Berkshire 9/11 Newsletter 2010-07-08, Part I (See Part II below)
The Independent newspaper has a section in its website dedicated to the inquests (http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/role_coroner/index.htm
) and that contains an description of subsequent events: “The lead Coroner received notification of the outcome of that trial in May 2009 and since then Lady Justice Hallett has been given jurisdiction over the 56 inquests and has assembled a team to assist her. The first decisions she must make include whether there is ‘sufficient cause’ to resume the inquests and, if so, the scope of the inquiry she intends to make”. That’s interesting, too. Not only did they cause the inquests to be adjourned by accusing innocent people of conspiracy, but when the inquests are reopened, they have to reestablish the need to hold the inquests.
Following the pre-inquest hearings, a report was issued by the Coroner’s Court, headed “Decision following pre-inquest hearing from 26 to 30 April 2010” (http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/docs/orders/dec-april-2010.pdf
). What struck me about that report was its complexity. Much of it was dealing with legal points for and against the need for the inquests, and the form of the inquests, and whether or not there should be a jury. Out of the 66 pages, 32 were concerned with the need and the scope of the inquests. This included seven pages which summarised what was known or what “it was said could have been known with due diligence before the bombings”. The accuracy of that information seemed to have been already accepted. In fact, the report stated: “Save for Mr O’Connor who, on one occasion, went so far as to accuse MI5 of lying to the ISC, the families are not asserting MI5 was guilty of any intentional wrongdoing. They are concerned that there may have been failings and simply wish to know more. I make it clear that no failings either systemic or individual have yet been established and no evidence has been produced to me yet to justify the assertion any member of MI5 has lied”.
The idea of official wrongdoing had already been dealt with in a paragraph which stated: “I should also add that what have been called ‘conspiracy theories’ abound in the media and on the internet. Mr Christopher Coltart who appeared for some of the bereaved families summarised them for me. Some are more outlandish than others. Suffice it to say there has been widespread speculation about the wider circumstances of the plot and the identity of any mastermind”. Later on, the report states that the inquests “will help put minds at rest, confirm or allay the rumour and suspicion generated by ‘conspiracy theorists’ …”. Under consideration of whether there should be a jury, the report states: “In the absence of a jury, I could publish a full explanation of my conclusions. This may more suitably meet the expectations of the bereaved families, survivors and the wider public, including the ‘conspiracy theorists’.
What on earth does the Rt Hon Lady mean by ‘conspiracy theorists’? She herself uses the words ‘conspiracy’, and syntactically related words, seven times in her report, apart from the above three mentions of ‘conspiracy theorists’, and on each occasion she is referring to allegations of conspiracy by the state against individuals. The sloppiness of her references to ‘conspiracy theorists’, compared with the legal exactitude of the rest of the report, stands out like a sore thumb. Translated, I think it means: “This inquest will exclude the possibility of state complicity, irrespective of the evidence, and in defence will resort to name-calling”.
A more ballanced view was put forward in a local radio station in Bristol, in a slot run by Tony Gosling and Martin Summers under the title ‘BCfm Friday Drivetime’. In an hour-long enquiry into the 7/7 London bombings, they interviewed a variety of witnesses and experts, including Robert Webb whose sister Laura died in the Edgware Road tube blast. Only 28 minutes into the programme did they ask, “Could this be a 'False Flag' attack?”. The Guardian’s reporter Mark Honingsbaum had got to the scene of the Edgware Road explosion and interviewed witnesses immediately after the event. They were referring to an explosion UNDER the carriage of an underground train, yet when Mark Honingsbaum’s report appeared in print, that had been changed to ‘in’ the carraige. Other discrepancies in the official story emerge, and the programme suggests: “MI5 lied about the four alleged bombers, they had been known to the security services in the past - not 'clean skins' at all”. Finally, they included part of a talk by MI5 whistleblower Annie Machon, who had some interesting things to say about the privatisation of intelligence on a massive scale, involving “many, many large companies”. The programme website is at (http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/43887
June 30 was the first anniversary of the launch of Nick Kollerstrom’s book ‘Terror on the Tube’, which I reported on in my September 2009 newsletter. The usurping and wrecking of that event and the subsequent name-calling were phenominal. That showed how sensitive 7/7 was compared with 9/11. Then one year on it became apparent that Nick’s website had been usurped, and he had had to construct a new one (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/related-articles/treacherous-behaviour...
) as I described in my May newsletter. It was Nick who discovered that the alleged terrorists travelled to London on a train that was cancelled. It’s good to see that one year on we can talk about it a little more freely.
In the meantime, the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war has resumed. I think a result of the interviews so far has been an increase in healthy scepticism amongst the public about what they are told by politicians. That may be hard for decent well-meaning MPs who will occasionally behave less than perfectly, but the important thing is that people are now accepting that leading politicians can lie in a big way about crucial issues of war and peace. People I get chatting to down town or wherever now seem much more willing to accept the idea that 9/11 was very different from how it was told. I find that promotion of 9/11 truth is now mainly a matter of listening to people’s concerns about not believing what they are told any more, and helping them along. They are also increasingly perplexed about why we are in Afghanistan. That means that they are no longer completely fooled by the Osama bin Laden myth. On Sunday 27th June a group of hardy anti-war protesters in London set out on a five-day walk to Colchester in an act of solidarity with former soldier Joe Glenton, who is in military prison there (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/07/455080.html
). Sooner or later there will have to be an inquiry into the invasion of Afghanistan.
Apart from the attacks of 7/7 and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there are other issues which used to be called ‘conspiracy theories’ which are overdue for proper investigation. The government has announced their intention of setting up an inquiry into torture and rendition, once the current court cases are out of the way (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10521326
). In the court cases, it appears that the government has been hiding behind national security in refusing access to key documents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7211021/...
). An inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly is long overdue, and an announcement must be coming soon, since two members of the coalition cabinet have been calling for one. Norman Baker, who is now transport minister, wrote a book on the topic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0QbDTtl2A4
), and Home Secretary Dominic Grieve called for an inquiry during the election campaign. It was revealed in January that Lord Hutton, after the Hutton inquiry, quietly decreed that vital documents be kept from the public for seventy years (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599
). So the government does have something to hide.
In this video the crowd wasn’t provoked. The video demonstrates what happens when one person understands the situation and manages to persuade others. When a second person speaks out others begin to follow, and very quickly the whole situation can be turned around. Provocation can be much more subtle, though. Look at what happened on the Green in Parliament Square. In my June newsletter I reported on talk of possible agents, or provocateurs amongst them, and that Brian Haw had wisely dissociated himself from the Democracy Village in anticipation of what was about to happen. Well, it happened (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296162
), and apparently Brian Haw survived yet another legal assault. The government is apparently planning a second ‘Haw’s Law’ (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23858158-ministers-p...
), but that might be difficult. Business Secretary Vince Cable supports Brian Haw (http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/
Look also at what happened in the UK 9/11 Truth movement. Since I joined in December 2006 there have been two frenzies of antisemitism abuse, both of which caused severe disruption to the movement. Unless a second person speaks out, the provocateurs win. Negative talk can be infectious. I first noticed this in the Esperanto movement when I mentioned the name of a former president, who had done much to build the movement up in the UK, to a positive and well-meaning friend. Within thirty seconds he was saying, “The trouble with [the former president] is ...”. I asked: “How is it, that whenever a good guy’s name is mentioned, within thirty seconds people find something negative to say about him?” He saw the point and didn’t do it again. The way the provocateurs implant such suggestion can be by as little as gesture and tone. It means that in the end good guys are doing the wreckers work for them.