Loose Pence: The 7/7 Truth Squad

British television station Channel 4 recently broadcast a report on 7/7 "truthers" (video here), who are demanding an investigation into the already well-investigated London subway bombings. It's difficult to determine just yet who is really responsible for the attacks—though my money is on the Bilderberg Group—but, according to Channel 4, there "are a number of apparent inconsistencies in the official version of events surrounding the July bombings which have led to questions, rumours and conspiracy theories."

And Channel 4 report treats the conspiracy theorists with surprising deference:

"They list evidence which apparently doesn't add up. For example, the official Home Office report into the bombings stated that the four bombers caught the 7.40am train from Luton to London. However, there was no 7.40 that morning, it had been cancelled. The Home Secretary, John Reid, apologized for the error in parliament, blaming erroneous first-hand witness accounts.

Whichever train the bombers did catch, when they got to London, there appears to be no photograph of the 4 of them together in the capital - no CCTV either, despite London having one of the highest numbers of surveillance cameras of any city in the world."

Well that settles it, then.

Stranger still is that the movement's most active spokesman is one Daniel Obachike, a survivor of the Tavistock Square bus bombing and proprietor of "The Fourth Bomb," a website devoted, it seems, to both conspiracy theory and the art of incoherent writing. For those unmoved by Obachike's account, Channel 4 recommends the ludicrously-titled documentary "Ludicrous Diversion", which can be viewed here, and this website.

Stay tuned for my forthcoming YouTube documentary, in which I prove that the War of Jenkins Ear was a proto-Zionist plot to control southern Florida.

Comments

Cesar | June 7, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Its TEH J00w.

VM | June 7, 2007, 3:59pm | #

wait a sec - the twin towers fell on the Tube???

oh so confused.

*head explodes

Pro Libertate | June 7, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Freemasons! Bah!

Abdul | June 7, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Many British things defy rational explanation--Spotted dick, warm beer, metric football--but 7/7 isn't one of them.

Lamar | June 7, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Wait a second, you mean to tell me that the British press allows Brits to think for themselves? It's almost like their gov't sponsored media is even-handed and stuff. Good thing we have our gate-keeper corporate media who can tell us what to believe.

Grotius | June 7, 2007, 4:12pm | #

What about the lizard-aliens that rule the planet?

Episiarch | June 7, 2007, 4:16pm | #

You fools, don't you get it? It was the evil Pet Semetary-reincarnated Guy Fawkes.

Jake Boone | June 7, 2007, 4:24pm | #

For crying out loud... if we got ten different people to describe the Battlestar Galactica season finale, we'd undoubtedly find holes and inconsistencies in their stories. That does not constitute proof that someone is lying, nor does that prove that there's a conspiracy to suppress evidence that Adama and the doctor guy are Cylon agents.

Now Dave W. thinks I'm working for the Cylons.

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Were there advance warnings? This seems like a fair question, and ones that should be explored with more transparency it has been. Would a government ever hide the fact that they had advance warning of a terrorist attack? Sure. here is an example in the news now:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/28/major-india.html

Should we let governments hide things like that? No. Make that: Hell, no.

Were there any four bombers on 7/7? Some people think that the CCTV pictures of the four bombers were cropped. That raises a sinister possibility as to why there are no pictures of the group from later in the morning.

And as far as emergency management on 7/7 -- check this wiki:

8.50 — Three bombs on the London Underground exploded within fifty seconds of each other:

. . .
[edit] Attack on a double-decker bus

* 09:47 — An explosion occurred in Tavistock Square on a No. 30 Dennis Trident 2 double-decker bus operated by Stagecoach London travelling its route from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick.

Earlier, the bus had passed through the Kings Cross area as it travelled from Hackney Wick to Marble Arch. At Marble Arch, the bus turned around and started the return route from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick. It left Marble Arch at 09:00 a.m. and arrived at Euston bus station at 09:35 a.m., where crowds of people had been evacuated from the tube and were boarding buses. The bus then followed a diversion from its normal route because of road closures in the Kings Cross area (due to the earlier tube bombings). People who had been evacuated from the Underground were continuing to board the bus.[citation needed] At the time of the explosion the bus was travelling through Tavistock Square at the point where it joins Upper Woburn Place.

Yes, you read that right. They took people out of the Tube and loaded them on a bus which then exploded. Stupid, stupid, stupid. In fact, If there were 6 or 8 bombers, rather than just the four they disclosed, then this was even more stupid -- it could have been 4 busses rather than just one. Instead, they should have been evacuating the busses, of course. you don't have to be a terrorism expert to know that.

No wonder savvy Brits are distrustful here. it doesn't help that they somehow* don't have any CCTV footage of them shooting Demenezes in the Tube a couple weeks later either.

HnR thinks the government is a bunch of idiots, unless terrorism or military spending is involved. Then we get real gov't-friendly.

FOOTNOTE
* Broken camera supposedly.

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 4:31pm | #

"Were there any four bombers on 7/7?"

should have been:

--Were there any more than four bombers on 7/7?--

Archie Leech | June 7, 2007, 4:31pm | #

You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 4:33pm | #

I was sure this was a Weigel. Live & learn.

Episiarch | June 7, 2007, 4:38pm | #

Dave W. is the exemplification of "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

Could, and would, a government cover up a major fuckup? Absolutely. Do you think they could in such a huge, wide-ranging situation with so many witnesses? I doubt it.

And the shoot-the-Brazilian-in-the-head debacle, with its missing footage, is really a Blue Wall of Silence situation. Cops can make evidence disappear very easily.

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Blue Wall of Silence situation

I would characterize it as a conspiracy. And I would characterize anybody who believes that the cops destroyed this evidence, including me, as conspiracy theorists.

rumdummy | June 7, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Lamar-

Wait a second, you mean to tell me that the British press allows Brits to think for themselves? It's almost like their gov't sponsored media is even-handed and stuff. Good thing we have our gate-keeper corporate media who can tell us what to believe.

On a site that includes comments from both Dan T, and Dave W, you have to really go deep to come up with the dumbest post in the entire history of Hit and Run...

1)"Who" exactly is the "gatekeeper" that controls your beliefs? (Let me guess... you're smart, but "they" have managed to trick all the other ignorant Americans...)

2)Please explain the 'powers' this "gatekeeper" has over you?
2a)Do "they" also control me? (I don't know about you, but I'm a "libertarian"--- How did I manage to thwart their dastardly plan to control my beliefs?)

3)Has the "gatekeeper" ever prevented you from starting your own media outlet? Why haven't you?

After all, Alex Jones and the "Loose Change" boys are both quite popular here in the "corporate-controlled" Amerikkkan media apparatus- then you should go ask David Irving how "even-handed" Britain is...

Brandybuck | June 7, 2007, 4:51pm | #

The problem with conspiracists is that they believe government should be omniscient, omnipotent and wise. They expect government to be omniscient and know everything before it happens. They expect government to be omnipotent and able to instantly counter any evil. And they expect government to be wise, and not be corrupted by all these godlike attributes. It's an anti-libertarian worldview, when you think about it.

No wonder they think everything is a conspiracy. Government should have know there was going to be an attack, and they should have stopped it, therefore it must have been deliberate.

The realist's world view is that government is comprised of human beings who are incompetent, inefficient, self-serving, agenda-driven, and error prone. The realist doesn't need an elaborately complex theory to explain why shit happens. Evil people can manage being evil all by themselves, without having to invent superhuman masterminds running a shadow government.

Episiarch | June 7, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Dave, some cops "losing" evidence can technically be called a conspiracy, but it sure as hell isn't the scale of what you refer to when you imply that 7/7 was also a conspiracy. No organization, especially one as incompetent and corrupt as the governement, can keep a secret of that magnitude. A few cops covering their asses is a universe of difference from getting hundreds, if not thousands, of government employees to keep perfectly silent about mass murder.

Les | June 7, 2007, 4:58pm | #

HnR thinks the government is a bunch of idiots, unless terrorism or military spending is involved. Then we get real gov't-friendly.

Do you mean posters or commenters? Who among the Reason staff has supported the government's handling of terrorism and/or military spending?

I think a more accurate description of those here would be that they think the government is a bunch of idiots and therefore it's unlikely to be able to pull off a conspiracy to commit mass-murder of its own citizens while convincing most professional investigators that it was terrorists.

Timon19 | June 7, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Dave W's probably having the time of his life this week.

This shit is getting out of hand.

Edward | June 7, 2007, 5:01pm | #

If it's bad, it's always Israel that's behind it. What is it about anti-Semitism that has such staying power with wingnuts:



Explosions In London - Who Stands To Gain? Israel Warned, Cover-up In Progress

Propaganda Matrix | July 7 2005

BREAKING: Scrambled cover-up to try and change prior knowledge story.

Original reports stated that Binyamin Netanyahu was warned BEFORE the first blast, now all the Associated Press reports are being changed to say he was warned AFTER the first blast, for example this article.

The article linked below that we saved in our own format (and the website that carried it has strangely since crashed) said that Netanyahu was warned before the first blast.

Israel are now denying they got a warning.

BREAKING: Scotland Yard says it got a warning before the attack and told Israel.

"The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit."

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Dave, some cops "losing" evidence can technically be called a conspiracy, but it sure as hell isn't the scale of what you refer to when you imply that 7/7 was also a conspiracy. No organization, especially one as incompetent and corrupt as the governement, can keep a secret of that magnitude.

You bring up a subject which I have been inetersted in for a long time, which is: when does something get called a "conspiracy." And I don't mean the legal def'n; I learned all about that in law school. I mean, when do regular people decide to call something a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies? (Y/N)

1. Watergate?

2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident?

3. Assume that there were six bombers on 7/7 and two chickened out, and the British government is hiding this fact and their pictures from the public. Conspiracy?

4. Assume that the British government had an advance warning about the 7/7 attack and has not disclosed this to the public. Conspiracy?

I just really don't know what "conspiracy" means to people. I don't know how people would answer these (y/n) questions, except that probably most Hit'n'Runners would say that 3 & 4 are so ridiculous that they cannot even serve as hypotheticals.

anon | June 7, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Why is it so inconceivable that the lot that lied through its teeth during the shooting of that poor brazillian fellow, would hide some details about 7/7?

Why would the government that has never investigated the niger forged documents or look for the people behind the anthrax attacks would hide some details about 9/11?

Brandybuck | June 7, 2007, 5:25pm | #

"I mean, when do regular people decide to call something a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies?"
There are a lot of hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Do the proponents start with a conclusion and work backwards? Do they consider coincidence, human error, or misquotes as solid evidence? Do they accuse debunkers and skeptics of being part of the conspiracy? Do they focus on the inane and tangental? Do they demand that skeptics prove a negative? Etc, etc.

JasonC | June 7, 2007, 5:27pm | #

Who is this Michael Moynihan character? I don't read blog posts until I have been properly introduced.

Cesar | June 7, 2007, 5:28pm | #

There are a lot of hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Do the proponents start with a conclusion and work backwards? Do they consider coincidence, human error, or misquotes as solid evidence? Do they accuse debunkers and skeptics of being part of the conspiracy? Do they focus on the inane and tangental? Do they demand that skeptics prove a negative? Etc, etc.

Wow, its amazing how close some followers of organized religions are to conspiracy theories.

Episiarch | June 7, 2007, 5:28pm | #

Why would the government that has never investigated the niger forged documents or look for the people behind the anthrax attacks would hide some details about 9/11?

Assuming you meant "wouldn't hide some details", here's your answer:

Hiding details about a colossal event that tons of people want to know about, and would like to find a conspiracy -- FUCKING HARD

Not following up on forged documents or anthrax attacks -- FUCKING EASY

That's it. The guys who run the DMV always go with option #2. So does the rest of the government.

Dave W. | June 7, 2007, 5:35pm | #

Hiding details about a colossal event that tons of people want to know about, and would like to find a conspiracy -- FUCKING HARD

that depends on who gets to see the evidence, I think.

If the people who get to see the evidence are different than the tons of people who want the truth, then the tons of people don't matter.

anon | June 7, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Not following up on forged documents or anthrax attacks -- FUCKING EASY

You think that not following up on anthrax that was sent to Capitol Hill is easy? You think not following up on forged documents that were the basis for the Iraq war is easy? If the government does not follow up on such crucial issues, then, why call conspiracy theorists nutjobs?

I'm not saying that the government is invloved or hiding something, I'm just saying don't blame cospiracy theorists for their wild accusation of the government, blame the government for failing to investigate.

jh | June 7, 2007, 6:13pm | #

"Wow, its amazing how close some followers of organized religions are to conspiracy theories."

Well, when the basis of your religion is that a dead guy came back to life after three days, and you defend that theory and call all other explanations obviously false, you're gonna attract one or two wingnut conspiracy theorists as followers.

Instead of maybe postulating that the Roman government, like most governments, has its share of incompetant employees who maybe screwed up and didn't quite kill the guy, for example.

Not that I'm advocating that second possibility as anything more than a theoretical example ... wouldn't want the church hierarchy to excommunicate me, yah know?

GILMORE | June 7, 2007, 6:18pm | #

jesus dave, i didnt realize how bad off you truly are. thoreau was right. reasoning with you is/was actually a complete waste of time.

GILMORE | June 7, 2007, 6:23pm | #

I beg the editors of H&R to please, please, please in the future not post anything even vaguely related to "conspiracies" so that we can gradually starve the stupid-squirrels to death.

Famous quote from old H&R thread =
'Member this?

"The Secret Plans of the Secret Planners"?

Die, you intellectually diseased people, die

Grotius | June 7, 2007, 6:27pm | #

GILMORE,

*psst*

Where are you staying at Bohemian Grove this year? We'll talk about world domination after we burn dull care. ;)

pigwiggle | June 7, 2007, 6:29pm | #

Its TEH J00w.

No, it was the Mexicans in your temple.

Brandybuck | June 7, 2007, 7:27pm | #

"Wow, its amazing how close some followers of organized religions are to conspiracy theories."

Funny, I was just thinking the other day how remarkably similar conspiracists were to many creationists. Religion is typically based on faith and revelation, but sometimes you get some offshoot groups that build elaborate "scientific" proofs similar to those of conspiracists/ufologists. It's also interesting how the 9/11 Truthers match most of the hallmarks of a cult.

Paul | June 7, 2007, 7:54pm | #

You bring up a subject which I have been inetersted in for a long time, which is: when does something get called a "conspiracy."

That's easy:

When there's no evidence of a conspiracy, except the lack of evidence itself, and when the people suggesting that there is a conspiracy prefer headgear of the tin-foil kind.

joe | June 7, 2007, 7:57pm | #

"What about the lizard-aliens that rule the planet?"

There is actually a schism in the lizard-aliens that rule the planet conspiracy theory community.

One side thinks the Jews are involved, while the other dismisses that as an anti-semitic delusion.

Can you imagine the conventions?

"Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Jew."

"I'm not saying they're ALL Jews!"

"You're making people think we're a bunch of loonies!"

"You're in denial!"

"Anti-semite!"

"Lizard dupe!"

"Hey, you two! This is a serious academic conference!"

Grotius | June 7, 2007, 10:44pm | #

joe,

Well, to sort of defend David Icke I don't think he is an anti-semite. But yeah, such a meeting might be fun to watch play out.

dhex | June 7, 2007, 11:07pm | #

yeah, if icke is an anti-semite he hides it quite well under a veneer of insanity.

i like this vid, especially where alex jones calls him nuts.

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-2912878405399014351&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=David+Icke:+The+Lizards+and+the+Jews%3F&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-2912878405399014351%26q%3DDavid%2BIcke%253A%2BThe%2BLizards%2Band%2Bthe%2BJews%253F&usg=AL29H22WzBYrHdEyNXvxdNN6PahZnTR6sg

Dave | June 8, 2007, 12:18am | #

Pretty soon the Truthers are going to start finding minor inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses/victims of every suicide bombing that has every hit Israel. This is going to go on until we finally all know the truth: Muslims have NEVER blown ANYTHING up. Oh sure, they might wear dynamite suicide vests to their parades, they might constantly call for bombings and terrorists attacks, but they have never ever ever actually done one! It was always the Jews and the Americans, and now, the Brits too! Poor Muslims, always gettin' framed.

GILMORE | June 8, 2007, 1:32am | #

i tink brandybuck nailed er.

conspiracists have a comprehension issue with the idea of spontaneous order and the natural evolution of decentralized mechanisms like economies. everything has to have a A->B axiomatic explanation. someone lost something? it's part of a plan. shitty leadership? damn lizards again. Ecomomy imploded? ... well, not good with numbers, so someone must have wanted this to happen

daniel k | June 8, 2007, 7:49am | #

thanks brandybuck for your efforts at reality, rationalism, and logic.
But, I note that you can never convince the conspiracy minded that your not part of the conspiracy.
secret handshake and wink
;)

Timon19 | June 8, 2007, 8:34am | #

Ecomomy imploded? ... well, not good with numbers, so someone must have wanted this to happen

Dave uses this sort of thing a lot when discussing in the Flight 93 thread.

...well I don't know the technical details (which the person I'm arguing with has attempted to explain from a technical standpoint), but could it have been XYZ?...

No, because I just explained it, dammit!