Talk:Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/06. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

These two links should be included here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/media/r5.live.peter.power.exercise.mp3

This seems like a silly idea of a conspiracy theory - you're telling me a gvt could pull this off brilliantly and kill dozens of its own civilians but not successfully cover up the murder of one innocent (if at the time vaguely suspicious) man running for a train two days later. 160.39.111.79 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the POV tag? I essentially rewrote the thing. CanadianCaesar 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The quote doesn't link to a credible source. It hasn't been documented anywhere that he has said that. The Mirror quote is also being distorted to present a more sinister view than what the article is saying. Astrotrain 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which quote are you referring to - if it's the Peter Power one you can listen to it via the link at the top of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.188 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought that would be clear from the article- "Shyler supposedly said". Also, the Mirror is being quoted to suggest the bombers were lied to by Al Qaeda, not that it was a government job. I think the article should be moved to Rumours about the July 2005 London bombings and expanded with snopes, which would make the Mirror look less sinister. CanadianCaesar 22:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But the suggestion that the bombers did not know they were going to die is not a "conspiracy theory" or a "rumour". It is a genuine theory, widely reported in the UK press and discussed by the Police themselves. The only conspiracy theory that is genuine is the suggestion that the Israeli Embassy received a warning about the attacks 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Warnings. But that doesn't really warrant its own article. Astrotrain 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PROTEST : These are not just 'rumours' or 'conspiracy theories' but PROVEN FACTS!

I firmly protest against the fact that this article, which covers DOCUMENTED FACTS about the 7/7 London bombing attacks, is treated as just mere "rumours" and/or "conspiracy theories" as this is for sure a deliberate attempt to disqualify and/or ridicule some serious facts that would lead to a totaly distinct approach as to what actually happened, and how and why this event happened!!!

That drills were going on that day, at the VERY PRECISE time and location of the actual attacks, is a WELL ESTABLISHED FACT, not a rumour, and should therefore be covered in the main article itself! Same is true about the behavious of the alledged 'terrorists' which were not in any way behaving as terrorists. Facts are facts, not rumours or conspiracies! In fact it does not even need to be mentioned "conspiracy" but these are "complicity" theories, BASED on FACTS and for a large part PROVEN TRUE! It seems the people here know NOTHING about operations by secret intelligence agencies, such as was the case with Gladio - which also made it look like other people/groups had performed these terror acts - and that the more recent terrorist attacks (9/11, Bali 2002, Madrid and London 7/7) all show well established facts which lead to government foreknowledge and government complicity.

Heusdens 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add a section about other logical complicity []

I think you need to stop link-spamming. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think name of this article discourages readers from going on reading (and the one who renamed it did it with this purpose in mind). 81.201.48.25 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people here need some medical help. Just because a private consultancy ran an exercise on the same day, with the scenario in two of the same stations, does not make a government conspiracy. What does this consultacy consult on? Crisis and Risk managment so its not that unusual for them to actually do what they are paid to do. So your "fact" tells you nothing more "Consultancy firm does its job". Also, seeing as the IRA were quite fond of blowing up stations, its hardly without precedent.

Secondly, making a video about your forthcoming suicide attack and impending demise could be considered as behaviour consistant with terrorist attacks, unless the super-therorists believe this was a co-incidental piece of young lads messining around with a camcorder. By all means question the official line on these things, but keep it within the realms of reality and possiblity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD result - keep

This article was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Rob e rt 04:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC/Powers interview

Have video (.wmv) and audio (mp3) of these interviews. They can't be that hard to come by, but if you want a copy, leave a message on my talk page and I will arrange to deliver these to you. TCMike 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Obachike - survivor or hoaxer?

Xiutwel has added a link to Daniel Obachike's blog. There seems to be little hard evidence that this person was actually on the bus at all, and therefore the veracity of his claims are in doubt. [1] The "evidence" on Obachike's website itself seems to be tenuous, to say the least. Nick Cooper 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so where are the 'conspiracy theories?'

This is just a collections of observations and facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.97.195 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theories and sources

An anonymous IP has attempted to remove one particular theory on the grounds that it is "unattributable". In actual fact, none of the theories here are, because it is the very nature of theses theories that they are rarely documented by what we would normally regard as reliable sources, but they do exist as theories. Generally, the only citations are to the "facts" that are usually used to construct the theories in the first place. For example, the sole cit for the "bombs under trains" concept is the news report that prompted the theory in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are needed. Reliable sources verify that the theories are notable, and they allow a balanced article to be written. Proper sourcing prevents Wikipedia from becoming a blog, where any conspiracy theorist can write any loony theory he makes up on the spot. If a theory is widely known and discussed in mainstream media, it should be easy to find sources. Unsourced material may be removed, and that's policy. Weregerbil (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that if we stick doggedly to "the rules," pretty much everything on this page will have to be deleted. The basic fact is that while certain theories - "loony" or otherwise - may have common currency and are widely discussed in certain circles, generally they do not appear at all in the mainstream media. Rigid application of citing rules will - intentionally or not - result in the removal of material, leaving a totally false impression, i.e. that there are no such theories relating to a particular event or issue. This is the fundamental conflict when attempting to document that such theories exist. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should any conspiracy theory be allowed on Wikipedia, without sources, or explanation of its notability, or evidence that the theory wasn't made up on the spot? The (WP:WEASEL, btw) theory in question is a particularly silly one too. Does it exist outside this article? Weregerbil (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it's silly, but it does exist outside of this article. The problem - inherent with documenting such theories - is that where they are given the most coverage invariably fail to meet the usual standards for WP sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some sources that show the theory exists outside Wikipedia? Weregerbil (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Try [2], but then it's a blog. Also [3]. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter link doesn't appear to discuss the bus, actors, special effects, demolition companies, or a cover up. The first does talk about the bus, something about a rehearsal. Ok, we have one partially related blog entry, perhaps better than nothing. Weregerbil (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this article for the first time the "actors" paragraph really stood out as being a poor addition and damaging to the credibility of the article IMO. I think we really need to stick to things that are reported on as being one of the theories. After all if we searched hard enough you could no doubt find a blog post somewhere saying it was the catholics/jews/scientologists/space aliens/etc. I agree with the above that the standard should be whether a particular theory is notable. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources are there so that Wikipedia doesn't become full of lists of 'stuff people write about in their blogs'. If there are things in this article that can't be sourced any other way, then maybe they don't belong in a serious enyclopedia? Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is pretty close to the situation here.The Drama Llama (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I have already pointed out above, the danger with that sort of pedantry is that, given that these theories are rarely discussed in the mainstream media - i.e. sources we would normally accept for citations - is that we end up with virtually nothing on the page. That would suggest that there are few if any such theories, which would be clearly a gross misrepresentation of the situation. I would also note once more that as it stands, virtually none of the theories already on the page are actually cited as theories. Take "Bombs under the trains" for example. The sole cite (now lost) was simply a news report in which a witness described having seen the floor of a bombed Underground car damaged in a certain way. Effectively the citation was to "evidence" that theory is based on, rather than the theory itself. Similarly, the "Simultaneous exercise" section presents what theorists themselves usually cite to show that the exercise was taking place, rather than anything that shows that some see such an exercise as a significant event in the first place. The second part of the same paragraph, incidentally, illustrates perfectly how less convincing certain theories can be, in that it strives to claim a "connection" between persons A & C, simply by virtue of them both knowing or having worked with person B. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but who are these 'theorists' and have they had any impact? Compare the situation with the 9/11 conspiracy rumours; they have had enormous impact on society: there are published books and films about them, they get mentioned in the media frequently; even the BBC has produced a documentary about them; the President of Iran seems to believe in them; Al-Qaeda has tried to rebut them. Is any of this true of the 7/7 theories? If not, could it be because they're not notable? That they have had no impact on society? That, I would suggest is the difference between the kind of conspiracy theory that Wikipedia should describe and the kind that is just 'something someone said on his blog'.The Drama Llama (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly there are theories about 7/7, although inevitabley with the events themselves been far smaller in comparison to 9/11, coverage is less extensive. There are a few books questioning the official account, they get mentioned in the mainstream media in general terms (e.g. [4], [5], [6], etc.), and the BBC has also made a documentary on the subject[7], to be broadcast this weekend, IIRC. Clearly, then, they have had an "impact on society". The problem, though, is that while it is clearly acknowledged that such theories exist, they are rarely discussed in citable sources in anything other than general terms. In short, there is no detail that we can use unde rthe normal "rules". Taking this to its logical conclusion would actually mean that this page would consist of little more than a statement that such theories exist, linking solely to those examples of general acknowledgement I've given in this paragraph.

Clearly you have taken exception to what is undoubtedly one of the most extreme theories, but the reality is than none of the others on the page are cited as theories, either. Specifically:

Withholding evidence - No citation that this forms part of any theory, only a news report suggesting that more footage of those identified as the bombers may exist
Warnings - No citations that these form part of any theory, only such reports that suggest warnings were given
Simultaneous exercise - No citation that this forms part of any theory (only link is now dead)
Bombs under the trains - No citation that this forms part of any theory; only previous link was to news report of what the witness described, i.e. the prompt for this specific theory, not the theory itself

Obviously if you believe what you believe, then you should delete all of the above, as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are books and BBC documentaries on the subject, cite them and the problem is solved. The things you note above are of course problematic too, but hopefully the forthcoming documentary will help you connect them to the theories better. The Drama Llama (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hattin

Don't know if you guys want to pick up on this. I do quite a lot of crusade history and the Battle of Hattin is sometimes said to have been on July 7 1187. The battle was where Saladin destroyed the Christian army, allowing him to take back Jerusalem. It was their most famous defeat. Most think it was really on 4 July, but 7 July is still used in some sources. They could have been trying to make a point, even if they were slightly misinformed. Just an idea. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]