/** Tools */

10 October 2010

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests

Via the J7 blog and J7 web site:

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Over five years on from the events of 7th July 2005 and, finally, the inquests into 52 of the deaths that occurred that day are about to commence in earnest. In a preliminary Inquest hearing on 23 June 2010 the coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, stated that she would accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquest to consider.

J7 decided to seize the opportunity presented by Lady Justice Hallett's generous offer to accept submissions suggesting lines of inquiry to the 7 July Inquest process. The J7 submissions were sent to Martin Smith, the Solicitor to the Inquests on 23 July 2010, and subsequently to the Counsels for the bereaved and survivors.

Our submissions detail suggested lines of inquiry and questions which we believe should be proposed and considered by the Coroner in the process of the Inquests relating to 7 July 2005.

Today J7 have published our submissions so that the general public can be aware of at least some of the many unanswered questions that still exist about the events of 7/7. Our submissions were prepared in response to the publication by the 7 July Inquests of a Provisional Index of Factual Issues.

Copies of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, along with J7's Submissions to the 7 July Inquests can be downloaded using the links below:

J7 Submissions to the 7 July Inquests


  • J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was established shortly after the events of 7th July 2005, when it transpired that the unfolding story was giving rise to more questions than answers.
  • J7's ongoing research efforts have twice forced the government to amend the official Home Office narrative which, on one occasion, required the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, to stand before parliament and announce a major factual inaccuracy to the house.
  • J7 do not accept that the Inquests into 52 of the 56 deaths should stand in place of Inquests into the four men accused of perpetrating the events of 7/7.
  • J7 are dismayed that the families of the accused have been refused the legal aid that would have allowed them to be represented at the current round of Inquests.
  • J7 fully expect that the Inquests into the four accused should be opened and conducted publicly once the Inquests into the 52 have been completed.
  • J7 are concerned that some witnesses called at the Inquests may have already been presented with the Metropolitan Police site reports from each of the four locations. We have requested that any witnesses called to give testimony at the Inquests are asked to state for the public record whether they have viewed and/or read the Metropolitan Police reports as it is highly unusual that witnesses called to give evidence in any case would be privy to such reports. J7 are deeply concerned about the impact and effects that having access to these reports prior to giving their testimonies will have on their recollections of events and the witness testimonies that will be given to the Inquests.
  • In November 2005, after repeated refusals by the government to hold an independent public inquiry into 7/7, and given the paucity of evidence presented to support the official narrative of events, J7 established its People's Investigation Forum to coordinate our ongoing research efforts and track the progress of the many Freedom of Information requests we have issued in order to try and uncover the truth.
  • Over 3,200 people have signed our petition calling on the government and police to release the evidence they claim to have. J7 supports all calls for an independent public inquiry, and are the only organisation calling for a public inquiry who specifically stipulate that any inquiry should be held outside of the remit of the Inquiries Act 2005 that subjects all public inquiries to full government control.
  • The fruits of J7's research, along with articles by respected writers, academics and researchers are published on our main web site at www.julyseventh.co.uk.
In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Official inquest proceedings can be followed at:


Anonymous said...

London bombs were meant for a different day – and different locations

Ringleader called off strike on 6 July after wife's pregnancy scare / Inquest hears attackers wanted to hit Westminster and Bond St


The Antagonist said...

To an impartial observer, it might seem somewhat bad form for a QC to speak disparagingly of so-called "conspiracy theories" while almost simultaneously conjecturing and postulating their own conspiracy theories.

The Antagonist said...

The text message allegedly sent by Khan, which led to QC Keith's baseless conspiracy theorising that 7/7 may have been meant to be 6/7, read:

"Having major problem. Can't make time."

So, let's give that text message some context.

Khan's wife was pregnant, but was having trouble with the pregnancy. So much trouble in fact that she miscarried on 7th July 2005.

Of course, that didn't stop QC Keith conspiracy theorising on the presumption that the text message related not to Khan's immediate issue of his wife's troubled pregnancy, but instead to an aborted attack.

No doubt QC Keith sleeps well, in between the fantastical dreams he must have.

The Antagonist said...

Introducing the world-famous, made-in-a-bathtub, military-grade explosive known as C4, as used on 7/7, apparently.

Explosives Of The Type Used In 7/7 London Bombings Found In New York Cemetery | World News | Sky News

Military grade C-4 explosives found in New York cemetery | Mail Online

BBC News - Explosives found in bag in New York cemetery

So, military grade explosives it is, or the made-in-a-bathtub explosives, as also used on 21/7, that, according to an expert in such matters, Hans Michels, was incapable of exploding.

Nothing is true, everything is possible.

And so it rolls on....

The Antagonist said...

One more for the record:

Pakistanis and blacks, "they all look the same to me", so says key 7/7 inquest witness Sylvia Waugh http://j.mp/dm0hTu

The Antagonist said...

And this is worth reproducing too:

From the afternoon session on the 11th:

13 There is no evidence at all that we have seen to
14 suggest that the bombers were duped in some way so that
15 they did not know that they were going to die or, even
16 more absurdly, that they did not know that they were
17 carrying explosives at all. Indeed, such claims run
18 entirely contrary to all the evidence that I have
19 summarised so far.
20 It is right to say that the bombers were
21 surprisingly effective, it would seem, in concealing
22 their intentions from those around them. Tanweer played
23 cricket in the evening before putting the terrible plot
24 into effect and seemed more concerned, according to his
25 family, by the loss of his mobile phone.

This is utterly circular, and a complete nonsense.

The conclusion that there is no evidence that the alleged bombers were duped or otherwise unknowing suicide bombers is based on the assumption that they were entirely knowing. One piece of evidence that Tanweer was not a knowing, intentional suicide bomber (his playing cricket) is dressed up as evidence of the alleged 'concealing their intentions from those around them'. But this presumes that they were knowing, intentional suicide bombers, so the conclusion that there's no evidence of them being dupes or patsies is an implicit premise in analysing the very evidence that they were dupes or patsies.

When your conclusion is actually an implicit or explicit premise in your argument then your argument is circular. It also engages a certain degree of doublethink - evidence they weren’t guilty isn’t evidence they weren’t guilty, because we know they were guilty, and hence there’s no evidence they weren’t guilty.

This is a bloody pantomime. It not only presumes a desired conclusion, but seeks to refute 'conspiracy theories' by merely repeating the very thing the 'conspiracy theories' are questioning. It's like they've let the BBC's Conspiracy Files crew loose to carry out the inquests.

The Antagonist said...

Those pesky 'conspiracy theorists', they're at it again:

J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog

Anonymous said...

Hi Ant. Thanks for your efforts (and the other at J7T). Keep going. Dont let the lies win.

I posted that 6/7 thing.
If it was true, it has implications as regards the Peter Power avenue.

Now that the supposed plan to do it on 6/7 looks incredibly like the usual state sponsored BS, one could perhaps be forgiven for thinking the 6/7 spin was spun out in the first place for the purpose of taking the heat off the PP and friends. Just a theory, but hey, no obvious chasms in it - unlike that nincompoop narrative.