TV & Radio

10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Last Night's Television - Dispatches: Terror in Mumbai, Channel 4; The Conspiracy Files: 7/7, BBC2

The truth's still out there

Reviewed by Tom Sutcliffe

Conspiracy theorists usually pride themselves on their searching intelligence. Buying the official line is for unreflective sheep, they argue. They, by contrast, will take nothing as read, hunting down the weak spots in the cover story that has been concocted to keep us with our heads down and bleating. The deep vanity that lies at the heart of all conspiracy theories is all about judgement, so it's always seemed a little odd to me that conspiracy theories also require their believers to be very gullible indeed, and to expose their gullibility in public. The Conspiracy Files: 7/7, a film about the theory that the London Tube bombings were the work of a government agency, underlined that truth with some choice examples.

I'm not talking about the kind of evidence that will always remain in dispute here. One of the theories about 7/7, for example, is that the Israeli embassy received an early warning of the attacks and that Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled his plans to attend a conference in the city. I would have thought that if Mossad had been involved in the bombings Mr Netanyahu wouldn't have cancelled anything at all. He was hardly going to be travelling by Tube, after all, and his proximity to the incidents would have added a fine artistic touch of veracity. But, setting that aside, I can see that having an Israeli secret service agent rebut the stories of early warnings isn't really going to cut it with the true believers. Of course he'd say that, they reply contemptuously. He's in on it. It's axiomatic. If it undermines the theory then it must be part of the conspiracy.

But there are pieces of evidence that the conspiracists themselves advance without apparently noticing that they make their own case risible. 7/7 Ripple Effect, the home-made documentary that is at the heart of the British "truth movement", makes much of the fact that a van from a controlled-demolition firm was pictured next to the bus that exploded in Tavistock Square. In fact, the firm in question doesn't use explosives at all, specialising in drilling and hydraulic techniques. But that's hardly the point, is it? Why, if you were planning to murder British citizens in cold blood, would you have one of your operatives drive to the job in a van advertising his lethal expertise? Then there's the issue of the four men that the conspiracists believe were framed. If explosives had been pre-planted in the Tube trains, how exactly were these innocent and unwitting scapegoats persuaded to sit in just the right seats on three separate trains at the height of the rush hour? Was Derren Brown in on it too?

It didn't surprise me very much that one of the leading 7/7 theorists, Nick Kollerstrom, has a sideline in Holocaust denial, while another – the creator of Ripple Effect – turned out to be a white-haired basket-case who believes that he's the Messiah. It would have been nice if Dr Mohammed Naseem, a senior Muslim leader who helped disseminate 7/7 Ripple Effect to his mosque, had been confronted with these facts – and had been challenged to defend the madder aspects of the theory he promulgates. But he wasn't. The result was a film that won't have successfully argued the deluded out of their beliefs and that didn't even begin on the important task of ridiculing their shameful silliness.

Conspiracies do exist of course and Dispatches' film about the Mumbai attacks showed you how lethally uncomplicated they can be. It was a grimly candid film, showing you the bloody aftermath of the killings and letting you listen in on the calls between the terrorists and their controllers back in Pakistan, a chilling dialogue between duped boys and remote-control murderers. When the gunmen hesitated to kill, the controllers urged them on, waiting on line to hear the lethal shots. And they supplied them with their PR tag lines too: "Tell them this is only the trailer... just wait till you see the rest of the film," one controller advised a gunman at the height of the attacks. "Should I write that down?" replied his nervous stooge, anxious that atrocity should follow the plan to the letter.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Too Clever by half
[info]taomistress wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:15 am (UTC)
What I have learned from watching the two conspiracy file programs from the BBC on both 9/11 and 7/7 is that the BBC and these particular program makers are part of the original conspiracy.
The program aired tonight used the devisive Islam agenda from the outset. Insinuating the sinister Arabic sounding name Muadeeb having some kind of ethnic or Islamic implication behind the film 7/7 Ripple Effect. Focusing on the stats about how Moslems feel about the 7/7 conspiracy rather than the rest of us. This bastion of objectivity that cannot even report the atrocities in Palestine with the faintest whiff of truth or fairness expects some of us more intellectually awake to take them seriously? Program makers, and especially those who use propaganda, know how manipulating perceptions is the key to forming opinions. Although they came out by the end of the program to loosely allude to the origins of the name Muadeeb without explicitly explaining it, why did they not do this from the outset? Anyone familiar with the book and movie Dune picked up the reference immediately. The film maker of the Ripple Effect also uses the line "The sleeper must awaken" again lifted from the book/film.

Instead the BBC shrouded this identity in mystery and intrigue inferring an Islamic agenda which only served as some grand distraction to fill the air time and avoid the real issues. Yes there are problems with some of the arguments put forward by the theorists, and yes there are some individuals with rather eccentric and quircky ideas behind this conspiracy theory, but serious questions were not answered or were answered exactly as the conspirators would have them answered. And these days, if we are to question anyone's credentials it should be those of the mainstream press and especially the puppy of the Jewish lobby, the BBC.

No reference is made to why did the bus turn off route down to Tavistock Square? To avoid the explosion taking place on a main artery of Euston Road and bringing the city and rescue vehicles to a standstill perhaps? Not asked, not answered. Why is it that the witnesses from the demolition van are so readily believed? Where was the eyewitness testimony that contradicted the official version? There is plenty of it. The demolition company in the 9/11 case gave similar rebuttles, but things don't add up. Where is all the cctv showing the "suspects" on the trains, the platforms, or on the bus? There's cameras all over the underground and on most buses, but not a single one has been offered up. Why are the times on the Luton photo blurred out?

Where are the early photos of the trains which clearly showed the floor of one of the trains had been ripped upwards? You don't need eye witness testimony for that. Why can't we examine the evidence? Where are the pictures that show clearly the explosion did come from below the carriages?


No one believes the Metropolitan Police or the men carrying out the security terror drill on the day were knowingly part of the conspiracy, just as NORAD's personel were not part of the 9/11 conspiracy, but someone arranged these things to happen at the same time. These people had to be innocent "witnesses" for the conspiracy to hold true. So many coincidences such as identity papers being discovered and so on and so many other coincidences were explained away by the program as just that, fantastic coincidences! The value of investigative journalism, like that of this article, the Independent, C4 and other news program's coverage of the recent problems in Honduras are risibly loaded with western propaganda from the corprotocracy. It's a disgrace really. One thing we can be sure about the Independent is that it is not independently minded or edited.
Re: Too Clever by half
[info]jugglia wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 03:18 pm (UTC)
I can't stand these conspiracy theory videos which use cheap tricks and half truths to convince the viewer of their point. So imagine how happy I was to see that the BBC were producing a documentary on 7/7. The fact that the BBC used every dirty trick in the book to prove their point is absolutely disgusting. Muad'dib is 'arabic sounding'? Come on. Every man in the country who's ever watched Dune can tell you who Muad'dib was, and if you don't know type it into google; the first hit explains. The programmers later explain that they knew who Muad'dib was, so they knew it had no connection with Arabs or anything remotely Islamic - so why suggest that it did?
As Taomistress has pointed out, the BBC documentary looked in detail at all of the things that it could prove false about these conspiracy theories, but glossed over all of the things that it couldn't.
Lets have the real story please. Why don't you people at the Indie investigate some of the more difficult questions that Taomistress has mentioned. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but thanks to the BBC I'm becoming one.
Propaganda by another name
[info]clearways wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 03:27 pm (UTC)
The biggest problem with journalism, be it on TV or in the press, is that it can slant an opinion on facts to suit either the individual journalist(s), the publication or broadcaster that they are employed by, or indeed a mixture of both.

One thing that has become crystal clear to me in the last few years is that the BBC is just as guilty as Fox News in America at creating what can best be described as heavily biased output, and at worst deliberate propaganda. That is a searing indictment if you're at all familiar with Fox News.

As taomistress rightly points out, the makers of the two "conspiracy files" programs regarding both 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings were deliberately tasked in creating a heavily biased appraisal of both events, presumably to fit a political agenda (unless of course it's pure journalistic incompetence)

Both programs are quite shocking in their one-sided approach, their selective use of facts, and deliberate avoidance of uncomfortable truths and facts stand in the way of their cosy appraisal of events. Like a child writing an essay on a subject that they don't know enough about, these "journalists" talk at length on areas they're comfortable with and either skim over or completely ignore the areas in which they are not.

It's quite hard to know really whether or not Tom Sutcliffe is actually aware of this or indeed whether he is deliberately putting his own slant on the programs themselves to reinforce a particular viewpoint held by his newspaper, or indeed the preferred view of the establishment.

Have you done any "independent" research into these areas at all Tom or are you just reporting on the basis of sitting down and watching them and believing what you are told by the programme makers?

....in fact, I can answer that one. Clearly Mr. Sutcliffe hasn't experienced any thoughts that are independent of the program themselves or indeed done any independent research. If he had, he wouldn't have had such an easy time writing his little article.

For the record, I would start by trying to find outwhat the term "conspiracy theory" actually means instead of taking someone else's word for it.

Shocking!
Biased Broadcasting Companies
[info]infowars_com wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 09:19 pm (UTC)
This article like the BBC smear piece, picks on all of the weak, insignificant, or circumstantial evidence. avoiding the hard questions. we watched Rachel North speak for 'many survivors' through half the show. Daniel Obachike, another survivor of 7/7, has written a book on the events, and asserts MI5 involvment. didnt they dare talk to him?? The BBC, and this article, make much of Ripple Effects maker, rather than the points - from mainstream sources, which it raises. Didnt they feel able to attack David Shaylers credibility, being a former MI5 agent?

The BBC, along with most other western media is dying, due to the fact that they dont sell real news, everyone knows it, its painful to read this tripe by the page.

Russia today teaches more about the UK and USA, than western media itself does.

Most popular in Arts & Entertainment

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date