour fluffy road-trip was never going to result in anything of worth. And while Jon is perhaps the most well-versed in 7/7 and the wider contrived war on terror, none of the four appear to be representative of the vast body of research that proves there are many holes in the numerous branches of the official story.
My documentary “7/7 What Did They Know?” Exploring the various aspects of prior knowledge of 7/7.
The J7 Truth Campaign (a literal encyclopedia of 7/7 information), researcher and filmmaker Tom Secker of InvestigationTheTerror.com, and myself, maker of 7/7 What Did They Know? all refuse to go on such shows. In fact I am constantly badgered by them, having been asked to go on the original 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip, offered a paid consultant job on an Olympics conspiracy documentary and sent countless emails asking to take part in the 7/7 piece.
After seeing what they produce, there is no way I would touch them with a barge pole! Credibility is everything in this game and the BBC are ruining their’s and everybody else’s.
Oliver Page from Renegade Pictures assured me that “this documentary will deal with the subject matter in a very different manner,” than the one on 9/11, which featured absurdities such as Lego Twin Tower models to apparently show how the buildings could have fallen at such speeds in to their own footprints, flour and egg experiments demonstrating how plane wreckage could be “buried” or “disintegrated” or they weren’t really sure, or how a girl learning to fly a small plane in open space somehow proved the alleged hijackers flew passenger jets at ridiculous speeds, making difficult turnings, in to buildings.
Of the 7/7 episode, Page continued: “I think most importantly Andrew Maxwell’s role needs to be clarified. His starting point for this episode is not one of a presenter trying to convince people that the official account is true. Quite the opposite, as an Irishman he is only too aware of the state’s involvement in Omagh, the Finucane case and more. His start point is that he KNOWS what they have done in the past, what they are capable of and and wants to investigate their potential involvement in 7/7, while addressing the gaps in evidence and information.”
“As you note we are also trying to distance ourselves from deconstructive labels such as ‘conspiracy theorists’.”
Despite these assurances Maxwell’s first statement was that the show will be about “exploring the world of the conspiracy theorist”. He then asserts that “four suicide bombers” carried out the attacks and that “unbelievably there are a number of conspiracy theorists who doubt the official explanation of the events.” His mission is to “take four of them on an extraordinary journey” to see if he “can change their minds”.
There is also no mention of the Omagh Bombings or any detail on the various instances of British agents being complicit in Irish terrorism.
Oliver Page straight up lied to me! Thankfully I didn’t fall for it, and in the future lets hope nobody else does. Remember if there’s no participants, there’s no hit-piece.
The BBC are not interested in deeply examining the Government’s baseless story of 7/7, the failure of the security services and police, the history of the dubious relationship between Muslim extremists, the Government and intelligence agencies; or even the 7/7 Inquest, which victim family members themselves admit didn’t address all the relevant information.
On the very first day, in light of evidence that the alleged bombers were on MI5’s radar for years before the attacks, their barrister told the coroner that “there should be a full and public investigation in to what went on”[1].
And after the inquest family members re-asserted this need [2]:
“[The Inquest] causes a lot more questions to be asked than it answers,” said Graham Foulkes “It really must compel [the Home Secretary] Theresa May to review the whole operation of the security services in the UK, not just MI5.”
The BBC refused to address the call for an Inquiry during the Road Trip, using Graham only as an emotional crutch for their own agenda.
My analysis of 7/7 Conspiracy Road Trip.
I have produced a 30 minute analysis of the program that deals with the factual errors by the BBC. For example they were so careless to have used an incorrect photo of one of the alleged bombers, interviewed an expert who made the claim that the bombs on the day contained shrapnel to cause more damage (something the Government has never even suggested) and carried out an experiment using homemade explosives to blow up a bus (even though there was no forensic evidence from the blast sites to determine what type of explosives were even used).
I also look at some of the holes in the official story, including the complete lack of evidence and shifting narratives of where Khan was supposed to have been sitting to detonate his bomb, as well as the contradictory testimony about his bodily remains.
Furthermore I explore some of the red herrings that seem to sidetrack those looking for answers, such as the Government’s train time error (which is irrelevant since there’s now CCTV of the alleged bombers in London that morning) and Peter Power’s crisis exercise, which is often exaggerated far beyond the available evidence, in speculative films like 7/7 Ripple Effect. That’s not to say Power is beyond suspicion or investigation (if he could preapre for such an accurate scenario, why wasn’t Britain protected?), but there’s currently no evidence that his exercise was anything larger than an office presentation, and nothing that links the alleged bombers to Power or Reed Elsevier, the company involved in the meeting.
