7/7 academic woo?

[funk de fino]

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets. Put simply:

- What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible. The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

Stop repeating this nonsense. It's like the NORAD excercise on 911 crap.

 

[Matthew Best]

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible.

Did 7/7 Ripple Effect show their calculations? Or did they just obtain the odds by rectal extraction?

 

[8den]

Rory, Are you really

I set out both the BBC/Government theory and John Hill's theory and then evaluate them.

Equating some lunatic who thinks he's the king of England and Israeli with some credible BBC journalists?

 

[Brainster]

What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

You are ignoring post #7 which clearly shows that the terrorists did not travel to the exact locations selected by Peter Power.

I'd flip the question around: What is the likelihood that Peter Power would go on TV and effectively confess his involvement in the 7/7 bombings?

 

[Information Analyst]

Agreed I used to close to Seven Sisters, and later Bruce Grove. In fact I moved to Seven Sisters several weeks before the bombing. I've traveled the Edmonton Line in both directions many times, taking my dogs up to Cheshunt, and travelling into Liverpool St, and Soho, I cannot fault your logic.

I find it hilarious that one of the man arguments about the 7/7 bombers is the "impossible" journey from Leeds, yet heres the guy used constantly to prove the Bus bomb was "staged" coming up with this absolutely bat guano commute for himself, that doesn't make sense on a normal day to day basis never mind the strange journey he "took" that day.

Of course, one final anomaly is that having failed to change to the Northern line at King's Cross, Obachike stayed on the Victoria line train for 7+ minutes whilst it stopped there, rather than him immediately changing to the southbound Northern line there. Had thne Victoria line train moved with him on it, it would have taken him even further away from where he was supposed to be going. Plus, it was only in the process of actually leaving the train that he claims that it was announced over the PA system that the station was being evacuated due to a security alert, which resulted in him being on the mainline concourse at 09:06. The problem there is that the Code Amber alert to evacuate the Underground system wasn't declared until 09:20, and there is no evidence that Euston was cleared earlier than that.

 

[RHolmes]

Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality.

If, by saying that I am/other posters are talking about inconsistency with my/their theory of reality, you are ascribing a motive for finding some sources less credible than others, then quit it. You're not a mind-reader.

Yes, our perception is a map, not the reality. But I really hope - for the sake of your students - that you'll agree that this is a more accurate map than this. No, we don't have perfect access to reality, but our perception is not random and we do have ways of limiting distortion.

Incidentally, from a strict philosophical standpoint, I agree with you about law. But I doubt you're willing to take that view to the conclusion you hint at with the word "conceit": that we can have no faith that the findings of a court have any basis in reality. For all practical purposes, the approach of law courts is a decent way of finding out what happened. And we can use a similar approach in assessing the competing accounts of 7/7.

 

[Information Analyst]

I thank you for sharing this information - I'll check it out for next year's course. At the same time, it is reasonable to point out that both the BBC and 7/7 Ripple Effect documentaries show video footage of Peter Power himself saying that explosions are at almost precisely the same locations as the bombs. If Peter Power says this, it is surely reasonable to express it in these terms in the paper?

It is reasonable to point out it out, but highly irresponsible of you to have not also pointed out that Power's locations were clearly not exactly the same as the ones in real life. I've suggested above that from Power's perspective - i.e. as someone who had presumably been working on his scenario for some time (and no doubt it was an adaptation of "stock variation" used previously for other clients) - what he said was not wholely unreasonable, bout for anyone "outside" the similarities are less obvious.

Your comment regarding the "conspiracy theory fringe" is interesting - it gives away your attitude somewhat.

I'm a plain-speaking Yorkshireman - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a duck.

I'd never questioned 7/7 until 6th September 2009 when I was preparing for a philosophy course. In the past, I'd used 9/11 material and the Madeleine McCann story to illustrate the variability of press reports. I was looking for something new to generate debate about 'truth' (the assignment topic for the course).

I came across the BBC Conspiracy File programme and felt it was a much poorer piece of journalism that I would typically expect from the BBC. It motivated me to watch the 7/7 Ripple Effect documentary to see what the fuss was about. After checking out the sources underpinning the 7/7 Ripple Effect claims about Canary Wharf, and finding they existed and had not been distorted, I did a full search of news databases, blogs and discussion archives. This is the substance of the paper and I would interested if you can find 'numerous flaws' in these press reports. I was extremely careful regarding the discussion of train times. Did you find any 'flaws' here?

The flaws lie in your selective use of sources, but also how you present and describe some of your "evidence." As an example, I would suggest that you look again at your Figure 2 and reconsider your description of what you say it shows.

You need to remember that I'm putting forward John Hill's and the BBC's theories, not my own. Are you quite sure you are not attributing to me errors that are made by the BBC or John Hill? If you are doing so, then you are clearly seeking to misrepresent both me and the paper.

No, I think that there is plenty that you are misrepresenting yourself, both in your interpretation of both of them, but also the selective nature of the other "evidence" you presented.

 

[McHrozni]

Did 7/7 Ripple Effect show their calculations? Or did they just obtain the odds by rectal extraction?

I think they made something like this:
- assume all stations in greater London area are picked completely at random by terrorists
- assume all stations in greater London area are picked completely at random by the ones making the extercise
- assume terrorist pick an hour for the attack at random, with all hours of the day being equally likely
- assume the people making the exercise also work at a completely random hour of the day
- assume only one exercise takes place in a 10 year period
- assume terrorists pick a day at random, with all days being equally likely
- make a few other such assumptions

Rectal extraction is a close approximation.

McHrozni

 

[gtc]

You are forgetting that you are making assumptions about reality based on your own theory of what that reality is.

This statement makes little sense in and of itself. As a response to what I wrote it, your statement makes no sense.

There is no escape from your own perception and cognition.

Alcohol, drugs, suicide. They all provide an escape.

On what is this perception and cognition based?

On my knowledge of the laws of physics and my knowledge of transportation.

It is based on your theory of what happened that day.

See above.

Virtually every philosopher of note would accept that even if there is an objective reality 'out there', no human can access it except through their own perception of it.

And virtually every philosopher and scientist would accept that your accounts of the events of 7/7 is crap.

So all this talk of being 'consistent with reality' shows your lack of knowledge of both philosophy and research.

Get off your high horse, you have no idea what my knowledge of philosophy and research is.

Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality.

Yes. I believe that reality is such that the journey as described above was near impossible. I believe that claims of extra judicial killings require evidence to be believed.

We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

Non sequitur. However, you seem to have no desire for discussion.

I would urge you to move beyond seeing everything from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth. The paper can help you with that.

Rory

I would urge you to think before you accept bogus conspiracy theories.

 

[gtc]

If Peter Power says this, it is surely reasonable to express it in these terms in the paper?

A first year undergraduate would know that this is false. Just because a source claims something does not mean that the source is reliable.

I'd used 9/11 material and the Madeleine McCann story to illustrate the variability of press reports.

Out of interest, what are your views on 9/11?

The paper clearly considers the views expressed by journalists at the Times Online, Daily Mail, Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC and other reputable sources (e.g. Reuters). Are you saying that all these people are conspiracy theorists?

False dichotomy. They could simply have been wrongly repeating a claim made by others.

You clearly have a political reason for doing so that you are not sharing with people here.

Don't be coy. Tell us what political reason you think he has.

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible.

Why do you accept what 7/7 Ripple Effect 'calculates' without question?

The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

That is another false dichotomy. All the evidence indicates that it was a coincidence. Given the number of anti-terrorism exercises being run in London, it is a near certainty that there would be similarities in time and space between any actual attack and at least one exercise. You also haven't addressed how he might have recruited four Muslim men, let alone whether there is any evidence that he did do so.

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

- What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism exercise would travel to the same four locations on the same day, at roughly the same time?

It is not just highly likely, it is almost certain. Occam’s Razor applies."

If A implies B that does not mean that B implies A.

It would be sensible to change 'exact locations' to 'almost the same locations', but I stress that the language used in the questions above is the same as the language used by Peter Power himself and TV journalists on 7th July.

And almost the correct lottery numbers and a pound buys you a 99.

 

[Information Analyst]

I did a search for every press report from Canary Wharf about a shooting between 7th July and 30th July. I am not, therefore, cherry-picking evidence but presenting the fullest account that anyone has presented on this particular aspect of 7/7. Nor have I ever contributed a paper about 9/11 or 7/7 before to any forum, journal or newspaper. I did so on this occasion because I felt, after watching both documentaries, that the BBC documentary was seriously misleading viewers.

I would put it to you that you "felt" that only because you were unaware of the serious flaws in Hill's "documentary" and accepted his false claims that contradicted the official account and - by extension - Conpiracy Files.

The paper clearly considers the views expressed by journalists at the Times Online, Daily Mail, Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC and other reputable sources (e.g. Reuters). Are you saying that all these people are conspiracy theorists? Or are you attempting to priviledge some sources over others with which you do not agree?

I took the time and trouble to write to Michael Rudin who produced the BBC series. Are you claiming he is a conspiracy theorist? I quote his response at two different points in the paper to give credence to those claiming press reports are 'hearsay'. The paper draws attention to evidence that contradicts claims in 7/7 Ripple Effect. I made extensive efforts to draw attention to contradictions from the perspective of both documentary makers, and make explicit the political bias of both documentary makers.

I say again - you have either not read the paper properly, with an open mind, or are seeking to deliberately misrepresent both it and me to people in this forum. You clearly have a political reason for doing so that you are not sharing with people here.

No, Rory, I have no political agenda, only a rationalist agenda. If you want to know where exactly I'm coming from, then you can read my blog post on the issue of 7/7 conspiracy theories here. It it worth noting, of course, that once I'd got that out of my system three months ago, I did not get round to any subsequent posts, but that was for lack of time to do so, rather than things to write about (even my main blog suffers from the same thing).

 

[Information Analyst]

Why are you asking these questions? I CLEARLY address the issue of Canary Wharf being a high profile target in the discussions contained in the paper.

I note the countries in which the reports appear. People can read for themselves which reports are based on eye-witness accounts, and which are not.

By asking these questions you are seeking to imply that they are not obvious to the reader, or have been obscured. They have not been.

I say again. You've either not read the paper, or are deliberately seeking to misrepresent it.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By geographic mapping, I was referring to locations claimed for witnesses, the shootings, etc., not where the reports appeared. The distinction between "Canary Wharf" as the general area, and the building popularly referred to as "Canary Wharf" is highly likely to have been lost on most people, whether in the UK or outside of it. It is possible that someone referring to the area may have been misinterpreted as referring to the specific building, or vice versa.

The various reports have either one or two people being shot outside either the HSBC Tower or the Canary Wharf building itself - properly One Canada Square - and/or one outside the Credit-Suisse building. The HSBC and Credit-Suisse buildings are about 450 metres apart, on the north side of the same road, with Credit-Suisse to the west and HSBC to the east. On the south side of the same road, one third of the way between HSBC and Credit-Suisse, is One Canada Square. The Reuters building lies to the south-west of One Canada Square, and to south-east of Credit-Suisse, the latter across a wide open plaza. One shooting site would be highly visible enough, considering the large spaces between the various buildings, but the potential witness for two so widely separated would be enormous. I think you may find Google Earth useful in realising the nature of the geographical layout of the area in question.

Of course, the most sensible question to ask would be why anyone would need to be dealt with in this way in the first place? If they weren't "genuine" terrorists, why weren't they just bundled into black Transits and spirited away? If they were shot, why would it be necessary - even if it were actually possible - to cover it up, whether they were genuine or not? Why would it require keeping people away from windows for "six hours"? If Canary Wharf as an area was "locked-down," how did the men who were supposedly shot infiltrate it, bearing in mind the limited numbers of access points across the histroic docks, even assuming they had the local knowledge to be familiar with them?

 

[Information Analyst]

There is no evidence that any of the alleged terrorist watched the Panorama programme. Please provide this evidence if you have it.

Oh, come now. One would-be terrorist missing a widely-publicised drama documentary about terrorist attacks on London 14 months before they carried one out themselves might just be plausible, but four of them?

So others reading this discussion understand what was actually stated in the latest iteration of the academic paper, I quote it below. As you can see, I ask exactly the same question that you pose:

"The switch to a coherence theory of truth presents an immediate problem for the BBC / Government theory. Concern over the ‘coincidence’ of four bombers attacking London at the precise moment Peter Power was running a mock terrorism exercise led the BBC to record an interview with him in its rebuttal of 7/7 Ripple Effect. Peter Power explains the coincidence as a product of good intelligence from previous attacks by the IRA.

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets. Put simply:

- What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible. The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

- What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism exercise would travel to the same four locations on the same day, at roughly the same time?

It is not just highly likely, it is almost certain. Occam’s Razor applies."

It would be sensible to change 'exact locations' to 'almost the same locations', but I stress that the language used in the questions above is the same as the language used by Peter Power himself and TV journalists on 7th July.

Hope this clears up any doubt for those following this thread.

You fail to factor in that it - I'm sure you'll agree - it can't have been the only such exercise Visor ran that year, and no doubt many of them will be broadly similar, with suitable specific changes to suit their clients. Go to Visor's website and it is clear the type of work they do, what they offer their clients (including the nature and regularity of such exercises), and indeed a partial list of the clients they have. I wouldn't expect Visor to disclose full details of their business, but it seems very foolish to claim outlandish levels of coincidence when they would clearly not be doing just one such exercise in a whole year. That is, of course, quite apart from the fact that many other companies offer similar services, and there are hundreds of potential clients in Lodnon alone. As I have said before, personally I would have found it more strange if someone could have proved that nobody was doing something along the lines of Visor's exercise that day.

 

[Information Analyst]

You say:

"Well, as far as I can see, the only witnesses you've identified or alluded to are the thoroughly discredited Daniel Obachike, and rather sad fantasist Richmal Oates-Whitehead. Anyone else you want to offer up for this shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise?"

Here are a list of the "witnesses" named in the paper:

Peter Power
Daniel Obachike
Pammy (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
Gus (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
DavidB (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
Brendan Spinks (a Canadian "investment banker at HSBC")
Lucy Hyslop (Senior Editor, Daily Telegraph)
James Starnes
Felicity Lawlor

As the paper says:

"The BBC response is helpful, but not entirely persuasive. Globe and Mail name Canadian Brendan Spinks as an eye-witness account of extensive police activity. Lucy Hyslop, who filed a report with the Vancouver Sun, describes the situation that day, as well as the lock down that occurred at Canary Wharf where she works. As a “senior editor” at the Daily Telegraph, she is an accessible media source, and her story includes a claim that a friend called her regarding the shootings. James Starnes, a citizen reporter, is his own ‘eye-witness’ to a radio station that was carrying a story about a shooting. All these people could be traced to clarify what they witnessed first hand, and establish how the story broke. While the BBC response correctly states that no reporter, blogger or forum contributor claims to be an eye witness to the shootings, the blogs and discussion forum contributions are verbatim first hand reports, carrying more credibility than second-hand BBC reports. Their credibility does not depend on endorsement or confirmation by a government or state authority."

Are you going to let this go yet?

My comment was in response to your claim that:

I used one well known example to illustrate the contested nature of Peter Power's statements.

I note that you have not acknowledged that this was Richmal Oates-Whitehead, a known fantasist, who was not "later found dead, allegedly committed 'suicide'" as you claimed, but died of natural causes. If you were referring to someone else, then please identify them.

 

[Information Analyst]

Equating some lunatic who thinks he's the king of England and Israeli with some credible BBC journalists?

Hill's claims of royalty, of course, being notably absent from Dr Ridley-Duff's paper. The BBC's subservience to governmental control, meanwhile, is claimed on pages 13, 14, and 15.

 

[Graham2001]

While not having read the article in question it is pretty clear what kind of academic the author is.

The typical post-modernist who accepts all sources as truth, unless of course they are official ones in which case they can be dismissed without consideration... and the sort of person who would, after the death of the last veteran publish a paper arguing that World War One never happened because there are no direct witnesses.

 

[8den]

While not having read the article in question it is pretty clear what kind of academic the author is.

The typical post-modernist who accepts all sources as truth, unless of course they are official ones in which case they can be dismissed without consideration... and the sort of person who would, after the death of the last veteran publish a paper arguing that World War One never happened because there are no direct witnesses.

roryridleyduff[/B]]Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality. We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

I must try and use this as a defence in a murder trial.

"You see m'Lord while dozens of witnesses put me at the scene of the crime, the CCTV puts me at the crime, the forensics all point towards me, but I respectively suggest that in my perception of reality none of the above happened."

Roryridelyduff you can stuff your semantics and pretentious waffling, people died, people are living with crippling injuries, and you're posting the delusional ravings of nutters opinion about this doesn't effect the "reality" of this.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, here goes....

In his book, Obachike implies that his usual route to work that week involved walking from his home to Enfield Town railway station, catching the 08:27 train to Liverpool Street station, then changing to the London Underground to complete the journey to his office at Old Street. Logically this would mean taking a Circle/Metropolitan/Hammersmith & City line train to Moorgate station, then changing to the northbound Northern line to go one stop to Old Street station. Obachike says that this would get him to his desk before, "the petulant manager came a-hovering minutes after 9" (p. 5).

On 7 July, however, he missed the 08:27 train, and so had to get the next one, but en route he changed to the Victoria line at Seven Sisters station (six stops after Enfield Town, and eight before Liverpool Street) for no adequately explained reason. The logical alternative route would have been him taking the Victoria line all the way to King's Cross station, before changing to the southbound Northern Line two stops to Old Street station. He says, "a glance at his watch told him it was almost 9 o'clock" (p. 10) as they approached King's Cross/St Pancras, but it was announced that the station was closed, so the train passed through without stopping. Once at Euston, he states that the train doors remained open for "minutes," then "another 5 minutes later passenger's frustrations began to tell," before most progressively began to leave, himself included, their exit slowed due to the power to the escalators to the mainline surface station being off. From personal familiarity with the station layout at Euston, it is hard to accept that someone could reached the surface in less than ten minutes under these circumstances. At the very least, then, it would have at least 18 minutes between the arrival of the train and Obachike reaching the surface, which he claims he actually did by 09:06. He then spent a further 25 minutes milling around with other displaced communters, before eventually boarding the No. 30 bus and departing at 09:31.

There are a number of problems with both his claimed usual route, and the one he says he actually took on the day. In the first instance, in July 2005 the 08:27 from Enfield Town was not timetabled to arrive at Liverpool Street until 09:04, so with another ten minutes to get to Old Street by Underground, it's hard to see how Obachike could have been at his desk by 09:20, let alone "minutes after 9."

As he actually missed the 08:27, the next train was not until 08:49, arriving at Liverpool Street at 09:26. It would have arrived at Seven Sisters 1-to-3 minutes before it was timetabled to leave there at 09:03, but then taken him around four minutes to change to the Underground, and another 10 minutes to get from there to King's Cross, so he could not have been approaching that station at "almost 9 o'clock." Even with trains non-stopping at King's Cross, he could not have reached Euston until around 09:16-09:18, assuming that he got straight onto an immediately departing Victoria line train at Seven Sisters, meaning he could not have been on the Euston mainline concourse until 09:34-09:36, after the No. 30 had departed, never mind allowing his 25 minutes elapsing before that happened.

This all assumes that Obachike took the route he says he did. As noted, he claims he walked from his home to Enfield Town station, which is a distance of about 460 metres, to take a 37 minute train to Liverpool Street, followed by a further Underground journey with an additional change to Old Street. In the oppose direction, 880 metres away from Obachike's home, is Enfield Chase station, from which he could take a 24 minute train on a different line direct to Old Street. In July 2005 the timetabled departures and arrivals at Enfield Chase and Old Street were respectively:

08:17 - 08:45
08:27 - 08:52
08:34 - 08:58
08:39 - 09:04
08:58 - 09:24
09:02 - 09:28

The only Enfield Town to Liverpool Street services in the same timeframe were:

08:12 - 08:47
08:27 - 09:04
08:49 - 09:26
09:04 - 09:38

All the issues of whether Obachike's described route could actually get him to Euston in time to be on the No. 30 bus aside, it does not seem credible that that for the sake of not walking an additional 420 metres, he would make a more complex journey (i.e. three changes rather than none) that would take at least 22 minutes longer every single day, let alone one on which he was already running late. Ironically, elsewhere in his book Obachike actually makes the point that savvy commuters, "naturally opt for (the) quickest and most straightforward journey" (p.123).

Historic timetables:

Enfield CHase to Old Street

Enfield Town to Liverpool Street

Good show, Miss Marple.

 

[8den]

Good show, Miss Marple.

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

English? Taggart????