Trashes the conspiracy theories except the discredited Official Conspiracy Theory sponsored by the UK government.
It did this by attacking the weirder truth activists. They were correctly portrayed as believing that they are the Messiah or a holocaust denier. Many 77 truth activists refused to have anything to do with the programme because this approach was expected.
Adherents to the Official Conspiracy Theory were not subjected to the same treatment. Authors of the Official Conspiracy Theory e.g. Tony Blair, John Reid and former boss of the Met Police Ian Blair are similarly discredited but were not similarly ridiculed. Adherents to the Official Conspiracy Theory prefer the arguments of these utterly discredited sources which are known to lie for political purposes.
There are huge discrepancies in the Official Conspiracy Theory that the programme did not address. For example, there is very little photographic evidence of the four alleged bombers on the day despite there being very many CCTV cameras on route.
Really, what about the video wills they left behind in which they say "I am a mad bomber, I plan to kill the infidels", etc?
Oh and did the programme mention that Nick Kollerstrom is a Holocaust denier? It might not be very nice and smacks of slander, but remember it's only slander if the statement isn't true. The fact is that the bombers' next-to-last train journey isn't the only one whose veracity he disputes; he also believes that about 6 million other train journeys never took place and that Auschwitz was a "holiday camp". Nice company you're keeping there!
From The Independent, Thursday 4 September 2008
"In June, the Beeb was criticised by the victims' families after it emerged that it paid the expenses of the disgraced academic, Dr Nick Kollerstrom, to appear in a programme about the atrocity as part of the Conspiracy Files series.
Kollerstrom, who denies the Holocaust, thinks the bombers may have been "innocent patsies" set up by elements of the Israeli, British and US security agencies. Now it is the turn of the conspiracy theorists to start spitting feathers."
And the same with David Kelly (Wikipedia)
"The BBC broadcast a programme on Kelly on February 25, 2007 as part of the series The Conspiracy Files;[29] THE NETWORK commissioned an opinion poll to establish the views of the public on his death. 22.7% of those surveyed thought Kelly had not killed himself, 38.8% of people believe he had, and 38.5% did not know.[30]"
From The Guardian Monday 28 January 2008
"Our archive of Hutton coverage is still there to remind you of the key points of Hutton's conclusions, how events unfolded, how the media, especially the BBC, were affected and what were the key documents. Or you might want to take Steve Bell's very succinct summation, which may serve as well as anything else.
So what's changed in Britain since then? The following day Greg Dyke left the BBC, closely followed by Andrew Gilligan, and there's no doubt the BBC has been a changed organisation since then" There once was a time that you could believe the BBC.
The Conspiracy Files are cleverly concocted and appear to be balanced, but by clever ommissions the scales always manage to be weighted against any conspiracy theory.
Remember the 9/11 Tower 7 standing on the screen behind the newscaster who was saying that it had already collapsed. The newscaster must have been reading the cue notes scheduled for the following hour by mistake. They definitely got their timing wrong in that instance! Look it up on Youtube, it's entertaining viewing.
Lucky we have the web, but even that is becoming biased in what it does and does not allow. Thinking of keeping homing pigeons!
The BBC is simply another spin tool of a discredited parliament so don't expect the truth.
Look no further than the massive demos at the beginning of the year against the Gaza massacre. The BBC did their utmost to keep us protestors off our TV screens.
How can the BBC justify its refusal to show the humanitarian out-pourings of the British people?
But take the recent Iran election protests, the BBC couldn't give us enough of it, it was wall to wall coverage.
The BBC refused to come to the aid of Israel's white phosphorus victims in Gaza 2009, the BBC refused to broadcast the Gaza humanitarian appeal. Strange, no?
Not when you realise that BBC Director General is a personal friend of Israel's zionist government.
Not when you realise that the majority of parliament voted for illegal war with all the death and destruction it caused, and now want to keep a lid on it.
Not when you consider the strong zionist lobby in the USA government, AIPAC, and so many Friends of Israel in our own.
The resident trolls may be politicians, councillors or BBC, they're getting jumpy after all the flaque they have been taking recently.
Well done, keep pushing for the truth, the cracks are showing!
It is well known that Blair in office was an expert in the art of rhetoric and spin, and could sell any government action, however unpalatable in reality, with cosy politically correct terms. This was commonly used in support of George Bushs War on Terror- championing freedom, democracy, enlightened Western liberal values, womens rights, keeping the world safe from ideas later proved to be fictitious such as Saddams weapons of mass destruction or his alleged ties with Al-Qaeda through expert media manipulation the minds of the public were kept focussed on these things, not on the civilian slaughter that was being carried out.
That Blair on 7/7 made a speech full of reassuring PC terms is hardly remarkable and does nothing to deflect the valid point that he pinned the blame (whether rightly or wrongly) on Islamists before any evidence had been gathered.
Much was made of a certain internet film 7/7 Ripple Effect, revealing its author (using the pseudonym MuadDib) to believe himself to be Jesus Christ. Another conspiracy theorist, who had pointed out a mistake in the governments version of events (forcing the Home Secretary to revise the time of the train the suicide bomber was supposed to have taken), was revealed in the programme to be a holocaust denier. Examples of anonymous threatening letters that had been sent to various people accused in the film were shown, as well as the revelation that it had been distributed to 7/7 survivors, mosques as well as court houses trying alleged 7/7 accomplices.
The viewer was clearly meant to link scepticism of the governments account of 7/7 with Nazism on the one hand, and quasi-religious insanity on the other, as well as the aggressive psychological intimidation characterised by the threatening letters. The implication being that, to question the governments statements on 7/7 is to ally oneself with such people, to become a dangerous social pariah.
What wasnt mentioned was that 7/7 Ripple Effect is in fact rejected by J7, the July 7 Truth Campaign, the main organisation that affiliates those who question the governments account of the bombings. Their website contains a section entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect- a rebuttal and rejection in which MuadDib is strongly criticised for holding offensive anti-Muslim views as well as his wild claims to be the messiah. The page summarises; J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors.
Why then did The Conspiracy Files, a programme with the veneer of investigative journalism, emphasise the work of a rogue lunatic as the main representation of the 7/7 conspiracy theorists position?
The holocaust denier and the threatening letters were the other main points of identification with the 7/7 sceptics. Again, rogue extremists used to represent a position that for the main part encompasses law-abiding, peaceful and rational people who simply question the governments account of the bombings. It is not objective to characterise a movement by its lunatic fringe- otherwise we would regard all animal lovers as letter bombers, all Labour party members as Stalinists, all Tories as fascists, all Catholic priests as paedophiles.
A cursory glance at the J7 website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html will reveal the attitude of more typical people holding the 7/7 sceptics view. That such people were not represented at all in the Conspiracy Files says much about its objectivity.
The programme reached its climax with the mad old man who uses the name MuadDib being hunted down and confronted, Roger Cook style, by the unseen Conspiracy Files reporter. Why are you bringing the British government into disrepute? he huffily demanded, to a silent response.
A peculiar question, especially now in the wake of the expenses scandal, and almost daily revelations about how the government lied to us on rendition and torture during the Bush/Blair years, not to mention the false WMD claims, and the growing awareness that the evidence on which the case to go to war against Iraq was based was fixed. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself.
As Ive said, I dont personally hold the belief that the 7/7 attacks were government endorsed. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy. But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin.
Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe?
The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully. This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that.
Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate. All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could.
If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed. One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument.
The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism.
Response to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin's BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files by Martin Summers Doctor Naseem
Talk and discussion after the screening of the film Ludicrous Diversion in the Birmingham Central Mosque on Sunday 5th July 2009. A talk and discussion, led by Martin Summers and Dr Mohammed Naseem, exploring the long history of False Flag Terrorism as well as the links between Intelligence services and international drug trafficing.
Response to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin's BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files 7/7 London bombings documentary by Martin Summers Doctor Naseem at Birmngham Central Mosque.
make this your indymedia front page
Friday July 03, 2009 14:11
by wather
printable version
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7trashes the conspiracy theories and puts Dialect in a bad light for pushing them...
Trashes the conspiracy theories except the discredited Official Conspiracy Theory sponsored by the UK government.
It did this by attacking the weirder truth activists. They were correctly portrayed as believing that they are the Messiah or a holocaust denier. Many 77 truth activists refused to have anything to do with the programme because this approach was expected.
Adherents to the Official Conspiracy Theory were not subjected to the same treatment. Authors of the Official Conspiracy Theory e.g. Tony Blair, John Reid and former boss of the Met Police Ian Blair are similarly discredited but were not similarly ridiculed. Adherents to the Official Conspiracy Theory prefer the arguments of these utterly discredited sources which are known to lie for political purposes.
There are huge discrepancies in the Official Conspiracy Theory that the programme did not address. For example, there is very little photographic evidence of the four alleged bombers on the day despite there being very many CCTV cameras on route.
Really, what about the video wills they left behind in which they say "I am a mad bomber, I plan to kill the infidels", etc?
Oh and did the programme mention that Nick Kollerstrom is a Holocaust denier? It might not be very nice and smacks of slander, but remember it's only slander if the statement isn't true. The fact is that the bombers' next-to-last train journey isn't the only one whose veracity he disputes; he also believes that about 6 million other train journeys never took place and that Auschwitz was a "holiday camp". Nice company you're keeping there!
From The Independent, Thursday 4 September 2008
"In June, the Beeb was criticised by the victims' families after it emerged that it paid the expenses of the disgraced academic, Dr Nick Kollerstrom, to appear in a programme about the atrocity as part of the Conspiracy Files series.
Kollerstrom, who denies the Holocaust, thinks the bombers may have been "innocent patsies" set up by elements of the Israeli, British and US security agencies. Now it is the turn of the conspiracy theorists to start spitting feathers."
And the same with David Kelly (Wikipedia)
"The BBC broadcast a programme on Kelly on February 25, 2007 as part of the series The Conspiracy Files;[29] THE NETWORK commissioned an opinion poll to establish the views of the public on his death. 22.7% of those surveyed thought Kelly had not killed himself, 38.8% of people believe he had, and 38.5% did not know.[30]"
From The Guardian Monday 28 January 2008
"Our archive of Hutton coverage is still there to remind you of the key points of Hutton's conclusions, how events unfolded, how the media, especially the BBC, were affected and what were the key documents. Or you might want to take Steve Bell's very succinct summation, which may serve as well as anything else.
So what's changed in Britain since then? The following day Greg Dyke left the BBC, closely followed by Andrew Gilligan, and there's no doubt the BBC has been a changed organisation since then" There once was a time that you could believe the BBC.
The Conspiracy Files are cleverly concocted and appear to be balanced, but by clever ommissions the scales always manage to be weighted against any conspiracy theory.
Remember the 9/11 Tower 7 standing on the screen behind the newscaster who was saying that it had already collapsed. The newscaster must have been reading the cue notes scheduled for the following hour by mistake. They definitely got their timing wrong in that instance! Look it up on Youtube, it's entertaining viewing.
Lucky we have the web, but even that is becoming biased in what it does and does not allow. Thinking of keeping homing pigeons!
The BBC is simply another spin tool of a discredited parliament so don't expect the truth.
Look no further than the massive demos at the beginning of the year against the Gaza massacre. The BBC did their utmost to keep us protestors off our TV screens.
How can the BBC justify its refusal to show the humanitarian out-pourings of the British people?
But take the recent Iran election protests, the BBC couldn't give us enough of it, it was wall to wall coverage.
The BBC refused to come to the aid of Israel's white phosphorus victims in Gaza 2009, the BBC refused to broadcast the Gaza humanitarian appeal. Strange, no?
Not when you realise that BBC Director General is a personal friend of Israel's zionist government.
Not when you realise that the majority of parliament voted for illegal war with all the death and destruction it caused, and now want to keep a lid on it.
Not when you consider the strong zionist lobby in the USA government, AIPAC, and so many Friends of Israel in our own.
The resident trolls may be politicians, councillors or BBC, they're getting jumpy after all the flaque they have been taking recently.
Well done, keep pushing for the truth, the cracks are showing!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-409292/Campbell....html
Wot? no Alistair Campbell?
A critique of the programme by brynberian quoted from
http://j7truth.blogspot.com/2009/07/bbc-conspiracy-file....html
I have only quoted a portion. Please visit the url for the rest.
It is well known that Blair in office was an expert in the art of rhetoric and spin, and could sell any government action, however unpalatable in reality, with cosy politically correct terms. This was commonly used in support of George Bushs War on Terror- championing freedom, democracy, enlightened Western liberal values, womens rights, keeping the world safe from ideas later proved to be fictitious such as Saddams weapons of mass destruction or his alleged ties with Al-Qaeda through expert media manipulation the minds of the public were kept focussed on these things, not on the civilian slaughter that was being carried out.
That Blair on 7/7 made a speech full of reassuring PC terms is hardly remarkable and does nothing to deflect the valid point that he pinned the blame (whether rightly or wrongly) on Islamists before any evidence had been gathered.
Much was made of a certain internet film 7/7 Ripple Effect, revealing its author (using the pseudonym MuadDib) to believe himself to be Jesus Christ. Another conspiracy theorist, who had pointed out a mistake in the governments version of events (forcing the Home Secretary to revise the time of the train the suicide bomber was supposed to have taken), was revealed in the programme to be a holocaust denier. Examples of anonymous threatening letters that had been sent to various people accused in the film were shown, as well as the revelation that it had been distributed to 7/7 survivors, mosques as well as court houses trying alleged 7/7 accomplices.
The viewer was clearly meant to link scepticism of the governments account of 7/7 with Nazism on the one hand, and quasi-religious insanity on the other, as well as the aggressive psychological intimidation characterised by the threatening letters. The implication being that, to question the governments statements on 7/7 is to ally oneself with such people, to become a dangerous social pariah.
What wasnt mentioned was that 7/7 Ripple Effect is in fact rejected by J7, the July 7 Truth Campaign, the main organisation that affiliates those who question the governments account of the bombings. Their website contains a section entitled 7/7 Ripple Effect- a rebuttal and rejection in which MuadDib is strongly criticised for holding offensive anti-Muslim views as well as his wild claims to be the messiah. The page summarises; J7 are not in any way party to the making of the 7/7 Ripple Effect. We do not support the film, its producers, its unsubstantiated conjecture, or the sending of the film to relatives of victims or survivors.
Why then did The Conspiracy Files, a programme with the veneer of investigative journalism, emphasise the work of a rogue lunatic as the main representation of the 7/7 conspiracy theorists position?
The holocaust denier and the threatening letters were the other main points of identification with the 7/7 sceptics. Again, rogue extremists used to represent a position that for the main part encompasses law-abiding, peaceful and rational people who simply question the governments account of the bombings. It is not objective to characterise a movement by its lunatic fringe- otherwise we would regard all animal lovers as letter bombers, all Labour party members as Stalinists, all Tories as fascists, all Catholic priests as paedophiles.
A cursory glance at the J7 website http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/index.html will reveal the attitude of more typical people holding the 7/7 sceptics view. That such people were not represented at all in the Conspiracy Files says much about its objectivity.
The programme reached its climax with the mad old man who uses the name MuadDib being hunted down and confronted, Roger Cook style, by the unseen Conspiracy Files reporter. Why are you bringing the British government into disrepute? he huffily demanded, to a silent response.
A peculiar question, especially now in the wake of the expenses scandal, and almost daily revelations about how the government lied to us on rendition and torture during the Bush/Blair years, not to mention the false WMD claims, and the growing awareness that the evidence on which the case to go to war against Iraq was based was fixed. The government doesnt need a beardy weirdy who thinks hes Jesus to bring it into disrepute, its already doing a splendid job by itself.
As Ive said, I dont personally hold the belief that the 7/7 attacks were government endorsed. Although disillusioned with the governments recent conduct, I believe in our democracy. But I can only sympathise with anyone who is suspicious of the governments official line, as its moral credibility is so thin.
Instead of what amounted to pro government propaganda, the programme should have asked the really important question- whether true or false, why are such allegations so easy to believe?
The fact is that in matters pertaining to the War on Terror, not to mention in other well known areas of misconduct, the government has been seen to behave deceitfully. This, compounded with a massive civilian death toll to account for, makes it unsurprising that such conspiracy theories flourish. It will take more than official reports, or tabloid TV such as this misguided programme, to change that.
Perhaps the effort and money that went into making this programme could have instead been directed towards finding independent verification that the four men in the martyrdom videos were indeed the alleged four attackers, that the CCTV footage of them is accurate beyond doubt, that the still image of bomb making equipment at their flat is accurate. All this would go much further in disproving the allegations against the government than the flimsy arguments and rhetoric of The Conspiracy Files ever could.
If anything Im more sceptical of the governments position than before I witnessed this debunking. If the programme makers were so sure of their argument, why did they resort to such shoddy tricks and claptrap? With truth on ones side, objective language and enquiry will do. Facts need not be concealed. One can afford to give examination to the strengths as well as weaknesses of the opponents argument.
The standard of reportage and objectivity at the BBC is normally exemplary. I am therefore astonished that they have offered us this affront to journalism.
OK, now do any of you truthers have anything to say about the martyrdom videos where the bombers confess in advance to their intentions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Va-CuaO9M
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206708.stm
Response to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin's BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files by Martin Summers Doctor Naseem
Talk and discussion after the screening of the film Ludicrous Diversion in the Birmingham Central Mosque on Sunday 5th July 2009. A talk and discussion, led by Martin Summers and Dr Mohammed Naseem, exploring the long history of False Flag Terrorism as well as the links between Intelligence services and international drug trafficing.
Response to Tristan Quinn and Mike Rudin's BBC 7/7 Conspiracy Files 7/7 London bombings documentary by Martin Summers Doctor Naseem at Birmngham Central Mosque.
Complete hour long version
Birmingham Central Mosque discusses 7/7 London Bombings & BBC2 Conspiracy Files
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/433978.html
Please coment here
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17628
http://blip.tv/file/2333267