by lwtc247
@ 18. May 2007 - 22:59:56
Interview with Bridget Dunne - 7-7 truth activist. Part 1.
Part of the function of this website is to discuss various elements of life, liberty and the pursuit of truth, the latter of which, as many of us have found out, is in scarce supply these days.
Dissatisfied at the appalling behavior of our elected officials and their reams of lies and spin, for example, their conspiracies of 9-11 and 7-7 which have hammered the lives of so many across the globe, inextinguishable human spirits of virtue now cause candlelight’s of hope to be seen flickering throughout this now dark and fear laced age, lights which we can now all see thanks to the technological marvel of the internet. Lights which we hope will eventually succeed in dispelling these terrible times.
One such light of truth is Bridget Dunne who {along with a number of others} is grabbing the bull by the horns and investigating the terrorist atrocities of the July 7th bombings in London 2005. Bridget has her own fact driven blog at http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/ and also works with the high quality, well researched July 7th truth forum, http://www.julyseventh.co.uk
She very kindly agreed to grant an interview for this blog. Conducted by e-mail.
Bridget Dunne: We have to ask, 21 months after these events, if the Government can answer the many outstanding questions that arise from the anomalies and inconsistencies in the Official Report that was produced by the Home Office and published on 11th May 2006, as they have failed to do so far. The very fact that they haven't answered these questions yet, and that many Freedom of Information requests by J7 activists and researchers have been - and continue to be - turned down by government and police authorities, would seem to suggest that it is not in the State's best interests to answer these questions.
As you know, John Reid, the Home Secretary, was forced to admit in Parliament on 11th July 2006, just two months after their report was published, that the 7.40 train the four accused men were claimed to have caught from Luton was wrong because the train was cancelled on 7/7. Despite many FOI requests to the Home Office for an explanation for this error, we are still waiting for a response. You have to ask yourself, "How could the government get such a basic fact wrong?" Another logical question that follows on is "How could the government claim to have eye witness reports of the four men from a non-existent train?" For comparison, it's worth bearing in mind that J7 had confirmed and published information about the cancelled 7.40 Luton to King's Cross train in August 2005.
The July 7th Truth Campaign have also started a petition calling on the British Government to Release the Evidence that conclusively proves, or disproves, the official version of events beyond reasonable doubt.
http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth/petition.html
J7 are also calling for a fully Independent Public Inquiry/Investigation and one that is held outside of the terms imposed by the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiries Act 2005 came into force just one month before July 7th 2005, and prevents scrutiny of the Executive or the intelligence services while giving full control of all public inquiries to the State. It is worth noting that the bill which preceded the act was termed, "The Public Inquiries cover-up bill" by Congressman Chris Smith and that the Law Society of England and Wales, in conjunction with Amnesty International and Geradline Finucane, has called on the judiciary to boycott any inquiries held under the terms of the act. This leaves the public in a position where, even if an inquiry were to be held, no reputable members of the judiciary would take on such an inquiry owing to the framework of legislation imposed by the State.
We have also recently published an article 'Capitalising on Terror: Who is really destroying our freedoms?' which analyses how the events of 7/7 have been used as the justification for the imposition of Draconian laws that criminalise everyone in much the same way as 11th September 2001 was used by the American state to bring in similar legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and to increase monitoring and spying on American citizens.
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-article-capitalising-on-terror.html
As for the future, the J7 campaign -- which now consists of over 1500 people, comprising of researchers and petition signatories -- will continue to research and campaign for the truth and for justice even though, as is increasingly apparent, the State seems to have little or no interest in assisting us in the process.
lwtc247 (comment): I agree. For the sake of justice, it certainly would be nice to know why they are content to allow many critical errors to remain within their own narrative, their reasons for refusing the enquiry and reasons why they feel they have to have such a controlling hand, care of “The Inquiries Act 2005”, and perhaps one day soon, we will find out. I refer to the fact that Tony Blair will be stepping down soon.
lwtc247 (Q2): So what do you think, is the prospect for having an all examining, all probing, genuine and independent enquiry once he's gone? It may be unfair to ask which candidate you think would offer the best chance of having J7's demands met, but do you think any candidates who may replace him that would offer a higher chance of this?
Bridget Dunne: Recent revelations in the Crevice Trial have led to renewed calls for an Independent Public Inquiry into 7/7, calls that, to date, are still being refused by the government for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons are legitimate. None of the candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party, including Gordon Brown, have stated whether or not they support an Inquiry. The July 7th Truth Campaign has been running an independent people's investigation into 7/7 since 2005 where we have been carrying out our own independent inquiry and research into the events of 7th July. From day one the message from the government to the people was, if you want an independent and public inquiry you're going to have to do it yourself so that is what we are doing.
http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/
The other issue to raise is that no inquiry run by the State can be all probing, genuine and independent and we are well aware of this fact. You only need look at the whitewash that was the Hutton Inquiry for proof of that. Additionally, exactly one month before 7/7 a piece of law came into force known as the Inquiries Act 2005. The Inquiries Act legally requires that no inquiry is either public or independent and full control of all inquiries is given to the State. It is worth noting that Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have harshly criticised this legislation and called for the repeal of the act. Furthermore, reputable members of the judiciary are already refusing to sit on inquiries held under the terms of the Inquiries Act so, even if a public inquiry were to be announced by the government, it is highly unlikely that any reputable judges would participate which, in itself, may be part of the real reason why a public inquiry has not been announced.
lwtc247 (Q3): This question may be hard to answer because of the assumption, but if those said to have carried out the bombings, Tanweer etc, did so because of UK foreign policy, what would be your assessment of the risk today, of more terror bombings.
Bridget Dunne: If the US-UK Imperialist occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq continues and any US plans to attack Iran are carried out, many people who believe that these attacks have been carried out by so-called Islamic fundamentalists would logically expect both the US & UK to come under further 'attacks'.
lwtc247 (Q4): Have you ever come across an event like 7-7, where the official version of events is frankly a nonsense, for example the purported train journeys and so forth.
Bridget Dunne: The UK has a history of miscarriages of justice and security services collusion and complicity in 'terrorist' attacks in Eire and the 6 counties. On 11 December 1996, Samar Alami, a Lebanese Palestinian woman, and Jawad Botmeh, a Palestinian man, were wrongfully convicted of conspiracy in relation to the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in London in 1994, no one was injured in these explosions and, as has been the cases with 7/7 so far the type of explosives used were never revealed. Both have been sentenced to twenty years in prison, after which they face deportation. None of the cameras outside of the Israeli Embassy worked that day and a police presence outside Balfour House had been withdrawn just an hour before the explosion.
http://www.mojuk.org.uk/
9/11, the collapse of the WTC7, Atta's passport found in the wreckage at Ground Zero, the 'magic bullet' and the 'lone-gunman' theory of the assassination of JFK is also nonsense. Need I go on?
We detail many of the inconsistencies, anomalies and falsehoods in the official version in Mind the Gaps Pt I & II:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-2.html
lwtc247 (comment): I wasn’t aware of that { Alami & Botmeh } case. But from what you say, there seems to be an awful familiarity about it and I’m left with a very worrying feeling indeed!
lwtc247 (Q5): Tony Blair dismissed the bombings as being ‘a consequence of the UK war against Iraq and Afghanistan’. It seems like he's saying (what has become known as) Al-Qaeda, is or was, operating in the UK, and that the 7-7 bombings would have occurred irrespective of Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, would you agree with Blair’s apparent Al-Qaeda finger pointing here?
Bridget Dunne: Robin Cook, who resigned from the government before the Iraq invasion, claimed that Al-Qaeda meant literally 'the database' of Mujahadeen fighters recruited by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Statements have appeared in the press that Khan and Tanweer met leading members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Given that Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA, who have a long history of perpetrating terrorism in Western Europe since the end of the second world war in order to frame whoever they believe the enemy of the day to be, one has to wonder what links still exist. The true role of the Pakistan ISI is also worth examining in relation to these events.
If Tony Blair is correct, then one has to ask why 'Al-Qaeda' would choose this particular moment in history to attack the UK, why not 10 or 15 years ago? It appears to be 'convenient' that when the threat of Republican 'terrorism' ends and the Cold War finishes, up pops Al-Q.
lwtc247 (comment): Yes, in fact, in written evidence submitted by Dr Ajai Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management, to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Written Evidence, he says, in references of his evidence, that “the then-serving Chief of Pakistan's military intelligence agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), was directly implicated in a transfer of US$ 100,000 to the principal architect of the 9/11 bombings, Mohammad Atta.” It appears that very few people realise the UK government has officially been told this information. I wonder how many would feel that their government seems to do absolutely nothing about it. No investigation, no court proceedings. Their inactivity with regards to 7-7 is consistent with that of 9-11.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/55/55we16.htm
lwtc247 (Q6): How do you find the information in your blog, http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/ and the other 7-7 based site in which you play a big part in, http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/, is received by members of the British public and the non-British public, such as people in the United States for example.
Bridget Dunne: The comments on my blog, and the response the website and campaign receive are overwhelmingly supportive. Judging from the site statistics we have a global readership which is the miracle of the Internet. We also campaign with flyers and leaflets and produce free copies of the Ludicrous Diversion DVD for distribution. Many 'truth' campaigners in the UK and US concentrate on the events in New York on 9/11, something that we choose not to do as there are so many sites that examine the anomalies of that event. Furthermore, there is very little that people in the UK can do about 9/11 as that is a problem for the American people to resolve if they have issues with the official story. We have worked very hard to establish a credible campaign and to avoid being labelled a 'conspiracy theory' site.
lwtc247 (Q7): Tony Blair said to conduct the proper investigation/enquiry into 7-7 would be a "ludicrous diversion" What do you think he meant by that?
Bridget Dunne: Interesting choice of phrase, why would it be 'ludicrous' to examine in detail the events of 7th July and a 'diversion' from what exactly? He also said that a report would be produced that 'would tell us exactly what happened that day', yet when this report was produced, of course it didn't tell us anything of the sort.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1667079,00.html
The official Home Office report into the London Bombings produced by an anonymous source and published on 11th May 2006 is so riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies as to be almost worthless, it would be fair to call it ludicrous.
lwtc247 (Q8): What is the strongest piece of evidence, if any, that the Government puts forward in support of their claim that the alleged bombers actually did it?
Bridget Dunne: The only piece of evidence that the Government has ever placed into the public domain of all the 4 accused together, is the image outside Luton station taken at 07.21.54. The Official Report into the London Bombings makes many references to other CCTV images of the 4 together, none of which have ever been shown to the public. The problem with the Luton image is that, even if we were to accept it as genuine, the fact that Luton is over 30 miles from London and 3 of the 4 faces are unidentifiable cannot serve the public as conclusive proof of anything, much less that these 4 men actually carried out the attacks.
The debate that took place over whether or not these genuinely were 4 'suicide-bombers' or perhaps 'patsies' came to an abrupt end when the Khan video was released via Al Jazeera on Sept 1st 2005. This piece of 'evidence' along with the Tanweer video, released a year after 7/7, has been portrayed as being conclusive proof. Yet, neither men in these videos ever make claim to planning to attack the UK, or London or these actual attacks. We do not know where or when they were made, and they lack the usual paraphernalia associated with previous (so-called) 'martyrdom videos'. Khan is claimed to have recorded a 'last will and testament', again this has never been placed in the public domain.
My suspicions of these videos are further compounded by the presence in the Tanweer video of the American 'convert to Islam', Adam Gadahn, and his role in 'media-marketing' for Al Qaeda.
lwtc247 (Q9): Soon afterwards, there were reports that an unnamed technician claimed the bus involved in the bombing had just been serviced and so forth. The July 7th website says this story is false. Can you talk about this a little more, for example, why would anyone make up this information and do you think that whoever gave birth to this story should be prosecuted.
Bridget Dunne: I think there may be some confusion over what we state on our website is false. We maintain that the Stagecoach employee's claim that the number 30 bus was the only bus diverted from its original route into Tavistock Square is false, as news coverage shows that at least two other buses (the number 205 and 390) can clearly be seen travelling in front of the number 30. Neither of these buses would normally travel through Tavistock Square.
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-mind-the-gaps-part-1.html#diversions
As the same person made both claims, it may call into question the account of the servicing of the CCTV.
lwtc247 (comment): Rechecking the site, you may be right. To make sure you know what I was wanting to refer to, let me post an example from another site says about the issue I am addressing…
Quote: “Also a point of interest....last Saturday a contractor came to inspect the CCTV on the buses at the depot, According to my supervisor the person spent more than 20 hours over that weekend, 20 hours to see if the CCTV is working? Also that person who came was not a regular contractor, for security reasons the same few people always come to the depot to carry out work, this time it was different.Drivers in the depot already think the so called bombers had inside help because it was to organised. Some even think it had help from the company.” Endquote.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm
The point seems to be the same source as the one that said “the number 30 bus was the only one to be re-routed after the initial bombs went off in the London Underground, every other bus carried on its normal journey, but for some reason this bus was diverted.”. Perhaps you could you give your view on this report?
Bridget Dunne responds: I'm not sure if we can definitively state that the CCTV on the bus wasn't working that day, this is from a press conference held on 9/7/05:QUESTION: Julian Rush, Channel 4 News.
.. can you confirm that the closed-circuit television cameras on the bus were not working, so that you have no images of the bomber, if there was one, getting onto the bus?
TROTTER: As far as CC-TV is concerned, we can't comment particularly on the bus. That is being examined at the moment. But obviously CC-TV plays a major part in this investigation. The underground system has many cameras and, of course, as far as the bus is concerned, there will be many traffic cameras, commercial systems that it will have passed.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/09/smn.01.html
We have also been sent this correspondence with Stagecoach re: CCTV:
Our Ref: 226282/1/kp
Thank you for your e-mail of the 16th July 2005 concerning the CCTV cameras on board London buses.
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the Route 30 service, the route involved in the terrorist attacks, and explain the wider efforts made by London Bus Services Ltd (part of TfL) to improve security.
The Route 30 Stagecoach bus did have CCTV equipment fitted and the hard drive was recovered from the vehicle and passed to the Metropolitan Police. As this matter is in the hands of the Police, we cannot comment on the matter for legal reasons and will therefore be unable to provide answers to your questions.
However, speaking generally, CCTV equipment on buses is not designed to withstand a major blast of the type experienced on July 7 this year. It is not known whether the equipment was damaged and, if so, to what extent as a result of the explosion.
It is worth noting that 96 per cent of the 8,000 buses in London are fitted with CCTV. This will rise to 100 per cent by December 2005. The set up of the cameras also means they cannot be accessed or switched off by the vehicle driver.I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us and I trust that you have found the information provided useful.
Yours sincerely
Anne Sunyer
Customer Services Manager
It is worth remembering that a definitive statement from the police has yet to be made about whether the CCTV on the bus recorded any images and if not, why not. Another question that would require answering, not by an anonymous Stagecoach employee on a website, but by the authorities.
End of interview with Bridget Dunne - 7-7 truth activist. Part 1.