No Risk of 7/7 Truth being presented to the Lords!

[ianrcrane]

Apart from the fact that I have just received notification of this Event...it is no real surprise that all the speakers are those who support the 'Blowback' theory! Their only point of contention with the official account is that TB still pretends to be in denial vis a vis the impact of UK presence in Afghanistan & Iraq! Milan Rai, Rachel & Nafeez have all demonstrated the limits of their investigative rationale.

Can anyone get along to this meeting this evening and highlight the fact that John Reid has acknowledged the significant flaw of the Train Times in the 7/7 Narrative? A flaw which may ultimately lead to the unravelling of the whole official account.

Message Reads:

This is a reminder notice concerning the event this evening, which is the first Parliamentary public meeting calling for an independent public inquiry into 77 and related British security policies, bringing together a diverse array of researchers, experts, and lawyers.

We are honoured to confirm that a number of survivors of the 7th July atrocities will be participating in the meeting, Rachel North and Holly Finch, who were both passengers of the Kings Cross train that terrible day. Rachel will be called to give a special address to the audience. Details of the rest of the meeting and speakers are below. The organizers and supporters of this event hope that this will be a significant step in building a solid campaign for an independent public inquiry.


Public Meeting
Before & After 7/7: Interrogating British ‘Security’ Policies

Why did the 7/7 terrorist attack happen?
Like the 11 September 2001 attack, was this a ‘blowback’ effect of government policy?
What is being protected by British ‘security’ policies? What alternative policies could protect us?

6.30pm Wednesday 12 July
Committee Room 3, House of Lords, Westminster, SW1

Hosted by Lord Rea
Speakers

Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Freedom and The War on Truth and the new book London Bombings – An Independent Inquiry, www.independentinquiry.co.uk
Milan Rai, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK; author of Chomsky's Politics; War Plan Iraq; Regime Unchanged; and 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War
Gareth Peirce, human rights lawyer
Asad Rehman, Chair of Newham Monitoring Project

Representative of Charles de Menezes Family Campaign

Saghir Hussain, lawyer and Stop Political Terror

Prof. Bill Bowring, Human Rights & Social Justice Research Institute

Les Levidow, CAMPACC


Anomalies and inconsistencies continue to plague the government's explanation of what happened on 7th July 2005, and why it failed to anticipate the London tube bombings. The government has since used the attacks to promote increasingly draconian powers, justified on the basis of protecting ‘national security’. This strategy does not protect us, but instead alienates and even criminalizes communities, especially by creating and persecuting more ‘terror suspects’. As the most extreme cases, the shootings at Stockwell and Forest Gate have disturbing parallels.

There is still no coherent, verifiable public account of the 7th July terrorist attacks. In his book, The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry, Nafeez Ahmed demonstrates how the authorities' explanations have shifted continuously and inexplicably. In this context, the absence of a credible narrative has fueled wild speculation and left the public in the dark. Meanwhile leaks from security services and journalistic investigations continue to undermine the government's claims that the bombers were 'clean skins'.

Ahmed argues that the attacks can only be fully understood in the light of extensive co-operation between Islamist extremists and Western intelligence in the Balkans, Central Asia and Northwest Africa before 7/7. In reality, government policies promote terror abroad and tolerate extremism at home. Looking beyond the platitudes of the 'war on terror', Ahmed asks what exactly the government means by ‘national security’.

This meeting will hear critical perspectives from Nafeez Ahmed and Milan Rai and other leading experts. They will explore links between government policies that were already undermining our security before 7/7, and that are backfiring drastically after 7/7. The participants are calling for an independent public inquiry to unearth the failures that may have facilitated the London bombings, and which point towards an anti-terrorist strategy which could truly protect us.

The meeting has been called by CAMPACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities)
and is supported by HRSJ (Human Rights & Social Justice Research Institute), Stop Political Terror, 1990 Trust, The Muslim Parliament

Information: estella24@tiscali.co.uk, www.campacc.org.uk, Tel 020 272 4131, 020 7586 5892

All are welcome to attend the next organizational meeting, 7-9pm Monday 24th July at Camden Town Hall, Judd St, near Kings Cross station. Ask for the room booked by UNISON.

[xmasdale]

About a dozen truth campaigners attended this meeting, chaired by Lord Rea. I thought it was thoroughly worthwhile.

Rachel North read an opening speech of moderate and measured tone and content about the Kings Cross survivors, quite a contrast to previous contributions from her I have witnessed.

[size=18]Nafeez Ahmed[/size] followed, raising tough questions about inconsistencies in the government and press accounts of what happened: changing reports of the types of explosives used, inconsistencies in the chronology of events. He also cited evidence of contact between the alleged London bombers and security services and how MI6 has worked with local terrorist organisations in various parts of the world. He asked the rhetorical question whether all the confusion about what actually happened was a result of incompetence or government economy with the truth.

Milan Rai’s speech was much as he has delivered at many of his book promotion meetings around the country. It concentrated on why these four lads had committed this atrocity. As previously, he had no compunction in assuming their guilt, though there has never been a trial nor an inquiry. He expressed no doubt at all about the government’s narrative, despite the fact that they have at last admitted that they got one of the train times wrong. (When will they address the fact that the time they give for the men’s arrival at Kings Cross was eight minutes after one of the bombed trains had left that station?) He urged us all to read Osama bin Laden’s speeches to get a measure of what we’re up against.

Gareth Pierce was unfortunately prevented from attending and sent her apologies.

Asad Rehman, Chair of the Newham Monitoring Project, to my mind gave the best speech, speaking from the heart, without notes about the appalling way the families in Newham were treated by the police and Jean Charles de Menezes likewise. He painted a picture of Muslim, Asian and immigrant communities living under constant fear that the same could happen to them. He also pointed out that both in the Newham and the Stockwell shootings false information was given by the authorities.

Professor Bill Bowring of the Human Rights & Social Justice Research Institute stressed the illegality of the War on Terror and related how the government had even in 2000, apparently for diplomatic and commercial reasons, been complicit in the cover up of Russian atrocities in Chechnya.

Les Levidow of CAMPAAC berated Blair for telling Muslims to get their house in order. He said the government and MI5 were spreading disinformation to journalists and police. He cited the example of the alleged ricin plot, in which no ricin was ever found, and pointed out that in spite of all the assertions about threatened Muslim conspiracies, there had been few prosecutions and even fewer convictions. Britain has been co-operative with many of the oppressive regimes from where many of the alleged Muslim terrorists have fled. It has through MI6 worked with terrorist organisations from the Balkans to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Northwest Africa. He maintained that the activities of MI6 have diverted the police from protecting us the public.

The discussion was then thrown open to the floor.

Dr Nick Kollerstrom pointed out that very little evidence had been presented to support the government’s account, even of the guilt of the alleged bombers.

Veronica Chapman asserted that we should not presume the guilt of four men who have never faced trial nor even an inquiry, reminding us that a suspect for murder should be presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury.

Ian Henshall stood up and introduced himself as an author of 9/11 Revealed. He told how the Daily Mail had given his book three pages of serious comment and that people should not reject the idea that false flag terrorism exisists. He urged people to examine the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and make up their minds from an informed position. Milan started shaking his head sadly which provoked Ian to say that it was unintelligent to refuse to examine the evidence and did him no credit.

David Shayler tried to interject but was called to order by the chair who later invited him to speak once Ian had finished. David said that so strong was the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job that it was hard to understand how any honest person after examining the evidence could conclude otherwise.

Nafeez Ahmed said that it was no use at all to keep repeating "9/11 was an inside job". I presume he meant that you need to produce evidence, but that goes to the heart of a problem that confronts us: how to handle behaviour in other groups’ public meetings. As a platform speaker Nafeez got 10 minutes or so to talk whereas contributors from the floor got only two or three. It is very hard to get across a complex issue in so short a time. A contributor from the floor can do little more than assure people that the 9/11 evidence is worth looking at and urge people to examine it for themselves.

Nafeez also said people should debate the issues and not get personal. With that I wholeheartedly agree.

CAMPAAC write:
"All are welcome to attend the next organizational meeting, 7-9pm Monday 24th July at Camden Town Hall, Judd St, near Kings Cross station. Ask for the room booked by UNISON."

I think the overlapping 7/7 and 9/11 truth movements should have a presence in this campaign. To fail to do so runs the risk of the campaign failing to demand that an inquiry should examine who orchestrated the 7/7 attacks. Yes, there will be tensions with those who refuse to recognise that false flag terrorism could exist but, whatever the outcome of the campaign, we shall make new friends, learn from them and spread more widely knowledge of what is going on.

[Annie]

Thanks for the write-up, Noel.

Just to add a little about Dave's intervention. Milan Rai actually interrupted Ian to state that "there is no such thing as false-flag terrorism", and Dave responded by asking about MI6 funding Al Qaeda in Libya.

After the meeting, he raised this again with Rai, who continued to deny that the west gets involved in such attacks, despite the fact that Dave bore personal witness to the Gaddafi plot, swore a statement to the Met Police about this (who recovered evidence from MI6 about it) and that the plot has been verified by documents subsequently leaked from MI6 itself.

Dave offered to give him a full 9/11 briefing but Rai also said that he had done his own research and was satisfied with the official account. David asked him about the Steve Jones paper to which Rai replied that Jones was not a structural engineer. Dave then asked about the hotspots on Ground Zero recorded by thermal satelllite image, something a physicist could talk about with authority.

Milan refused to answer and tried to divert the conversation to others around but Dave patiently put the question to him again. It was clear that Rai had no answers but curiously no desire to even discuss this anomaly. Dave told him in no uncertain terms that he had expected to find a man with an intelligent, enquiring, open mind.

Rai's only response was to say that his views on 9/11 were a matter of opinion, although Dave pointed out that it was clearly not based on an exhaustive analysis of the facts as he would have an answer to the hotspots already mentioned.

Dave asked him not to mention 9/11 on public platforms without first doing the proper research as people might think he was some kind of authority and his comments undermined our efforts to expose the truth. Rai would not make any such undertaking, although Dave had the impression that he would now think twice about drawing attention to his own ignorance on a public platform.

[xmasdale]

Thanks Annie - a very interesting little conversation I had not heard.

One inevitably asks oneself why someone who has positioned himself to be quite a hero of the peace movement due to being convicted of the crime of organising a demonstration in Parliament Square should, after many meetings around the country where the evidence in his book has been challenged as provably inaccurate, not merely stick to his argument but publicly refuse to look at any other evidence, even on the day after the Home Office has been forced to revise its own account due to transparently false evidence.

I wonder how long he will be able to retain his credibility.

Mr Blair should be delighted that with enemies like Mr Rai he doesn't really need friends to support his tottering, war-mongering government

Noel

[alkmyst]

Annie wrote:

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks to all for their efforts in this area. This sounded like a very significant meeting to me.

It sounded like a good meeting, and it will hopefully make Milan and Rachel think more carefully about the level of support for the evidence-based case that has now been constructed against the official stories of 7/7 and 9/11.

I smiled when I read the Milan Rai had stated Steve Jones was not a structural engineer. Clearly he has not considered that Physics underpins structural engineering, not vise versa. You don't need much qualification to know the melting points of materials and the acceleration due to gravity. It's pretty sad to hear intelligent people discard basic science when it suits their idealogical viewpoint. (I have friends who do this too - don't we all....)

[xmasdale]

There is further discussion of this meeting, including the complete transcript of Nafeez Ahmed's speech, on the July Seventh forum here: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=396&st=14& #entry9007011

[Annie]

Good post, Noel, and great that you've thanked Lord Rea.

[Abandoned Ego]

George Galloway and Milan Rai on the RESPECT ticket ?

Whisky and rye.

I guess that should effectively gatekeep the far left platform with regards to any serious debate about the bleeding obvious.

Gotta hand it to the PTB. They know how to cover the bases.

It is quite literally inconcievable that such intelligent people are not prepared to look at the plainly ridiculous official assertions vis a vi both 9/11 and 7/7.

The word Shepherds springs to mind.

[xmasdale]

[scar]