mwfte
20th August 2006, 05:57 PM
Hey guys,
I just watched a new conspiracy theorists video called Mind the Gap (apparently I can't post the URL to it, but it is on Google video), narrated by David Shayler, a former MI5 agent. I tried my best to debunk it (my first debunk ever), and I decided to post my writings here in case anyone was interested. :)
Mind the Gap – A Debunking
The first minutes of Mind the Gap talk about the awful war in Iraq and experiences of soldiers, but make no allusions to the 7/7 London bombings. This documentary doesn’t get into 7/7 until almost 1/4th of the way into it. There is no evidence presented that the USA's desire to invade Iraq has anything to do with the 7/7 attacks.
We all know about the Downing Street memo, but the leaked inside memo about the faked UN planes? I looked up an article at the Times Online, and it says this memo is in a book by Philippe Sands. I need to know where he got his memo; was it from a reliable source? Also, according to Wikipedia, his book is about how Bush and Blair conspired to invade Iraq. This is proven. We have the Downing Street memo. This is not connected to the 7/7 bombings in any way. I just read an interview with Mr. Sands, and he made no mention of either 9/11 or 7/7 as being an inside job.
Concerning the publicly released report by the Project for a New American Century that said a catastrophic event would bring change: context is very important. The quote is actually about the slow growth of military technology, not the support of the public for a war. It was released in 2000, just before the presidential elections, to criticise cuts in the military budget made by the Clinton administration.
Besides that, why would they openly announce such a plan?
According to this film, the Israeli Embassy was warned of the attacks before they happened. I went to the same exact article featured in that section of the movie, and the article says, Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred. That isn’t very convincing. Unconfirmed but reliable sources? That could be anyone. It is vital that one cites sources.
The exercises that were performed on 7/7 were done by a private company, Visor Consultants, not the government. This is not mentioned in the documentary. Peter Power, the former senior Scotland Yard official specializing in counterterrorism, received a flood of emails after his appearance on BBC Radio. This is his response:
However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
About a third of the way through the film, the filmmakers talk about the testimonies of the bombing’s victims and witnesses. This is anecdotal evidence. Real evidence, such as photos and videos of what the witnesses say they saw, is needed. Also, the narrator of the film says the damage of the bombings of the bus outside the British Medical Association isn’t consistent with a single peroxide based device detonating in one place in his opinion. Well, good. That’s his opinion, not evidence. He also quotes unconfirmed reports about irregular maintenance on the bus. I repeat: citing sources is important. Anyone can just pull anything out of the air and call it an unconfirmed report.
I really love how, throughout this film, the narrator uses unconfirmed quotes and scenarios to make his own points, but puts down newspapers and other reports that used unconfirmed quotes and scenarios to make their own.
He also says there are no CCTV pictures of the London Bombers; however, I found a CCTV picture of them on the Guardian's website. They publicly released the names of these people and they were arrested. One suspect played cricket the night before the bombing. What does that proved? Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris bowled the morning they shot up Columbine High School.
After the bombings, the British government speculated that the terrorist attack was connected to al-Qaeda, and then changed their minds. They speculated. That is nothing unusual. Whenever there is a terrorist threat, the US and the British governments, not to mention the press, always bring up al-Qaeda and say the two could be linked.
Toward the end of the documentary, the narrator says the British MI6 protects terrorists that they work with, but he doesn’t provide any evidence. He simply says it. He then quotes FOX News, which is a notoriously bad news network, as saying Rashid Aswat worked for MI6. The name of the dude speaking with the FOX News reporter is simply called a “Terrorism Expert.” He doesn’t quote any of his sources.
The “Covenant of Security?” That’s actually a pretty good argument against the idea of 7/7 being an inside job. If it’s true, the British government didn’t want any attacks to happen.
About five minutes before the end of Mind the Gap, a man who was shot to death by police on the London subway stations is mentioned. It is declared the reason for his death is still a mystery. What the heck does that have to do with 7/7? No link is made. It’s also mentioned that the threat level was lowered before the bombings, and the narrator asks why. Does he have proof that MI5 lowered the levels for any other reason than thinking the chance of a terrorist attack had gone down?
The film ends with the narrator saying that the G8 wasn’t reported on in the media because, in the coming days, the media would be flooded with news of the bombings. This assumes that there was a conspiracy, and implies that the media knew about the bombings before hand. This is not evidence; this is the filmmakers making stuff up.
The filmmakers also put up an article about someone who was arrested for quoting George Orwell; if it is a real article (since the source is not cited again, it has nothing to do with the 7/7 bombings.
Candice :-)
I just watched a new conspiracy theorists video called Mind the Gap (apparently I can't post the URL to it, but it is on Google video), narrated by David Shayler, a former MI5 agent. I tried my best to debunk it (my first debunk ever), and I decided to post my writings here in case anyone was interested. :)
Mind the Gap – A Debunking
The first minutes of Mind the Gap talk about the awful war in Iraq and experiences of soldiers, but make no allusions to the 7/7 London bombings. This documentary doesn’t get into 7/7 until almost 1/4th of the way into it. There is no evidence presented that the USA's desire to invade Iraq has anything to do with the 7/7 attacks.
We all know about the Downing Street memo, but the leaked inside memo about the faked UN planes? I looked up an article at the Times Online, and it says this memo is in a book by Philippe Sands. I need to know where he got his memo; was it from a reliable source? Also, according to Wikipedia, his book is about how Bush and Blair conspired to invade Iraq. This is proven. We have the Downing Street memo. This is not connected to the 7/7 bombings in any way. I just read an interview with Mr. Sands, and he made no mention of either 9/11 or 7/7 as being an inside job.
Concerning the publicly released report by the Project for a New American Century that said a catastrophic event would bring change: context is very important. The quote is actually about the slow growth of military technology, not the support of the public for a war. It was released in 2000, just before the presidential elections, to criticise cuts in the military budget made by the Clinton administration.
Besides that, why would they openly announce such a plan?
According to this film, the Israeli Embassy was warned of the attacks before they happened. I went to the same exact article featured in that section of the movie, and the article says, Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred. That isn’t very convincing. Unconfirmed but reliable sources? That could be anyone. It is vital that one cites sources.
The exercises that were performed on 7/7 were done by a private company, Visor Consultants, not the government. This is not mentioned in the documentary. Peter Power, the former senior Scotland Yard official specializing in counterterrorism, received a flood of emails after his appearance on BBC Radio. This is his response:
However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
About a third of the way through the film, the filmmakers talk about the testimonies of the bombing’s victims and witnesses. This is anecdotal evidence. Real evidence, such as photos and videos of what the witnesses say they saw, is needed. Also, the narrator of the film says the damage of the bombings of the bus outside the British Medical Association isn’t consistent with a single peroxide based device detonating in one place in his opinion. Well, good. That’s his opinion, not evidence. He also quotes unconfirmed reports about irregular maintenance on the bus. I repeat: citing sources is important. Anyone can just pull anything out of the air and call it an unconfirmed report.
I really love how, throughout this film, the narrator uses unconfirmed quotes and scenarios to make his own points, but puts down newspapers and other reports that used unconfirmed quotes and scenarios to make their own.
He also says there are no CCTV pictures of the London Bombers; however, I found a CCTV picture of them on the Guardian's website. They publicly released the names of these people and they were arrested. One suspect played cricket the night before the bombing. What does that proved? Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris bowled the morning they shot up Columbine High School.
After the bombings, the British government speculated that the terrorist attack was connected to al-Qaeda, and then changed their minds. They speculated. That is nothing unusual. Whenever there is a terrorist threat, the US and the British governments, not to mention the press, always bring up al-Qaeda and say the two could be linked.
Toward the end of the documentary, the narrator says the British MI6 protects terrorists that they work with, but he doesn’t provide any evidence. He simply says it. He then quotes FOX News, which is a notoriously bad news network, as saying Rashid Aswat worked for MI6. The name of the dude speaking with the FOX News reporter is simply called a “Terrorism Expert.” He doesn’t quote any of his sources.
The “Covenant of Security?” That’s actually a pretty good argument against the idea of 7/7 being an inside job. If it’s true, the British government didn’t want any attacks to happen.
About five minutes before the end of Mind the Gap, a man who was shot to death by police on the London subway stations is mentioned. It is declared the reason for his death is still a mystery. What the heck does that have to do with 7/7? No link is made. It’s also mentioned that the threat level was lowered before the bombings, and the narrator asks why. Does he have proof that MI5 lowered the levels for any other reason than thinking the chance of a terrorist attack had gone down?
The film ends with the narrator saying that the G8 wasn’t reported on in the media because, in the coming days, the media would be flooded with news of the bombings. This assumes that there was a conspiracy, and implies that the media knew about the bombings before hand. This is not evidence; this is the filmmakers making stuff up.
The filmmakers also put up an article about someone who was arrested for quoting George Orwell; if it is a real article (since the source is not cited again, it has nothing to do with the 7/7 bombings.
Candice :-)