Answering your comments
I think the problem with Dr Ridley-Duff and 'Theorising Truth' isn't that; "This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings..."
Nor is it that; "The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth."
No, it is that he says; "...that it has been written for teaching purposes," WTF?
Whether intentional or not, any student reading the paper will conclude the good Dr thinks the events of 7/7, as understood by most, to be a lie, not simply wrong somehow, but a lie. Worse they will have any doubt about the events reinforced by the shoddy research.
Not all academics are good at research. Not all academics are good at teh interwebs.
Thank you for all these responses. It will help to improve the paper under discussion.
The focus in the paper is clearly on the evidence of events at Canary Wharf, and two points of differece on train times and what happened to the four men after the tube trains exploded. Daniel Obachike is not the focus of the paper and is introduced only to provide evidence that Peter Power's account is contested (more below). In any attempt at advancing knowledge, it will be the case that points are challenged and clarifications will be achieved through dialogue with other people so I'm grateful to people for reading the paper and identifying new arguments that can be considered in producing a new version next year.
As to the question of what I believe - I have no firm view yet other than that the official account does not make sense. The fact that men may have been attacked or shot at Canary Wharf does not mean that these are the four men who were blamed for the tube explosions (nor does the paper claim this). It does point out, however, that John Hill's theory is better able to account for something that no other theory of 7th July is able to explain. This being the case, due consideration should be given to this alternative theory. The paper advances the debate by providing all the newspaper / blog / discussion forum references to the shootings that it was possible to find with the resources available to me. These references do not support the official government account. That's not a controversial statement, in my view. As a result, a different account of the day is required.
As for Daniel Obachike, reference to his interview with Alex Jones and his book are provided only to show that Peter Power's account is contested. I make no claim beyond this. Given that it has been raised, it is worth discussing the interview with Alex Jones. In this interview, Obachike provides detailed and specific information on the person he alleges was 'faking' injury. Alex Jones himself says that he and his staff (however controversial or problematic this may be) checked out the story themselves and verified with people involved with the bus that it was singled out on the day for diversion. Daniel Obachike's account is contested - I can point this out in revisions - so there is a question that needs to be answered by all here.
Why do people believe those who attack Daniel Obachike's account rather than Daniel Obachike's account? Why do people believe Peter Power (who has a career advantage in manipulating the media) over other witnesses (who have no experience of manipulating the media). These are pertinent questions.
Is this a case of believing who you want to believe to avoid the dissonance created by a controversial account or theory? Researchers are aware of the impact of 'cognitive dissonance' (indeed, I discuss the effects of cognitive dissonance with new researchers). It is the psychological process by which all people (including researchers) reduce their distress by accepting false accounts. It enables them to avoid examining controversial or contradictory evidence.
I've not read Obachike's book, but I have read discussions of his book by those who have read it. Daniel Obachike's book is a publication that captures the material in his internet blog. However imperfect that may be, others who have read the book state clearly that it documents the treatment he received by the police/anti-terrorist authorities after he was found on / near the Tavistock Square bus. He didn't cash in by writing a book straightaway. He started a blog documenting his treatment. After 7 months there were 440,000 people reading his blog (creating the market for a book). This being the case, the book is based on the blog (and retains spelling mistakes etc.). This does not appear to me to be the work of someone who set out to write a book about the 7/7 bombing - it was an accident of history that people were sufficiently interested in what was happening to him to make a book possible.
I don't expect - if it is a blog - for it to be an accurate detailed history. It does, however, provide clear evidence that there is a challenge to the official account of the fourth bomb. Nor is this the only evidence. The J7 web-site details another woman who refused to confirm there was only one bomb. She maintained there were two. (She was later found dead, allegedly committed 'suicide'). There is sufficient evidence, from more than one source, to question the official account of what occured at Tavistock Square, nor is Daniel Obachike the only person claiming that planted 'witnesses' were talking to the media. Further examples are available at J7 (based on YouTube video footage) of people talking about events, and their injuries, before people from the tube network had time to reach the surface.
I am open to revising the paper for next year's classes based on the conversations we have here, providing the information provided can checks out (in the same way that John Hill's account was not presented in a paper until it too had checked out against the sources used).
A note on sources. The idea that some sources are 'credible' and some are not is the argument of a partisan person who is not interested in the truth. Whatever account is given, there is a reason for it. A good social scientist, particularly one writing from a critical perspective, does not dismiss a person's account without evidence, and does not dismiss a person's account if part of it turns out to be untrue. The BBC documentary can be seen in the same light. Even though it contains statements that are problematic - it was made to serve a purpose and contains some useful information not available elsewhere. It was produced for a reason, in a particular political context (i.e. the sending of 7/7 Ripple Effect to a judge in a court case about 7/7). The political/social reasons for producing misleading accounts can be as interesting as the reasons for providing a 'truthful' one.
Those in this thread, therefore, who are not interested in false statements are not social scientists. They are using natural science logic which should be rejected when dealing with issues of social science. Natural science logic is not helpful in seeking to understand accounts of events that serve various social or political purposes. These purposes are discussed in the paper and the 'bias' (if this is the term you prefer) of
both documentaries is assessed and drawn to the attention of the reader.
To clear up another criticism, I do Google the titles of my academic papers to check where they are being read/distributed. It is not unreasonable to take an interest in the impact of my own work. Once every seven years, I have to provide an account for the RAE on the impact of my work so I do track its impact.
Best wishes
Rory
At the time I expressed to a friend, who had been a professor there, that the SECOND (or third) worst part was that it reduced our Anthro department to a footnote when we had worked our way up to being Pretty Damned Good. 
I actually had offers to do English at a couple of polytechnics, but messed up my A-levels, couldn't afford to re-take them (single parent family), so had to get a job. Twenty-three years on, the government has this obsession about getting the majority of kids to go to university, which logically can't do anything other than devalue having that level of education. Having over the years steadily worked up to to a fairly senior level in my job, it's a bit despressing to see that the job descriptions for grades well below mine have a degree as a absolute necessity for recruitment.