354

UPDATED: London Bridge “Terror Attack”

The breaking news right now is an alleged “terrorist attack” on London Bridge. The story as reported so far is a man, wearing a “hoax suicide vest”, attacked and stabbed several people near the north end of London bridge.

The man was set upon by the public, disarmed and held until armed police arrived, at which point he was shot dead.

There is video, it is hardly graphic, but if you’re easily disturbed by violence this is your fair warning:

It has been confirmed by the police that man was unarmed and restrained when he was shot. Which appears to be the case in the video.

It is now being reported that two of the (as yet unknown number of) victims have died of their wounds. No names or other information is currently available.

Another video – available here on the Mirror’s website – shows a man running away from the affray, carrying a knife. One can assume this was the knife used in the alleged attack. [If anyone can find a copy of this video anywhere, please let us know.]

The man in the video has already been dubbed the “hero”, for allegedly disarming the man. The video appears to show him removing a piece of evidence from a crime scene. Exactly why is not clear, one would hope it was returned to the police.

The “hero” who allegedly disarmed the “terrorist”.

Who is this gentleman? Why has he been permitted to remove the knife from the crime scene? Why was a dead body left lying in the street, uncovered and with no police cordon around the scene? Who is this man taking the photograph?

Is he an official representative of the police? Or a forensics photographer? If so, wouldn’t you expect him to be dressed like these guys:

These are questions currently without answers.

Author and Journalist Sharmine Narwani raised an interesting point on twitter:

It’s a fair argument to make, with many and varied historical precedents. False flags do happen. You certainly can’t rule anything out, especially at this early stage.

It is interesting that this incident should occur with only two weeks to go before the General Election. As Sharmine points out, it mirrors the Manchester Arena bombing in that respect. It is a generally accepted rule of thumb that the Tories always benefit when the nation feels under-threat.

The Guardian is already dedicated to telling a story, and controlling that story rigidly. Removing comments that even moot the possibility of an alternative motivation, as you can see here.

Whoever was behind the attack, or whatever the reality of the situation, there’s no denying it is already being politicised in certain corners. Within a couple of hours of the incident, this tweet screencap was being circulated:

It is totally fake. A quite obvious attempt to play up Corbyn’s supposed “softness” on terrorism.

So, the important questions:

  • What happened on London Bridge?
  • If it was a “terror attack”, what was the purpose?
  • Will it be politically spun? How so?
  • Will it impact the general election?

As always, discuss freely below. And if you find information which you think is interesting, important, or in danger of being memory-holed, post it in the comments or send it to us directly.

UPDATE 30/11/2019 – Just some relevent/interesting information to add to the discussion.

Firstly, there’s the fact Sky News claims they had a correspondent embedded with the “elite” unit that responded to the attack:

The identity of the alleged attacker is now public too, his name was Usman Khan and he was – as the saying goes – “known to the authorities”. The current story is that he was convicted on terrorism charges in 2012, and was released on license late last year, despite initially being deemed too dangerous to be released.

Another of the alleged “heroes” has also been identfied, in the media, as James Ford, a convicted murderer on day-release.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
354 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sainty13
Sainty13
Dec 3, 2019 4:48 PM

If he had been shot twice with high powered rifles, his head would have blown like a melon and leaving red blood stains all over the wall.

Challenging Bullshit
Challenging Bullshit
Dec 5, 2019 11:13 AM
Reply to  Sainty13

Except the rifles you speak of are not the type used by British police. High velocity rifles fire through people. This is not desirable for policing due to the risk of collateral casualties. Generally speaking the police only want to take out the person they are shooting at.

Saul
Saul
Dec 3, 2019 4:23 AM

The man carrying the knife was an undercover police officer, its why his face is being blurred out in the news. His left hand is held out to keep people and the filmer back

Enolam
Enolam
Feb 16, 2020 1:16 PM
Reply to  Saul

Got there quick

John Thomas
John Thomas
Feb 17, 2020 7:48 PM
Reply to  Saul

the guy carrying the knife was an ‘off duty transport policeman’ apparently, no coincidence the only verbal radio interview the next day, was a guy who was involved holding the guy down, say ‘obviously, he picked the knife up from under the kerb’. hmmm, it smells, looks, walks, talks like BS, false flag

Michael
Michael
Dec 2, 2019 11:19 AM

On tapnewswire they have a six-second video of the dead “terrorist” on London Bridge. Who gets up.

Google youtube and London Bridge Shooter Gets Up. 11-29-19

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 2, 2019 8:15 PM
Reply to  Michael

Hi Michael, I am studying every scintilla that is published and saving it in my files. Which show without a doubt that this was a false flag.
Lets find out how many of these ‘rehabilitation’ seminars there have been previously? And what is the criteria for being invited, for it was by invitation only? How many ‘criminals’ attended.
Obviously they would have been vetted and examined as they entered, so where did Khan store his blades, vest, massive jacket and balaclava? Who helped him tape the knives to his hands, and what was the point?
The incident happened AFTER the lunch..
Next let’s find out who paid for this event, because the Fishmonger’s venue didn’t come free?
The other points to notice are that the ‘terrorist’ changes his shoes from sand coloured boots to black shoes? Also there is no blood on the knife/es or around the dead man. Remember Woolwich?
Why did the off duty Railway cop run away with one of the knives?
Why were so many people hanging around unconcerned, watching and waiting? Clearly they thought they were watching a film being made?
Here’s my take on it:
Khan had been out on licence since December 2018, and as part of his rehab/with a view to being totally exonerated, he agreed to do one last job for his MI5/6 handlers . To pretend to be a ‘terrorist’ and test the responses of the security services and show the public how on the ball the Government were. Just like the two patsies in Woolwich.

Brad
Brad
Dec 3, 2019 7:45 PM
Reply to  Maggie

re ‘Why did the off duty Railway cop run away with one of the knives?’ Here’s my take on it:

It was the Railway cop’s job to ensure that the public saw the big scary knife else they may not support the support the draconian laws coming their way.

paul
paul
Dec 2, 2019 1:46 AM

Over the weekend there’ve been 3 of these things in London, The Hague and New Orleans.
They’re definitely up to something.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 12:42 AM

I find it so hard to wade through the fakery sewage presented to us on pretty much a daily basis. I prefer to have it mediated by others, especially when they’re clever and funny and I do so miss all the clever YouTubers who are now virtually all shut down in scary fascistic fashion. But there’s the odd one who gets through. Enjoy! The Eyebrows Have It.

paul
paul
Dec 1, 2019 10:15 PM

The weakness of the judicial system is a function of policies that were presided over by both major parties interchangeably over at least the past 40 years, interspersed with much windy and unconvincing rhetoric about getting tough on crime at election times.

If anything, the Tories are more at fault in this regard.

Until the early 1980s, routine sentencing policy would seem unbelievably harsh (or maybe effective?) by today’s standards.
Disqualified driving (driving on a ban) carried an automatic 6 months’ imprisonment. Not 6 months with release after 3 months. 6 months inside. Now it is treated as a minor traffic offence, like speeding or driving in a bus lane.
Burglary in a dwelling also carried an automatic prison sentence. Now, as part of supposed “get tough” policies, you MAY receive a prison sentence after your THIRD conviction for burglary.
Fairly routine assaults classed as Actual Bodily Harm also often attracted custodial sentences. Now this would be virtually unthinkable.
Surprisingly enough, the level of crime was much lower at this time.

The situation changed radically under Thatcher in the early 80s. Sentencing was scaled back drastically, with prison sentences being replaced by fines (50% of which were never paid), or community service, so called CRAPOs, community rehabilitation and punishment orders (with offenders routinely failing to turn up.) Largely to save money and free up prison places, a batch of 10,000 burglars and car thieves were given early release as an act of policy. By the end of Thatcher’s time in office, crime had more than doubled over the Tory 1980s.

Identical policies were pursued under Labour. We see further results in the current epidemic of knife crime. If this so called “terrorist” on London Bridge was hoping to achieve anything by his little rampage, he would surely be disappointed. Such incidents are now virtually ten a penny all across London on a daily basis.

Previously, the police would routinely stop and search anyone they didn’t like the look of. As a result, people would not generally carry knives and drugs on them. But that obviously had to be stopped, because it was “racist”, even when most of the people turned over were white. Now police only stop people as part of an incredibly bureaucratic procedure, when authorised by senior officers on special occasions. So those same people know that they can carry knives and drugs with almost complete impunity, and they routinely do so. They know that they have nothing to fear from the police, who are just people who walk around wearing silly hats. A great many (mainly black) youngsters are dying as a result.

MLS
MLS
Dec 1, 2019 11:51 PM
Reply to  paul

Did you get this hysterical bullshit from the Daily Mail?

I have a close friend who was a serving copper until recently.

The powers they have to stop and search have increased MASSIVELY with the introduction of the various anti-terrorism laws. Which also permit unlimited detention without charge btw.

A great many people are dying as a result

Bless your terrified little Englander heart! Less than 800 people were murdered in the UK 2017-18. Only a third or less of them were stabbed. Mostly in knife fights or domestic arguments.

You are more likely to drown, be run over or fall down the stairs and break your neck than be stabbed to death in the UK.

The knife crime epidemic is a LIE sold to scare you into demanding more social control. Society is currently about the safest it has ever been.

Calm down. You are currently a chicken little squawking all the panic memes the mainstream want you to squawk.

paul
paul
Dec 2, 2019 5:49 PM
Reply to  MLS

Did you get this from the Daily Mail?

No.
Hands on personal experience.

lundiel
lundiel
Dec 2, 2019 8:34 AM
Reply to  paul

You’ve never had to serve a full sentence in this country in my lifetime unless a judge recommends a minimum time to be served. You used to have to serve two-thirds of a prison sentence, with a third off for good behaviour…it is a means of imposing self-control on prisoners.
The reason sentences were cut to half served is two-fold, a larger population and over judgemental people like yourself always calling for longer sentences. The prison population rises in tandem with the number of prisons built and we have the largest in Europe, many of who are in for very petty offences.

paul
paul
Dec 2, 2019 6:09 PM
Reply to  lundiel

You have to work really hard at it to get yourself incarcerated.
It’s easier to get a council house or a universal credit than it is to get a prison place.

lundiel
lundiel
Dec 2, 2019 7:13 PM
Reply to  paul

You’re a spammer. Fuck off.

Sainty13
Sainty13
Dec 3, 2019 4:52 PM
Reply to  paul

The prisons are full. We need more prisons. Or an island for Pedophiles.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Dec 1, 2019 6:05 PM

We are all being drowned with a fog of disinformation. We know for a fact, that numerous attempts have been made to take this website Off-Guardian down, and yet the people who run it (I have no idea who they are) keep bouncing back.

They are all doing it for free, and they need our support, so if you think they are doing a good job (and I think they are Brilliant), send them a few quid, so they can pay for their hosting fees.

Christmas is coming up soon, and we really need people such as these who run Off-Guardian.

They are not only highly intelligent and moral.

They are also incredibly brave.

Tony

Gwyn
Gwyn
Dec 1, 2019 9:46 PM
Reply to  tonyopmoc

Well said, Tony.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Dec 1, 2019 5:49 PM

Just seen Lord Falconer explaining (on Sky News) why Usman Khan was “automatically released on licence half way through his sentence”. His explanation demonstrates how Johnson has been extremely frugal/devious with the truth by trying to pin the blame on previous Labour Governments. Apparently, when originally sentenced, the judge decreed that because of the nature of the offences Khan and his cohorts should only be considered for early release after going before the Parole Board. But a Court of Appeal subsequently over-ruled the original sentence and, directly under the terms of the adjusted sentence, Khan (and presumably the others?) became eligible for automatic release under licence half way through their jail term without the involvement of the Parole Board. So it was the Court of Appeal ruling which resulted in his early release, not the terms of the original legislation as Johnson was eager to imply.

MLS
MLS
Dec 1, 2019 8:09 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

Usman was a patsy who probably never harmed or intended to harm anyone. Instead of piling on Johnson or the Labour Party or all the rest of the distraction nonsense people should be asking why this guy was ever locked up.

His ‘crime’ was to talk smack about blowing stuff up with some mates. He never actually made any attempt to do anything criminal. Never obtained explosives. Never made any actually statement he was going to do anything. It was just him and his friends sitting round saying ‘yeah man we should like totally blow some stuff up’.

But he was locked up for terrorism anyhow.

That’s the crime here. But the conversation is so cleverly controlled everyone is ignoring that in favour of approved mainstream talking points.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 8:24 PM
Reply to  MLS

Yeah, and he only pretended to stab some people to death…

Erm, no. Real stuff happened and real people died and real people stopped even more from dying.

There, fixed it for you, you’re welcome.

charles drake
charles drake
Dec 1, 2019 11:03 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

frank speaker
more like frank spencer
matey turn on glr nick ferrari james obrien that global radio channel you can soak up 14 hours of zio bilge a day about the musslamic menace.

if anyone dies chum it was the patsy with the beard

the so called perp and the victims all where at the same fismonger masonic party

no members of the public where harmed here

noseBag
noseBag
Dec 2, 2019 12:40 AM
Reply to  charles drake

Thank you Charles for your considered input. I’m polite, but no thumbs-up for you, I’m afraid.

MLS
MLS
Dec 2, 2019 12:04 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Did I say no one died? No. I said Usman was sent down for simply talking with his mates about how someone could blow something up one day. This is true. Even the BBC suggested the conviction was dodgy.

This is what the Terrorism Act does. It allows people to be locked up for simply saying ‘hey we should like blow stuff up’. If you’re ok with that kind of fascism why are you here?

As to what happened on London Bridge. I have no clue. And neither do you. You’re just gullible enough to believe a lot more of the unverified stuff you hear from the corporate media than I am.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 9:29 AM
Reply to  MLS

Talking to one another – like this?

https://film.avclub.com/four-lions-finds-the-lighter-side-of-terrorism-while-a-1798237039

To create an organised event. A ‘terrorist’ needs a Producer, to script a plan of action. Otherwise it ends up like the Four Lions film……

paul
paul
Dec 1, 2019 4:42 PM

Another Dog And Pony Show from Foaming-At-The-Mouth-Radical-Moslems Inc., courtesy of our Zionist chums.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Dec 1, 2019 4:31 PM

My view: the credulous and those not yet experienced in the real world may be affected, but the cynical majority will shrug their shoulders and say ‘When will the nobs just grow up?’

Most people can point to one event when their innocent trust of the MSM disappeared. In my generation it was 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.

20 years on, political theatre fails to impress me.

George Mc
George Mc
Dec 1, 2019 6:49 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

That shows up a weakness about media control. They can feed you anything they want. They can also feed you bullshit about “public opinion” that encourages you to feel you’re in a tiny minority of “nuts”. But underneath it all lies ACTUAL public opinion. And that means that, although nobody is ever going to be allowed to say it on mainstream media – other than as a “crazy conspiracy theory”, there may be a sizable section of the ACTUAL public yawning over it and thinking, “Another pile of shite”.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 2, 2019 4:38 AM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

“Most people can point to one event when their innocent trust of the MSM disappeared. In my generation it was 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.”

It was decade or so after what I call “my generation” for me, specifically on the 25th of January 1969. As the now-illustrious journalist, John Mair, reported on an anniversary of the event:

For much of 1967, 1968 and 1969 the students were fighting the [London School of Economics] authorities. It all culminated in the ‘smashing of the gates’ on January 24 1969. The university, in an attempt to prevent students occupying its buildings, had erected gates around the campus; the protesters promptly took iron bars and knocked them down.

No they didn’t. Maybe there were some temporary, easily knocked down ‘rent-a-gate’s somewhere that the students found it expedient to “knock down” with “iron bars”, but I can’t imagine where they would be, I don’t recall any and I don’t believe it. In keeping with the commercial area at the end of Kingsway that the LSE occupied, the School’s property was then secured with normal, structurally integrated, metal folding gates (similar to the then-common, manually-operated, open-weave lift gates in department stores and at some Underground stations) and normal, business-premises style security doors, of which they very carefully unbolted a few from their mounts, taped the bolts to them, and passed the entire, intact units, one to another over their heads, for orderly stacking in safe areas, all the while making polite way for the through passage of those not there to demonstrate or occupy (one of which was me, who stayed a while to observe and encourage, both going in and coming out).

On the 25th all of the established press and tv, including The Guardian, were reporting riotous scenes of wholesale mayhem, assault and wanton destruction. Teddy bears’ picnic, more like. Maybe John Mair wasn’t actually there, either? Maybe he was at home, declaiming into a steamed up bathroom mirror, practising to be a reliable ‘reporter’ (sick)?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 2:52 PM

Apparently attacker shot-dead gets up…but this the same person?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYQjvcONKKs

Editor: We consider this to be an interesting but highly dubious snippet of video. No provenance has yet been established and no explanation for its incredibly truncated duration has been offered. These and other anomalies lead us to seriously question its authenticity and we’d discourage people from giving it any weight at this time -ed.

ity
ity
Dec 1, 2019 3:46 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

A few things make me immediately suspicious of that video.

He doesn’t seem to be laying on the ground in the same way as the dead body depicted in the main article. Nor at exactly the same spot.

And the very nature of the 6 second clip. For a start the women talking in the background. What they say and how they say it sounds insincere and staged, and suspiciously timed. And the dramatic ‘bonging’ noise added to the clip for drama? Really? And the fact that the up-loader only gives 6 seconds of film. Why wouldn’t they keep filming the man who has just stood up? Or if they did keep filming, why edit the film so that it ends when it does?

But what is really interesting, and opens a whole new Pandora’s box, is the sunlight. In the above photograph in the main article, of the person taking a photograph of the body, the sun has obviously moved on, and there is no longer sunlight hitting the pavement or road. And yet the you-tube video that was supposedly uploaded on 29th, the same day as the attack, shows similar sunlight patterns to those shown at the time the man was shot. So something isn’t right here. Something smells fishy.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 4:56 PM
Reply to  ity

The body was apparently laying there until well into the evening, so the area was lit by artificial light. If you’ve ever been in that area you will know the street lights are very bright, and no problem for a photo to show a bus a red and the rest of the area shades of black and white…to answer another point raised. I’m an experienced amateur photographer and i cannot see any obvious issues with the photos yet from having a quick look.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 9:38 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

And why would they leave the body lying unattended and not screened off for four hours or more?
There would have been a tent over it, had it been a real dead body.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 9:38 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Join the discussion…

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 1:17 AM
Reply to  ity

Frank gives a possible explanation for the anomaly you point out relating to the sunlight which doesn’t debunk the anomaly because it could still be a genuine anomaly, in fact, I’m not sure his explanation really works anyway but I’m not expert in lighting so I cannot comment. It is truly remarkable how people will cherry pick one item in your list of points and offer another possible explanation which doesn’t debunk and only offers an alternative, however, the rest of the list remains without explanation from the would-be debunker.

ALL THE EVIDENCE MUST BE EXPLAINED.

Good work, ity. You show the makings of an expert hoax analyst … when you get that they deliberately undermine the story it makes it so much easier, doesn’t it?

Swampy
Swampy
Dec 2, 2019 8:17 AM
Reply to  ity

Laying head to toe in totally the wrong direction, and people talk about false flags and fake news here, deary me.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 9:34 AM
Reply to  ity

Sure does small fishy Ity, and the name of the venue gives it away, that we have been predictively programmed.

”Fishmonger’s Hall?”

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Dec 1, 2019 4:45 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Short low definition videos can be faked very quickly, which I suggest this most probably is. It is quite clearly not a video of the event, so it was either faked, the same day as the event, or is a legitimate video, recorded before the event, by someone who knew the event was going to happen.

In my view it is a fake of a fake event, but it proves exactly nothing. I have seen no evidence that anyone died, though it is possible that they did. I agree with my wife, that there were many witnesses there who were shocked and convinced someone was shot dead, by police. However, we have both been to many stage plays, where murder was completely faked, within yards of us. We even chatted to some of the actors afterwards in the pub.

One of the first things to consider, is the timing of this event, and other similar events, and possible political motivations for such events.

Some are quite clearly faked, and quite obviously so. Some are very real indeed.

Personally, I think Jo Cox is probably still alive, but I know, that no one I know, will agree with my view, so I keep such thoughts to myself, as I do not particularly want to be perceived as completely mad.

Tony

charles drake
charles drake
Dec 1, 2019 5:58 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

that video just pollutes the well
a psy op of a psy op

the victims and the musselamic acting perp and the hero where all at an event ritual at the fishmongers hall.
no members of the public involved
this was a self contained red dagger ritual satanick performance

in the era of 18 million pixel cctv video all we ever get is crap lower than vhs video

Gwyn
Gwyn
Dec 1, 2019 12:27 PM

Vote Al de Piffle!

charles drake
charles drake
Dec 1, 2019 11:02 AM

the man with the red dagger above should be knighted
and given a position within the royal stools chambers pots.

he looks like an honest broker in those desaturated over exposed paintings the poor chap is very pale i do hope branson can give the poor sbs marine boy a weel on his necker epstein island
already

Yarkob
Yarkob
Dec 1, 2019 9:43 AM

boom!

and now the al majiroun story?! Omar Bakri Mohammed and Anjem Choudhary are known SIS/MI5 assets, and AM was set up with the help of SIS. this is old news. suck it up peons.

http://historycommons.org/

Have a really good read of this site. a lot of past “terror attacks” will swum into focus.

lundiel
lundiel
Dec 1, 2019 2:31 PM
Reply to  Yarkob

It had to be when you think about it, it all drops into place. Expendable footsoldiers recruited to fight foreign wars, a big increase in funding and more spooks, more surveillance, more control of the population, “lone wolf terror attacks” to drive public opinion to accept propaganda as truth, shoot to kill and allow occasional maham to keep us inside….. they’ve got us exactly where they want us and the biggest tools are the idiot Muslim youth “radicalising” themselves and buying one way tickets to Turkey or purchasing knives or making explosives to fill the objectives of MI5/6.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 11:37 AM
Reply to  lundiel

Now now Lundiel, I thought you were above name calling. Muslim youths are no more idiotic than you or I. In fact they are more switched on. And they certainly don’t want to be tools… Unfortunately some are so heavily compromised that they can see no way out but to trust MI5/6 and go along with the latest False Flag drill?
Try investigating 7/7 watch The Ripple Effect.

And read this, and see just how far MI5 go to ensnare and trap unsuspecting young men:
25 May 2013
Michael Adebolajo’s best friend Abu Nusaybah went on Newsnight and exposed just what Michael had suffered, and he was immediately arrested after the programme and taken for questioning (to silence him?) and has not been heard of since??
https://5pillarsuk.com/2013/05/25/was-michael-adebolago-an-mi5-agent/

His Brother who was already spying for MI5 was recruited to entrap his own brother.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334476/Woolwich-murder-MI6-connection-Younger-brother-Michael-Adebolajo-paid-thousands-spy-Middle-East.html?ico=home%5Emostread

I am presuming that you are old enough to remember ”The Dirty Dozen” and maybe thought the film was based on fiction? Well it wasn’t, and it is still going on today.
>>5 May 2019, 23:53Updated: 6 May 2019, 11:19
SOLDIERS have visited criminals in prison to try to get them to join the Army, The Sun can reveal.
Four squaddies went to a jail’s employment fair as Top Brass face a 3,000-strong manpower shortage despite recruitment campaigns.
Sources have compared the move to iconic World War II film The Dirty Dozen
about a band of army convicts offered amnesty if they succeed in a mission behind enemy lines. (but they don’t for most of them die…)
Colonel Richard Kemp, ex-commander of UK forces in Afghanistan, said: “I’ve known many outstanding infantrymen who are also villains.
“Often soldiers guilty of military crimes are allowed to soldier on after their sentence, frequently becoming better fighting men as a result.
“But it smacks of desperation for modern day Lee Marvins to go into prisons to recruit their dirty dozens.
“Long outdated measures that would not even be considered if the Army got a grip of recruiting as it could easily do.
“This tactic sends all the wrong messages in an era when soldiers are under unprecedented scrutiny over alleged wrongdoing.
“It may also have a negative effect on recruiting, as parents already concerned about the danger of a military life discourage their children from signing up alongside ex-cons.
“The armed forces should play their part in rehabilitating offenders. But prisoners should be recruited only after their sentence is spent.
“They will ‘already have repaid their debt’ to society and serving their country should give them respect as well as credit.” (either that or some charge will be trumped up against them to put them back inside? Remember Kahn had already served his time for the crime of ‘thinking and talking’. He hadn’t actually DONE anything. And how did MI5 know this? Had they bugged their homes?)
SAS legend Andy McNab, enlisted out of borstal, backed signing up ex-convicts. He said: “If they’ve served their time, get them in the Army. What better way to rehabilitate someone? You’ll get a good soldier and a good citizen.”
HMP Lincoln is a Category B Victorian prison holding over 600 men guilty of crimes ranging from drug offences to assault and burglary.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4207265/soldiers-visited-lags-in-dirty-dozen-recruitment-bid-amid-squaddie-shortage/ <<<

Lastly, who here had ever heard of Arianna Grande before Manchester? Since then she has NEVER been out of the news. It's amazing how some people are prepared to sell their souls to get publicity.

Once you have absorbed what I have posted, you will have swallowed the red pill and will never ever have the wool pulled over your eyes again.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 4, 2019 9:44 AM
Reply to  Yarkob

I have found a lot of excellent information on the History commons site Yarkob, but you do have to search, and compare.
Especially the 911 information.

Yarkob
Yarkob
Dec 4, 2019 10:29 AM
Reply to  Maggie

this is true, Maggie. good info but needs rooting out. search for omar bakri mohammed and his interview with ron susskind. that’s the money shot

Yarkob
Yarkob
Dec 1, 2019 9:38 AM

i have a copy of that video. it also shows the man throwing something away, as Danny says below. there’s another video of the “shot” guy getting up late in the evening. the whole thing stinks (as usual)

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 11:22 AM
Reply to  Yarkob

Where is the link to the “dead” guy getting up?

As for the cloth, let’s think about this rationally for a minute. The attacker had 2 knives that he’s killed 2 people with and slashed many more. The knives will have blood on them. The attacker is temporarily disabled / distracted, one of his knives is seized and the chap now holding it is holding it by the blade. He will have blood on his hands, so he takes a handkerchief out of his pocket. A bit later on he throws it away. I don’t think it’s more than that, but I could be wrong.

Maggie
Maggie
Dec 2, 2019 10:47 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

I Think you need to visit Specsavers Frank.
”The ‘attacker’ allegedly had TWO KNIVES TAPED TO HIS WRISTS, which miraculously flew off his wrists?? Have you ever tried removing gaffer tape that is stuck together?
There is no video ‘anywhere’ of the knife/ves being seized from the attacker. And the off duty transport cop held the knife by the handle, and there was NO BLOOD ON IT. He did get a piece of paper from his pocket (probably his script?) and threw it in the floor. It was not a handkerchief, and he did not wipe the knife or his hands with it….
and yes you are wrong.

StevieH
StevieH
Dec 1, 2019 8:41 AM

Re the tweet. Parliament has been dissolved. There are no MPs. There is no “sitting Tory prime minister”.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 11:24 AM
Reply to  StevieH

Incorrect, even when Parliament is dissolved, the role of PM and ministers are not dissolved. They remain in those functions until the election results and new government is announced.

Sammy
Sammy
Dec 1, 2019 6:20 AM

Funny how these supposed “terrorist attacks” happen just before the election?

dray boyle
dray boyle
Dec 1, 2019 5:39 PM
Reply to  Sammy

Jo Cox?

Danny
Danny
Dec 1, 2019 1:04 AM

The man who carries the knife away.

Interesting that “by chance” (according to Sky News reporter) he was plain clothes transport police, and what’s going on with this white cloth?

https://youtu.be/kWdAaCgM1xE

Roodolpt
Roodolpt
Dec 2, 2019 9:14 AM
Reply to  Danny

Looked like he was throwing away a big bag of coke. Maybe he spotted some sniffer dogs.

Kitty
Kitty
Dec 1, 2019 12:15 AM

Another well timed terrorist attack.
This latest incident follows a pattern
03 June 17 terrorist attack London Bridge
08 June 17 GE
20 April 17 terrorist attack Champs-Élysés
23 April 17 French GE
Labour MP murdered a few days before the BREXIT vote
It is a known fact that a terrorist attack will favour the sitting government . Coincidence, I think not

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi
Dec 2, 2019 9:58 AM
Reply to  Kitty

“Years of lead”.
Can anybody say Gladio?

JudyJ
JudyJ
Nov 30, 2019 11:07 PM

I wish someone would put the following straightforward question to Boris Johnson. How come the practice of “automatic early release” which he has been effusively condemning today, and implies cannot be denied to convicted terrorists, didn’t apply equally to Julian Assange when he was eligible for release on licence in September? Or am I missing something?

Estaugh
Estaugh
Nov 30, 2019 9:19 PM

Shot ‘a la Menzies’, at point blank. The bus is RED, the paving is not. Remains to discover the calibre of the gun used in the summary execution. —- The cloth/tissue the bloke threw down, followed the course of projection, therefore, there was either no wind or it followed the wind direction exactly. Or it was weighted with unseen content. It appears that ISIS has claimed ownership of the attack. Their paymasters in Whitehall/FCO egging them on, no doubt.

Refraktor
Refraktor
Nov 30, 2019 9:56 PM
Reply to  Estaugh

Strange: who Photoshopped the picture and why? The bus is red yes but no colour in the vicinity of the brightly lit photographer.

If that bloke had been shot in the head there would be a lake of blood.

A total joke.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Nov 30, 2019 10:29 PM
Reply to  Estaugh

Perhaps the press could enquire as to what it was the ‘off duty transport police officer’ discarded and why. It makes no logical sense however they might try to dress it up. If the item was of little consequence to what was going on then why did he feel compelled to remove it from his pocket and dispose of it with such haste and flamboyance in the middle of an ongoing crisis. If it was related to the incident shouldn’t he have kept it as possible evidence for forensic testing etc. But I would bet money that the press won’t ask.

Vivian J
Vivian J
Nov 30, 2019 9:07 PM

For anyone wanting to go further down the rabbit hole (on this and related topics) I recommend Zachary Hubbard, and his exposition of gematria (kabbalistic numerology) and how it is purposely encoded into everyday events. His latest video addresses the London Bridge staged attack:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KV0vEcoxaBW9/

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Nov 30, 2019 11:26 PM
Reply to  Vivian J

Thank you so much for that link, Vivian, with the YT censorship haven’t seen a Zach video in years.

Love how he points out Olivia Bizot’s coincidental presence at the Boston Bombing.

Suddenly, this event couldn’t get any more hoaxalicious.

There’s always those who’ve just happened to be at another staged event, aren’t there … and, of course, Olivia “didn’t really assume it was gunshots at first,” because witnesses generally don’t match the sound with the obvious type of source first off, they generally tend to think it was something else although rather differently from the norm, Olivia doesn’t tell us what she thought it was first, just that she heard “explosions” and didn’t “really assume” it was gunshots.

https://fox4kc.com/2019/11/29/2-people-killed-in-london-bridge-stabbings-police-fatally-shoot-suspect/

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 4:59 AM
Reply to  Vivian J

I have my doubts about Zachary though. He seems to know an awful lot for a non-insider and, as far as I know, he hasn’t called out 9/11 as a complete hoax rather than a “false flag” where 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 injured. Anyone who seems as though they should know better who doesn’t call out 9/11 as a complete hoax (apart from damage to and collapse of the buildings) is very suspect in my book. Of course, many genuine truthers have been completely brainwashed (my God they’re good at their propaganda) into believing that 9/11 was a “false flag” rather than a complete hoax and it certainly is proving extremely difficult to coax them out of that false belief but someone like Zachary would surely get it so I have serious doubts about him … but, of course, controlled opposition or not he can certainly deliver a lot of very useful information … you just need to be careful, that’s all … which is always what you need to be anyway … because genuine people including myself get it wrong, even if only temporarily, too.

Ken
Ken
Dec 1, 2019 6:50 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Oh Flaxy, any opportunity to trot out your insane theory of 9/11. It’s getting awfully old, dear.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 7:07 AM
Reply to  Ken

Only interested in theories in how well they fit the evidence, Ken. Not generally interested in theories otherwise. But really is any thinking person going to believe that ONE thing is true in a whole sea of BIG FAT LIES? Why would a thinking person be so convinced that ONE thing – just the ONE thing – was true without a skerrick of evidence for it when everything else in the story was false? Why? Now that’s insanity to me. Of course, it took me four years of study to disabuse myself of that insanity myself but now that I have I find it remarkable that even when I explain the propaganda model and provide compelling evidence, logic and reason for people not being killed on 9/11 that I’m treated as insane when the only insanity would be for the US government to do it for real when the CIA (and its fellow intelligence agencies) are so fabulously experienced and skilled at duping the world. That really would be insanity beyond belief. It’s nothing to do with theory, Ken, it’s knowing the MO. If you think the US government would kill the people in the buildings when they could so easily fake it and FAKING IT IS ALWAYS THE MO you have ZERO understanding of how they do these things. Click my name to learn more at my website.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 7:15 AM
Reply to  Ken

I mean, seriously, Ken, who do you think knows the truth about 9/11. Do you think all the agency staff and media involved DON’T KNOW? Do you think somehow they all think fire brought the buildings down? Is that what you think Ken? That all the firefighters, police, media and the hundreds and hundreds of other people think that the buildings came down by fire? If not, do you think they’re all AOK with 3,000 of their fellow citizens being murdered by their government, especially in the case of the firefighters of whom 343 allegedly perished. Where are the firefighters jumping up and down, Ken? Where are they? Think, Ken, think. Put the grey matter to work.

Ken
Ken
Dec 1, 2019 7:46 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

You suffer from a serious case of black and white thinking.

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 7:59 AM
Reply to  Ken

Monochrome thinking is better than none at all, Ken.

Ken
Ken
Dec 1, 2019 8:12 AM
Reply to  Frank

You must have me confused with someone who is ignorant of or denies the fact that 9/11 was a false flag, Frank.

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 8:48 AM
Reply to  Ken

I don’t. You don’t appear to be a shill, so you’re here because you’re among a minority of people who are better informed about scams like 9/11. I do take exception to your mocking tone and apparent inability to engage with Liverani above. It bespeaks ignorance or at the very least a distinct lack of common sense.

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 8:36 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I’ve often wondered why most of those seeking to expose 9/11 completely ignore the ‘vicsims’- that is, the litany of supposed victims whose names are clearly made up and/or whose two photographs (apparently released for remembrance by the bereaved familes) are absurdly blurred or saturated images which are frequently lateral inversions of each other.

I also recall those walls in New York onto which relatives and friends had supposedly stuck notices about their missing loved ones. They were frequently used in the media as emblematic symbols of the scale of trauma and loss. One should ask oneself this, however. If your relative has gone missing, and having gone to all the trouble of printing a Missing notice in the hope that it would be read by a passerby, would you then post it on a wall 15 feet off the ground?

It’s utterly mind-boggling to browse the vicsims and numerous absurdities in the media narrative and consider the sheer scale of gullibility required for the masses to swallow it. But swallow it they did. The Neo-Cohens got their Neo Pearl Harbour and another 3000 deaths to avenge.

As to whether people died in America on 9/11 or after it – I’ve no doubt there were innumerable chronic and fatal respiratory illnesses and cancers caused by collapsing those buildings. It’s almost irrelevant, though, whether or not there were 3000 victims on that day. It doesn’t mitigate the crimes of the perpetrators, USA and Israel, one fraction if there weren’t. Since 9/11, hundreds of thousands if not millions have died in the Middle East and around the world as a direct result of the murderous Zionist scum who have a stranglehold on government and media in the West and for whom 9/11 was a meticulously planned pretext.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 8:52 AM
Reply to  Frank

Thank you, Frank. You’re right, in the sense of numbers of people who’ve lost their lives since 9/11, whether people on 9/11 died or not is of not great significance, however, whether they died or not is still highly significant and we know that simply from the millions the perps have put into keeping truthers persuaded of the lie of death and injury. Truthers are hamstrung in getting out the truth when they are under the illusion of that lie.

I seriously doubt the respiratory illnesses – that seems to be a whole lot of propaganda too. Controlled demolitions are not as dust-producing as we are led to believe those of the twin towers were (WTC-7 wasn’t as nearly dust-producing even taking size into account). It seems they pumped out masses of (no doubt benign) dust from the buildings as they fell which performed a number of useful functions. See https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/twin-towers-the-magic-dust.html

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 11:33 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

We now have 2 psychop assets here pushing the same provable nonsense that nobody died in 911, and now having a “conversation” with one another to try and build up credibility! This is so amateurish, so transparent! LOL

Performance review for Personas #149 and #150
1/10 must try much harder!

Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 3:25 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Hmm. OK, so in whose possible interest would it be to shill in support of the notion that no one died on 9/11 but argue that the murderous regimes of the USA and Israel nevertheless carried it out?

I address my query to you, Frank Speaker, as you’re evidently some kind of deductive genius with a nose for sniffing out online shenanigans orchestrated by ‘intelligence assets’, and you’re in no whatsoever an ‘ass-hat of limited intelligence’. No, sir.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 9:14 PM
Reply to  Frank

It’s one extreme or the other with you isn’t it?
Reality is “shades of grey”, or even full technicolor.
It’s not mutually exclusive to say 911 was an inside job AND that real people died as a result.
You have somehow bizzarely taken a very irrational, and unproven viewpoint that zero people died in 911. That’s a viewpoint that is completely proven to be 100% false based upon thousands of individual eyewitnesses.
There is zero validity to any claim that zero people died in 911, and that’s a completely different claim from speculating who was behind 911.
That’s why you / Flaxgirl are either ill, or are psychop assets who are attempting to discredit genuine concerns about the official narrative into 911 and other events where the establishment narrative does not match the evidence and eyewitness accounts.

charles drake
charles drake
Dec 1, 2019 11:10 AM
Reply to  Ken

whats kens theory on the tamoodick event of the 9 and 11
pray tell old bean

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 11:29 AM
Reply to  charles drake

No idea. You’ll have to take it up with him, dear chap.

Ken
Ken
Dec 1, 2019 3:38 PM
Reply to  charles drake

Have a good look around the website ae911truth.org and read “Solving 9-11” by Christopher Bollyn, or watch one of his many presentations on YouTube. You will then have a good idea of my theory on 9/11, old bean.

Frank
Frank
Dec 1, 2019 3:57 PM
Reply to  Ken

Seconded. Chris Bollyn has it wrapped up, at least in terms of the perpetrators. Incontrovertible.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 11:13 PM
Reply to  Frank

Frank, see my reply to Ken, above.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 11:11 PM
Reply to  Ken

Ken, all the anti-Israel stuff is simply distraction propaganda. Dancing Israelis? Van stopped in roadblock found to contain explosives dust? Complete nonsense. Not to say that Israel wasn’t involved in 9/11, not to say that at all but, funnily enough, the truth can be used as distraction propaganda … which leads me to AE9/11Truth. Don’t they do an absolutely FANTASTIC job of explaining controlled demolition. I mean, it’s so very, very professional. I have to say I did wonder how architects & engineers could do such a damned good communications job. That’s cos they have a little help, yep.

The most sensible place to focus is the planes, right, because if you expose the fact that the plane crashes were faked then you don’t really need to bother with the buildings – faked plane crashes automatically means the buildings came down by controlled demolition, right? It also means automatically that 265 of those who allegedly died did not. Which then might lead to the question that if they managed to successfully fake those 265 deaths why not the remaining 2735?

It doesn’t work the other way though, does it? CD doesn’t mean there were no planes and it doesn’t mean no one died in the buildings or the planes.

While we have a fantastic A&E team on the job, not so for pilots or aircraft accident investigators, in fact, I don’t know of a single aircraft accident investigator who’s spoken about 9/11 while we have an enormous variety of professionals associated with construction voicing their opinions.

Planes – simple, controlled demolition – complicated.

And that’s what they want, Ken, they want truthers running round like headless chickens dealing with loads and loads and loads of material and arguing over different theories about this, that and the other … when, in fact, 9/11 was a massive, in-your-face Emperor’s New Clothes affair. It is just Emperor’s New Clothes right in your face. Planes don’t melt into steel frame buildings, which in turn do not crash to the ground from fire.

Death and injury though that’s not quite so Emperor’s New Clothes, however, when you check the evidence there’s none that clearly shows that any of the 3,000 alleged to have died, died or any of the 6,000 alleged to have been injured, were injured. In fact, what we do find in the evidence presented for both death and injury is signs of fakery.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 11:23 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

And just to add AE9/11Truth have a plane in their logo … and we know what that means, don’t we, if it’s not apparent already. Controlled opposition. They were no planes and they know that, of course, and if you think there were, Ken, here’s evidence there weren’t.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/four-faked-plane-crashes.html

Frank
Frank
Dec 2, 2019 9:06 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I’m with Ken on this one, Petra. There is no ‘anti-Israel stuff’ that isn’t very well earned. All the distraction in every single mainstream source is away from Israel rather than towards it. Please review Christopher Bollyn’s material. Having done so, one would need to be absurdly myopic to fail to see Israel at the very center of 9/11, at the very centre of policy that stemmed from it and at the very centre of all efforts to cover it up and distract from it.

As for all the other details – they’re all peripheral to me, although I’m inclined to think the (at least, official) victims were vicsims, and I’m inclined to think there were indeed no planes – all video of the event having been precisely synchronised across TV networks. I’d rather avoid getting into discussion of the details, as I think it’s all distraction from the inescapable facts, which are as follows:

We were grossly deceived, and the psychopaths who carried it out are still in power and still lying to us.

They’re doing it mostly in service to Israel.

End of story.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 1:54 PM
Reply to  Frank

Frank, I’m not talking about anti-Israel in the mainstream, I’m only talking about anti-Israel directed at truthers.

The Dancing Israelis and the white van stopped in the roadblock and found to contain explosives dust seriously are nonsense. You don’t believe these, do you Frank? These are absurdities. They are directed at truthers to make us think Israelis brought down the buildings to make it more plausible. It’s more difficult to accept that US citizens brought down those buildings killing their fellow citizens so callously like that … but outsiders – oh outsiders are more plausible.

I know this because I SWALLOWED this propaganda myself.

But it don’t matter who exactly brought the buildings down – Mossad, CIA, demolition company – because they were evacuated.

My point is, Frank, that they distract us with all sorts of stuff – Israel, Saudi Arabia, nanothermite/thermite/thermate/nuclear/Judy Woods/etc – anything and everything they distract us with.

What it boils down to is that everything was done under the auspices of the US government and they are the first target. They AUTHORISED everything so why focus on those involved at a secondary level? Primary level first.

And essentially 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising multiple drills where the only major realities of the day were damage to and destruction of buildings – pushed out with loads of fanfare. It’s really so very simple – but how complicated do they make it? How very, very complicated.

Frank
Frank
Dec 2, 2019 6:48 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Petra, there are many circularities in your arguments. It appears that you start from the premise that if a piece of evidence appears compelling then this compelling evidence that it’s false. Everything but some cherry-picked simplest explanations is a misdirection, you appear to argue.

You invoke Occam and his beloved razor in a manner which I wouldn’t describe as completely intellectually honest or consistent. Your arguments are motivated by the logical necessity to simplify, but the result resembles that of the CIA when they coined the term, ‘conspiracy theory’ aiming to neutralise those awkward questions about the official JFK assassination narrative. Since then, the term has been used as a means to discredit any alternative narrative as unnecessarily complicated and conspiratorial. How is that substantively different from what you’re doing here – especially when you prioritize playing down Israel’s role?

While it’s true that the ‘dancing Israelis’ has become something of a 9/11 meme, and now sounds vaguely ridiculous, it’s nevertheless something that left a footprint in the news, and the young Israelis concerned were interviewed on television and stated that they were there to chronicle the event. Was it all fake? I don’t know. In any case, it’s a very minor part of the 9/11 conspiracy, a trivial detail. I suppose Larry Silverstein’s involvement and ‘pull it’ statement is another misdirection, right?

Again, why get hung up on these things when there is so much more exhaustive, substantiated evidence (see Bollyn) and all of it points to Israel?

Oh but how very self-sacrificing of Israel and the dual citizen jewish-American neo-cons to allow so much opprobrium to be heaped upon them by making it seem to any investigator as though they were responsible for the planning, execution and cover-up of 9/11! And all for the sake of protecting the real culprits.

It’s strange that they don’t behave with anything like the same selflessness towards Palestinians, though. Hmm.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 10:21 PM
Reply to  Frank

Frank, I’m afraid I have to disagree with your assessment that I use Occam’s Razor incorrectly and that I am not 100% intellectually honest. You also strawman me.

I don’t “minimise” Israel’s involvement. What I say is that regardless of its level of involvement, the US government (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld I’m presuming) rubber-stamped everything so they are the primary culprits. Something may well be true but pushing the focus on it can be considered a form of propaganda. In Kit’s article on Andrew that is what he suggests: the focus is on Andrew with a non-under age girl (in the UK at least) to distract from far more nefarious activities.

Occam’s Razor is not so much concerned with trivial or massive but how well the evidence supports the hypothesis. That is what I always focus on:

— What hypothesis does the evidence fit with the fewest assumptions and questions raised?
— Is there any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis?

Let’s take the Dancing Israelis.

Was it all fake? I don’t know. In any case, it’s a very minor part …

The Dancing Israelis (Mossad AGENTS dancing to be caught on camera?????) stopped in a roadblock in a white van found with explosives in it is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS – I admit I totally swallowed it initially. It was obviously staged and if you can find a skerrick of evidence or logic to suggest that it wasn’t please let me know what it is.

The Dancing Israelis with explosives dust very much supports two hypotheses:
— they provide an “outsider” responsible for the actual killing of the people in the buildings to make it more plausible (I mean, this is how I interpreted them myself, I know it was their purpose)
— they focus us away from the essential simplicity of the event on Israeli involvement.

There are masses and masses of other things that also focus us on Israel’s involvement including, of course, Christopher Bollyn – that would seem to be his dedicated purpose, in fact. There is also focus on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, other countries, whether or not there were planes, missiles or nothing, what exactly brought the buildings down, etc, etc, etc.

This is my three-part hypothesis. If you have a single skerrick of evidence that contradicts it or better supports other hypotheses please let me know.

1. In essence, similar to the event we are commenting on but much, much larger in scale, 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising many drills where the only major realities of the day was damage to and destruction of buildings. The plane crashes were faked and death and injury were staged. This was pushed out globally by the media with massive fanfare.

2. Masses of propaganda has been targeted at those studying 9/11 to distract them from the essential simplicity of the event — and especially to keep them persuaded of the death and injury lie.

3. While snowing us with propaganda, they have inserted loads of gratuitous anomalies into their story above and beyond the Emperor’s New Clothes facts that 500,000-ton steel frame skyscrapers do not crash to the ground from fire and 200-ton airliners do not penetrate those buildings like a knife through butter.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 3, 2019 12:57 AM
Reply to  Frank

Just to make myself clearer:

Israel may have had massive involvement in 9/11, however, it didn’t rubber-stamp what happened on the day. That was done by US officials, right?

This was an event on US soil and had to be authorised by US officials – whether Zionists, dual-citizens or whatever. They had to be US.

So surely the initial charges for perpetrating this hoax starts with US officials, whoever their collaborators might be and whatever influence they had. If you think it doesn’t please tell me why.

Frank
Frank
Dec 3, 2019 11:05 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Firstly, I haven’t set out to strawman you. Outside of what you’ve posted on this page I haven’t seen your thesis. My response has been selective – based as it is on the totality of your comments above.

Forgive my remark about intellectual honesty. It wasn’t directed at your person but at your underpinning arguments. I think you should abandon all efforts to apply Occam’s razor to 9/11. A woman stabbing her abusive husband in the kitchen is a likely case for which Occam’s razor might come in handy. 9/11 isn’t. I think you’ll agree that 9/11 is a multilayered and complex event where the groundwork was laid, and still is being laid, for numerous competing and contradictory narratives, most of them obvious misdirection such as Saudi Arabia (which you do your argument no good at all by mentioning alongside Israel). 9/11 clearly served numerous interests, and cannot be distilled down to one. Many beneficiaries means many motives. The Patriot Act, enhanced airport security, the Surveillance state and all its actors, the bogus War on Terror, the consolidation of jewish power around the world, particularly in western media and politics. Many beneficiaries, many complications. Laying arbitrary claim to simplicity whilst identifying compelling evidence as complex subterfuge seems a mockery of Occam’s razor yet you apply it in those cases where it justifies your assertions.

And any rational assertion regarding 9/11 which does not emphasise Israel and the project for a Greater Israel at the very centre is an assertion in service to Israel and in behalf of Evil itself.

And aside from it being self-defeating and divisive, discussion on the details of 9/11 is something I detest. It’s pointless and depressing to watch ourselves endlessly chasing our tails on the subject. It’s as though the very act of arguing over the minutiae assures the immunity of the perpetrators. How they must gloat over our utter impotence and self-division! As before, there are things I agree with you on and things I disagree on, but for the above reasons I respectfully decline to get into them. It seems to me totally futile to be now considering who among the partners in crime USA and Israel, and other assorted Zionist whores and vassals bears the greater responsibility for the 9/11 atrocity and all the continuing atrocities framed and facilitated by that grand deception. As for USA’s specific share of guilt relative to Israel’s, let me express the democratic hope that in my lifetime I’ll see them both burn to the ground, and a bit of misattributed blame would scarcely make any difference to the sum total of summary justice they’ve both richly earned. Let’s say that they’ve both earned total annihilation many times over, but once will suffice.

Further, it’s hardly the time to be weighing the charges against them for they’re not in the dock, and our weakness guarantees they never will be. To bring them down we may have to rely on a moral universe, or the forces of entropy, or even their own psychopathy and power lust, as it scarcely looks as though we can rely on each other.

Not while we’re banging on about irrelevant philosophical distractions such as Occam’s razor, at any rate.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 3, 2019 2:21 PM
Reply to  Frank

I’ve jumped back up here to respond to your last comment cos it’s getting too narrow here.

I think we’re talking at cross purposes here, Frank. I simply want to show that at a basic level 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event where the only realities of the day were damage to and destruction of buildings. The plane crashes were faked and death and injury were staged.

These basic facts are simply not known. The majority of people still think it was 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters and most others don’t get the key lie of 9/11: 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured. They don’t get that it was simply a massive exercise. Promulgating the basic facts of what the events of the day were I think is important, don’t you? The basic facts of the events of the day have nothing to do with which countries were involved and what their various motives were.

I also want to show how they use propaganda to hide the basic facts of the day with loads of distraction without going into what the detail of what that distraction consists of and what part of that distraction is true and what is false.

For my purpose I believe Occam’s Razor is the perfect tool and I simply gravitated towards it because I found myself going round and round in argument with people and thought that would help stop it – it didn’t of course.

That is all I want to do. Beyond that it is a massive can of worms and I don’t go there but I think it’s good to work out the basics, isn’t it?

The Aussie Prime Minister at the time, Little Johnny Howard, happened to be in the Big Apple on 9/11. You don’t think that was a co-incidence do you? So loads of people had their fingers in 9/11 – it’s a massive can of worms.

Frank
Frank
Dec 3, 2019 5:03 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

‘Yes, I may have shot him, officer, but it’s more accurate to say that a huge mass of atoms created a vibration and acted on another mass of atoms, propelling a smaller mass of atoms at incredibly high speed against the mass of atoms you call the victim. No need to complicate this by dragging me into it, is there officer?’

“… at a basic level 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event where the only realities of the day were damage to and destruction of buildings.’

You’re not using Occam’s razor here, Petra, you’re using My First Big Boy Shaving Kit by Fisher Price, Ages 3 and Up.

And considering the way you always fall back to your initial position regardless of what you’re told, I now suspect your sole intention is to run interference for Israel.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 3, 2019 10:38 PM
Reply to  Frank

I really do think it’s hilarious the way people suspect me of agendas, truly hilarious. I’m so transparent – my only agenda is to present a persuasive case for the truth. Apologies, Frank, I should have put a link to where I provide Occam’s Razor exercises and other material for this seemingly ludicrous claim.

It’s all here:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/11.html

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 4, 2019 12:44 AM
Reply to  Frank

Just to add, Frank. In the first few months of my study of 9/11 I got controlled demolition and then a few months later I got the planes (even though, of course, both are really obvious at the outset but it’s the propaganda and sense of disbelief that causes that delay) but it took four whole years to get staged death and injury because of the massive propaganda campaign directed at truthers aimed to maintain belief in the lie of real death and injury. It’s wall-to-wall controlled opposition out there distracting us and persuading us of the lie of death and injury, Frank, wall-to-wall.

I do not analyse all the detailed stuff. As I say, Israel may well have had massive involvement in 9/11 and we all know it had, at least, some involvement and I’d say you’re right about the massive part. But this I do know: they use Israel, other countries, other aspects and even controlled demolition (itself one of the basics) to distract from the basics of the event.

When I got how they used propaganda to fool us with the death and injury lie I had such a visceral sense of being a dumb bull being yanked viciously one way and another by its nose ring to believe all kinds of nonsense. Then I laughed … so clever.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 4, 2019 12:57 AM
Reply to  Frank

And just to add one more thing. It is simply breathtaking what information (truth or lie) they will push out against themselves. They totally know how to do the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing act and they will do it shamelessly (although still generally giving us clues (if subtle) that they’re really a wolf). Totally.

I have looked at Christopher Bollyn’s stuff but this was before I woke up to the controlled opposition campaign. He seemed convincing at the time but now I know about the wall-to-wall controlled opposition I strongly suspect that that’s what he is. I mean, come on, he’s simply devoted to pushing out anti-Israel stuff … but is there any hint from him of staged death and injury? Of course not! Admittedly, genuine truthers don’t say it either but that’s because they’ve been totally brainwashed by the truther-targeted propaganda (as I was until I woke up).

This is an exchange I had with an alleged US Veteran for Peace whom I saw speak (and was totally seduced by) in Sydney in 2013. I analyse his talk (fortunately it was recorded and posted on YouTube) and I suggest to him that he is controlled opposition and ask him to show that he isn’t. You might be interested in his responses.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/vince-emanuele-veteran-for-peace.html

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins
Nov 30, 2019 7:38 PM

Errr, has anybody ever been in a knife fight ? Without a knife . . . ?

Mind you, ‘in the river’, would have maybe been my first reaction . . .

Less time wasted with stupid lengthy superficial non-scientific Police ‘officiaL’ enquiries.
“Your job, innit’, get the divers 🙂 ” Public Safety First … ROSPA Royal Certification 😉
Intel. inside Israel 🙂 ‘iii’ grand ‘Psyop’ 😉 Bang on time . . .

charles drake
charles drake
Nov 30, 2019 7:35 PM

looking at the grand building above
the hall for fish mongers
that is a big hall
that is
that big hall is part of a very big building
that
that is vast that is how many fishers of men can you get into a place like that A
how many mi spooks actor marines sbs types
how many catering crew
how many terror and crime pros
kings men and queens men
liars and deceivers
the halls filled with the smell of rotten sleeping fishes
that building is vast that is
500 million at least buy my rekonimg
i never knew these very fishy mongers made that can of money
and why ain;t it a car park or another executive property development like scotland yard

what a load of cods wallop
already

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 7:10 PM

FFS! The Groan still has a live thread on this story. They seem very keen to keep this story running and running. Talk about a lack of perspective. People are being stabbed to death on an almost daily basis in London, but as soon as the attack is near the seats of power, everyone loses their shit. Pathetic.

And to show how ridiculous things are getting…

Government holds emergency Cobra meeting. Downing Street said government officials, police and security officials held a meeting of the emergency Cobra committee on Saturday afternoon. A spokesperson said that the prime minister would receive further updates from security officials this evening and tomorrow morning.

Really? What exactly are they going to discuss at this Cobra meeting? And Priti Patel is already blaming Labour for this attack. This Tory government is fucking disgusting. They are monsters. There are no depths to low for them. Utter bastards.

nottheonly1
nottheonly1
Dec 1, 2019 12:04 AM
Reply to  ity

It should also be pointed out that UK regime troops are now in the crosshairs of the ICC for egregious war crimes. The kind that makes you vomit. The UK regime has been covering up the war crimes its henchmen perpetrate, but wait, oh wait! There is someone kniving down folks (not good) on the bridge and Cobra needs to spew it venom!

Effing UK regime war criminals killed scores of INNOCENT human beings (yes, lots of women, children and the elderly among them) and now acts as if a nuke was dropped on the Queen’s rose garden.

These are not only utter bastards that know no limits to their depravity – this is the worst scum the world has ever seen and to imagine that these kind of people were able to lie their ways through seven decades and create this upside down world in which anything goes when you are rich – disenfrenchising all those who are not.

Wasn’t beheading the favorite method of justice for the crown since its creation? How many of the early beheaders in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria were UK regime henchmen?

Isn’t the time long overdue for a revival of the attempt Wat Tyler started before he was killed by the ilk whose offspring still rules the country?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
Nov 30, 2019 6:28 PM

I’m curious to know why the Tories should be helped electorally when the terrorist had been released under Tory rule after only 6 years of a 16 year sentence for another serious terrorism offence. If this were a false flag operation, the script writer could have come up with a much more incendiary script. Perhaps an attack on a synagogue.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 2:26 AM

The “staged event” MO is very counterintuitive, Christopher, in the deliberately sloppy and unrealistic method of staging. This page may help you understand it.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

pmac
pmac
Dec 1, 2019 9:06 PM

That was a Labour rule. The Tories inherited it and then put an end to it, but the perp had already been convicted by that time.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 6:25 PM

I think we have to be very careful in these situations, and not to get too carried away. It’s easy to end up seeing the sinister in every little thing, which can often create confusion rather than clarity.

Take the man with the knife, and the video posted below, of him throwing away a piece of cloth/handkerchief. Now my instincts, rightly or wrongly, have me believe that the man looks to be in shock. Why is he holding the knife in the way that he is? If he wanted to avoid fingerprints being destroyed, then wouldn’t he hold it by the blade? And the handkerchief which he can’t decide what to do with. Isn’t it possible that at first he instinctively kept it, but then threw it away in a sort of delayed horror minutes later?

And take the police shooting the man. The whole scene does look a bit odd. Why did they have him apparently restrained, only to then step away and immediately shoot him? But isn’t it possible that the police thought that he could detonate himself, were losing the struggle to keep his hands away from an assumed detonator, and instinctively followed the training for such a situation, playing it safe and shooting the man dead?

Of course the above is just speculation. And also, importantly, if this speculation is close to the truth of what went down in the immediate vicinity, this in no way rules out foul play by others further up the chain.

But surely, if you were to initiate a false flag operation, you’d want as few people knowing about it as possible. Why would you let mere policemen know? Or a plain clothes railway policeman? Surely it would make more sense to just make sure that police are in the area, and assume that the police would do their job, follow their training, and so build that knowledge into the operation. No need to let them in on the dark secret. All that would be needed for such an operation would be a brainwashed perpetrator who’d been ‘instructed’ to not be taken alive.

We can’t ‘know’ the truth of what has happened here of course, all we can do is speculate. But we have a duty to ourselves to watch our own speculation.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 12:00 AM
Reply to  ity

Aspects of staged events are counterintuitive, ity. In fact, they make it clear they’re faking them. There seem to be various reasons they do this but when you put aside the notion (however logical it may seem) that they would try to cover the fact they’re staging an event and embrace the notion (however illogical it may seem) that they push it in our faces that they’re staging it, analysis becomes so much easier. Much less headache and pondering and trying to fit pieces together that simply won’t fit.

Occam’s Razor fails miserably when you try to explain this event as either a real event or a false flag that they try to pull off as realistically as possible but it performs beautifully when you try to explain the event as staged with the staging made obvious.
My webpage They Tell Us Clearly may be helpful – https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 1:17 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Jackanory

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 2:20 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

— While you don’t use your real name, Frank, I do.

— While I put my money where my mouth is with my website and challenge, Frank, you don’t. You do not make the slightest effort whatsoever to credibly argue against my claims by providing any evidence, logic or reason in your comments.

— Who are you, Frank, are you simply a witless “useful idiot” or “controlled opposition”? Whichever, it makes no odds to me.

Go ahead and take up space in the comments with your nonsense attacks, Frank, and downvote my comments (no doubt you’re one of the witless downvoters) because I defend anyone’s right to say what they want.

I will avoid reading (as much as I’m able) and will not reply to any comments you make in the future because there is no good reason to waste any more of my time or take up space with your nonsense.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 10:19 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Who am I? I am a seeker of truth, a despiser of hypocrisy, a peace maker, a democratic socialist, a nature lover, an innovator, a philosopher, a polyglot.

I also have a very open mind, but I know when to adjust the lid on it sufficiently to stop sewerage, psychops, and disinfo campaigns like yours pouring in and polluting it.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 11:16 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Just to add to my earlier reply, your comment of:

“credibly argue against my claims by providing any evidence, logic or reason”

Erm, no. Let’s assume for a moment for that you are not a disinfo agent ridiculing legitimate “conspiracy theorists” with outlandish claims, it’s then for YOU to prove that your outlandish claims are legitimate not complete BS.

Let’s us 911 as a quick example. Yes, it’s clear from the evidence that 911 was aided and abetted by insiders and likely Mossad. It’s also clear that architects and engineers have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the towers were detonated. It’s also clear that the Building 7 collapse was reported by the BBC 25 minutes before it even occured – I personally saw that live BBC broadcast at the time.

However, for you to then claim that no person died in 911 goes against all the physical evidence, all the independent witnesses, all the firefighters, all the grieving families. If you were to be a real person, you would possess a level of disconnection with reality that is a psychiatric illness at worst, or at best a syndrome such as severe Aspergers / autism. It’s a complete lack of any understanding or empathy for suffering humans.

You asking me / others to prove your claims are wrong, and offering $5k is on the same level of outlandishness and sheer arrogance as if you claimed that the Earth is flat, and that we should prove to you otherwise. I will counter-challenge you and make a claim that the moon is made of cheese, and I challenge you to prove that I am wrong.

I do not believe that you are who you claim to be, that you are a disinfo / psychops asset, originally called Flaxgirl. You were publicly called out as such, and therefore to try and add credibility, and keep you as an active asset, your handlers told you to use a “real name”.

However, we all know that identities can be created out of thin air, or even commandeered from people who died, it’s a known tactic of the intelligence services, and of organised criminals, fraudsters, etc. You claiming that you are a genuine Petra Liverani is as valid and provable as you claiming that you are Donald Duck.

Quack quack

Richard Steele
Richard Steele
Dec 1, 2019 2:55 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

I agree completely. Thanks for saying that.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 1, 2019 9:31 PM
Reply to  Richard Steele

Richard, Have you looked at the clear EVIDENCE presented and points made supporting death and injury being staged on 9/11.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Please consider the following exchange between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse:

“Can you confirm that it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

“Yes, sir.”

“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224

It is obvious, no?, from this conversation that Brian Williams and David Restuccio are IN ON the event. Watch the rest of the song linked to and you will see other instances of media saying things that make it clear THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

How many people do you think NEEDED to be involved in 9/11 AND KNOW what was going on? Do you think it was just a small bunch of perps who plotted and carried it off ALL BY THEMSELVES? No! Hundreds of people were involved and you think they’re all going to be AOK with the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens by their own government – and you think their own government would even try to pull that kind of stunt?

9/11 was, in essence, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising many drills that we can find on Wikipedia, pushed out as a real event similar to the one we are commenting on now but on a much larger scale. All these events are, essentially, drills involving media and crisis actors pushed out as real events.

If the perps could persuade us that 19 barely-trained terrorists armed with boxcutters hijacked four 200-ton airliners to lumber them round the best-defended airspace in the world without interception, crashing two of them into 500,000-ton steel frame skyscrapers to bring them to the ground in 12 seconds flat from jet fuel fires you think they can’t also persuade us of death and injury that didn’t happen?

9/11 was an Emperor’s New Clothes affair. The perps knew that people would work out that airliners do not glide through 500,000-ton steel frame buildings and nor do those buildings crash to the ground from jet-fuel fires. They’d work it out, right? So the perps knew they couldn’t completely suppress the truth so they worked out a really clever propaganda strategy to stagnate it. They were fine with about 10% or so of the population catching on, yes, they can manage that 10% – as long as that 10% or so believes that death and injury were real they’re stuck because non-truthers they try to persuade simply won’t accept that the US gov’t would kill all those people in the buildings – and in this the non-truthers are correct! That would never be the US govt’s MO. It’s such a TABOO idea, the gov’t killing their own people like that. Sure, they’ll send their soldiers off to phony wars to be killed but to kill their own citizens in such a manner. Unthinkable – TABOO. And that’s how they’ve stagnated the truth on 9/11. Are you going to be one who maintains that stagnation of truth or … ?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 10:01 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

There you go again Persona #149.
It’s entirely valid to say that 911 was an a planned inside / Mossad job, we are not disputing that, but your claim that zero people died is completely against ALL THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
You are deviously using the first undisputed point to try and gain credibility with your outlandish second point.
No way Persona #149. You are sick, or you are a disinfo asset who is trying to ridicule those of us who dispute the official 911 narrative and other false flags.

Richard Steele
Richard Steele
Dec 2, 2019 1:44 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Yup- classic disinformation, though “asset” might be an overstatement. Given the laughable failure of the effort expended, perhaps “disinfo liability” might be a more apt descriptor?

Richard Steele
Richard Steele
Dec 2, 2019 1:39 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I’ve looked at many things in my life, “Petra”. Your madcap shtick is unoriginal, and easily recognized.
You’re wasting your time here- please don’t bother trying to suck me into your games.

You have a blessed day now, y’hear?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 1:50 AM
Reply to  Richard Steele

LOL. I think it’s so hilarious that my critics keep reverting to flaxgirl, flaxy, etc and try to make out that Petra Liverani is some sort of fake name. Hilarious! All you have to do is google me and my reality will stare out at you from various sources. Although I used to post as flaxgirl I was always putting links to my website which has my real name so flaxgirl was never really a cover anyway.

Richard, Off-Guardian has published two articles by me, how much more real do you need?

What your alleged criticism lacks, Richard, is any actual content, it is just assertion of zero consequence.

Richard Steele
Richard Steele
Dec 2, 2019 2:55 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

My post was not a criticism, it was a DISMISSAL. Different.

Goodbye, “real internet person”.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 2, 2019 3:05 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Off-Guardian has published two articles by me, how much more real do you need?

I’ve checked you out in extensive detail, Petra, long time UX specialist of New South Wales social services, and, although I don’t know why you switched from your ‘flaxgirl’ pseudonym to your ‘real name’, I concur it is indeed real enough for you to have drawn a NSW state government salary on it for many years and real enough for contacts there to identify you as both the same and bit cuckoo, but not a cuckoo in Petra’s nest.

I also don’t know why you attribute the loose screw that you imagine fell out of your Macquarie University liberal arts degree textbooks (or a less rigorous tome you found subsequent to that) to the account therein of Occam’s Razor, or why you have had said loose screw surgically inserted into the left frontal lobe of your cerebral cortex, but–anyway–that is a detail not relevant to a determination of your official corporeal identity per se.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 3:39 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

You omit, unsurprisingly, Robbo, because it doesn’t quite gel with your ludicrously rabid ideas about me that I’ve had two articles published by Off-Guardian on 9/11 and two by Open Forum on renewable energy and that I am a TECHNICAL WRITER – admittedly, the level of technicality that I deal with is modest but technical writers need to think logically in order to present information accessibly and thus it is no surprise that I gravitated to Occam’s Razor when I got onto how we are being hoaxed and wanted to make my case for it.

One OffG article was a critique of Noam Chomsky on 9/11 and the other attacked self-styled skeptics, none of whom have responded with counter-attack or defence.

The article directed at self-styled skeptics has been republished on the Global Research and Consensus 9/11 Panel websites plus a couple of other blog sites
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/about-me.html

Do you have articles published anywhere?

This is just an hilarious absurdity and this is my final word on my being a real person with a credible background.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 2, 2019 6:41 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

…that I am a TECHNICAL WRITER…

That too. Have you forgotten your UX work already?

Do you have articles published anywhere?

Many, both as author and, sometimes, photovrapher. And hunks of academic texts in books, or sole or collaborative papers in academic journals. And scores of broadcast, educational and theatrical films as one or more of the union grades of writer, director or producer and occasionally cinematographer. Plus copious amounts of more ‘hidden’ IT stuff, like all or parts of operating systems, technical software and basic algorithms. What relevance does any of that long past, day-job shit have for anyone here in this sub-thread?

This is just an hilarious absurdity and this is my final word on my being a real person with a credible background.

Which my post sought to affirm, against some gainsayers in this thread, before it got caught in your self-promoting narcissism and its stunning inability to comprehend jack shit unless it’s the latest Petra-approved, Liverani-enhancing revelation of your frequent stool readings, in themselves serious impediments to any subsequent ‘logical’ ratiocination. Phhht.

It’s possible that given a thousand averagely illiterate but circus-act keyboard-trained monkeys a thousand typewriters and a thousand years then they will have hammered out the entire vocabulary of Shakespeare and James Joyce put together. In amongst almost as much incoherent pigswill as you can generate in just a single reading. Dumb fucking monkeys. As with your befuddled self, Occam won’t help them make any cases for anything, any more than hitting what they don’t know are typewriter keys to make the thing go clackety-clack will get them a Nobel in nuclear medicine.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 7:34 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Got any links to anything, Robbo?

Seriously, look at how antagonistic you are, Robbo. It’s absurd. It seems you simply hate me because I claim that 9/11 was a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event, in essence, not dissimilar to the one we’re commenting on but on a much, much grander scale (and with massive destruction of buildings involved) and I present evidence and logic for that claim. I can understand your lack of agreement but your level of of antagonism simply baffles me. Narcissism? Have I ever referred to my articles or job (big deal anyway) before? I’m just showing I have a credible background and am a real person.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 2, 2019 9:35 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Goodbye Persona #149

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 3, 2019 1:14 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Got any links to anything, Robbo?

Mostly not. Most of my working life was pre-Internet. Only the very last part of it was on the Internet, where you could find my real name and “work” via “links” if you really wanted to, but not easily–as I conciously, therefore pretty effectively, arranged for their loss down convenient memory holes–and were I not here for the (pseudo-)anonymity.

Seriously, look at how antagonistic you are, Robbo. It’s absurd. It seems you simply hate me because…

…you make stupid claims like “hate”?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 3, 2019 3:19 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Mostly not …

You mean you have none or you simply don’t want to post any links revealing your real name? It’s not a competition, of course, and for me the only one of my links that I think is really worth anything is my website because there I explain things in a way that no one else does in quite the same way and I think I explain them accurately.

You’re right about the stupid claim of “hate”, Robbo. It’s not the sort of silly, emotive term I normally use and I regretted it once I’d posted – it would be so good if comments were editable – however, you do seem to harbour antagonistic feelings purely based on the fact that I claim that death and injury were staged on 9/11.

This is despite the fact that I present 10 points supporting the staged hypothesis and have issued a challenge for 10 points supporting real with no response. Where in both my exercise and challenge is Occam’s Razor not being applied correctly? Can you please explain how it is not being applied properly and why no one has responded to the challenge if 3,000 really did die and 6,000 were injured on 9/11? Or, in the case that you accept that the planes were faked 2,735 people? I’m curious to know, Robbo, what numbers do you believe are real for 9/11? Do you think 6,000 people were injured and, if so, can you give an idea of how you think those people were injured. If not 6,000 then why do you think they said 6,000 and what number would you hazard a guess at?

You see how it’s so much more complicated when you believe real death and injury because it’s not a clear matter of accepting the figures provided – if you recognise faked plane crashes, for example – and then it’s hard to know what figures you might work out for yourself. Of course, if you believe that death and injury were staged it’s so simple. Not to say that no one at all was killed or injured but if you simply say staged without categorically making it absolute then so easy.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 4, 2019 12:12 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

You mean you have none or you simply don’t want to post any links revealing your real name?

The latter.

you do seem to harbour antagonistic feelings purely based on the fact that I claim that death and injury were staged on 9/11.

9/11 has nothing to do with it. My antagonism is directed towards any entity who, with intent or through stupidity, abuses the hard-earned tools of the rationality, painstakingly developed by an enormous collaborative effort over millennia, that have enabled us to make at least some sense of an otherwise chaotic “objective” universe.

Where in both my exercise and challenge is Occam’s Razor not being applied correctly? Can you please explain how it is not being applied properly

I have told you in painstakingly repetitive detail once, in significant detail once, in a clear but condensed form two or three times, and by hint or reference another two or three times. So it’s obvious that (a) you are just plain stupid, or (b) you don’t want to know and have no intention of finding out. Enough in your case is too much already, so I’ll end this obviously pointless and pointlessly repetitive exchange where I began: mooc off.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 4, 2019 12:34 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

I reject your claim that you have told me repeatedly. You provide no evidence of your work and no evidence of how you have debunked my claims just assertions.

I, on the other hand, have provided evidence of my work and evidence of my claims … and adding to the compellingness of my claims I have issued a challenge for people to respond with equivalent exercises favouring the opposing hypotheses to which no one has responded, including you.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

As far as I’m concerned, Robbo, you have zero credibility and there is no reason to engage further.

I rest my case and I reject your completely unsubstantiated claims.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 4, 2019 10:59 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Where in both my exercise and challenge is Occam’s Razor not being applied correctly?

I have told you in painstakingly repetitive detail…

I reject your claim that you have told me repeatedly. You provide … no evidence of how you have debunked my claims just assertions.

I haven’t even tried to debunk any of your “claims”, except on a few occasions to scorn and/or mock and/or be downright facetious about them (e.g. “wibblywobbly.com”), depending on how meretricious and/or contemptuous they have been of the persons whom, without any hint of reliable evidence, you regularly trash in them BUT I have indeed repeatedly criticised your trashing of formal logic in general and–your favourite–Occam’s Razor in particular, mostly in the sub-threads where they comprised a direct reply to or a side comment on one of your posts.

As I keep no record of my posts and certainly not any of yours, and because I still have not found a way to retrieve them either without more effort than you are worth, I am unable to link to any, but as a search of my posts (manually or automatically, e.g. by searching, as if in Google, on “+Robbobbobin +Occam”) would show them to be there, on this site, exactly as described, I would note that your reply, quoted above, carries with it the clear implication that (a) you are a total, off-the-wall nut job or (b) if you do not have severe psychiatric problems then you are either a bot or you run a bot specifically intended to muddy waters, or (c) you, whether a bot or a natural person, have commandeered the real Petra Liverani’s name, or (d) you are asserting by direct implication that the Off-Guardian administrators, despite their protestations to the contrary, do indeed censor posts, perhaps even going so far as to do it retroactively.

If you are comfortable with any of that, flaxgirl, then jabber on.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 2, 2019 9:32 AM
Reply to  Robbobbobin

Well done, however, identities can be created out of thin air, or even commandeered from people who died, it’s a known tactic of the intelligence services, and of organised criminals, fraudsters, etc.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 2, 2019 9:29 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I do not believe that you are who you claim to be, rather that you are a disinfo / psychops asset, originally called Flaxgirl.

Then, you were publicly called out as such, and therefore, to try and maintain some credibility and keep you as an active asset, your handlers told you to use a “real name” instead.

However, we all know that identities can be created out of thin air, or even commandeered from people who died, it’s a known tactic of the intelligence services, and of organised criminals, fraudsters, etc.

You claiming that you are a genuine Petra Liverani is as valid and provable as if you were claiming to be Donald Duck. Quack quack.

Admin1
Admin
Admin1
Dec 2, 2019 10:15 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Petra has always used the post name ‘flaxgirl’, but her real ID was clear to us through her email. It’s no more sinister than you using the name ‘Frank Speaker.’ When she made a few comments under her real name we asked her to pick which ID she would use as we discourage multiple identities. She opted for her real name. End of.

It’s fine to disagree and even to hold personal doubts about another poster’s authenticity, but getting too bogged down and accusatory isn’t helping anyone.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 11:37 AM
Reply to  Admin1

And just to say, Admin, that when I started using Petra that was what I meant to stay with and it was purely accidental that I reverted to flaxgirl on that one occasion. My goodness, I only started with flaxgirl because that was my wordpress screenname at the time and it didn’t really occur to me to use my actual name. I stuck with it for a long time but then decided that there was no good reason to hide my identity (the main reason for the delay in switching was fear that my maniacal posting of comments in OffG might embarrassingly appear in a google search), that it wasn’t really hidden anyway and it would give me greater credibility … fail!!! OMG!

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Dec 4, 2019 11:18 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

I stuck with [the pseudonym flaxgirl] for a long time but then decided that there was no good reason to hide my identity (the main reason for the delay in switching was fear that my maniacal posting of comments in OffG might embarrassingly appear in a google search)…

… and your leaving long term employment in New South Wales goverment agencies earlier this year removed any requirement for maintaining a modicum of prudent discretion?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 11:42 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

Frank, under the screen name flaxgirl I CONSTANTLY put links to my website which has my name on the ABOUT ME page, PETRA LIVERANI. I switched from a screen name, flaxgirl, to my real name. It is extremely straightforward.

Please desist from your complete and utter nonsense.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Dec 2, 2019 11:45 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

The irony is, of course, Frank THAT YOU DON’T USE YOUR REAL NAME. We don’t know who you are apart from self-described polyglot and philosopher. But who are your really, Frank? Who are you?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 1:17 AM
Reply to  ity

Good points Ity.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc
Nov 30, 2019 6:03 PM

Crap acting. Probably the same crew who “did” Woolwich in 2013, but don’t make too much of a fuss about it, particularly on your own blog, under your own name, or you are likely to have the heavy mob round. I have seen the video, and I have noticed the effect on him. It kind of reminded me, re how they turned Annie McMahon’s bloke David Shayler into a fairy. Don’t know if they used LSD or latest equiv, but the result seems pretty much the same as what happenned to Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd) and Peter Green (Fleetwood Mac), though Peter Green did eventually come back, and is still alive.

Don’t vote for any of them. They are horrible.

They make me ashamed of my country, which I used to be so proud of.

Tony

soda
soda
Nov 30, 2019 5:36 PM

seems weird for the ‘undercover police officer’ who is seemingly removing the knife from the scene…. appears quite clearly to be about to use a cloth or tissue from his pocket to wipe the knife… seems to look across to the bus where there are witnesses filming him… hesitates, puts hankerchief back in coat pocket and begins to back away with everyone else. this seems so so suspicious in the way he is acting.. was he going to wipe it and toss it back?why would anyone workimg with the police do that if they want to retain evidence. Im glad at least this part of the internet is questioning this incident as everyone else will just believe whatever they are told.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 5:27 PM

An even bigger False Flag happened right before the EU Referendum with the fake murder of Jo Cox

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 6:46 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

How was the murder of Jo Cox fake? Are you suggesting that she wasn’t killed?

Geoff
Geoff
Nov 30, 2019 6:57 PM
Reply to  ity
ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 7:17 PM
Reply to  Geoff

That video is part 1 of 3, and is 32 minutes long. Are you actually asking me to watch 1 and a half hours of poorly made youtube videos, made by idiots who talk very slowly? Can’t you just point me to a text based explanation?

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 8:18 PM
Reply to  ity

I gather you are uncomfortable with the fact that Cox wasn’t murdered so you just dismiss anything contrary to the fact.
There is compelling evidence in these videos that this was indeed the case.You just need to watch them first.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 8:33 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

I obviously haven’t dismissed anything. If you can’t even understand the basics, then why should I trust your judgement on what is or isn’t ‘compelling evidence’.

When people won’t even attempt to argue a case, can’t argue a case, can’t or won’t even give a brief outline of an argument, but instead just repeatedly insist that I watch hours of video… well, I’ve learnt that such people can be safely ignored as having nothing to say.

Cherrycoke
Cherrycoke
Nov 30, 2019 9:31 PM
Reply to  ity

ity, thanks for being rational in this comment thread.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 10:08 PM
Reply to  ity

But you yourself have ignored a possible different theory to the Jo Cox ”assassination” by deliberately avoiding these sets of videos and dismissing them first hand because,i guess it would be uncomfortable viewing.
Watch the videos,and then come back to me for a rational debate.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 10:43 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

Insisting that I watch hours of video is not to engage in rational debate. It is just insisting that I watch hours of video. Engaging in rational debate is engaging in rational debate. You have yet to debate anything. All you have done is insist that I watch hours of video.

And again you suggest that I am avoiding the videos because they might make me uncomfortable. Do you think me a dainty soul to fragile to cope with your devastating truth? Do you think me a truth denier who just can’t handle the truth?

It’s not feeling uncomfortable that I worry about, but in being bored rigid by some dickhead who obviously thinks that their ideas so deep and profound that they need hours of video to express them. I mean how complex is this thing?

So, if you want to explain this pet theory of yours, then go right ahead. Put up or shut up. And no, again suggesting that I watch hours of video is not putting up.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 10:53 PM
Reply to  ity

Most of the evidence is purely video evidence,so you have to see it with your own eyes.
PS; You seem a very bitter, and hate-filled person bytheway.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 11:08 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

PS; You seem a very bitter, and hate-filled person bytheway.

Lol. This is without doubt the most childish thing that I have yet seen on this site. Grow up.

Geoff
Geoff
Dec 1, 2019 7:59 AM
Reply to  dray boyle

I totally agree, he asks for evidence, I gave him a link, and he dismisses it without even watching it., he no doubt believes the explanation of 9/11, The USS Liberty. Tonkin bay, Assads poison bombs etc

ity
ity
Dec 1, 2019 9:56 AM
Reply to  Geoff

As I said above, I watched a few minutes of the video that you linked to. I saw enough for me to rapidly come to the conclusion that Richard D Hall is not someone worth spending any time with. The man comes across as an idiot with a plodding brain barely able to string two thoughts together. So why on earth would I subject myself to more hours of this persons drivel?

As to your;

…he no doubt believes the explanation of 9/11, The USS Liberty. Tonkin bay, Assads poison bombs etc

Well, this is a perfect example of the type of foggy thinking that indicates that people such as yourself should be avoided, and not engaged with. It’s people like you who give ‘conspiracy theories’ a bad name.

You demonstrate no logic or critical thinking, you are insufferably tribal, and you insist that if a person doesn’t accept one theory, then they are obviously incapable of accepting any theory that you have mistakenly thrown into the same basket.

You remind me of a certain type of person who is into alternative therapies. They will be big proponents of homeopathy, but if you are in anyway critical of homeopathy, then these people will immediately jump to the conclusion that you are also dismissive of any and all alternative therapies, will start angrily ranting, and accuse you of being duped by big pharma. Their brains seem incapable of seeing that to dismiss one therapy is not to dismiss all therapies, and to accept one therapy does not automatically mean accepting all therapies.

Discernment is what is needed. Stay vigilant. Stay awake. Keep learning.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 1:20 AM
Reply to  dray boyle

Lunacy or Jackanory?

Geoff
Geoff
Dec 1, 2019 7:55 AM
Reply to  ity

I wasn’t asking anything, you were the one who was asking, I gave you something to look at,if you don’t want to watch it, don’t bother.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Dec 1, 2019 1:52 PM
Reply to  Geoff

Geoff your wasting your time. Itcy doesn’t even want to even go there as i can guarantee it does not sit well with his or her political agenda.
People like this will only question certain events when it fits their particular narrative.
As you well know, there is compelling evidence on these video’s to suggest that the Jo Cox murder was a major false flag, but you have to at least watch the video’s first and then decide.

WMFord
WMFord
Nov 30, 2019 7:12 PM
Reply to  ity

Is that so ridiculous? Babchenko was alleged to be dead. We were even shown pics of his ‘corpse.’ If he hadn’t decided to fess up to being alive and had just started a new life somewhere we would still be getting told he was dead and people such as yourself would be indignant about suggestions to the contrary.

Fact: false flags and fake deaths DO happen. Therefore we have to consider that possibility in situations such as this.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 7:38 PM
Reply to  WMFord

I didn’t mean to come across as indignant, but rather just doubtful. And I was only requesting some reasoning behind the claim that she isn’t dead.

And I’m not saying that fake deaths never happen, and I would certainly consider the possibility that a fake death has, or had, taken place. But is asking for some evidence, or at least a good argument making a case, really that unreasonable? And I don’t mean long, drawn out, cheesy youtube videos with a techno soundtrack.

It’s just that if psychopaths wanted to create a narrative using someones death, isn’t it just easier to kill someone, rather than go to all the trouble of faking a death, and then having to spend decades having to hide that person?

Look, I try and be open to any truths, however wild and wacky, but I do require at least a good argument making the case. You can’t just claim it is so, and then expect me to accept your word for it.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 7:51 PM
Reply to  ity

Absolutely; check out ”Exit From Brexit The Jo Cox Departure”; Richard D Hall.
An even more recent series of videos from Richard Hall are ”Find Tommy”

The Jo Cox murder was almost a 99% false flag.

dray boyle
dray boyle
Nov 30, 2019 7:54 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

Requote; The Jo Cox murder was almost certainly a false flag.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 8:54 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

So, just to get a feel for this man Richard Hall, I’ve now watched and listened to him for about 5 mins, which was as much as I could take. The man is obviously a pillock, and someone with little to say, but the urge to say it anyway. There is no way I’m watching any more of his drivel. If you want to listen to online conspiracy theorists and tellers of truth, then there are far better voices out there than that prat. Your judgement of character is seriously flawed.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 8:15 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

I’m not watching nearly 4 hours of video on your say so. If you can’t make your case on here for your argument, and using words, then I’ll pass. Are there really no other online resources that backup what you are claiming? Surely there must be at least an article somewhere, something that will give me an idea of the argument being made?

Stonky
Stonky
Dec 2, 2019 10:58 AM
Reply to  ity

You seem to be a particularly boneheaded sceptic ity. so I guess there’s not much point in inviting you to watch my 5-hour home-made video – “Nobody Ever Dies”. The gist of it is that in fact nobody ever dies. It’s jut a government psyop. That’s right. Everybody is in fact still alive.

Unfortunately I’m not prepared to summarize my argument for you, or explain how I know this. You just have to watch my 5-hour home-made video.

And don’t think you can just skip to the last five minutes and get some idea of it either. I thought of that. So I snipped it into 10-second segments and then strung them together in completely random order. You have to watch the whole thing and then reassemble it in the right order.

So there.

ity
ity
Dec 3, 2019 6:52 PM
Reply to  Stonky

Lol. Thanks for that Stonky 😉

dray
dray
Nov 30, 2019 5:23 PM

Remember the even more famous ”False Flag” right before the EU Referendum when Jo Cox was also supposed to be murdered?

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Dec 1, 2019 1:25 AM
Reply to  dray

Jackanory

dray boyle
dray boyle
Dec 1, 2019 1:39 PM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

So Jo Cox was ”Jackanory”and we mustn’t even question the official narrative, but we must question The London Bridge incident……………………..?

lundiel
lundiel
Dec 1, 2019 2:39 PM
Reply to  dray boyle

Always question the official narrative. Cox’s murder helped the state no end. It made loads of people adopt her values which played directly into the hands of the security services…..and it helped split the Labour party.
They’re jerking our strings.

danny
danny
Nov 30, 2019 5:12 PM

Please watch this video

https://youtu.be/1aff4PiAZmk

What is going on here? Why, under such circumstances, does he seem so preoccupied with a piece of cloth? And it’s interesting that he wasn’t just an ordinary member of the public, but “By chance” (according to Sky) from the Britis Transport police.

Michael
Michael
Nov 30, 2019 5:41 PM
Reply to  danny

That may be his cover story if he’s security services or plain-clothes military. Transport Police would effectively allow you to explain your presence anywhere in Britain I would think.

Brian
Brian
Dec 1, 2019 6:42 AM
Reply to  danny

As usual, the link has been deleted “by user”.

Devan Maistry
Devan Maistry
Nov 30, 2019 4:37 PM

The US experience is instructive. Scientists John Mueller and Mark Stewart examined the fifty cases of Islamic terrorism in which the US was or was apparently targeted, at home or abroad in the eleven years after 9/11. Their research shattered the Department of Homeland Security’s claim that “terrorists have proven to be relentless, patient, opportunistic, and flexible, learning from experience and modifying tactics and targets to exploit perceived vulnerabilities and avoid observed strengths”.
Those arrested were in fact “incompetent, ineffective, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant, inadequate, unorganised, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational, and foolish”. Despite warnings of thousands of al-Qaeda cells there had been a dearth of domestic terrorists and police had resorted to creating them. Operatives embedded in terrorist plots considerably outnumbered would-be terrorists. Nearly half the cases involved undercover agents grooming the gullible. https://drowningwitches.com/2017/01/15/4916/

lundiel
lundiel
Dec 1, 2019 2:41 PM
Reply to  Devan Maistry

Exactly. It’s fucking obvious when you think about it.

Devan Maistry
Devan Maistry
Nov 30, 2019 4:23 PM

John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart investigated 50 ‘terror attacks’ in the US after 9/11 and found that law enforcement agents were substantially involved in grooming vulnerable individuals as patsies.generally used as patsies. It would be useful if British academics followed ‘The Terror Delusion’ . https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pdf

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 6:50 PM
Reply to  Devan Maistry

“grooming vulnerable individuals”

And why do individuals remain ‘vulnerable’ for decades, if it is not for deliberate divisive social policies of hatred fuelled by billionaire-funded Zio-Think Tanks emanated from the US?

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 4:20 PM

Concerning the man photographed with the knife, the Groan has given this, at 15:51;

British Transport police have confirmed that a in a suit man filmed running away from the scene with a knife taken from the attacker was one of their officers in plain clothes.

“We are able to confirm that a serving British Transport Police officer was involved in yesterday’s terror incident on London Bridge in the City of London. The officer, who was in plain clothes and who is based in London, helped other members of the public in detaining the suspect and preventing any further killings. He is seen in social media videos, holding a knife and walking away from the scene as City of London firearms officers arrive”.

They also added…

The Metropolitan Police Service have asked that his image be pixelated, and we are kindly asking the public and media to respect this request and not identify the officer in any way.

Wjj
Wjj
Nov 30, 2019 6:27 PM
Reply to  ity

That tells you quite a bit. If he really were a regular ole policeman, why *should* his identity be kept hidden? This reeks of MI5-6 counterintel.

Igor
Igor
Nov 30, 2019 9:43 PM
Reply to  Wjj

Evidently, this “police officer” never received any training in preserving evidence at a crime scene.
Or perhaps he has received in depth training in obfuscating evidence when running a hoax.
Post Skripal, why does anyone still believe any official narrative (aka lies)?
“Terrorists” only show up when, and where, it is convenient.
Not just a UK thing.

Michael
Michael
Nov 30, 2019 3:45 PM

Having read the information in the comments it seems the Fishmongers Hall where this story begins was founded in 1381 by the man who plunged a knife into Wat Tyler to end the Peasants Revolt. Knowing how symbolism is very important to the elite, I can’t help thinking this charade was to symbolically put an end to Corbyn’s chances of election ie. to end the modern peasant’s revolt?

charles drake
charles drake
Nov 30, 2019 3:31 PM

a mouse in my flat was getting kind of casual and a little content with the situation .
i went on youtube and played some eagle noises and owl ones .

the reaction was instant shock awe and panic those primal noises activated or reactivated somethging deep within the rodents matrix.
he is now corrected every now and again i have too play the owl noise thus re enforcing the meme keep him nervous and on his paws toes.
these are my version of msm bbc tavistock mind based corrective programming.
trauma horror terror
owls certainly are very important in sum circles

sabina de sturler
sabina de sturler
Nov 30, 2019 4:51 PM
Reply to  charles drake

great in all aspects.

WMFord
WMFord
Nov 30, 2019 3:20 PM

Was this man Usman an MI5 agent from the getgo? Was he recruited after his first failed terror attempt? Or before it?

Is he really dead? There is a gif OffG shared on twitter that seems to show Usman sitting up after having been shot dead. I can’t vouch for it, but the location and other visual clues fit with it being genuine. The video the gif is taken from seems to have been shot from across the road presumably from inside a building. If it’s genuine the whole thing is revealed as a hoax.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood
Nov 30, 2019 8:38 PM
Reply to  WMFord

Perhaps one of those famous “exercises” that always seem to coincide with false-flag ops.

Andy
Andy
Nov 30, 2019 2:57 PM

It has already had an impact for the BBC. They were refusing to allow johnson a slot on the Andrew Marr show unless he faced Andrew Neil.
Now… ‘in the wake of a major terrorist incident, we believe it is now in the public interest that the prime minister should be interviewed on our flagship Sunday political programme’
Perhaps they should change the word interviewed to fellated.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood
Nov 30, 2019 8:39 PM
Reply to  Andy

Now see what you have done. How on earth are we supposed to erase that mental image?

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 2:34 PM

The BBC had been playing hardball with Boris Johnson, for a change, by insisting that if Johnson wanted to be interviewed by Andrew Marr, then he must also agree to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. Obviously Johnson is happy to be interviewed by that Tory twat Andrew Marr, but he’s been desperately trying to avoid being interviewed by Andrew Neil. However…

From the Guardian today at 13:01 – BBC allows Boris Johnson interview on Andrew Marr Show, and after the terrorist attack, the broadcaster drops the Andrew Neil condition for Marr appearance.

In a statement, the BBC said that after the terrorist attack on London Bridge, it believed there was a public interest in Johnson appearing on the show, but it repeated its request for him to face Neil.

“As the national public service broadcaster, the BBC’s first priority must be its audience,” the statement said.

“In the wake of a major terrorist incident, we believe it is now in the public interest that the prime minister should be interviewed on our flagship Sunday political programme.

What a load of bollocks.

Capricornia Man
Capricornia Man
Nov 30, 2019 11:11 PM
Reply to  ity

A “national public service broadcaster”? About as truthful a statement as its reporting on the Labour Party.

Same goes for another “public service broadcaster” (the one in Australia).

paul_m
paul_m
Nov 30, 2019 2:26 PM

a short video on zero hedge shows a man on top of the alleged attacker being pulled off him by an armed policeman thus clearing a way for the officer(s) to shoot him.

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:34 PM
Reply to  paul_m

Better acting training was reserved for the White Helmets.

Cascadian
Cascadian
Nov 30, 2019 7:13 PM
Reply to  paul_m

Note also that the perp didn’t make any moves before the cops murdered him.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood
Nov 30, 2019 8:42 PM
Reply to  paul_m

Sounds a bit like the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:24 PM

If I had enough resources, I would investigate to find out what signals (all kinds of messages and signals) were sent to the attacker, what was sent to him via all the devices that he uses, and where the signals/messages originated from.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 2:17 PM

I don’t know if anyone here is familiar with the hypnotist and entertainer Darren Brown, but he’s made various programs exploring and demonstrating just how easy it is to manipulate and control the human mind, and so human behaviour. And he’s taken this to quite extreme levels. A most interesting demonstration of his involved getting a man to assassinate Stephen Fry in a public theater. Using various methods of hypnotism, suggestion, and trigger signals, and an elaborate setup using pistol blanks and knowing accomplices, he actually had this man stand up on cue, and fire several shots directly at Stephen Fry.

So how hard can it be to control a person who is already violent and angry?

If an entertainer can persuade a member of the public to murder a national treasure, we can be pretty sure that these skills are known to secret services across the world.

As is becoming obvious with so many supposed ‘conspiracy theories’ of these last decades, the instigation of a false flag operation is the easy bit. The hard bit is keeping the false flag operation suppressed.

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:40 PM
Reply to  ity

“So how hard can it be to control a person who is already violent and angry? ”

Better still:
How hard is it to make a person violent and angry?
The plan would be to make the person angry, isolated and disfranchised in the first place.
And then keep pushing and pulling various triggers in order to drive the person into desperation ..

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:45 PM

– How to make a person or a groupd of people, angry, isolated and disfranchised?

– Enlist Murdoch’s press and various controlled media to do it. They are masters in this field!

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 3:02 PM

Yes, perhaps, but surely making a person angry, isolated and disfranchised in the first place, is not the same as using someone in a precise and controlled manner to further a false flag operation.

state sponsored
state sponsored
Dec 1, 2019 2:47 AM
Reply to  ity

2 step procedure:

step 1: make a person angry, isolated and disfranchised, including:

step 1.a: deny this person recourse to justice
step 1.b: descrimiate against this person in subtle and not so subtle manners

step 2: now the person is emotionally weak/disturbed, use this person in a precise and controlled manner to further a false flag operation

charles drake
charles drake
Nov 30, 2019 3:20 PM

are you kidding the character sim whatever he was
was a guest at fishmongers hall a pre crime event
other characters that fought the battle with him where also ex convicts real or sim.
they including the sbs marine guy with the unbloodied knife where all special guests at an event
on foreign soil outside the kings reach in the city of london

no loners no angry travis bickles charlie mansons just pure bad actors performing black friday
kaballa magic rituals

Haltonbrat
Haltonbrat
Nov 30, 2019 2:49 PM
Reply to  ity

Who is this national treasure, surely not Stephen Fry?

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 3:10 PM
Reply to  Haltonbrat

Ha! I was using the term ‘national treasure’ in a slightly ironic way, and so should perhaps have used inverted commas in my original post. or just not used the phrase in the first place. Having said that, I don’t personally have a problem with Stephen Fry… he seems harmless enough, and can be quite entertaining.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood
Nov 30, 2019 8:50 PM
Reply to  ity

Not sure I totally buy this. Derren Brown is a lot of things, and hugely talented, but I think his biggest skill is as a “stage magician”, and the main skill involved is misdirection and showmanship. He probably also has some genuine skills in hypnotism, but I think that is pretty limited in what it can do.

Chances are the person who shot at Fry was another accomplice, and probably a very good actor.

Haven’t seen any of Derren Brown’s recent stuff, but I was very impressed by his Russian Roulette stunt, which seemed very convincing at the time, but I later became convinced was fake from beginning to end. At the end of the day, he is an entertainer, and a very very good one. Good luck to him.

ity
ity
Nov 30, 2019 11:00 PM
Reply to  Mike Ellwood

His powers of hypnotism and suggestion do seem very impressive. But of course there is a long and detailed vetting process for his stunts, aiming to get people who are naturally suggestible but also psychologically robust.

And one thing I like about him is that he is very open about how he operates. Part of his shtick is in revealing how his tricks are done. I don’t believe that he used an accomplice to shoot at Fry; it just doesn’t seem his style. But, who knows. I must hunt the episode down and watch it again.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin
Nov 30, 2019 2:04 PM

London Bridge / Fishmongers Hall
= City of London – The Ancient City.

The perpetrator ‘executed’ like Jean Charles at Stockwell.

The identity and back story of the perp instantly available – just like the passport FBI found at WTC…

———–

It is clear that there is clear panic at the number of new voters registered upto cut off, this means that their planned ballot stuffing is looking to become ineffectual.

The Prince Andrew story cleared the pages the previous weekend as the free broadband policy got the propagandist on the hop and Bobo lost first debate with Jezza.

Last weekend was about light pollution/Elon Musk breaking Tesla windows and lurid details of death of Brit in NZ – just after the Friday QT special which bobo lost again and Corbyn announced his neutrality on confirmatory referendum.

This weekend – after Chief rabbit and troublesom archie and Neil failed to land killer KO, Labour revealed secret negotiations for Trump Trade Deal, Bobo got sicknote on debate and sent his daddy & ditched the Neil debate (he does as he is told as he explained to some local reporter in a farm shop in Devon!), and crashed and burnt on his LBC interview and post callers laid in … the ‘terror’ attack unfolded (the name Khan is aimed at Hindu voters in Bobo’s constituency).

They wants their precious HARD BREXITS. Theys do! Nazgul wraith brexit king Cummings has flown from the tower to find the precious himself!
Theys got sacksfulls of dead catses and theys not afraid to KILL and injure innocents for their precious – and uncle Pompeo promises no hobbit Corbynites wills stopses their precious masters.

George Mc
George Mc
Nov 30, 2019 2:19 PM
Reply to  Dungroanin

And we’ve still got 11 days to go! Hell – this is going to be the biggest blockbuster of all time. I hope someone has got the copyright sorted out for the eventual multi-pack DVD set!

nottheonly1
nottheonly1
Nov 30, 2019 1:27 PM

It may help to acknowledge that there are psychopaths among those who manipulate the human mind. Psychopathy is borderline with psychoanalysis. Since the psychoanalyst (kind of) knows what makes humans tick, the findings can then be applied to manipulate the masses. All the more so, since it is to be expected that the psychopaths among the psychoanalysts will play this knowledge out without the slightest remorse or any considerations about ‘collateral damages’, or other adverse effects to their actions.

‘Their’ actions, because it should be obvious that all these ‘events’ are not some random acts of anger. There are psychopathic analysts planning events like this to be carried out by willful henchmen.

Here comes the hint that is needed to understand what is happening:

It is not important what happened. It is important what people believe happened. This is where ‘make believe’ is played out to the full extend.

At that, all major events over the last twenty years bore that hallmark. Nobody knows what really happened – except for those who made it happen. All others are given contradictory narratives to compliment the main narrative coming from the tip of the pyramid.

The idea has always been to take away cognition from the masses. This is how it’s done. People are distracted from the real event that goes on unnoticed. However, since the Universe is not on the payroll of ‘evil’, it will not be possible to cheat it into hiding the truth for ever. The truth never goes away. It might be distorted and forgotten, but it never goes away.

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:29 PM
Reply to  nottheonly1

“it will not be possible to cheat it into hiding the truth for ever”

Not forever, but it seems it is possible to go on long enough for evils to achieve all their goals.

nottheonly1
nottheonly1
Nov 30, 2019 4:13 PM

Yes, sometimes it is a multi-generational thing. To the grandchildren is revealed what the grandparents could not figure out, but bought into at the the time. This seems to be the reason why stuff gets ‘opened’ a hundred years later.

charles drake
charles drake
Nov 30, 2019 3:07 PM
Reply to  nottheonly1

all tavistock country of the mind sy co operations

where did the 7 and 7 bus thing happen outside tavistock hq
who was in the same street in a building at the exact moment
bb nuttyahoo

what are the chances

Nuy Dolopso
Nuy Dolopso
Nov 30, 2019 12:14 PM

Usman’s earlier adventures as cardboard cutout jihadi documented here:
Cartoonish terror plot gang jailed for being archetypal bogeymen, UK’s security apparatus also clownish:
http://www.frombehindenemylines.org.uk/2017/12/cartoonish-terror-plot-gang-jailed-for-being-archetypal-bogeymen-uks-security-apparatus-also-clownish/

Antonym
Antonym
Nov 30, 2019 1:25 PM
Reply to  Nuy Dolopso

It just cannot be a Muslim fanatic: theoretically and practically impossible. Barely anyone in C of E UK follows Islamist ideology. Next Islam is the religion of peace: just look what happened after Mo passed in the ME, Asia and Africa – peace pick-nicks, recent local grooming rings or Calais.
No more racist, capitalist rich slave owner European/Israeli white man’s ranting. The victims had enough suppression of hate speech and militia training, now it is their turn.

George Mc
George Mc
Nov 30, 2019 1:54 PM
Reply to  Antonym

No more racist, capitalist rich slave owner European/Israeli white man’s ranting. The victims had enough suppression of hate speech and militia training, now it is their turn.

I would say that hate speech and militia training is what they were given by “the Free West” so they cold serve as a convenient enemy.

J_Garbo
J_Garbo
Nov 30, 2019 12:04 PM

Known to police, geo-tagged attacker subdued, disarmed, then shot dead? 4/10 MI5 or SB. Must do better even to fool the yobs, let alone us thinkers…False Flag 101 for Dummies.

Dungroanin
Dungroanin
Nov 30, 2019 2:12 PM
Reply to  J_Garbo

Cressida ‘Gold’ DickHeadShot ..again!!???

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Nov 30, 2019 11:52 AM

Why do the police need to shoot and kill a disarmed, restrained man, especially when one of the officers reportedly had a taser?

George Cornell
George Cornell
Nov 30, 2019 11:56 AM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

You mean like Oswald and Epstein?

Victor G.
Victor G.
Nov 30, 2019 1:29 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

To silence him …

ThorA
ThorA
Nov 30, 2019 6:58 PM
Reply to  Victor G.

Exactly, they had.to pull the ‘member of the public’ off him, so they could shoot him.

Why not take over, cuff, and take into custody?

Additional, how come the ‘off duty Police officer’ who disarmed him and ran off with said knife, wasn’t shot as an accplice? AND why did he run off, rather than identify himself and help with arrest?

Plus what was the answer to the ‘member of the public’ restraining him question about if he was intending to set off a bomb?

state sponsored
state sponsored
Nov 30, 2019 2:10 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

“Why do the police need to shoot and kill a disarmed, restrained man .. ?”

You’ve got use these gadgets from time to time to justify budgetary requests for more. Let’s see what brand that gun was, and how many more will be on order soon!

Dungroanin
Dungroanin
Nov 30, 2019 2:13 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

So he couldn’t get his best actor award.

George Mc
George Mc
Nov 30, 2019 2:21 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Tuneful canaries must be silenced.

nottheonly1
nottheonly1
Nov 30, 2019 4:22 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Ponder about what would happen when the hypnosis stops. Can’t let that happen.
Or: It’s all fake and everything making any critical thinking moot is applied. The human brain can easily be manipulated. Both – of the victims and the perpetrators.
Thus, you wouldn’t know what happened even if you would be present at the scene at the time of whatever happened. Paris was a glaring example for that method.

Not to be taken too seriously, but

Isn’t it time that all citizens be equipped with body cams?

lundiel
lundiel
Nov 30, 2019 4:40 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Given that it’s about 95% probability that he’d been recruited by MI5/6 since his previous arrest, it makes good sense to shoot him. Dead men tell no tales.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker
Nov 30, 2019 11:16 AM

What’s interesting is the comment from the Parole Board, funnily enough on the grotesque Daily Heil:
‘The Parole Board can confirm it had no involvement with the release of the individual identified as the attacker, who appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law), without ever being referred to the Board.’
How does a convicted terrorist offender get automatically released after 8 years of a 16 year sentence in such a way? Was he “trained” to go and do this by “handlers”? Are there more of them and part of this “programme”?

Ruth
Ruth
Nov 30, 2019 11:21 AM
Reply to  Frank Speaker

I know as a fact releasing or keeping prisoners inside can be determined by HMRC or the security services

Dungroanin
Dungroanin
Nov 30, 2019 2:13 PM
Reply to  Ruth

Like Assange?

lundiel
lundiel
Nov 30, 2019 11:53 AM