J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
7/7 Ripple Effect - a rebuttal and rejection
A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views:
.... Therefore the moslems are calling God a liar, which is a satanic thing to do. Satan called God a liar in the Garden of Eden and God condemned Adam and Eve for believing Satan's lies. These satanic lies are now being continued by the moslems when they contradict God by saying that the True Bible no longer exists....
The video begins with Muad'Dib saying:
“Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham’s (sic) Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.”
J7: The July Seventh Truth Campaign, who have been researching the events of 7/7 since the day they happened, take issue with any production which can claim to 'understand what most likely really did happen that day', unless this can be backed up with evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis. J7 maintain the view that the official Home Office report into July 7th, released by the Home Office on 11th May 2006, remains totally unproven, as no evidence has ever been placed in the public domain which categorically proves, beyond reasonable doubt, the official version of events. On the contrary, our research has shown that this report contains many errors, inconsistencies and anomalies and, in fact, the Home Office has twice been forced to amend the narrative in response to challenges by J7, resulting in an updated narrative that makes even less sense than the original version did. Our position on attempting alternative narratives which are not based on evidence is very succinctly expressed by a J7 researcher who, after viewing 7/7 Ripple Effect, wisely wrote:
“Reading the transcript, the impression I get is of an attempt to construct an alternative account of what happened. I don't think this is a good approach. It tends to exclude other possibilities from the debate ie the debate narrows to either jforjustice's account or the Home Office account. There are so very many discrepancies in what has been reported (as documented on this forum) that any number of plausible alternative accounts could be constructed, so I think it is unwise to promote one particular alternative.
I think it is significant that the opponents of J7 have persistently used the taunt of "what do you think happened then?"; quite recently someone posted on another forum that we don't put our money where our mouth is. This is a trap. As soon as an alternative is put forward, the focus shifts from examining the official account to examining the alternative account.
As far as I can see, all the material in "The Ripple Effect" has been available for a good two years, so I am curious as to why it is only now that this film has been released."
So, what does Muad'Dib and 7/7 Ripple Effect claim 'most likely happened that day'?
After examining the role played by the BBC and Peter Power in the Panorama programme 'London Under Attack' and Power's subsequent 'terror rehearsal exercise' that he was running on the 7th July 2005, examined in detail by J7 here, the 7/7 Ripple Effect film states:
“Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.
Who were their Muslim recruits?
These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise”.
No evidence is produced to support this conclusion and no matter how neat and appealing this alternative scenario might be, it remains totally hypothetical and without supporting evidence. Muad'Dib goes on:
“The fake terrorists have been recruited, the suicide videos have been made, and everyone has been given basic instructions, for the day that the exercise is to be put into operation – 7/7/2005.
The four mock-terrorist actors were to meet at Luton Train Station at 07:20 AM on the 7th of July 2005 and catch the 07:40 AM train from Luton to Kings’ Cross Thameslink Station, with their pretend-bomb backpacks, and then split up and catch three tube-trains and one bus, to pre-arranged destinations, where the fake explosions were to take place, as part of the training exercise.
Finally the big day arrived.”
A convoluted attempt is then made to explain why the only image of the four men accused of being responsible for what happened, taken outside Luton station at 07.21.54, has to be faked:
"The four men were supposed to arrive together, on time, at Luton Station, and be caught on CCTV, at 07:21:54 AM, entering the station, but three of them are not on the same video frames as Hasib Hussain, so have to be inserted later, using computer software. Hence the obviously, and very badly, doctored official single frame, time-stamped photo that we have been shown, from the CCTV outside Luton Station.
They can’t show them moving, because it has been faked, that’s why they show only one single frame still photo.
Why did the authorities have to fake this photo? They would have had to fake it, because three of the actors missed the tube-trains that they were supposed to catch, and which blew up without them being onboard, and so there was no video footage from Verint Systems of them boarding the three tube-trains, for the authorities to be able to use, as false evidence, to try to prove to the public that the Muslims were guilty. So they had to doctor and show us the fake photo instead".
Again, no evidence is offered as the basis for the statement “the four men were supposed to arrive together” and this is pure unsubstantiated conjecture in the same way that the Home Office has provided no evidence for its version of events. Further, there is no evidence for why Hasib Hussain would be the only one of the four entering Luton Station at 07.21.54. (Note: 7/7 Ripple Effect correctly states that the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross train, which the original Home Office report claims the accused caught, was cancelled on 7th July 2005. That the Home Office changed the official report on 11 July 2006 to say that the accused caught the 7.25 and that the 7.40 had been based on 'erroneous witness statements' fails to make it into Muad'Dib's version of events). Despite the supposed need to 'fake the photo' to show all four men entering the station together 7/7 Ripple Effect still manages to place the accused in King's Cross together -- again, something for which no evidence has ever been provided by the Home Office or police -- albeit too late to catch the tube trains that 7/7 Ripple Effect claims they have been told to board as part of Peter Power's exercise:
“The first available train the Muslim actors can catch, gets them to King’s Cross after the tube trains have already left without them. Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise. When the tube-trains they were supposed to catch are blown up, the other three smell a rat and realise they have been duped, and are Muslim patsies who will be blamed for the attacks, and everyone knows what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Muslims are not from London. Their homes are many miles away, and so they are like fish out of water, and have no idea what to do, or where to go and hide. They realise that they can’t go home, and do not know anyone in London whom they can trust.”
It would be highly unlikely, even if this scenario were plausible, that any 'exercise' could arrange for 3 'patsies' to board specific tube trains, especially as the tube that day was subject to many delays and line closures. (7/7 Ripple Effect's constant referral to Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay as 'the Muslims' is also highly questionable and we can only wonder if Muad'Dib would refer to these 4 young men as 'the Jews' or 'the Christians' if the official story had alleged that to be the case.)
On 7th July 2005 there were reports that 'suicide-bombers' had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police was even asked at a press conference whether he could confirm these reports, and replied “We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today”. Once again, there is no tangible evidence to prove or disprove the reports, or the subsequent denial of these reports by Brian Paddick. However, 7/7 Ripple Effect makes the claim that Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay were all shot at Canary Wharf, with a further stretch that perhaps they were attempting to find sanctuary in the offices of a newspaper:
“If we have at least three of the four "suicide-bombers" shot dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains that blew up, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, then we have overwhelming proof that they did not blow the tube-trains up, and that the blowing up of the three tube-trains was an inside-job.
At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France”.
7/7 Ripple Effect continues on in much the same vein, from which we can only conclude that using every known discrepancy in the reports of the events of July 7th, many of which are examined in detail by J7 in our sections Mind The Gaps I and II, and weaving them into a totally evidence-free and fanciful hypothesis, which would be more honestly described as a 'What If' rather than what 'Really did happen', will do more harm than good in aiding anyone to get to the truth of the events of that day.
In summing up 7/7 Ripple Effect, we leave the final words to a J7 researcher:
"... nor is joining up the loose ends in that wretched government "narrative" in the fashion of a Saturday night fictional TV thriller particularly likely to be viewed positively - drop the fantasy references, re-edit it to play as a 'what if?' docudrama that is clearly self explained/described as an unsubstantiated narrative the same as the official government narrative is and it might get more respect, but as it stands, it's just too damn kooky for me to believe it's accidental.
Sorry Muad, but the people you most need to reach are least likely to take you seriously - if that is a concern of course, and if it's not, then that says quite a lot."
The advice of the J7 campaign and research collective is simple: Question everything.
As an addendum to the rebuttal and rejection of 7/7 Ripple Effect, J7 received email notification from Muad'Dib requesting cash donations and assistance in contacting the bereaved families and survivors in order to send them unsolicited copies of this film.
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign immediately responded with a refusal to support or condone the film and J7 researchers universally condemned the intentions of Muad'Dib in the unsolicited sending of the film to bereaved families or survivors, re-iterating the point that J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have never endeavoured to contact bereaved families or survivors. 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, nor has J7 provided any assistance with locating relatives of the deceased.