Top intelligence analyst for Yorkshire police says 7/7 was false flag

[Kurkum]

Top police intelligence whistleblower is sacked for reporting to his seniors that 7/7 has the hallmarks of state terrorism.

"Tony Farrell had been employed for twelve years as ?Principle Intelligence Analyst? for South Yorkshire Police, 13th largest of the 44 police forces in the UK. His job involved producing a yearly ?Strategic Threat Assessment Matrix? to determine how the police force had to prioritise its activities.

Assessed ?threats? ranged from ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) to the terrorist threat presented by local mosques. Having a statistics degree, it was his job to translate the different ?strategic threats? into a ?matrix? of relative numerical weighted probabilities.

In 2010, one week before the 5th anniversary of 7/7, Tony (who had never previously doubted government versions of events) stumbled across ?9/11 Truth? material on the web. Like so many millions before him, he was shocked to the core by this experience. He quickly realised that there was a great mass of evidence relating to 9/11 kept hidden by the mainstream media. As a Christian, Tony consulted his church minister, who suggested that he consider, whether the same might be true for the London 7/7 bombings?

Something he had not suspected ?in his wildest dreams? then started to unfold. After reading much of the available but publicly-unreported witness statements and other evidence relating to 7/7, Tony found that he could only conclude that the official 7/7 narrative was ?a monstrous lie.? Instead of the official ?suicide bombers? narrative, which he and all of his colleagues had believed without question, he realized that the weight of evidence strongly points far more towards 7/7 being an event stage-managed by British intelligence than anything else."

Watch an interview with Tony Farrell and read the rest of the article:
www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/10/uk-police-intel-expert-government-not-islam-real-terror-threat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uk-police-intel-expert-government-not-islam-real-terror-threat

What Snobs just said.

Before the invasion of Afghanistan and especially Iraq anti-war folks as well as many analysts predicted that something like this was likely to happen as a consequence.

Are you trying to say that the government was trying to placate our anger by making us think we were right all along?

Or are you trying to say the Torys did it in order to make the government's foreign policy lok bad?

Simply put: cui bono?

Snorbs. Sorry - no offense intended. :o

Snorbs:

Who cares what theories I personally might entertain? All I really want is for some serious investigative journalists (if there are any left) to look into it or for a truly independent investigation (if they still exist) to examine the evidence.

When I look at MI5's history of collusion in terrorist activity it doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. It is certain that they misled the public in initially claiming the suspects because let us not forget we're talking about terrorist suspects were not on their radar.

NotADudeExactly:

cui bono? Well, some pretty draconian "anti-terror" legislation suddenly became easy to pass. The 7/7 attacks helped whip up a huge amount of anti-Muslim sentiment.

Ultimately, the problem with 7/7 is there are too many anomalies. A small number of anomalies I might be able to swallow -- but there comes a point where they become overwhelming.

For 9/11 there is unequivocal evidence of a cover-up, and the official story is put plainly ludicrous. When it comes to 7/7 things are more murky, but there is too much that just does not add up.

The 7/7 attacks helped whip up a huge amount of anti-Muslim sentiment.

And troubled community relations are beneficial to the powers that be how exactly? Is it because the government hates Muslims? (I hope not, my DH is Muslim, albeit non-practising. On the other hand I greatly welcome the idea of the government taking on MIL, who is practising.)

So was it Labour or the Tories then?

FWIW, I agree with Snorbs in that I too am quite interested to hear your personal take on things. It seems relevant because you are basically suggesting that what everybody else thinks can't be the case but are not offering any better explanations. If not your own then those of your supposed experts.

We know who did the bombings as (a) they left martyrdom videos boasting about it and (b) their body parts were recovered from the bus and tubes. A bit hard for the conspiracy theorists to explain away - which is why Kurkum is "'jus saying, y'know" rather than positing a credible theory.

Yes there was initial confusion around the train times due to cancellations, late runnings and initial police errors, but by the time of the inquest it was established that they got to Luton station at 7.15, had plenty to time to catch the 7.40 and arrived Kings X at 8.23.

Catkins, if you'd read my previous post you would have known that the 07:40 train from Luton was cancelled and did not run on July 7th. That is the problem. This is an extremely serious black hole in the official story. For there is no train that they could have feasibly caught -- and made it in time to carry out the attacks.

For your benefit, I'll go over it again.

Originally the Home Office report claimed the suspects caught the 07:40 train that morning. In 2006 the official story changed: the newspapers and BBC Panorama told us they caught the 07:48 train. But the 07:48 was delayed by 22 minutes and if that is the train they took, then they must have arrived in Kings Cross too late for the attacks.

So we have two official stories, both clearly wrong. And no explanation was provided: how did the Home Office deduce the suspects were on the 07:40 train? Surely they wouldn't just make it up out of thin air? What exactly is going on?

More importantly -- which train were they on?

"The well-known picture of the four ?bombers? entering Luton station on the morning of July 7th was released by the police on July 16th. It apparently shows them catching the 7.40am train, as they announced at the press conference. The image is time and date-stamped as 07.21:54, a few seconds shy of 7.22am. The police had earlier inspected CCTV pictures of them at King?s Cross mainline station at 8.26."

"Was any train feasible? 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 (day-returns at 22 pounds each), 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.

Thus, no train that morning is capable of getting a passenger into both of the CCTV images. This could be part of the reason why the police can never release the images they claim to have, of the four at King?s Cross."

julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-kings-cross-train-times.html

Twice you've been told: the train time first given was wrong. They got a different train which was running late. the then home sec john Reid corrected it in parliament. Why don't you read the inquest findings instead of cut and paste stuff, from conspiracy sites?

And what do you think happened on 7/7?

Thus, no train that morning is capable of getting a passenger into both of the CCTV images. This could be part of the reason why the police can never release the images they claim to have, of the four at King?s Cross."

The police have released the images at Kings X. They did so for the inquest. Habib Hussein in Kings X WH Smiths for instance. They're on the 7/7 section of the Guardian website and anyone can see them. Not only are you quoting a conspiracy website, you're quoting out of date sections of it.

There is CCTV of them at Luton at 7.15 and in Kings Cross from 8.26 onwards, 3 mins after their train arrived. You say it's faked, but with no evidence. They got a train which left Luton at 7.40 - their bodies were recovered from the bomb sites in London, and I guess they didn't teleport there.

I notice that yet again you won't touch the issue of their martyrdom videos. Hard to paint someone as innocent when they are pretty vocal about their plans for mass murder.

NotADudeExactly -- my personal take on things is that Operation Gladio was not fiction. It emphatically did not take place in the overactive imagination of conspiraloons. It is now a matter of record that covert Nato agents really did blow up innocent civilians in order to blame it on the Red Menace.

"'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.'

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders and their elitist cronies."

-- Chris Floyd, Sword Play And Operation Gladio Moscow Times

So perhaps the narrative of films such as "Ludicrous Diversions" and "Mind the Gap" is not really so farfetched.

Catkins, you're still not paying attention. I didn't say the CCTV was faked. I have no idea whether it was faked or not.

Could you provide me a link showing that the 07:40 was not in fact cancelled, please?

Lazy as well as gullible!

Go and look on google fgspp

Oh gladio gets mentioned. Next stop, Northwoods, then Mornington Crescent

Sorry, but you're dissembling. Your OP was about 7/7 being a false flag op. But you're not claiming that, oh no, it's a quote from someone else so you're 'jus saying. And you post that the CCTV pics were impossible, but again you're quoting some website, so it's not actually you, you're 'jus saying there too. And the claim that the police can never release the Kings X CCTV as it can't exist? You can't even pull the old 'only asking questions' card on this one as 10 seconds on google could have knocked that one on the head.

And once again you avoid the issue of the martyrdom videos in which the killers boast about their plans. A bit of a giveaway don't you think?

BTW They caught 'a' train at 7.40. Not 'the' 7.40 train, but an earlier one that was running late.

Right, so what are you saying?
The UK govt got patsies to blow up trains?
Is that your little theory?

Out with it. We've had 7 pages of faffing...

Gotta love this thread. I don't think I've ever seen an OP ignore so many legitimate questions in one thread before!

So, OP, your personal take on things is essentially that because there have been such things as covert operations by governmental organisations in the past - your example being operation Gladio - you cannot rule out that they are still happening today?

This is akin to me arguing that because people have been murdered by their doctors in the past (Harold Shipman, for example) you cannot rule out that the recently deceased Amy Winehouse was murdered by her doctor.

And then I'll remember that it was reported that Amy Winehouse was visited by her doctor the night before she died. Now, doesn't that suggest that the doctor had the opportunity to commit the murder?

And anyway, average life expectance in the UK is more than twice 27. So if you die at 27 murder is a likely cause, is it not? Especially since there is no evidence if her being run over by a car.

And, yes, I realize that Amy Winehouse had drug and alcohol issues and was also rumoured to be anorexic. But I also have witnesses and photos proving how much better she looked just before her death. Therefore it seems unlikely that she would have died just when she did.

Anyway, I can provide dozens of examples of people who had very similar substance abuse issues and are still alive aged 30+. Therefore any suggestion that substance abuse might have played any role in the death of Amy Winehouse must clearly be dismissed.

And then some person involved in the postmortem - which of course did not conclude that Amy Winehouse was murdered - studied at the same university as Amy Winehouse's doctor. Now, how suspicious is that? Surely there has to be a cover up?!

And any subsequent post-mortem is naturally bound to confirm the results of the first. But not because it was correct. Clearly it's the British Medical Society getting concerned about the reputation of the medical profession and doing some high level cheating.

Etc.

... except of course nobody actually believes that Amy Winehouse was murdered by her doctor - least of all me!

But can you see what I'm doing there? And how a bunch of random unrelated facts, speculation and half truths can be made to fit into exactly the bigger picture that one wishes to see?

Cracking post, notadude

Miffster, Catkins: Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent.

BBC Report from July 2006

"The home secretary has asked police to explain why a mistake was made in the government's version of what happened on the day of the London bombings... The official account, published earlier this year, said the four bombers had left Luton train station at 0740 BST on 7 July.

However, it has now emerged that was inaccurate - they actually left at 0725, but the account was right in saying they arrived at King's Cross station at 0823."

NotADudeExactly: At first I thought you might be one of the more intelligent posters here. But no, you have to go off and make gigantic and uncalled for leaps of logic too. :(

So I'll return to my original question, which remains unanswered. I'm openminded if anyone can provide cogent and convincing answers, I'm willing to revise my opinions :). Which train did the suspects catch? The official story embodied by then Home Secretary John Reid -- states it was the 07:25. The problem then is that the 07:25 would not give them enough time to go through the ticket barriers and walk down the tunnel etc at Kings Cross. So this is a very serious problem in the official narrative.

As University of Minnesota Professor of Philosophy Emeritus James Feltzer explains:

"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. "

Why indeed would they have arrived at the station if they are on a suicide mission just a couple of minutes before their train left?

So the evidence of a conspiracy is that the government and police were willing to say that there was a mistake in a complex timetime and publicly admit this? The arrival time at Luton station, and exit time at Kings X were right, as they were captured on CCTV. Trains from Luton to London go roughly every 10-15 mins. However there were multiple delays and cancellations that day, and 30min journeys were taking up to an hour. If they cocked up the departure time from the platform, that's a stupid error, but understandable in the scheme of things.

If your entire conspiracy is based around the fact that the government did it and the Muslims were innocent and couldn't have got to London in time what. about. the martyrdom. videos. where. the. killers. boast. about. planning. to. murder. non. Muslims. and. their. dead. bodies. at. the scene. in. London. and. the multiple. witnesses. and. evidence. captured. on. camera. in. London?

Catkins -- "So the evidence of a conspiracy is ... ..."

Did say that? No, I said, Let's start with a crucial question. When someone has answered that cogently and convincingly, we can move on to Big Problem with the Official Story Number 2. And then Big Problem Number 3.

Do you guys suffer from attention deficit disorder?

"Why indeed would they have arrived at the station if they are on a suicide mission just a couple of minutes before their train left?"

Because there's a scheduled train to London every few minutes. It's Luton during commuter hour, not nowheresville on a Sunday afternoon.

James Fetzer is a multiple conspiracy theorist who has been banging on about false flags since JFK (the Zapruder film was fake, the autopsy was fake, and JFK's brain was fake if you're intererested). There were no planes attacks at all during 9/11, just space based missiles apparently.

So if it was impossible for them to get to London, how come they were seen by witnesses and survivors, their bodies were recovered, and they were captured on security videos everywhere? And if they were innocent, why did they film martyrdom videos? Pretty please?

"When someone has answered that cogently and convincingly, we can move on to Big Problem with the Official Story Number 2. And then Big Problem Number 3."

You little minx, I think you're the conpiracy theory version of a cock tease.

Go on man, stop tantilising us with titbits. Spit it out. Enunciate. Go on, go on. Tell us how the gubmint did it. We're seven pages in.

(I've got to do some work, but I'll come back later to find out your convincing explanation about the martyrdom videos and dead terrorists spread across various bomb sites in London).

"Let's start with a crucial question."

Oh yes, let's!

How about this one?

"what. about. the martyrdom. videos. where. the. killers. boast. about. planning. to. murder. non. Muslims. and. their. dead. bodies. at. the scene. in. London. and. the multiple. witnesses. and. evidence. captured. on. camera. in. London?"