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

Just tell us, sunshine. It's getting boring.

Your 'alternate explanation'.

You don't have one, do you? Or you're embarrassed to say it.

Ps. I predicted this reaction preens

By the way, you do know the CCTV timestamps are a few mins out, don't you? And this was covered under oath with witnesses at the trial and retrial of waheed Ali and others, and at the inquest? Along with all the Luton and kings x footage of them parking, entering station, catching train, getting off and moving through kings x?

Bunkum, you do appreciate the difference between named train service and actual departure time, don't you? So someone might catch what everyone calls the 7:25, because that it is the train designated to leave a particular station at that time, and keep calling it the 7:25 even though, because of delays it actually left at, say, 7:40?

"Who cares what theories I personally might entertain?"

I care, Kurkum. You raised an interesting and potentially enormous question regarding the effects of the bomb on the bus and how the resultant damage looks very different from the other pictures you linked to.

You have piqued my interest. I would very much like to know what your thoughts are on why the bus ended up looking like it did.

I'm most interested in OPs explanation....

I think I may be able to explain the anomaly with the trains and platforms...

Platform 9 3/4?
Kurkum will reveal all, shortly.

The closer you look, the more the Ripple Effect narrative stands up to scrutiny while the official story comes apart at the seams.

Why does the official version cite three different trains: 07:40, then revised to 07:48, then finally revised to 07:25? Do the police and Home Office have credible evidence of which train the suspects caught or not? Where did they initially get the 07:40 train time from? The last question is very important -- either they are just sitting there pulling train times out of a hat or something led them to believe the suspects took the 07:40. It is important to get to the bottom of this if we are to make sense of the official story.

• "The four terrorists were seen by a witness boarding the 7.48am Thameslink train to King's cross arriving into the city centre at 8.20am." -- Channel 4

"A CCTV camera filmed them as they prepared to board the 7.40am train to King?s Cross*. Near them was another man who might or might not have been an accomplice or even a potential fifth bomber ? but he disappeared into the crowd. At 8.26am the train pulled into King?s Cross and the four were again caught on CCTV.
-- The Times

The police "clarification" clarifies nothing: ?It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train?s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.? Meaning what? We are meant to believe that witnesses saw them board a train that never ran?

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

I have used King's Cross Thameslink myself. This observation is true. They cannot have walked that distance in three minutes. Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that John Reid was wrong again -- they did not catch the 07:25. And if they caught any train later than 07:25, they would have arrived in King's Cross after the bombs exploded.

See Hansard 11 July 2006.

The 7:40 was a Home Office clerical error. They caught the train which pulled out at 7:25.

Snorbs, all I know is that the exploded bus does not look like other buses blown up by suicide bombers. Perhaps the explosives were not in fact homemade? The Financial Times seemed to think so:

Financial Times article

East bloc seen as the likely source of explosive

By Roger Blitz and Jimmy Burns

Published: July 13 2005 03:00 | Last updated: July 13 2005 03:00

"The explosive used in the London bomb attacks was almost certainly military TNT originating from former Soviet satellite countries, intelligence sources said yesterday.

Large quantities of TNT that were produced in big state-run factories fell into illegal hands at the collapse of the Soviet Union and the east European communist bloc, leading to a huge black market in southern and central Europe."

Snorbs, thank you for your interest in my views. I'll endeavour to explain what I find credible and what is plainly not credible in the course of my next few posts. But I'm also interested in what you think -- you're evidently a thinking person. What do you make of the anomalies in the official story? Have you ever investigated them?

And they cannot have arrived in London after the explosions - survivor witness testimony places them on the vehicles.

Edith:
"A CCTV camera filmed them as they prepared to board the 7.40am train to King?s Cross. Near them was another man who might or might not have been an accomplice or even a potential fifth bomber ? but he disappeared into the crowd. At 8.26am the train pulled into King?s Cross and the four were again caught on CCTV."
-- The Times

?It has now become clear that the exact timing of the train?s departure, given as 0740, was based on what were later found to be conflicting witness statements.?
-- Police correction issued to Home Office

Edith -- how could they have been filmed as they prepared to board the 7.40am train, as asserted in The Times?

Train timetables, actual train times, witnesses' calculation of times, cctv times will always conflict. It doesn't alter what happened and any disparity is not proof of a conspiracy.

The Home Office report which contained the error had been publicly released, before it was publicly corrected. The Times would have based its early reports on the erroneous document.

He won't proffer an explanation. Only questions. It is almost impossible to drag an answer out of a conspiracy theorist: to offer one means other people get to pick holes in the explanation. Which spoils their ghoulish nit picking paranoid fun no end.

Do you know the layout of kings x has changed since2005?you exited the thaneslink bit, crossed the road and there was kx. It could easily be done in 3 min; I used to do it going the other way, from kx to thaneslink.

"they did not catch the 07:25. And if they caught any train later than 07:25, they would have arrived in King's Cross after the bombs exploded."

So how come they ended up dead on the bus and tubes then? After helpfully recording a martyrdom video stating their intentions?

The second suicide bus bomb picture cited as 'evidence' of a conspiracy looks very similar to no. 30 after the explosion (which is why Kurkum posted a different pic of the no.30 presumably).

And becuase the FT speculated just after the bombing that it was likely that Eastern European explosives were used, the later discovered Leeds bomb factory wasn't real either? Someone's just blown up a chunk of Oslo with home made explosive - it's chemistry, not rocket science.

It's bizarre how eager some are to concoct a conspiracy on the flimsiest little pathetic shreds of anomalies. So desperate for the uk to have it's own 9/11 truth moment that they see murder on transport system by 4 fucked up losers as their ticket to conspiracy club cool

Why should different makes of bus blown up with different kinds of bombs which may have been placed in different parts of the buses concerned end up looking the same?

Ripple effect referred to is a nutty video made by a John Anthony Hill who believes himself to be the messiah!

It has some ludicrous stuff about patsies, assasinations at canary wharf in full view of offices containing thousands of workers, including journalists and is viewed as wacky even by conspiracy theorist sites like j7.

If the op thinks its convincing then there's not much point bothering with the discussion. You might as well debate evolution with a creationist.

Assistant Chief Constable Alan Pacey: "Some 12,000 CCTV cameras across the Tube network are vital in helping us identify offenders and solve crime."
-- BBC News

So are you saying the Met rely on 12,000 inaccurate CCTV cameras in their fight against crime, Miffster?

Snorbs, here's another report of military grade explosives. From the New York Times:

'Military quality' bombs in London
By Don Van Natta Jr. and Elaine Sciolino
Published: Wednesday, July 13, 2005

"LONDON ? British investigators believe that the bombs used in the coordinated terrorist attacks here contained "military quality" high-grade explosives, British and European counterterrorism officials said.

Investigators said they still did not know whether the explosives contained plastic materials, or were made some other way. But they said the material used in the bombs was similar to the kind manufactured for military use or made for highly technical commercial purposes, such as dynamite used for precision explosions to demolish buildings or in mining.

"People assume you can look up a bomb-making design on the Internet and put one together without any training," said one senior counterterrorism official based in Europe. "But it's not that simple or easy."

British intelligence officials have asked their counterparts elsewhere in Europe to scour military stockpiles and commercial sites for missing explosives, three senior European-based intelligence officials said.

British investigators believe the London bombs were equipped with timers, but they have not determined if the bombs were set off by synchronized alarms on cellphones or some other timing device, officials said."

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort but basic comprehension of words on a page ain't your strong point judging by your posts on this thread.

I can't be arsed with you anymore.

You>>> reality

"You>>> reality"

Needs more arrows. And possibly a rip in the space time continuum.

I'm sorry Kurkum, I must be being thick.

You seem to be suggesting that the blast damage to the bus was a result of a military-grade trinitrotoluene (TNT) explosion rather than one caused by a home-made acetone peroxide-based explosive.

But I'm confused now. As I'm sure you're aware, TNT detonates with an exothermic reaction - effectively it burns so fast it creates a shock wave. This burning leads to lots of heat and with characteristic sooty deposits.

By contrast (and, again, I'm sure I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs in pointing this out to you) acetone peroxide detonation is an endothermic reaction. The shock wave primarily comes from gas generation as the molecules violently decompose. No massive amounts of heat (compared to TNT, anyway) and no soot.

So in my naivety I would assume that an explosive that demolished the top deck of a bus while leaving no obvious heat damage or soot is much more likely to have been an endothermic acetone-peroxide style explosive than an exothermic TNT-style one.

Can you help me understand where I've gone wrong?

Next question: Who was shot at Canary Wharf?

Eyewitnesses: Two men shot in London

"TV 2/NEWS have just spoken with Marianne Jørgensen who is employed by the Access Flooring Company in London. She has learned through co-workers in the company that two suspected suicide-bombers have been shot and killed at Canary Wharf.

?They called one of our presidents and told him that they have witnessed two men being shot ? deliberately, by police or soldiers?, Marianne Jørgensen told to TV 2/NEWS."
-- Danish TV

At 12.18am on 7th July Gus posts on the Ceroc Scotland online Forum that the incident was serious 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.

New Zealand Herald:

"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."

First we have numerous reports of military grade explosives:

www.dailykos.com/story/2005/07/19/131953/-Explosives-Used-in-London-Bombings-originated-in-the-Balkans

"Traces of military plastic explosive, more deadly and efficient than commercial varieties is understood to have been found in the debris of the wrecked Underground carriages and the bus.

Scotland Yard has asked its counterparts around Europe to check stockpiles at military bases and building sites for missing explosives."

Next we have large numbers of reports that suspected suicide bombers were shot outside Canary Wharf. Here's another one:

"Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported an unconfirmed incident of police shooting a bomber outside the HSBC tower.

Canadian Brendan Spinks, who works on the 18th floor of the tower, said he saw a "massive rush of policemen" outside the building after London was rocked by the bombings."

And another:

"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. The source article gives little information."

-- Short News

Plenty of people online claim that they remember clearly BBC News 24 reporting on the Canary Wharf incident. Radio 5 reported it too. Dozens of news outlets around the world reported on it. Canary Wharf tenants, after all, include major newspaper firms including The Independent, Reuters, and the Daily Mirror.

So why was this incident entirely airbrushed out of the official story?