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

If the police really did blow away a couple of suspects in plain view in Canary Wharf, where are the people who saw it happen with their own eyes?

Here are two of them, Snorbs.

New Zealand Herald
5:00 AM Saturday Jul 9, 2005

'Police shot bombers' reports New Zealander
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.

Reports of attacks carried out by suicide bombers have been rife in London.

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.

www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10334992

Danish TV reported on eyewitnesses to two shootings:

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 (translated from Danish)

So someone told her they'd seen something.

This isn't an eye witness report.

Nor does it square, even remotely, with police accountability in UK. Or aren't the events surrounding the death and investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes sufficient to show what really happens after Anti-terrorist police shoot someone in UK?

As I said, they are third-hand reports. News organisation A was told by person B that (anonymous) people C and D saw someone or someones unknown get shot.

There are umpteen thousands of people who work in Canary Wharf. Every time I've been there on business there have always been lots of people walking around.

I ask again - where are the first-hand reports of these shootings?

I'm also still interested in your thoughts on exothermic vs endothermic detonations and the resultant differences in blast damage.

Snorbs -- "A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues..." This means two journalists told a Reuters correspondent. Does that lack credibility? Are Reuters correspondents feeble minded idiots?

Snorbs -- is this article really so hard to understand?

'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.

Ok, I'm getting tired of this. I keep getting the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall here. The ongoing slew of insults has also made it pretty clear that I am not welcome on this site so I'll go now.

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out.

conspiracy theorists.always so fuckwitted

show some respect those affected by this tragedy. on 7/7 i do have a wee moment and it makes me cry.

quite, scottish mummy. There was a post earlier from someone that was actually there. The OP doesn;t seem to realise that there were real victims of this atrocity who weren't actually making detailed notes about the timings. Because a bomb had gone off and they were injured/scared/panicking etc.

You are assuming that the Reuters staff who allegedly witnessed the shooting were journalists. That is not necessarily the case - I believe that the majority of Reuters staff in Canary Wharf are non-editorial.

Regardless of that, it's still a third-hand report from unnamed sources. That's not evidence. That barely qualifies as hearsay.

But let's go with your theory - two Reuters "journalists" saw, with their own eyes, people gunned down in the street. If that really did happen then they'd have written it up and published it. That is, after all, the business that Reuters is in. It could be on the wires in minutes and around the world a few seconds later, far faster than any injunction could be raised to stop them. And that Reuters story is where, exactly?

As for the story about "military quality" bombs:
a) It was apparently written five or six days after the attacks. There is no way that detailed forensic examinations of the remains of the bombs would've been carried out in that time-frame. They were still pulling bits of train out of the tunnels at that point.

b) The story is full of "investigators" and "officials" but strangely no names, ranks or organisations.

c) As well as being incredibly vague about who is making these allegations, it is also incredibly vague about what they are looking for.

d) It isn't actually that difficult to manufacture explosives. Wikipedia's page on Acetone Peroxide lists a number of instances where it's been manufactured for and/or used in terrorist attacks. And then there are the ANFO explosives so beloved of the IRA and Timothy McVeigh, all the IEDs in Afghanistan and elsewhere and so on.

e) It is downright farcical to believe that intelligence officials would toddle off and "scour military stockpiles and commercial sites for missing explosives" across Europe. Do you have any idea how many such sites there are, or how many thousands of tons of TNT they'd have to count? And, anyway, what's the point? The likes of the IRA and ETA have repeatedly shown that explosives aren't that difficult to get hold of.

And it still doesn't explain why, if it was TNT that blew up the bus, there were no obvious signs of an exothermic explosive being used. Or is physics not your strong point?

Kurkum, sadly Goebbels was right ;)

Op have you considered that if the government did set this up for unknown reasons they would have checked the bloody train times?

Frankly only naive idiots make terrorist plans involving public transport as it's not the most reliable.

You would be aware of this had you been outside in the last few years.

Oh, shame, I think the OP has gone. Sadly, we have all failed to appreciate Kurkum as a prophet and a genuis so s/he has flounced off.

The great thing about these kinds of threads is not the idiotic stuff from the OP but the stuff you learn from the rebuttals put up by posters with all kinds of varied expertise.

One last thing for the OP

Snorbs, you have my interest piqued too now. Are you saying that Ian Blair was wrong here?

'Ian Blair yesterday said the bombs "certainly were not homemade".

(www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afTfymX45NCU&refer=home)

Yes I am. And I'm pretty sure if you asked Ian Blair today he'd say he was wrong as well.

The story you link to makes it clear that Blair made that statement concerning the bombs before:
a) the car was found in the car park. A car, may I remind you, that had other home-made bombs in the boot.
b) they'd gained access to various houses and so, presumably, before they'd found the "factory" where they made the explosives.

Statements made early on in an investigation may well be superseded by more accurate statements once all the evidence has been collated and examined. Let's not forget that the same Ian Blair initially said that Jean Charles de Menezes was linked to a terrorist cell (he wasn't), had vaulted the ticket barriers (he hadn't), and had run through the station onto the train to get away from the police (he didn't).

Sure, one would hope that a senior police officer such as him would have more sense than to make such statements before all the evidence is in. But he didn't so one needs to take what he says early on with a whole load of salt.

Thanks for clarifying that Snorbs. And was this wrong too?

'Officials said the bombs were much smaller than those used in Islamic insurgency attacks in Egypt, Iraq and Israel. Many of those attacks were conducted by suicide operatives with bombs of 10 or more kilograms.'

www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/front2453563.0402777777.html

And this?

'Immediately after the blasts detectives found traces of RDX explosive, a key component used in the Madrid train bombings.'

www.mirror.co.uk/tm_objectid=15713744&method=full&siteid=115875-name_page.html

What part of "Statements made early on in an investigation may well be superseded by more accurate statements once all the evidence has been collated and examined" did you not understand?

But let me ask you a question: let's assume for a moment that those early statements were actually true, that the bombs weren't home-made (and so, presumably, the house full of acetone peroxide precursors was faked, the bombs in the back of the car were fake, the bus had been carefully scrubbed of burn marks and soot, the subsequent investigations were forged, and various people perjured themselves) and there has been a subsequent massive cover-up.

Why? To what end? Where's the benefit for such an appalling and barbaric cost? What's in it for the people involved - Ian Blair et al - to maintain this horrendous lie in spite of the risk of the truth leaking out? And if the Met Police are so fantastically good at keeping massive secrets such as this, how come we found out about de Menezes, about Abul Kahar being shot during the erroneous raid in Forest Gate, about the endless series of Met Police fuck-ups and mistakes? How come the Met can keep a lid on such a monstrous 'truth' when it can't keep quiet about anything else?

But Snorbs there are precedents, aren't there. It was an MI5 agent who bought the bomb parts for the Bishopsgate bombing (as reported in the Times) for example. And they covered that up for long enough. So aren't you being a wee bit naive here?

Why did dozens of witnesses in the underground carriages report seeing black smoke and yellow flashes/ orange fireballs? That's not consistent with a home-made peroxide bomb. And why did dozens of witnesses on the Tv and in the papers describe being 'electrocuted' by some sort of huge surge of electricity?

Mr Bruce Lait:
"We'd been on there for a minute at most and then something happened. It was like a huge electricity surge which knocked us out and burst our eardrums. I can still hear that sound now? We were right in the carriage where the bomb was ?"
Cambridge News, July 11th.

OK, so what do you think happened?

Actually Bruce Lait's injuries are entirely consistent with being in a bomb blast - knocked out and damaged ears. In fact the Health Protection Agency, Birmingham University and MOD produced a paper for medical military personnel on dealing with burst eardrums after explosions - looking at injuries from the Birmingham bombs in the 1970s to suicide bombings in Israel.

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947407735

If you read it you'll see that 77.5% of people caught in a suicide bomb in a confined space (bus) had their ears damaged.

But as Snorbs said, what do you think happened?

Gosh perhaps the Lizard King put his son, Tony Blair on Earth to save the Middle East where, as Peace Ambassador he has bought tranquility to the region.

That said, the very round hole in the wall of the Pentagon combined with a lack of debris is a puzzle considering it was meant to be hit with a Jumbo jet was a little odd.

Snorbs, I think it's pretty clear from what the witnesses said on Tv and in the press that there was some kind of huge power surge which made them feel as if they were being electrocuted. It is also pretty clear that there were more bombs than the current Home Office narrative says. There was a woman who died on a train heading towards Kings Cross, for example. How could that be explained by the government's version of events?

'Jenny Nicholson, 26, who died that morning, seems to have been on the eastbound Circle line service she had boarded at Paddington station (She had phoned her boyfriend, James White, minutes earlier) '

(www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/mar/07/religion.july7)

So the government's narrative clearly contradicts the evidence.

David Minahan has studied the evidence closely -- he was a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors. His report concludes:

'The writer himself has come to the startling conclusion that there were in all probability eight explosions in the Capital on the 7th July in addition to the four publicly acknowledged; and that there is a possibility this figure may be as high as seventeen.'

Tony Blair referred in Parliament to four bombs on the underground. This was later repeated in Parliament. So what is going on? You tell me, Snorbs.