J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Latest J7 news....

J7: 7/7 Inquests - News & Analysis
Recent J7 Blog Entries

Bookmark and Share

07/07/15: Tenth anniversary of 7/7: 7/7 Ten Years On - An indictment of the State and the state of investigative journalism

03/10/11: New 7/7 Video released by Tom Secker: 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

03/06/11: J7 announce the launch of the Official blog of the Free Mohammed Campaign.

21/03/11: J7 publish our Submission to the Inquests regarding resumption of the inquests into the four.

29/10/10: J7 publish 7/7 Inquests transcripts as searchable, print-friendly PDFs.

16/10/10: J7 launch the dedicated new J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog for latest Inquests news and analysis.

07/10/10: J7 publish our Submissions to the 7 July Inquests, a series of documents compiled following Lady Justice Hallett's decision to accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquests.

10/08/10: A new film 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction has been released that places 7/7 in its wider historical and political context, and examines some of the many unanswered questions that still surround 7 July 2005.

01/08/10: J7 publish a review of another 7/7 related book, Out of the Tunnel, by Rachel 'North'.

07/07/10: J7 publish a detailed analysis of the number 30 bus explosion in Tavistock Square.

01/11/09: J7 respond to two 7/7 articles published in Notes from the Borderland issues 7 and 8. Read our response here.

01/11/09: Debunking 7/7 Debunking: An article in two parts that debunks some of the disingenuous attacks against those not convinced by the official story of 7/7. Read Part 1 here and read Part 2 here. October 2010 update: Debunking 7/7 Debunking Part 3.

04/07/09: J7 publish a revised, updated and expanded list of nine possible Alternative Hypotheses.

03/03/09: J7 publish an exclusive interview with political prisoner Hussain al-Samamra, a Palestinian who sought political asylum in the UK, only to be imprisoned for two years without charge by the British State.

13/01/09: J7 challenge assertions made by Paul Stott in his paper and presentation to the Anarchist Studies Network conference at Loughborough University

14/04/08: Latest J7 article in the Capitalising on Terror series published: Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

07/03/08: J7 publish two new articles summarising the results of the 7/7 investigation, "Three years of investigation, 7 arrests, 3 charges" - Part 1 and Part 2. See also the latest update.

07/02/08: J7 Exclusive Report: Peter Power's CV Fakery - 7/7 terror rehearsal man and regular BBC 'terror' consultant was suspended from Dorset Police pending an internal inquiry that resulted in a file being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Full story here.

04/01/08: In July 2007 the BBC approached J7 asking for participants in a 'documentary' about 7/7. Six months after initial contact, the BBC revealed the 'documentary' was part of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series. On learning this, J7 declined to participate. Find out why in the full J7 response to the BBC.

03/12/07: 7/7 Ripple Effect - J7 issue a rebuttal and rejection of the film and its unsubstantiated speculation.

05/11/07: Latest J7 Flyer published. View here, download PDF here and here

11/09/07: J7 book review - J7 reviews The 4th Bomb, a book by Daniel Obachike.

11/09/07: J7 reconstruct and republish the 7-7 discussion from the forum of cult writer/director Alex Cox.

24/08/07: Over a year since Dr John Reid acknowledged a fundamental error in the official Home Office 7/7 narrative, J7 receive a response to a series of Freedom of Information requests which includes an amendment to the repeatedly discredited narrative. Read the story and the revised section of the Home Office narrative on the J7 blog.

16/08/07: Channel 4 News' Darshna Soni blogs about the need for a 7/7 public inquiry and asks how independent or public such an inquiry would be under the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that puts the government in control of 'independent' inquiries - 7/7 and the public inquiry dilemma, formerly titled, "Why it's time for a public inquiry into 7/7"

13/08/07: "Anyone who thinks the [Home Office] report is a full account is not being serious or realistic." On the launch of his new film The Homefront, the Cousin of 7/7 victim Anthony Fatayi Williams, filmmaker Thomas Ikimi, tells J7 about his film and the experiences of his family at the hands of the government since 7/7.

30/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of King's Cross / Russell Square incidents

04/06/07: July 7th Truth Campaign interviewed on Channel 4 News as a new survey shows 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. Watch Darshna Soni's original report, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7', read viewer comments on the piece that show it's not just Muslims who don't believe we have been told the truth. See also Darshna Soni's follow-up blog and 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the many errors and anomalies in the official story.

03/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Edgware Road / Paddington incidents

28/05/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Liverpool Street / Aldgate / Aldgate East incidents

02/05/07: Full transcript and video of Tayab Ali's post-crevice statement on behalf of Salahuddin Amin

01/05/07: Video, audio and full transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of Nabeel Hussain, who was acquitted of all charges in the Crevice trial

01/05/07: Transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 men convicted in the Operation Crevice trial, given at the end of the trial on 30/04/07, which includes a statement by J7 on the renewed calls for a public inquiry into the events of 7/7

07/03/07: J7 publish a new article by Professor David MacGregor, 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' an article in which the events of 7/7 are given historical context and examined as potential acts of, 'Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself'.

26/02/07: J7 is pleased and honoured to announce the publication of "The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained", an article written for the July 7th Truth Campaign by writer and journalist William Bowles.

24/02/07: Brand new J7 article Capitalising on Terror - Who is really destroying our freedoms? - A look at how 7/7 has been used as the justification for the imposition of Draconian laws that criminalise everyone.

06/02/07: J7 publishes the London Bombings Dossier - an extensive portfolio of research by David Minahan, former National President of the MSF (Amicus) Union.

11/01/07: Above Top Secret publish an interview with J7 Truth Campaign team.

Full J7 news archive

New Statesman Media Awards 2006 Nominated

j7 logo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

July 7th Alternative Hypotheses


4. Any of the above plots could have been monitored by one or more secret 'service' (MI5, MI6, CIA, Mossad, GIA) but they let it happen on purpose in order to exploit the subsequent situation.

This hypothesis appears to have been partly born from the reports of Israeli prior knowledge of the attacks. Israel's finance minister, Binyamin Netanyahu was warned to stay in his hotel room shortly before the blasts, instead of making his way to an hotel adjacent to Liverpool Street station, close to one of the explosions. The Israeli embassy claimed that the warning originated with Scotland Yard. It was also alleged that the warning did not occur just moments before the explosions but days earlier and was not acted upon for fear of disturbing the G8 summit in Gleneagles. This alleged warning, along with ex-Mossad head Efraim Halevi's strangely prescient article (also mentioned in Hypothesis 2) regarding the London attacks led many to suspect security service knowledge of the bombings – if not actual collusion, as discussed in Hypotheses 5 and 8.

MI5 LogoThe security services certainly had knowledge of the July 7th suspects. Both Khan and Tanweer were implicated in the Crevice Plot in 2004 (discussed in Hypotheses 1 and Hypothesis 2). Nicolas Sarkozy – the then French Interior Minister – claimed in July 2005 that he had been told of this by the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke. At the time, the authorities were attempting to convince the public that the four men were so-called “clean skins” with no known links to terrorism and previously unknown to the authorities. In the light of this, Clarke issued an outraged denial – and quite correctly; the two men had never been 'arrested' as part of the Crevice plot as Sarkozy claimed. But Clarke's denial was, of course, rather misleading since it suggested that there was no prior knowledge of the suspects at all. In fact, it was reported in November 2005 that all four deceased suspects had been monitored a year before the atrocities.

So how would MI5 – or any other security service – have known what the specifics were of a plot to carry out a terrorist attack in London? Simply monitoring, or even bugging, the suspects would have been unlikely to have told agents everything they needed to know. As mentioned in Hypothesis 1, during the 2007 trial of the Crevice suspects, it was claimed that the mysterious figure known as 'Q', later identified as Mohammed Quayyum Khan, had recruited both Mohammad Sidique Khan and Omar Khyam; the alleged ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot investigated through Operation Crevice. Questions were asked after the trial regarding why 'Q' was not incarcerated along with the others,

QEven more disconcerting is the revelation that Q is still on the loose, even though he only vanished just before the court’s verdict. The MI5 claims that there is no evidence to indict Q, therefore he cannot be arrested. But habeas corpus has been abolished in Tony Blair’s England, and the police have almost unlimited powers when it comes to "suspected terrorists." Hundreds of Muslims are sitting in British jails awaiting formal charges against them; why is Q not one of them?

The uncomfortable questions don’t end there. Why wasn't Q included on the the blacklists of al-Qaeda financiers? The trial transcripts confirm that one of his skills was securing funds and materiel [sic] for bombings. Mere suspicion of involvement is normally enough to land one on the lists, making it difficult to vanish, because access to funds is barred.

Source: Anti War

Considering the UK is now a nation where possessing a CD of a document that is freely downloadable from the US Department of Justice, which you didn't even actually download yourself, and never viewed, gets you a sixteen month prison sentence, these are valid questions. Perhaps such questions are what led the BBC's Panorama reporter Peter Taylor to ask DAC Peter Clarke the following questions during the edition 'Real Spooks' broadcast in May 2007:

Why was 'Q' never arrested?

CLARKE: Decisions are made during the course of investigation based upon the evidence that's available, and the decision as to who should be arrested is based entirely upon what evidence is available at the time.

TAYLOR: Was 'Q' not arrested possibly because he was working for you or MI5?

CLARKE: I'm not prepared to comment on any speculation like that. It's pure speculation.

TAYLOR: Where is 'Q' now?

CLARKE: I said I'm not prepared to talk about 'Q'.

Source: BBC Panorama Transcript

Interestingly, in June 2006, Charles Shoebridge – a former detective with the Metropolitan Police now working as a 'terror expert', appeared on BBC's Newshour in response to the claims made by Martin Gilbertson (discussed in Hypothesis 3). Shoebridge observed:

"The amount of information coming out and the quality of information coming out. The fact that that has been so consistently overlooked it would appear by the security service MI5, to me suggests really only one of two options."

"Either, a) we've got a level of incompetence that would be unusual even for the security services. But b) possibly, and this is a possibility, that this man Khan may even have been working as an informant for the security service."

"It is difficult otherwise to see how it can be that they've so covered his tracks in the interim."

Source: BBC News

The use of informants and infiltrators is not a new concept to the secret services. In 2007 it was revealed that MI5 had attempted to recruit two British Muslim residents; Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna. The pair refused and later found themselves incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. In September 2001, The Telegraph reported that MI5 were targeting Muslim university students for recruitment. A Muslim publication in the USA reported that Muslims were finding themselves targets for security service recruiters at their local Mosque.

Regarding infiltrators, Professor Emile George Joffé of the Centre for North African Studies, speaking at the Centre for International Studies in the University of Cambridge, stated,

The situation is complicated by the fact that there is considerable evidence that the original GIA (Groupe Islamique Armé) was infiltrated by the Algerian army’s military security service under the command of General Mohamed “Tawfig” Mediène.....The result has been that since the mid-1990s, many of the GIA's activities have been indirectly controlled by the security services and used to discredit the movement overall.

Source: Page 15 New Zealand REFUGEE APPEAL NO. 74540 (Aug 2003)

The concepts of group infiltration, and the consequential actions, are discussed further in Hypotheses 5 and Hypothesis 8.

This theory clearly has some basis in fact. That the authorities were aware of the suspects long before July 7th 2005 is indisputable. Not only were they aware of Khan and Tanweer's involvement with the Crevice suspects, as also discussed in Hypotheses 1 and 2, but it was also reported that the United States had issued an alert on Mohammad Sidique Khan in 2003. The claims made by Mohammed Junaid Babar, as discussed in Hypotheses 1 and 2, surfaced as early as mid July 2005 and again in February 2006. MI5 denied in April 2007 at the conclusion of the Crevice trial, that Sidique Khan's car had been 'bugged', insisting that the tracking device discovered by police had been placed there after the July 7th attacks. They also denied that recorded conversations, in which Khan and Tanweer participated, had indicated terrorist intent that could have been acted on prior to July 2005. However, since they robbed the Parliamentary 'watchdog', the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of the opportunity to view transcripts or listen to the tape recordings – thereby allowing the ISC's first investigative report into the London bombings to have significant information missing – it is difficult to have faith in their statement. MI5 clearly knew enough for us to legitimately question why on earth no intervention occurred prior to the tragic events in London in 2005.

Mossad SealHowever, in respect of the claimed 'prior knowledge' of the London bombings by the Israeli secret service, it is worth pointing out that both the Israeli Foreign Minister and Netanyahu himself denied that the warning for him to stay in his hotel was given before the explosions had occurred. There is no way of verifying this story either way. The remarks by Charles Shoebridge referring to Khan have some credence given the evidence that the security services do regularly recruit informants as a way of gaining 'inside knowledge'. Shoebridge himself, though, had his credibility questioned during legal action that he took against the Metropolitan Police. Shoebridge claimed that the Met pressured SKY News and ITN to stop employing his services as a 'terror expert' due to bitterness over earlier successful legal action he had taken against his former employers. Simon Cole, the deputy head of SKY news said during the 2005 case – which Shoebridge later won - that Shoebridge was dropped because he was “not very good” and because staff personally disliked him, with one branding him "a creep", and that he lacked knowledge on all the topics he was willing to talk about. SKY news continued to deny that they had 'bowed to pressure' not to use Shoebridge after the tribunal found in his favour. Many alternative news sites took Shoebridge's suggestion that Khan may have been an informant as evidence that the security services were behind the attacks themselves (see Hypothesis 8), when it was simply an observation made by a man who makes a living, like many others, from providing the public with a non-stop narrative regarding the 'terror threat'.


Note: All comments on the J7 Alternative Hypotheses articles will be added to a single comment thread. When commenting, please specify the hypothesis to which you are referring.


Alternative Hypotheses Navigation

1. al-Qa'ida mastermind recruited British Muslims as suicide bombers

2. al-Qa'ida mastermind recruited British Muslims, but duped them in so far as the latter did not know they were going to die in the explosions.

3. Homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind.

4. Any of the above plots could have been monitored by one or more secret 'service' (MI5, MI6, CIA, Mossad, GIA) but they let it happen on purpose in order to exploit the subsequent situation.

5. The men thought they were going to strike a blow for Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc and go to Heaven as 'martyrs' because they had been groomed and encouraged and equipped by an al-Qa'ida mastermind who was actually working for one of the State agencies or a rogue network straddling one or more of them with their own agenda.

6. The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when their back packs exploded.

7. As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy 'bombs' because they were participating in an exercise testing London transport's defences against backpack bombers.

8. The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic 'false flag operation' or frame-up by a network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.

9. The original story of a 'power surge' was correct, if one understands the term 'power surge' outside of its implied electrical context.

j7 logo Home | J7:Forum | J7:Blog | J7:Inquests Blog | How to be Good | Contact Us | | Espanol | italiano | portuguese | Francaise | german