Conspiracy Theory Update - Was London an inside job?

[johnnyboy]

The problem with looking at the tickets and pay-and-display evidence is simple - you are looking for common-sense logic. Logic that I don't believe is there - sure they bought return tickets etc, but normally people don't blow up trains/buses so the circumstances are odd.

One of them had a reason for living due to this baby, so he must have wanted to come home? Normally I'd believe this, however he was happy for hundreds of people to be killed or injuried so I don't consider him to have 'normal person' logic.

If you get what I'm saying

Sort of...that they were in some type of temporary insanity (for want of a better expression) which meant they did things the rest of us couldn't understand.

Interesting hypothesis, but it just doesn't seem right, does it? It's like they were all expecting to come home and they didn't want to get a ticket on their car. Somebody not having the correct parking ticket does not instantly lead a traffic warden/police officer to think that they are terrorists.

Also, if they were never coming back, the car would be found anyway, if you get me.

The article from the Mirror was very interesting - this is just speculation, of course, but I wonder if they had those bags and were meant to do something for someone else. Of course, that turned out to be the suicide bombings (assuming it was then), but they thought it was something totally different. What that might be is anyone's guess.

[tillyoshea]

Also, if they were never coming back, the car would be found anyway, if you get me.

But if the car was 'dumped', and no-one was supposed to come and get it, why leave it full of explosives, particularly if the 'masterminds' are planning future attacks?

[Marcus]

Facts are always checked and double checked and they are very willing to publish facts which upset the Government. What do you think Hutton was all about.

Hutton was originally a storm in a teacup which would have blown away if Alistair Campbell's ego hadn't intervened.

And if "facts are always checked and double checked", why do the BBC and other continue with the myth that there were 19 hijackers, smarty?

I mean, it's only the biggest news event for the last 10 years which has led to global instability.

But you site the BBC as one of your sources. Is this a different BBC or what? Why do you doubt the professionalism of such respected journalists as Frank Gardner and Gordon Careerer? Men who have risked their lives to try to explain some of what is happening.

Yes Hutton would have blown over if it had not been for Campbell. That doesn't stop the fact that Andrew Gilligan's reporting was incredibly uncomfortable for the government. No way can you accuse the BBC as being a mouth piece for the government.

No doubt there is an Panorama, in preparation right now trying to piece together what really happened on Thursday 7th.

However saying it was ordered by the British Government is just barking mad. Blair may be wrong and misguided but he is not evil and that would be a supreme act of evil.

[johnnyboy]

But you site the BBC as one of your sources. Is this a different BBC or what? Why do you doubt the professionalism of such respected journalists as Frank Gardner and Gordon Careerer? Men who have risked their lives to try to explain some of what is happening.

READ FOR CONTENT - READ FOR CONTENT - READ FOR CONTENT! How many times do I have to say it, Marcus?

The BBC and a few other mainstream media organisations have reported these facts on their website.

Why then does the BBC still continually refer to there being 19 hijackers on the radio and TV? Why haven't they announced to their audiences on the radio and TV that they got it wrong? Because they DO NOT "check and double check" their facts - they are simply in the main lazy journos who rely on the Government to provide their stories for them.

I do respect reporters who risk their lives or credibility to persue stories others will not touch. However, Marcus, this is by no means the majority of reporters. If you are the future of BBC News, we're fucked - you completely lack any form of critical analysis.

Yes Hutton would have blown over if it had not been for Campbell. That doesn't stop the fact that Andrew Gilligan's reporting was incredibly uncomfortable for the government. No way can you accuse the BBC as being a mouth piece for the government.

The BBC has acted as nothing but a mouthpiece of the government and the political classes since the London bombings. They are NOT analysing the evidence put before them, they are NOT getting dissenting voices on the screen or the radio, they ARE using hawkish sentimentality.

The BBC FAILED in its duty to provide balanced coverage. The BBC FAILED to provide critical analysis in the run-up to the Iraq war and during.

I was proud of the way the BBC stood behind Gilligan - one of the few times an objective observer could be proud of the corporation. However, when the whitewash was delivered by Hutton, it fell back into line again and has not deviated ever since (with the one notable exception of "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC2 in October 2004).

No doubt there is an Panorama, in preparation right now trying to piece together what really happened on Thursday 7th.

Panorama have got it wrong many times before.

However saying it was ordered by the British Government is just barking mad. Blair may be wrong and misguided but he is not evil and that would be a supreme act of evil.

AGAIN, dummy, the British secret service and the Loyalists colluded in the 70s and the 80s. The British Government has form. Until all the evidence is known, it can not be ruled in or ruled out. I'm not saying they did it, but I am not closed off to the possibility it may have happened. Why are you? Why does your world have to be so black and white, good versus evil? Should we start calling you Dubya?

Blair's behaviour was evil - the fact that you keep restating your simplistic position without ever addressing the points I have made suggests that you are seriously out of your depth.

[johnnyboy]

Also, if they were never coming back, the car would be found anyway, if you get me.

But if the car was 'dumped', and no-one was supposed to come and get it, why leave it full of explosives, particularly if the 'masterminds' are planning future attacks?

I know, it's so strange, the way these "terrorists" behave, leaving clues behind for everyone.

Just like on 9/11 when a copy of a flight manual and a Qu'ran was found in one of the alleged hijacker's cars.

For these so-called criminal masterminds, these unnervingless brilliant brains that constantly foil us, how can they overlook something so simple?

[Marcus]

Why do you have to be so insulting when your views are questioned. Don't call me dummy because you cant support you own arguments. I take exception to you smearing the thousands of BBC staff who are deeply committed to the corporations values of Independence and impartiality. The BBC does get it wrong sometimes but it is one of the few organizations who admit it when they do.

The BBC had not blindly followed the governments line. You must have missed the vast number of guests interviewed over the past week from all points of the political spectrum and all networks. It's why the BBC is the most trusted news source in the world, including the Arab countries.

Your accusations against the Prime Minister are pathetic. They would be treasonable if they weren't so absurd. Unfortunately you are in such a blind spot and have such hatred against the man they you are willing to believe anything. Can't you agree he believed he was doing the right thing. Why are you so unwilling to believe he is anything but totally evil. You are as ridgid in your views as some of the fundamentalists

[Psythor]

Erm... how would Blair benefit from carrying out this atrocity, exactly?

Surely it just shows that the Iraq war has made Britain more of a terrorist target? The same Iraq war that Blair was behind. The voting public won't vote for someone who doesn't keep "us" safe.

Of course, you could argue that it allows Blair to go "Look at me act important at this time of crisis, we still need to stop the terrorists, let's invade... I don't know, Iran? I'll give us all silly ID cards whilst we're at it!". I don't think Blair could "pull off" another war, somehow, and to get through some legislation? Pfft. Why exactly would he do this?

If someone said to him, "here are the pros and cons of blowing up a small part of your own country", I don't think think the benefits are so significant that Blair would go "great idea, let's do it".

Yes, Blair went into Iraq and murdered all of the innocents, but like Marcus has been saying, he does strike me (perhaps incorrectly) as someone who was genuinely fooled by the WMD """"evidence"""" or whatever.

Even if I'm wrong and Blair if did decieve the country over Iraq, there's a slight difference between making a big fuss and going to a war in another country and an underground operation to commit a bombing in your own country.

My point is- what political gains does Blair get from doing it? Very few, as far as I can see.

[tillyoshea]

My point is- what political gains does Blair get from doing it? Very few, as far as I can see.

I do agree with you in that the gains aren't big enough for Blair to even consider bombing his own people, but the attacks do generally play in his favour.

Most of all, it causes a time of crisis in the minds of the people, and paints the government as doing all they can to stop further attacks. This makes criticism of the government very difficult, which plays in Blair's favour particularly with a Conservative leadership election on the horizon - no leader who will go for the government's metaphorical jugular can be chosen, as they'd be too critical of them at a time where it's difficult to combat the government without being painted as putting the country in danger, especially in the mass media. So we end up with a(nother) weak Conservative leader.

If Blair decides to stand down any time soon, it also makes dissent within his party unlikely, so the mantle will pass straight to Gordon Brown, who - despite the media portrayals of hate between them - has a very similar political ideology. So Blair's legacy continues.

As for Iraq, that damages Tony Blair personally far more so than Labour thanks to some very careful media controlling and leaking, and given that he'll be out by the time of the next election, dragging it up again isn't necessarily such a terrible thing. Especially when you consider that the next leader will almost inevitably announce a strategy for pulling troops out of Iraq as soon as they take over, giving themselves a boost and returning the Labour party to higher levels of popularity.

You say the voting public won't vote for someone who doesn't keep us safe - firstly, Blair's ratings went up immediately following the bombing, because in times of crisis people unite behind a leader. By the time we look reflectively on the attacks, he'll have gone, and any failures will be put down to his highly criticised style of leadership.

It also, as you pointed out, means that draconian levels of Terror Law can be passed with relatively little opposition, possibly giving Mr Blair the place in history for which he is so desperate.

As I've said, I don't think these are convincing enough reasons, but the attacks play more in Labour's favour than you might first think.

[Corin]

how would Blair benefit from carrying out this atrocity, exactly?

Politicians rarely ever take direct action because it is just too risky, and it is totally naive to suggest that Tory Bliar gave the order to carry out this atrocity.

What politicians do do, however, is to manipulate circumstances to get other people to do what they want them to do, often at the same time publicly speaking out against such actions.

It is therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that Downing Street had a very good idea that an attack would be made on that particular day, and would have been braindead to have thought otherwise because

1) everyone was aware that an attack was coming, with the security services and police saying that an attack was inevitable as reprisal for the UK of GB & NI involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom

2) the day when the eyes of the world media would be on the UK of GB & NI when the most impact would be made would be on the first working day of the G8 summit. and even more so, for maximum impact at hurting the emotional high, after the Olympic decision.

After all, why did Maggie T allow the Argentinians to invade the Malvinas Islands, by signalling the apparent intent of the UK of GB & NI government by removing the navy patrol vessel.

And one should hark the words of Napoleon,

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be ascribed to stupidity",

since after all the latter is more often the explanation, and the UK of GB & NI administration is built on a very long history of incompetence which is too long to detail here.

Something I do not understand, not having followed the story, I thought that the alleged West Yorkshire bombers took the train on the same morning from Leeds to Kings Cross, or is this incorrect and they travelled the previous night? How did they get to Luton to be connected to the car loaded with explosives? How was there time for them to get the train from Leeds to Kings Cross, then take the train to Luton and be back for the 09:00h action? They were reportedly seen on the security cameras arriving at Kings Cross, but do not the trains from Luton go to St Pancras?

Perhaps the resident expert BBC journalist can explain the actual itinery?

[Gavin Scott]

They were reportedly seen on the security cameras arriving at Kings Cross, but do not the trains from Luton go to St Pancras?

Trains run between Luton and King's Cross Thameslink.

[iSon]

Why do you have to be so insulting when your views are questioned. Don't call me dummy because you cant support you own arguments. I take exception to you smearing the thousands of BBC staff who are deeply committed to the corporations values of Independence and impartiality. The BBC does get it wrong sometimes but it is one of the few organizations who admit it when they do.

The BBC had not blindly followed the governments line. You must have missed the vast number of guests interviewed over the past week from all points of the political spectrum and all networks. It's why the BBC is the most trusted news source in the world, including the Arab countries.

Your accusations against the Prime Minister are pathetic. They would be treasonable if they weren't so absurd. Unfortunately you are in such a blind spot and have such hatred against the man they you are willing to believe anything. Can't you agree he believed he was doing the right thing. Why are you so unwilling to believe he is anything but totally evil. You are as ridgid in your views as some of the fundamentalists

Very sensible commentary Marcus - and although I can't always say I've supported your point of view - this is one of those where I agree completely.