Theorising Truth

What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005? by Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Hallam University


This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries

about the London bombings of 7th July 2005: 7/7 Ripple Effect and the BBC’s Conspiracy Files: 7/7.

7/7 Ripple Effect argues that the alleged bombers were not in central London when the bombs

exploded, and supports this with press reports of shootings at Canary Wharf.  To test this claim, press

reports from Canary Wharf were retrieved using a search of the Nexis UK News Database for the

period 7th to 30th July 2005.  Further searches were made using Google to locate blogs and discussion

forum archives from 7th July 2005.   The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth.

When adopting a correspondence theory of truth, it is just plausible that the evidence found

supports the theory implicit in the BBC documentary.  The theory presented in 7/7 Ripple Effect is

also plausibleWhen deploying a coherence theory of truth, the thesis put forward by the

government and BBC collapses due to low probability that four men would choose the same targets,

at the same time, and on the same day as a simulated crisis management exercise organised by

Visor Consultants.  The thesis put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect remains coherent with available

evidence.  A social constructivist (critical) perspective identifies cultural and political interests that

influence the selection and interpretation of available evidence.  While the paper concludes that

both documentaries construct truth that supports their political outlook and agenda, the theory

advanced in 7/7 Ripple Effect is better able to explain anomalies in the official account as well as the

evidence of a crisis at Canary Wharf on the same day.


About the author 

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff is a Senior Lecturer in Organisation Behaviour and Human Resource Management at Sheffield Business

School, Sheffield Hallam University.  Amongst other teaching duties, he is leader of Philosophies of Business and 

Management Research on an ESRC approved Masters in Social Science Research programme (MRes), and leader of

Research Methods for the university’s Masters in Human Resource Management (MSc).  He completed his PhD in 2005, and

now regularly publishes papers in journals and as part of academic conference proceedings.

For more information see his personal web-site and academic research profile.

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 1



On 7th July 2005, at 09.48 US Eastern Standard Time, a CNN breaking news report was filed with a

news service giving details of a conversation between a reporter and Brian Paddick of the

Metropolitan police (CNN, 2005).  In this conversation, a reporter asked Brian Paddick:

Can you tell me — the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary 

Wharf — do you know anything about that?” 

Paddick responded:

“We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at anybody today.” 

The time stamp on the CNN report indicates that the news summary was posted at 13.48 GMT.

At least one press agency and media outlet were aware of an alleged shooting at Canary Wharf on

the morning of 7th July.  These alleged shootings have now become central to an alternative theory

about 7/7 presented in an internet documentary called 7/7 Ripple Effect (Hill, 2007).  The

documentary has become the subject of a controversy, not only for its content, but also because it

was sent to the judge in a trial of alleged 7/7 conspirators.  The campaign to publicise the

documentary resulted in an attempt to extradite the documentary maker, John Anthony Hill, a 60-

year old man born in Sheffield and living in Ireland, on the basis that he fabricated evidence to

pervert the course of justice (O’Hara, 2009).

The popularity of 7/7 Ripple Effect prompted the BBC to devote an episode of its Conspiracy Files 

series to issues raised by the internet documentary (BBC, 2009a).  In the first section of the paper,

the core theories of the BBC and John Hill’s documentaries are set out.  The second section considers

the first of two divergences in these theories: the train that the alleged suicide bombers caught from

Luton to King’s Cross London.  The third section then focuses on the second divergence: press reports

that a ‘crisis’ occurred at Canary Wharf, allegedly involving the shooting of several terrorists.  As

these reports form part of the evidence provided by John Hill in support of his theory, both the

evidence presented in 7/7 Ripple Effect, and evidence from a further search for press reports of

shootings, are set out in some detail.  Section four critically analyses the evidence presented using

correspondence, coherence and social constructionist theories of truth.  The final section sets out

conclusions, and assesses the BBC claim that 7/7 Ripple Effect is distributing a divisive message.

1. Theoretical Perspectives on the Events of 7th July 2005. 

On 7th July 2005, four bombs exploded in London.  Three bombs exploded simultaneously on

different underground tube trains at 08.50.  A fourth bomb exploded on a bus roughly an hour later,

at 09.47 (Reid, 2009).  There are nine hypotheses regarding the events of 7/7 that have been set out

at the website (see Appendix A).  The BBC documentary Conspiracy Files is

closest to the third of these: the bombings constituted “homegrown and autonomous action by four

British Muslims with no mastermind”.  Hill’s documentary is closest to the eighth hypothesis listed: it

claims that “the four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic ‘false flag operation’”

involving one or more of the intelligence services.

Although the BBC documentary was a response to 7/7 Ripple Effect, it largely reasserts the views

expressed in the government’s own report.  It is, therefore, worth starting with the version of events

that is best known to most people, and which has been reported widely in the media and BBC news

outlets.  The Euro-Med News site summarises this version as follows:

…four British Muslims – Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine 

Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18 – blew themselves up using home-made explosives, killing 

56 and injuring 700 on three Tube trains and a double-decker bus. They had travelled on a 

mainline train from Luton into King’s Cross Thameslink Station in London, each carrying a 

heavy rucksack of explosives. 

It is a version of events that has been endorsed by a high-level Parliamentary inquiry and a 

government report, both published in May 2006 ten months after the event, based on 12,500 

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 2


statements, a police examination of 142 computers and 6,000 hours of CCTV footage. The 

report insisted that the bombers acted on their own, constructing explosives from chapatti 

flour and hair bleach mixed in the bath at a flat in Leeds, Yorkshire, where all four had family 

and friends. 

Anders (2009),

A key element of the evidence in the official government report (House of Commons, 2006:4) is

the claim that the four Muslims were caught on CCTV at 07.21 entering Luton train station to catch

the 07.40 train to London King’s Cross.  The report proceeds to claim that the Luton train arrived in

London at 08.23, that the four men were caught a few minutes later on CCTV footage at 08.26, then

three of them caught tube trains before blowing themselves and the trains up at 08.50.

2. Diverging Accounts of Train Times 

An inaccuracy in the House of Commons report has become central to Hill’s alternative thesis. It was

later established that the 07.40 train from Luton was cancelled on 7th July.  An acknowledgement of

the error was made by Dr John Reid in parliament (BBC, 2006).  He amended the official account to

claim that the four Muslims caught a train at 07.25, which arrived at King’s Cross at 08.23.

The BBC’s Conspiracy Files and 7/7 Ripple Effect draw different inferences from the error in the

House of Commons report.  The BBC documentary uncritically accepts the government claim that the

alleged bombers caught an earlier train.  Surprisingly, it does not comment on the claim in 7-7 Ripple 

Effect that the four men caught the next available train (at 07.56).  If the alleged terrorists missed the

07.40 train, they could not have got to London in time to catch the trains they allegedly bombed.

Figure 1: Alleged Bombers Arriving at Luton 

The amendment of the official version has

not ended the controversy over train

times.  The government had already

placed in the public domain photographic

evidence showing the alleged bombers

entering Luton train station at 07.21:54.

This time is reasonable for a group of

people aiming to catch a train at 07.40.  It

is problematic, however, for a group

planning to catch a train due to leave at

07.24.  On the day, the 07.24 train left

Luton at 07.25: a web-site campaigning for

a judicial inquiry states the problem as




Let us consider an earlier train, which left Luton station at 07.25, and arrived into King’s Cross 

Thameslink at 08.23 am; thus, its journey took 58 minutes. This scenario would give the four 

young men barely three minutes to walk up the stairs at Luton, buy their tickets in the 

morning rush-hour and then get to the platform. Some have suggested that Lindsay German 

from Aylesbury had arrived early and bought the four tickets in advance…to make this 

feasible.   But, from King’s Cross Thameslink, it takes a good seven minutes to walk through 

the long, underground tube passage which includes a ticket barrier, to reach the main King’s 

Cross station, in the morning rush-hour with large rucksacks – in no way could they have been 

captured on the 08.26am alleged CCTV picture.  

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 3


This major breakdown of the official story came about through the testimony of a commuter 

who wished to remain anonymous: she arrived at Luton station that morning at 7.25am, and 

testified that she had no train to catch until 7.58am, because the 7.30am and 7.40am trains 

from Luton were cancelled on July 7th. She could only get a slow train at 7.58am from 

platform 3 to King’s Cross, which didn’t arrive there until 8.43am. It was so packed that many 

could not get onto the train at Luton., accessed 3rd October 2009.

The same web-site provides details of information provided by Vicky Hutchinson, working at the

Transport Security Directorate, of the times that the tube trains left King’s Cross:

– the Eastbound Circle line train (204) left King’s Cross at 08:35.

– the Westbound Circle line train (216) left King’s Cross at 08:42

– the Piccadilly Line train south left King’s Cross at 08:48

Figure 2 – Alleged Bombers Parking at 7.20am (BBC Documentary). 

The BBC Conspiracy Files:7/7 

documentary accepts the

claim that the alleged

bombers caught the 07.25

train from Luton.  The

credibility of this claim,

however, is called into

question by the CCTV image

broadcast in the BBC

documentary which shows

the bombers parking at

07.19:49.  In the official

government report, the time

given for the bombers

entering the station is 07.15., timeframe 03:21.

This is a considerable contradiction as the official government report states that a Micra arrived at

Luton at 6.49 and parked next to a Brava.  The men are then reported to have spent 25 minutes by

their cars preparing before entering the station at 7.15:

The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move 

items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full. The 4 

are described as looking as if they were going on a camping holiday. 

House of Commons, 2006, p.3

The question arises how the four men could have spent 25 minutes in the car park preparing for

their journey and yet be recorded on a CCTV camera near the platform 2 minutes after the CCTV

camera recorded them parking a car.  The question becomes more urgent as a result of the BBC

documentary showing two frames of CCTV footage of the men entering Luton station.  The

timestamp on the CCTV images is deliberated blurred out so the viewer cannot use these images to

corroborate the time that the four men entered Luton station:

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 4


Figure 3 – Men Entering Luton Station (BBC Documentary), timeframe 03.25

The BBC documentary also claims to provide evidence in support of the government position that

the alleged bombers were caught on CCTV footage at King’s Cross at 08.26.  BBC series producer

Mike Rudin responded to a request for clarification by writing that:

…there is evidence to suggest [the alleged bombers] did catch the delayed 0725, which would 

have arrived in time for them to carry out the attacks.  Crucially there is CCTV footage from 

Kings Cross Station showing all four men at 0826… 

Rudin (2009)

Unfortunately, no date or timestamp is visible on any of the Luton or King’s Cross CCTV footage

(see Figure 4).  As a result, it is not possible to confirm Rudin’s claims that the men arrived at

King’s Cross at 08.26am using the broadcast by the BBC.

Figure 4 – Obscured Timestamps, Luton and King’s Cross, timeframes 03.27, and 03.48 to 03.53.

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 5


These are by no means the only problems with the official report and BBC documentary.  Further

timestamp anomalies occur when CCTV footage is shown that is claimed to be one of the tube trains

exploding (also shown on Sky News, 2008).  The timestamp on this video image is 07.46:45am, over

an hour before the trains actually blew up.  Even accounting for a failure to adjust for British summer

time, the timings are several minutes out.

Other anomalies are not materially important to the second core departure between the theories.

In the BBC programme, having accepted the account of the government (that the men caught the

07.25 train from Luton and arrived in London at 08.23), the programme makers make no attempt to

refute the claim in 7/7 Ripple Effect that the men could not have arrived in London until after the

tube trains had left King’s Cross.  7/7 Ripple Effect, however, assumes that the four men were not on

the trains that blew up.

3. Evidence that “Suicide Bombers” Went to Canary Wharf 

7/7 Ripple Effect, by rejecting the thesis put forward in the BBC documentary that the men exploded

bombs and died, has to account for what happened to the four men during the remainder of the day.

It puts forward an argument that the men were recruited to an event organised by Peter Power, a

former PR officer for the Metropolitan Police, who simulates terrorist attacks for clients to practice

their crisis management skills.  The information in the following paragraphs is drawn from the

documentaries, and multiple sources collected together at

rehearsal.html#cbc (accessed 3rd October 2009).

Both documentaries show Peter Power appearing on several TV programmes on the morning of

7th July 2005 claiming to have been running a crisis management simulation for a ‘client’ based on a

scenario of four bombs going off in London at precisely the same locations and times.  7/7 Ripple 

Effect includes video footage of Peter Power’s involvement in an earlier BBC Panorama programme

made during 2004, in which public figures examine how the media should cover a terrorist attack

involving three tube trains and a truck in central London.  There is, therefore, no dispute between

the two documentary makers that Power was running a mock terrorism exercise in London on the

same day, or that he specialised in terrorist crisis management techniques.  The theoretical dispute

centres on whether the Muslim men were bone fide bombers, or patsies recruited to participate in

Peter Power’s simulation exercise to take the blame for the real bombings.

Power has admitted that he recruits people to make videos, including people who role play

different parts in the simulated crisis, so that the simulations he runs are as realistic as possible

(J7, 2008).  The 7/7 Ripple Effect claims that it is plausible that the four Muslim men were part of

Peter Power’s simulation, but offers nothing more than circumstantial evidence to support this view.

Power is interviewed in the BBC documentary and rejects a claim that a 1,000 people were involved

in a simulation that day.  Instead, he claims that the simulation was a ‘run through’ with only six

people in a control room.  This retraction is problematic in light of eye-witness evidence from

Daniel Obachike who saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near

Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July (Jones, 2007).  Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast,

Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as

he was taken away from the scene.  The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical 

staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports.  This

suggests that the coverage was planned in advance.  So, even if Peter Power did not hire people to

participate in his ‘real life’ simulations, an eye-witness account confirms that a terrorist simulation

involving many more than six people took place in London on 7th July 2005 (Obachike, 2007).

The thesis put forward by 7/7 Ripple Effect is that the four Muslim men, having been recruited to

participate in the simulation, realised that the explosions were real.  They found themselves

contemplating that they were intended to die in the ‘simulation’, and that they had survived only

through luck as a result of train delays and cancellations at Luton.  Consequently, they became

fearful for their own lives.  Hill (2007) sets out the rest of his thesis in Chapter 5 of 7/7 Ripple Effect1:

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 6


The phones are all not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by 

the authorities, so they cannot phone anyone to tell them what has happened.  What can 

they do to prevent themselves from being wrongly blamed for the explosions? What would 

you do in that situation? 

He then draws attention to reports of shootings at Canary Wharf:

On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has 

come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by 

the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s 

East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. 

How could suicide-bombers possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in 

the Docklands to be shot?  

Hill theorises that they were trying to take their story to the media in the Dockland’s area to avoid

being framed for the bombings:

In a New Zealand Herald newspaper article it says that two people were shot dead outside 

the HSBC building, and in Canada’s Globe and Mail Newspaper only one. There is another 

newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston 


Checking these claims provided the motivation for writing this paper.  The author found they exist

as bone fide news reports in overseas publications.  Following this, a search of Nexis UK, a database

used by universities to research news stories, was undertaken.  This revealed a number of other

reports in US, Canadian, New Zealand and UK newspapers.  Further to this, Google searches found

verbatim blogs and discussion forum archives that comment on these events.  These add support to

claims that a serious ‘crisis’ occurred at Canary Wharf.  Table 1 summarises the news stories that

surfaced at the time of the alleged shooting.

Table 1 – Reports of Activity at Canary Wharf, 7th – 10th July 2005 

Date / Time Source Text of News Report 

7th July, 11.49 GMT “Pammy”

Ceroc Scotland


“My cousin works at Canary Wharf and they are now evacuating there, not

sure if “just in case” or if they have heard something is up…”

7th July, 12.13 GMT “Gus”

Ceroc Scotland


“Its very odd in Canary Wharf at the moment. The offices are usually a lively

place … today there is no laughter, no smiles … a sombre place. We’re in a

very real crisis situation, we’ve been informed that the entire Wharf is locked

down, no one comes in, no one leaves … not that there is any transportation

to take you anywhere.”

7th July, 12.28 GMT “DavidB”

Ceroc Scotland


“I’m in Canary Wharf, and most people still seem to be at work. There are

loads of police and security around, and all the buildings are doing ID checks

at the entrances.  There was a rumour that to (sic) police stopped a

suspected bomber getting to canary wharf, but not heard anything else

about that yet.”

7th July, 12.34 GMT “Europhobia”

Internet Blog

“Someone here at work has just been phoned by a guy he knows in Canary

Wharf (I know, it’s a bit removed – but I trust him).  He says marines have

shot a man there who they think to have been a suicide bomber”.

7th July, 9.48 EST,

(13.48 GMT)

CNN Breaking


“QUESTION: Can you tell me — the rumors that a police sniper shot dead a

suicide bomber at Canary Wharf (ph). Do you know anything about that?

[BRIAN] PADDICK: We have no reports of any police sniper shooting at

anybody today.”

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 7


Date / Time Source Text of News Report 

7th July, 11:34 EST

(16.34 GMT)

Kate Rook, reporter

A Massive Rush of Policemen

“From the 18th floor of Canary Wharf in London, Canadian Brendan Spinks

could see a massive rush of policemen outside the building Thursday after

the city was rocked by terrorist attacks.  The Internet in his office had just

gone down when Mr. Spinks, an investment banker at HSBC, saw a flurry of

police cars and yellow-vested men outside.  Reports of attacks carried out by

suicide bombers were rife, and in one unconfirmed incident police shot a

suicide bomber outside the 42-floor banking tower…”

8th July Lucy Hyslop,


Vancouver Sun,

Final Edition

Lucy Hyslop, Senior

Editor, Daily


Canary Wharf.

“Canary Wharf, the tallest building in London and my office, was sealed off

completely to the public and all routes in and out were secured. Office

workers, some fearing another 9/11-style attack, decided to turn back and

begin the long walk home.

Rumours and misinformation were rife. I had one call from a friend reporting

that two suicide bombers had been shot dead at Canary Wharf, another

woman said her policeman husband had been sent to the area to wait just in

case of further attacks.”

8th July James Starnes,


Ottawa Citizen,

Final Edition

“The radio is saying they shot dead a suicide bomber at Canary Wharf and

that’s right opposite my apartment across the river (Thames).”


8th July John Walsh,


The Independent,


Terror In London

“Farouz, a business technician in Docklands…had heard the rumours.

‘Someone at work was saying a suicide bomber had been shot dead by police

just outside the Tower. But the police are denying it,’ he added darkly.”

8th July  Steve Nowotty,

Huntsville Times


Bombing Turned Thoughts to Mum

“Everyone had their story. Another colleague, Nicola, had returned late from

holiday, and been forced to cancel a meeting. She was lucky – she would

have been on the Tube in rush hour.

Nicola’s best friend was working in Canary Wharf – London’s answer to the

World Trade Center. She called in the afternoon, still in the building. Her

office had been told not to leave, and rumors were flying. Someone had

been shot. Maybe a suicide bomber. No one was sure.” 

8th July  News,

The Evening


(Palmerston, New


London Based Kiwis Send Messages Home

“Felicity Lawlor, formerly from Auckland, emailed her sister in Rongotea this

morning to say she arrived at work to hear about an explosion in the

Underground…“Ms Lawlor said there were ‘lots of crazy rumours flying

around’ like a suicide bomber having been shot dead outside Canary Wharf.” 

8th July, 9.03am Susan Percy,

New Zealand

Herald,  Messages

Bulletin Board

London Bombing

“One man said he had heard that police marksmen had shot a potential

suicide bomber at Canary Wharf but I haven’t seen that reported by the

news channel.”

9th July News Section

The News Zealand



“A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues

witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide

bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the

two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time).

Following the shooting, the 8000 workers in the 44-storey tower were told to

stay away from windows and remain in the building for at least six hours, the

New Zealand man said.

He was not prepared to give the names of his two English colleagues, who he

said witnessed the shooting from a building across the road from the tower.”

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 8


Date / Time Source Text of News Report 

9th July Simon Houpt

The Globe and Mail


Citizens of the World Report

“On Thursday, editors across London dealt with the same issue. At the Times

Online, news editor Mark Sellman noted that a number of tips came in that

turned out to be false. “You’re in a very hot point, stuff was coming in but it’s

not necessarily reliable, and you have to check it out,” he said. “There were

urban myths, and you do have to ignore them. Someone said a suicide

bomber was shot dead in Canary Wharf, and that was an urban myth.”

10th July South London


Suicide Bomber Neutralised in Canary Wharf, London

“On Thursday 7th July, a suspected suicide bomber was shot dead by police

marksman outside Canary Wharf, the financial district of London. It is

believed he was ‘neutralized’ outside the Credit Suisse First Boston bank.

Police are ‘probing’.  The ‘suicide bomber’ is believed to have been part of a

co-ordinated team of other suicide bombers. The alleged bomber was killed

on the same day of the central London terror attacks.”

10th July Nigel Farndale,

Sunday Telegraph


We’re Still New Yorkers

“One thing about which all we rumour mongers were agreed was that a

suicide bomber had definitely been shot by security forces while attempting

to blow up Canary Wharf.”

10th July News Section,

The Observer


“Down at Westminster, wild rumours – none of them true – were circulating:

a police sniper had shot a would-be suicide bomber at Canary Wharf; troops

were to be put on the streets; the casualties were higher than Madrid’, when

191 died.”

Further reports appear in UPI (USA), a UK news service for the City of London and the Daily Mail.

These repeat earlier reports from other newspapers sources and do not add to the accounts already

in the public domain.

The reports are contradictory.  A Globe and Mail article quotes Mark Sellman, editor of the Times

Online as saying the shooting was an ‘urban myth’.  The Observer also put out a statement saying

that ‘wild rumours’ that a sniper shooting dead a man at Canary Wharf were untrue.  These reports,

however, do not appear until the 9th and 10th July, days after reports have already appeared in

Canada (Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun), the USA (Huntsville Times, CNN News), New Zealand

(Evening Standard, New Zealand Herald), the UK (Sunday Telegraph, The Independent, South London

News, Ottawa Citizen) and internet blogs (Seroc Scotland Forum, Europhobia) that refer to

‘unconfirmed’ reports of a shooting.

Given the numerous press reports, Mike Rudin – series producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files – was

approached to clarify why these press reports were not discussed in the programme on 7/7.  He

responded that:

Our team did look at the rumours of shootings at Canary Wharf.  We spoke to a number of 

people who had been there on 7th July.  No one witnessed any shootings.  None of the 

comments you picked up on the web, nor any of the comments we looked at, named anyone 

who actually witnessed anything.  We checked the story with Reuters, as the New Zealand 

Herald mentions “a New Zealander working for Reuters”.  However, Reuters never wrote up 

this story, nor did the Press Association, Associated Press or AFP.  Nor could we find the New 

Zealander. We are left with nothing more than hearsay and rumour. 

Rudin (2009)

The BBC response is helpful, but not entirely persuasive.  Globe and Mail name Canadian

Brendan Spinks as an eye-witness account of extensive police activity.  Lucy Hyslop, who filed a

report with the Vancouver Sun, describes the situation that day, as well as the lock down that

occurred at Canary Wharf where she works.  As a “senior editor” at the Daily Telegraph, she is an

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 9


accessible media source, and her story includes a claim that a friend called her regarding the

shootings.   James Starnes, a citizen reporter, is his own ‘eye-witness’ to a radio station that was

carrying a story about a shooting.  All these people could be traced to clarify what they witnessed

first hand, and establish how the story broke.  While the BBC response correctly states that no

reporter, blogger or forum contributor claims to be an eye-witness to the shootings, the blogs and

discussion forum contributions are verbatim first hand reports, carrying more credibility than

second-hand BBC reports.  Their credibility does not depend on endorsement or confirmation by a

government or state authority.

With the exception of Times Online and the Observer, the reports that do exist are mutually

reinforcing and consistent.   The number of reports, and the multiple nationalities of the reporters

sending reports to different papers in different locations is consistent with verbatim accounts in two

internet blogs and a discussion forum.   This adds credibility to, but does not confirm, the Reuters

story.  While no firm conclusions can be drawn about a shooting, there is less doubt that a serious

incident occurred at Canary Wharf.  There are named eye witnesses to establish that police activity

occurred consistent with a lock-down in Canary Wharf in the aftermath of an alleged shooting.  The

incident, characterised as a ‘very real crisis situation’ by Gus on the Ceroc Scotland Forum at 12.18am

on 7th July , was important enough to:

– Prevent anybody entering or leaving Canary Wharf for six hours

– Instruct staff to keep away from the windows

– Deploy large numbers of police and/or army personnel to Canary Wharf

– Cut off internet access.

When these points are considered together with the numerous reports, and bearing in mind the

Reuters report claiming two eye-witnesses to the shootings, it is surprising that the government’s

official investigation makes no mention of anything occurring at Canary Wharf (House of Commons,

2006).  In any future public inquiry, it will be necessary not only to trace people who were at Canary

Wharf and the Credit Suisse building, but also to establish the conditions under which the

police/security services allowed people to leave.

In the next section of this paper, three theories of truth are applied to the evidence to gain

further insights.  After describing correspondence, coherence and critical approaches to ‘truth’, each

is deployed to briefly illustrate how the adoption of a particular philosophy of truth influences both

findings and conclusions.

4. Theorising Truth  

The challenge for any study purporting to seek the truth is not simply the process by which ‘truth’ is

discovered, but also the theory of truth that underpins the research process.  Johnson and

Duberley (2000) set out contrasting theories of truth used by researchers to test the validity and

robustness of their research findings.  This section of the paper examines the findings presented

above using theories of truth derived from positivist, interpretive and critical research traditions.

Positivist philosophy adopts a correspondence theory of truth, rooted in the assumption that a

given theory can be objectively tested against known ‘facts’ (David, 2009).  In the case of 7/7,

applying a correspondence theory faces a number of problems.  It is necessary to consider the

accuracy and credibility of each piece of evidence as well as the predictive power of any hypothesis

being tested.  One technique that can assist in reaching firm conclusions is triangulation (the use of

multiple data sources, or methods, to test a single proposition).  Ultimately, truth in a

correspondence sense depends on the extent to which a theory can account for all the known facts

in a specific case.  Studies in the positivist tradition may be conducted through deduction (testing

evidence for correspondence with the predictions of a given theory), or induction (gathering data

and showing how these correspond to a theory that is developed iteratively).

Studies grounded in an interpretative philosophy take account of variations in human perception

(Hammersley, 1992).  They recognise that there are cognitive processes that influence what we are

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 10


able to perceive, and that errors in perception may affect an individual’s account.  This philosophy

accepts that – for individuals at least – truth is largely subjective.  By applying a coherence theory of 

truth, a process can be developed that looks for commonalities and differences in various subjective

accounts, then examines which accounts are mutually supportive and contradictory (Young, 2008).

Either through the application of logic, or by selecting accounts that are mutually supportive, false

accounts can be discarded to enable a truthful representation to emerge (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Importantly, truth in a coherence sense does not rely entirely on empirical evidence.  The likelihood

that particular configurations of events could occur at the same or different times is taken into

account, then used as evidence in support of, or against, a particular theory.

Critical research traditions share some common ground with interpretative philosophy, by

accepting that variations in individual perception occur all the time.  It differs, however, from

interpretative philosophy by assuming that beliefs (i.e. the products of using an interpretive

approach to social enquiry) are distorted by asymmetries in power and cultural processes.

Critical research assumes that knowledge is constructed, in everyday life, to support prevailing

assumptions (often referred to as a paradigm), and that these assumptions are infused with concepts

and meanings from prevailing political thought and ideology (Gramsci, 1971; Alvesson and Deetz,

2000).  Knowledge, therefore, is structured to support ideas that prevail at a particular time and

place.  To get closer to truth in critical research, the researcher needs to assess how power and

political interests shape the production of knowledge so that their distorting influence can be made

explicit through an analytical process called deconstruction.

Two branches of critical research (postmodernism and critical theory) use the additional

knowledge generated through deconstruction in different ways.  Postmodernism focuses on

deconstructing the power relations and discourses that underpin a particular theory.  Having done

so, the researcher avoids privileging one account of truth over another to prevent closure of the

debate.  This also leaves the reader (or research participant) free to select the truth that is most

credible to them (Aylesworth, 2005).  Critical theory, however, adopts an objective ontology and uses

the additional knowledge generated by the process of deconstruction to reduce the distorting effects

of power.  Having done so, a fresh assessment of the truthfulness of a particular theory can be

undertaken with the goal of informing future action (Johnson and Duberley, 2000; Bohman, 2005).

In the pages that follow, the evidence uncovered in earlier parts of the paper is assessed using

these theories of truth.  In the first instance, we compare the evidence using correspondence and

coherence theories of truth.   The paper then considers the political and social context of the two

documentary makers, and the political purposes and interests that their documentaries serve.  This

helps to reveal any distortions stemming from the power of the institutions publishing their work, or

the ideologies they seek to advance.

Before this is undertaken, it is worth summarising the assumptions of the two documentaries

regarding the events that occurred on 7th July 2005 (see Table 2).

Table 2: Timelines and Assumptions 

7th July 2005 – Time BBC / Government Theory 7/7 Ripple Effect Theory 

04.00 – 06.49 Four Muslim men travel from Leeds and

Aylesbury to Luton with the goal of blowing up

three tube trains and a bus, or four tube trains.

Four Muslim men travel from Leeds and

Aylesbury to Luton with the goal of participating

in a mock terrorist exercise organised by Peter

Power of Visor Consultants.

06.49 – 07.22 Four men prepare for their journey to London

in the car park at Luton.

Four men prepare for their journey to London in

the car park at Luton.

07.22 Four men enter the station at Luton and catch

the 07.25 train to King’s Cross.


(Amended theory, after discovery that the

07.40 train was cancelled on 7th July).

The men enter the station at Luton and await

the 07.40 train to London.  The train is

cancelled, and they have to travel on the

delayed 07.48 service, which arrives in London

at 08.43.

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 11


7th July 2005 – Time BBC / Government Theory 7/7 Ripple Effect Theory 

08.23 – 08.30 The four men arrive at King’s Cross Thameslink

and walk to the King’s Cross Underground

where they are captured on a CCTV camera at


The men are still travelling to London on the

delayed 07.48 service.

08.30 – 08.49 One man catches the Eastbound Circle line at


One man catches the Westbound Circle line at


One man catches the Piccadilly line

(southbound) at 08.48.

One man goes to McDonald’s and eats.

The men arrive at King’s Cross Thameslink at

08.43.  Three enter the underground to catch

the trains that form part of the simulation

exercise organised by Peter Power.

One man goes to McDonald’s and eats.

8.50 The three men on the tube trains trigger their

bombs and blow themselves and the trains up,

killing 57 people.

The three men cannot get into King’s Cross

underground due to three explosions, and panic

when they realise that they are being set up to

take the blame for the bombings.

8.50 – 9.47 Three men are dead.  The fourth man catches a

91 bus to Euston, then a number 30 bus which

is diverted into Tavistock Square.  At 09.47, he

detonates the fourth bomb blowing himself

and the bus up.

Three men travel by bus to Canary Wharf to

seek the protection of the press.  The fourth

(unable to contact the first three), locates the

number 30 bus at Euston.  It is diverted to

Tavistock Square where it is blown up.  It is

unclear if the fourth man dies in the explosion.

9.48 – 10.30 The emergency services work to help the

survivors of the bombings.

The three men arrive at Docklands.  Two are

shot outside Canary Wharf, and one is shot

outside Boston First Bank, by the anti-terrorist

branch of the Metropolitan Police.

Canary Wharf, after


(By inference, nothing of significance takes

place at Canary Wharf).

(By inference, the security services / anti-

terrorist squad, secure Canary Wharf and

destroy evidence that the men have been


Assessing the Evidence Using a Correspondence Theory of Truth 

The principal issue for the Government / BBC theory is the timing of the trains at Luton.  The initial

theory – that the men caught the 7.40 train – would have satisfied most of the demands of a

correspondence theory of truth.  The only potential problem is the short time between parking the

car and entering the station.  Assuming that the government report on the men in the car park is

misreported, or that the timing on the CCTV cameras may not be 100% accurate, it is plausible that a

car could be parked, and passengers enter the station, with the CCTV timestamps shown.   Entering

at 7.22 gives the men ample time to ascend the stairs, obtain their tickets and walk to the relevant

platform for the 7.40 train.

As soon as the train departure time is revised to 7.25, deploying a correspondence theory of truth

is more problematic, and has a much more limited plausibility.  In addition to the short time between

parking and entering the station, the question arises whether four men planning to catch the 7.24

train to London to execute a terrorist attack would leave it as late as 7.22 to enter the station.  In

light of testimony from regular commuters that it takes 3 minutes to reach the platform, this appears

to violate the level of correspondence needed to be claimed as true, unless firm evidence is provided

that the clocks on the CCTV cameras were inaccurate.

If we factor in the official government account, the ‘facts’ correspond even less with the theory.  A

person recorded on CCTV as parking their car at 7.19:48 at Luton station, getting out and taking 25

minutes to move items from boot to boot with four other men, putting on “large and heavy”

rucksacks, and then walking from the car park to the entrance, could not be captured on another

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 12


CCTV image at 7.21:54 entering Luton train station.  Either the official account, or the camera

evidence, must contain errors.

The theory put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect, on the other hand, violates one key piece of evidence

provided by the BBC documentary.  If the men caught a train at 7.56am from Luton, and arrived in

London at 8.43am, how could they be caught on a CCTV camera at King’s Cross at 8.26am?  As no

date or timestamp appears on the CCTV footage shown by the BBC, the CCTV evidence does not

contravene correspondence truth: it could have been recorded at any time, even on another day.

The time of the recording is as likely to be after 8.43am as 8.26am.  As a consequence, the video

footage could support either theory by confirming that the men reached King’s Cross, London.

In assessing the evidence of activity at Canary Wharf, both theories are plausible.  It is plausible

that precautions would be taken to protect Canary Wharf by deploying police to the area, and that

this would cause consternation and rumours amongst the staff working there.  It is also plausible, if

security services were behind the bombings, that they would track the three men to Canary Wharf

and intercept them to ensure they do not reach the press.

The issue of correspondence gets more problematic once we consider the lock-down and alleged

shootings near Canary Wharf.  From the perspective of the BBC / Government theory, the lock down

does not correspond with the idea that nothing of significance happened at Canary Wharf.  Reports

of a ‘crisis’ at Canary Wharf started to occur before the first media report of a shooting (see Table 1).

Reports of a “massive rush of policemen” and a “flurry of police cars and yellow vested men”,

combined with instructions to “stay away from the windows” for “six hours” while the building was

“locked down” so that “no one comes in, no one leaves”: this indicates a specific security threat

rather than a generic security operation.

In considering the 7/7 Ripple Effect claims, the lack of official confirmation, and a lack of people

coming forward as eye-witnesses (assuming the Times and Observer sought witnesses out) creates

anomalies that undermine correspondence between its stated theory and ‘facts’However, this

evidence is ambiguous: it is plausible that a rumour would circulate based on speculation; it is also

plausible that a media blackout would be imposed in the event of a shooting that the government

did not want reported as a matter of national security.

Assessing the Evidence Using a Coherence Theory of Truth 

Having considered evidence using a correspondence theory of truth, we now switch to a coherence

theory of truth.  The difference between the two theories is a matter of perspective.  Using a

correspondence theory involves checking the details of an account at the micro level against known

‘facts’.  A coherence theory of truth considers whether sets of propositions are consistent with each 

other, whether they fit together and remain plausible.  In short, coherence tests a series of

propositions as a whole, rather than testing them one at a time, to arrive at a systemic (holistic)

perspective on the plausibility of a theory.

The switch to a coherence theory of truth presents an immediate problem for the BBC /

Government theory.  Concern over the ‘coincidence’ of four bombers attacking London at the precise

moment Peter Power was running a mock terrorism exercise led the BBC to record an interview with

him in its rebuttal of 7/7 Ripple Effect.  Peter Power explains the coincidence as a product of good

intelligence from previous attacks by the IRA.

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four

Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets.  Put simply:

What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at 

roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise 

organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?   

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person

playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot.  This being the case,

the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible.   The key issue is whether it is

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 13


more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from

providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter-terrorism

expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective

of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism 

exercise would travel to the same four locations on the same day, at roughly the same time? 

It is not just highly likely, it is almost certain.  Occam’s Razor applies.

Further incoherence is apparent when the press reports regarding Canary Wharf are considered

as evidence.  It is coherent (i.e. theoretically plausible) that reports would occur if the men travelled

to Canary Wharf and were shot.  The press reports are incoherent (theoretically implausible) if

nothing occurred at Canary Wharf.  On the other hand, the lack of first hand eye-witness accounts of

the shootings is incoherent with the 7/7 Ripple Effect theory.  This incoherence would be plausible if

the six hour lock-down was part of an operation to ensure that everyone at Canary Wharf observed a

press blackout under the Broadcasting Act and Civil Contingencies Act.  Additionally, the evidence

works both ways and remains ambiguous.  If it is significant that nobody working at Canary Wharf

came forward to confirm the shootings, it is also significant that no one came forward to deny them.

Lastly, for ethnic British people in particular, the notion that the British government (or one of its

security agencies) would bomb its own citizens to bolster support for war may trigger a great deal of

cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957).  Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person encounters two

ideas or concepts that contradict each other.  As a government bombing its own citizens violates the

principles of liberal democracy (government by the people, for the people), there is a ‘common-

sense’ impulse to discard any theory based on the idea.  Nevertheless, both historical research on

state violence, and increasing knowledge about ‘false flag’ terrorist operations, requires both

researchers and investigative journalists to consider whether MI5 or another intelligence service

could have organised the attack (see Shayler, 2007).

Assessing the Evidence Using a Social Constructionist Theory of Truth 

In the case of social construction (as a critical philosophy), truth is not amenable to objective

verification (Habermas, 1987).  Instead it is treated as a product of historical, political and ideological

contexts.  The goal of a critical researcher is to question the legitimacy of truth claims by revealing

the social relations and power asymmetries that inhibit full disclosure of ‘facts’, or which produce

‘facts’ that have no truth content (in a correspondence sense).  In this paper, the switch to a critical

perspective changes the focus to the truth that the documentary makers sought to construct through

their programme making activities.

In the case of the BBC, its institutions are funded through a license fee that the UK government

permits it to charge to everyone who has a television set.  In return, the government can acquire

editorial control of the BBC under provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1980 whenever there is a

“national emergency”.  The definition of “emergency” was clarified further in the Civil Contingencies

Act 2004:

In the United Kingdom, the Monarch, the Privy Council, or the Prime Minister can make 

emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 if there is a serious threat to 

human welfare, the environment, or in case of war or terrorism. These regulations last for 

seven days unless confirmed otherwise by Parliament. 

Wikipedia, “State of Emergency”, last modified 27th September 2009.

John Hill, on the other hand, used internet video sharing sites to broadcast his homemade

documentary.  Such documentaries have the capacity to reach a wide audience.  Loose Change about

the 9/11 attacks is reported to have been viewed more than 40 million times on Google, and led to

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 14


the sale of more than 1 million DVDs2 .  With news making powers in the hands of citizen journalists,

the power of the state or private business to control the mass media is diminishing.

Limits on BBC journalists’ power to criticise government became apparent after a row over

Andrew Gilligan’s report on the death of Dr David Kelly in the early stages of Iraq war (Wikipedia,

2009).  Following the Hutton Report, Gavyn Davies (Chair of the BBC Board of Governors) and Greg

Dyke (BBC Director General) were forced from their jobs (BBC, 2004).  It is clear, therefore, that BBC

documentaries that call into question the government’s “war on terror” will trigger punitive action by

the government.  At times of national crisis, BBC outputs will not only be subject to government

scrutiny, but also direct editorial control by government ministers.

The documentary made by John Hill, on the other hand, is free from both state and corporate

influence.  His work is influenced by a different set of interests.  In the documentary, the narrator

calls himself Muad’ Dib (literally, ‘educator’ in Arabic, or alternatively ‘the one with respect’)3.  In an

interview, he states that this is taken from the film Dune.  In the documentary itself, he talks about

‘the hand of God’, indicating some affiliation with religious thought.  John Hill, who now goes by the

name of Muad’ Dib in everyday life, is actually a Sheffield born white man who moved to Ireland.

In interviews, he explains that 7/7 Ripple Effect was motivated by a desire to prove that the four

men alleged to be suicide bombers were innocent.  The campaign took on a greater sense of urgency

when three further men were charged with conspiracy to cause the bombings.  As Hill states:

I did not make the film to prove the innocence of the three young Muslims who were on trial, 

but sent the DVDs months after it had been made, to prove their innocence.  I made it to 

prove the innocence of the four dead patsies, and subsequently sent it to the court to prove 

that the three men on trial could not possibly be guilty of helping four other men to do 

something that the four other men did not do. 

Hill (2009)

The DVDs were sent to the judge and jury of the trial by sending copies to the court marked for

their attention.  This prompted his arrest and detention, and an extradition request to the Irish

government (BBC, 2009b).  His warrant states that the maximum sentence he faces is ‘life

imprisonment’ in England for fabricating evidence that might cause injustice (O’Hara, 2009).

However, John Hill’s first interview with Professor Jim Fetzer (Fetzer, 2009) claims exactly the reverse

of this.  It was motivated by a desire to prevent a miscarriage of justice.   The following statement is

particularly relevant:

I mentioned to my friends that someone needs to make a film and one of them said, 

“somebody has made a film called Mind the Gap”, and he’s an ex-MI5 agent.  I watched the 

film and he does a pretty good job in taking apart the official story and showing that it is all 

lies.  And then there’s Ludicrous Diversion which does a similar thing.  But neither of the films 

put the whole thing together in a way that everyone could understand, that the average 

person in the street could understand.  So I decided that if nobody else was going to do it, I’d 

have to do it.  And so that’s what we set about doing.  My friends helped me with 

downloading video from the internet, and newspaper articles from the internet and all the 

rest of it.  You’ve seen the film so you know that I haven’t fabricated anything – I’ve used all 

mainstream media and articles and TV footage.  

Source:, accessed 6th October, 2009.

The BBC Conspiracy Files documentary is a direct response to the popularity of 7/7 Ripple Effect.  

A statement making the BBC’s intent clear appears on the BBC web-site promoting the series:

There have been three official reports into the bombings on 7th July, which claimed the lives 

of 52 people along with the four people identified as the bombers, and injured 784 others. 

The programme sees how conspiracy theories suggest four British Muslims were framed by 

the government, play on the fears of the Muslim community and spread a highly divisive and 

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 15


damaging message.  The Conspiracy Files: 7/7 examines the evidence in an attempt to 

separate fact from fiction. 

Source:, accessed 6th October 2009.

The usefulness of this brief analysis is that it makes clear that neither documentary sets out to

provide a balanced account, or to separate ‘fact’ from ‘fiction’.  7/7 Ripple Effect sets out to prove

the innocence of the four alleged bombers, and was later sent to the judge and jury in a trial where

three others were facing conspiracy charges4.  It had already prejudged the official government

account.  The BBC Conspiracy Files programme sets out to disprove (or undermine) 7/7 Ripple Effect 

by proving it is “divisive and damaging”.  It too, starts by prejudging John Hill’s account.

In the case of the BBC, we must remember that is it ultimately controlled by state officials and

operates under laws that allow the government to take editorial control in the event of a terrorist

attack.  This means that the BBC is not in a position to declare itself ‘objective’, nor is it capable of

separating fact from fiction on a matter that threatens the integrity of the state that allows it to exist.

In the case of John Hill, the truth is constructed to challenge the account provided by the

government.  Even if constructed from public sources and persuasive, it selects evidence that

supports specific political goals.


The purpose and contribution of this paper is to theorise the effects of applying different theories of

truth in the evaluation of research findings.  By using different theories of truth to structure critical

analysis, the paper shows how both findings and theoretical conclusions can be affected.  Further, it

also shows that each theory of truth, when applied, reveals different insights into complex social

activities.  Far from these being in contradiction with each other, each application of a different

theory of truth has the potential to reveal different domains of reality that exist concurrently.  As

such, the paper supports the argument for alethic pluralism on the basis that truth is not a stable

concept across different domains of thought: using multiple theories of truth adds, rather than

detracts from, the search for insight and knowledge (Darwin, 2004).

To summarise and conclude, this paper has presented two theories on the bombings that took

place in London on 7th July 2005.  The first was presented in the internet documentary 7/7 Ripple 

Effect released in 2007When this became popular, a BBC response titled Conspiracy Files: 7/7 was

broadcast in June 2009.   Based on the evidence presented in this paper, it is by no means clear

which documentary is spreading the most “highly divisive and damaging message”.  Neither

documentary can claim neutrality either in its starting premise, or its analysis of evidence.  If

7/7 Ripple Effect is ‘fabricated’, then the claim it is divisive would have some merit.  However, this

research has not found any instance of fabricated evidence: it is an example of critical journalism that

draws wholly on public news sources to formulate a controversial, but plausible, theory.   After

deploying three different theories of truth to develop insights into new and existing evidence, it is

the BBC / Government theory that has a lower level of correspondence with known ‘facts’, is

incoherent to the point of being implausible, and is more likely to distort its reports because of

institutional controls and political pressures.

If a government agency has deliberately escalated the “war on terror” through the use of ‘false

flag’ terrorism, then the BBC’s continued defence of the official story will undoubtedly be more

divisive and damaging than the claims published in 7/7 Ripple Effect.  Moreover, the large number of

press reports uncovered during the research for this paper (outlining a ‘lock-down’ and ‘shooting’ at

Canary Wharf) adds to the evidence base for the theory put forward in 7/7 Ripple Effect.  As a result,

the case for a public inquiry outside the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005 continues to grow.



The author would like to thank the BBC’s Mike Rudin, John Anthony Hill and Bridget at J7 for their contributions to

improving an earlier draft of this paper.

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 16


Appendix A – Alternative Hypotheses 

1.  al-Qa’ida mastermind recruited British Muslims as suicide bombers 

2.  al-Qa’ida mastermind recruited British Muslims, but duped them in so far as the latter did not know 

they were going to die in the explosions. 

3.  Homegrown and autonomous action by four British Muslims with no mastermind. 

4.  Any of the above plots could have been monitored by one or more secret ‘service’ (MI5, MI6, CIA, 

Mossad, GIA) but they let it happen on purpose in order to exploit the subsequent situation. 

5.  The men thought they were going to strike a blow for Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc and go to 

Heaven as ‘martyrs’ because they had been groomed and encouraged and equipped by an al-Qa’ida 

mastermind who was actually working for one of the State agencies or a rogue network straddling 

one or more of them with their own agenda. 

6.  The four men thought they were going to be delivering drugs or money to various locations round 

London, but were deceived, set up and murdered along with the others on their tubes and bus when 

their back packs exploded. 

7.  As above but the men thought they were carrying dummy ‘bombs’ because they were participating 

in an exercise testing London transport’s defences against backpack bombers. 

8.  The four men were chosen or lured in to be patsies in a classic ‘false flag operation’ or frame-up by a 

network involved with one or more of the intelligence services.  

9.  The original story of a ‘power surge’ was correct, if one understands the term ‘power surge’ outside 

of its implied electrical context., accessed 5th October 2009.




As a result of the research for this paper, Rory chose to add his name to a petition calling on the government to hold a

public inquiry outside the scope of the Inquiries Act 2005, or to release the evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt

that the official report into 7/7 is correct.  The petition can be found at:


© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 17




Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000) Doing Critical Management Research, Sage Publications.

Anders (2009), Increasing Anger Over London’s 7/7 bombs.  Another 9/11?, Euromed & The Media, 

14th July 2009,

Aylesworth, G. (2005) “Postmodernism”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,, accessed 7th October 2009.

BBC (2004) “Dyke ‘forced out’ by BBC governors”, BBC News Channel, 1st February 2004,

BBC (2006) “Reid reveals 7 July account error”, BBC News, 11th July 2006,

BBC (2009a) The Conspiracy Files: 7/7, BBC 2, first broadcast 30th June 2009,, accessed 6th September 2009.

BBC (2009b) Unmasking the mysterious 7/7 conspiracy theorist, BBC News Magazine, 30th June 2009,

Bohman, J. (2005) “Critical Theory”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,, accessed 7th October 2009.

CNN (2005) “Terror hits London Transport System”, CNN Breaking News, 9.48 EST,


sb=22_T7368406355&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=271063&docNo=137, accessed 17th

September 2009.

Ceroc Scotland Forum (2005) Explosions and Bombs in London, 7th July 2009,, accessed

3rd October 2009.

Darwin, J. (2004) “Linking theory and practice in management research: scientific research

programmes and alethic pluralism”, International Journal of Management Concepts and 

Philosophy, 1(1): 43-60.

David, M. (2009) “The Correspondence Theory of Truth”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,, accessed 17th October 2009.

Europhobia (2005) London Tube Explosions, 7th July 2005,, accessed 17th September


Evening Standard (2005) “London Based Kiwis Send Messages Home”, News Section, 8th July,

retrieved from UK Nexis News Database, 3rd October 2009.

Farndale, N. (2005) “We’re Still New Yorkers”, Sunday Telegraph, 10th July, retrieved from UK Nexis

News Database, 17th September 2009.

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fetzer, J. (2009) “Muad’Dib (Creator of 7/7 Ripple Effect) Interviewed by Jim Fetzer, 24th June 2009,

Real Deal,  

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 18


Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 2; Lifeworlds and System: A Critique 

of Functionalist Reason, London: Heineman.

Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography, London and New York: Routledge.

Hill, J. (2007) 7/7 Ripple Effect,,

accessed 6th September 2009.

Hill. J. (2009).  E-mail correspondence sent to Rory Ridley-Duff, 15th October, 13.06pm.  This e-mail

clarified information about the release of 7/7 Ripple Effect to correct an error in an earlier draft of

the paper.  It further clarified the motives for the documentary, and the reason for its submission

as an amicus curiae brief when three men were charged over the 7/7 bombings.

Houpt, S. (2005) “Citizens of the World Report”, Globe and Mail, 9th July, retrieved from UK Nexis

News Database, 17th September 2009. 

House of Commons (2006) Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, 

London: The Stationery Office.  Available from http://www.official-

Hyslop, L. (2005) “It was only when a real voice told us to get off that we realised”, Vancouver Sun, 

8th July, retrieved from UK Nexis News Database, 3rd October 2009.

J7 (2008) “Mock Broadcasts at the 7/7 Terror Rehearsal”,

rehearsal.html#mockbroadcasts, accessed 10th October 2009.

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research: An Introduction to 

Epistemology, London: Sage Publications.

Jones, A. (2007) 7/7 London Bus Bomb Witness, Alex Jones Radioshow, accessed 3rd October 2009,, interview with Daniel


New Zealand Herald (2005) “Police shot bombers reports New Zealander”, News – General, 9th July,

retrieved from UK Nexis News Database, 3rd October 2009.

Nowotty, S. (2005) “Bombing Turned Thoughts to Mum”, Huntsville Times (Alabama), retrieved from

UK Nexis News Database, 3rd October 2009.

Obachike, D. (2007) The 4th Bomb, Floran Publishing.

Observer (2005) “News”, 10th July, retrieved from UK Nexis News Database, 18th September 2009.

O’Hara, G. (2009) “Message from Mr Hill arrested for mailing a DVD”, Wise Up Journal,

Reid, A. (2009) “Conspiracy fever: As rumours swell that the government stage 7/7, victims’ relatives

call for proper inquiry”, Mail Online, 3rd July 2009,


Rook, K. (2005) “A Massive Rush of Policemen”, Globe and Mail, 7th July 2005, retrieved from UK

Nexis News Database, 3rd October 2009.

Rudin, M. (2009) E-mail correspondence sent to Rory Ridley-Duff, 29th September, 11.38am.  This

e-mail was in response to requests for a comment on press reports retrieved from UK Nexis

database on 8th September, 18th September and 24th September.

Shayler, D. (2006) Mind the Gap,

2001897549763616199#, accessed 7th October 2009 – see timeframe 5:58 – 7:45.

South London News (2005) “Suicide Bomber Neutralized in Canary Wharf, London”, News, 10th July,

© Rory Ridley-Duff, 2009  Page 19


Starnes, J. (2005) “Citizen Special”, Ottawa Citizen, 8th July, retrieved from UK Nexis News Database,

3rd October 2009.

Sky News (2008) “July 7th London Bombing CCTV”, , accessed 5th October 2009.

Walsh, J. (2005) “Terror In London”, The Independent, 8th July, retrieved from UK Nexis News

Database, 3rd October 2009.

Wikipedia (2009) “Andrew Gilligan”,, update as at

26th July 2009, 05:07.

Young, J. (2008) “The Coherence Theory of Truth”, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,, accessed 17th October 2009.

YouTube (2009) “Muad’ Dib (Creator 7/7 Ripple Effect) interviewed by Jim Fetzer”, 24th June 2009,


The extracts are sourced from pages 5 – 6 of the documentary transcript uploaded to


Source: Wikipedia, “Loose Change (film)”, 5th October 2009.


See Yahoo Answers,


All three men accused were eventually found ‘not guilty’.

One Comment

  1. Hello all, here every person is sharing these kinds of knowledge, so it’s nice to read
    this webpage, and I used to pay a quick visit this webpage every day.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.