"The attempted bombing of an underground train in London last Friday – using a device that can be built from instructions available online – merely underscored once again the ever-present nature of this threat." General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Ret.) (4)
Alleged suspect walks with Lidl bag, containing explosive device
The whole "anti-terrorism" agenda is predicated on the genuineness of "Al Qaeda/Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/IS" and on the terrorism events themselves. In both instances, the descriptions have been proved to be deeply flawed to the point of intentional misrepresentation. We now know that the above organisations resulted from a deceitful alignment of American, Israeli and Gulf States for geo-political purposes, and that the 'terrorism events' on European and American soil display every indication of a similar fabrication. The question then emerges, if the whole anti-Jihadi narrative is a scintilla of falsehood, why does mainstream media not challenge it, and for what purpose is it maintained and pursued by Government? These are questions that should concern every citizen in a State that still pretends to probity and justice.
In an article Makia Freeman writes:
"The origins of the phrase War on Terror can actually be traced back to around 1979 and to another infamous New World Order agenda-pusher by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister of Israel. The War on Terror™ has become such a hackneyed phrase that it’s worthy of being trademarked and corporatized, if the Military Industrial Complex hasn’t done so already. Think of how much carnage, death and destruction have been wrought in the name of fighting the War on Terror™ and its various offshoots such as Radical Islamic Terrorism™ – millions of people killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Palestine and more – and there’s no sign of it stopping. The War on Terror™ is the ultimate abstract endless war against a nebulous faceless enemy. It’s not going to stop until enough people see through the deception." (1)
This analysis is undoubtedly based on that of Christopher Bollyn who has been uncovering the 9/11 conspiracy and deceit from almost day one, and whom she quotes as follows:
War on Terror!
We may therefore take it that the notion of a "War on Terror" is essentially a Jewish/Israeli one, designed to support - ironically of course - its terror campaign against Palestinians, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza, though extending to the West Bank and beyond and to persuade both America and Europe to support it. Indeed to go further and fight its battles.
Nor can it be doubted now - beyond any peradventure - that this was the design and purpose of the catastrophic events in New York and Washington on 11th September, 2001 - notoriously referred to as '9/11' - setting the international scene for the next decade and possibly century! Namely, one of continuous war and aggression against principally any Muslim orientated State that may be considered to pose a threat to either Israeli or American interests and hegemony. Oil and the supremacy of the dollar, trumped any other humanitarian or ethical consideration.
In such a mind-set, the humiliation and desolation of millions, the ruination of ancient cultures and the destabilisation of whole regions, must be seen as success. To those that do not share the dream of a Jewish/Israeli/US geographical empire in the Middle East, to replace that historically occupied by the Turks, French or British, can only view it as an utter and complete disaster for the area and world.
Afghanistan and Burma/Myanmar
Not only do we have to include Afghanistan in this overview, now occupied by western military for three times as long as the Second World War but Israel-armed Burma has it seems initiated a new brutal front against Muslim Rohingya, utilizing the same discredited excuse of "terrorism".
The BBC report today hardly bats an eyelid and reports the slaughter and expulsion of hundreds of thousands as:
"Myanmar's leader Aung San Suu Kyi has said her government does not fear "international scrutiny" of its handling of the growing Rohingya crisis.Rakhine has faced unrest and sporadic violence for years, but the current crisis began in August with an armed attack on police posts which killed 12 people blamed on a newly emerged militant group, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa)." (3)
Fighting it; Not employing it.
It is not difficult to detect the same Netanyahu technique so successfully employed against the Palestinians is it? "Legitimate government is just fighting "terrorism" not employing it."
Incidentally Afghanistan has never produced more opium in its long history of doing so, to feed the insatiable and debilitating western demand for addictive heroin, proving the Western "battle against drugs" to be as equally sham as the "war on terror". Indeed many would conclude it to be an integral part of the disgraceful strategy of creating a dependant and malleable criminal underclass, unable to think or oppose it.
Given the fact that not even a half-informed intelligent human being can any longer doubt that the world has been deceived and corrupted by its own governments by this fraudulent and criminal "war on terror". A largely Zionist-supportive public media, has spectacularly failed to hold government to account. So no claimed "act of terror" can be viewed innocently. Sadly no government account can be taken at face, particularly if undermined by the observable facts.
Post 9/11 'Terror Events' Genuine or Fabricated
If 9/11 served any long-term useful purpose, it was to disabuse any thinking person of the belief, that he or she could automatically accept government explanations at face value or that Government itself was not capable of sacrificing its own people in furtherance of some political objective. Nor of fabricating terror events to this end. Sadly, post the London 7/7 tube and bus bombings, I have to conclude the British Government is not excluded from this possibility.
Government Control of the Internet?
The decade that followed 9/11, was and is, scarred by "terror events" in both Europe and America, too many and familiar to recount here. Seldom do the official explanations of them, withstand close examination without throwing up indications of lies and subtle manipulation. All of these, are of course covered in detail elsewhere and can be researched using the Internet, which not unsurprisingly, is now subject to Government criticism a propaganda offensive for more control. It is hard not to interpret this as other than a cynical ploy to limit free speech and independent investigation. After all, what chance was there of learning the truth about the 9/11 criminal fraud without the internet?
As an aside, today's BBC News, that reliable and unbiased Government source (!) led with the revelation that Britain was now subject to "more 'ISIS'- related terror videos than any other European nation". (4) The source was apparently the right-wing "Policy Exchange" which claims, "Our research is independent and evidence-based and we share our ideas with policy makers from all sides of the political spectrum." (5)
This may well be the case, but the timing of the research finding is certainly highly significant, coming just days after the Parsons Green "terror attack" and when Mrs May is stepping up her polemic against the Internet and in favour of greater control - otherwise called Government censorship. (6)
This parallels the attempts to mussel the press, for which the legislative framework is already in place. (10) Of course all of this has long been foreshadowed by David Cameron's famous UN speech - hardly challenged by the media despite the fact that they are inevitably its victims. (7)
"Parsons Green Terror Attack"
Pictures of the explosive device on the London tube have emerged. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/854508/London-tube-explosion-Parsons-Green-terror-bomb-bag-wires-explosive-device
So to the Parsons Green train incident. Note General Petraeus' assessment that this was "an attempted bombing". If so it was a very amateurish and unsuccessful one, and certainly NOT the work of a trained and dedicated 'terrorist'. We only have to compare this device with those of the IRA to realise how pathetic this apparent attempt was.
It appears to me that the device was either made and deployed by such incompetents, that no self-respecting terrorist organisation would be prepared to own them; or was carried out by some hoodlum intent on mayhem but not really knowing how; or designed by agents of some State organisation, to create more light than heat but plenty of panic and headlines.
Either it was intended to catch fire or explode and malfunctioned owing to defective design which points away from professional arsonists and terrorists; or a pseudo device was the intention all along - the purpose being merely to cause panic and another 'terrorist' story. The fact that police and government showed no reservations or restraint in describing it as a terrorist incident, tends to suggest involvement at some level and a propaganda motive.
We do not know/have not been told what material is in what appears to be a bulk paint container, so we can make no assessment of its volatility. It could indeed have been of a material designed to oxidise quickly but in the absence of containment, I fail to see how the term "bomb"could be applicable. An explosion is created when the expansion of the fissile material is contained within the vessel. The stronger the 'vessel' - as with a grenade - the greater the explosion.
Clearly from the photograph none of this can be applied to an open-topped plastic tub. Nor can the statement that metal scraps would be found in the bottom of it, make any sense unless an explosion could be guaranteed. Of course a detonator is an explosive device, if indeed it was. If a detonator was used, there is a big question as to why it failed to ignite the chemical and do so little damage? Alternatively some other non-lethal device might have been employed such as the stun grenades used by police and military personnel? All these outstanding questions would be solved by forensic examination but as yet the public has not been informed.
This is not to deny the potential for a material such as TATP to oxidise in such a way as to cause flame and blast if subject to heat or other initiating device. However, for whatever reason, this did not happen here.
In addition it is impossible to reconcile the witness reports with one another or the images with the official account.
The following is the Daily Mail's take on what happened. It is worth reading because if accurate, it raises many fundamental questions. The first relates to where the bomber got on and off the train. If indeed he got on and off before it reached Parsons Green, this could not have been later than Putney Bridge (if he just placed the device and immediately got off the train again). Alternatively he could have got on and off at one of the earlier staions though quite limited in number.
So, if the Mail is right, and the 'bomber' got on and off before arriving at Parsons Green, this would have to have been at Putney Bridge or earlier. This has obvious implications for his movements and the logistics of the operation. Remember we are told he is filmed with the Lidl 'cool bag' - but not the plastic paint container -
These are Wimbledon; Wimbledon Park; Southfields; East Putney; Putney Bridge; Parsons Green. (11) All of these stations are at least 30 minutes distant from where the bomber was filmed only 50 mins before the bomb went off. That would allow a window of less than 20 minutes to catch the train. (Remember the clock runs backward for the train in respect of earlier stations) And the filmed bomber still has to pick up the device and place it in the bag (from where) obtain transport (public or private; drive or driven?) negotiate the morning rush hour traffic and station ticket office before getting on the train. How he could do this in the time available, has not been explained.
Then there is the issue of why the bomber and particularly his unattended, suspicious looking package did not excite interest, questions or anxiety before it exploded? It was a very obvious object in a very obvious location. Is it possible it could be surrounded by people without arousing suspicion and a reaction in the current fearful climate? This is very difficult to understand as is the absence of serious injury if as the illustration suggests people were in close proximity when it went off.
Where did the would-be bomber come from? Where did he get on the train? Where did he leave it? How long was the suspicious container and contents left unattended before the alleged explosion? Why did it not cause suspicion either with or without its minder, before it exploded? How do these details fit with the image of the alleged bomber in the stated location and time?
None of these questions have been asked or answered by press and media reports as far as I can gather. Further either the image of the bomber is genuine and Farroukh has been falsely accused of being him or Farroukh was indeed the bomber and the image is either fabricated or is not as stated.
Explosion, bang, wall of flame?
The Express reports (8) commuters as saying there was, "a flash and a bang" as the bag exploded. Commuters say a white canister exploded, with one saying a "fireball flew down the carriage". However, Chris Wildish, who was on the train, said he saw a "device" in the last carriage. "He told 5live: "It was a white bucket, a builder's bucket, in a white Aldi bag or Lidl bag. Flames were still coming out of it when I saw it and had a lot of wires hanging out of it - I can only assume it was done on purpose. It was standing against the door of the rear-most carriage.""
It is not clear if he was in the rear carriage or only saw it as he was walking past. (Why would you walk past the last carriage when the exit, to which everyone was rushing, was in the opposite direction?) There is no suggestion of an explosion here or even a major source of heat. He describes it as the photograph portrays it - just a smouldering flame. Clearly this is vastly different from the official account which incorporated both an explosive "bang" AND a "wall of flame passing down the carriage." The official account in this regard is clearly dubious.
"Bomb expert Chris Hunter, who advised the Government’s Cobra committee after both the 7/7 and 21/7 London terror attacks “It sounds very much like there was a detonation but it also seems like perhaps some of the main explosive detonated but much of it remained inert. “But even if the main charge didn’t go off the detonator itself is still a high explosive.”"
Again, notice Chris Wildish makes no mention of any detonation or explosion that surely could not have escaped his notice had it occurred. Further another witness here (9) specifically denies there was any bang and you cannot have an explosion without a bang!
The Express adds: "The explosion devastated the District Line Tube train at Parsons Green station, in west London." With reference to the above, this statement cannot be substantiated, in fact it is directly and obviously contradicted. There is effectively NO devastation to be observed either inside or outside the carriage. Indeed there is hardly any evidence of any combustion or damage resulting from it.
The container being plastic will burn or at least deform with heat. Neither appear to occurred. A bag nearby is completely untouched. And most important of all the carriage materials above and to the side of the 'device' are not scorched or smoke damaged. All of this tends to the opinion that there was no explosion or fire of any significance and certainly not sufficient to create a "wall of flame passing down the carriage. " That appears to be pure hyperbole.
These reports are timed just after 3 pm the same day. It begs the question as to when and from whom the inaccurate descriptions were obtained? Can we assume they came from Government sources according to what had been intended to be the case, or at least the intended story? Either way it raises very disturbing implications relating to either reporter or government reliability.
Here is a location map of Ecco la Vera1, 37 Vicarage Rd, Shepperton, Sunbury-on-Thames TW16 7QB in relation to Parsons Green. It will be noted they are some distance apart in time and space. This raises obvious questions as to the suspect's movements and how the abandoned device got where it was. Some of these issues were covered above.
Unreliable CCTV Image
In addition to these very real logistical reasons why it is rather implausible that the 'bomber' caught on CCTV could have planted the bomb as alleged, there is another very big reason not to trust it, simply because it cannot possibly represent the person who it was claimed to be.
The police sources stated it was Yah Yah Faroukh who they later arrested late the next day. (Incidentally there is no evidence he put up any resistance or posed any danger. See photo images below) The next images show him to be tall and slim.
Yahyah Farroukh, originally from Damascus, is pictured in London
Here is another of him being arrested.
Yahyah Farroukh was arrested outside a chicken shop over the weekend
It is worth comparing and contrasting the image put out by the police, presumably, of the rear view (how handy?) of a man carry a Lidl's bag, claimed to be the same man who planted the device. It seems to have been taken at 07:30 on the morning of the incident. The incident was timed at 08:20 according to Wikipedia so the two events are only a maximum of 50 minutes apart and probably less.
Alleged suspect walks with Lidl bag, containing explosive device
The following day (Sat. 16th) TWO arrests were made, one outside his home in London (see diagram above) and the other in Dover docks, as it is reported he attempted to leave the country. The former was named as Ya Yah Farroukh (22) the second (18) was un-named.
Of course this begs the question why these two specific individuals were so quickly identified, linked to the attack and located? It is reported that the former had attended the Home Office sponsored anti-radicalisation programme.
Given as we have seen, Farroukh could not be the man in the CCTV carrying the Lidl bag as was claimed, a big question mark hangs over these two individuals and their role, if any. As always the question is raised as to whether they were in fact working for police or counter terrorist organisations or were otherwise set up to take the blame?
Three further individuals have been arrested since in London and South Wales. We shall have to see if these have a more realistic connection to the Parsons Green incident.
"Three men from south Wales have been arrested by police investigating the Parsons Green tube bombing, bringing the number of people in custody to five.
Two men aged 30 and 48 were held at an address in Newport at 5.10am on Wednesday by officers from the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command.
Met officers, supported by Gwent police, arrested a 25-year-old man at a separate address in Newport at 7pm on Tuesday.
The arrests followed two others on Saturday, one of an 18-year-old in Dover as he was about to board a ferry to France, and the other of Yahyah Farroukh, 21, in Hounslow, west London."
The following images have puzzled many. It is of a woman alleged to be badly injured by the blast. She has a bandage wrapped around her head suggesting an injury to her ear or chin yet her demeanour and facial expression is far removed from what might be expected of suffering a major incident and trauma. As can be seen she appears relaxed and smiling.
A 21 seconds clip of the woman being escorted away can be viewed here:
In addition there is complete absence of ANY evidence of smoke or fire damage to her immaculate clothes and exposed skin that would support the suggestion that she was close to and injured by an exploding device that created "a wall of flame". Note however she is walking without shoes. No attempt is made at any stage to find them or replace them or even to carry her. She just walks on for seemingly a long distance still accompanied by an over-weight female police officer with no head dress AND another officer in plain clothes.
This is in itself strange. Where was her walking destination un shod? Why was she accompanied by these individuals along her route rather than ambulance personnel? Why was she not, in common with the other injured, we are told, conveyed to hospital? These are all intriguing questions that appear never to have been answered. Many on Internet sites have claimed that she is in fact a 'crisis actor' and I have not seen this disprove, the very existence of which would be reason the doubt THE WHOLE official story (yet again!)
Earlier on the phone!
A Paramount actress for comparative purposes.
Invariably the correct advice is "not to panic" yet time and again in these high profile cases the opposite reaction appears to be encouraged. In the Parsons Green case, witnesses report men shouting "Run! Run! - so we ran". There is even the suggestion that people in the booking hall were being told to "Go Back" and that there was a knifeman there, adding to the confusion and danger.
Who were these individuals encouraging panic which resulted we are told in people being crushed and buried on the one exit staircase? It would appear that more were injured by the induced panic than from the initial explosion yet there has been little attention or criticism given to this by media of government.
Surely it could not be that panic and being able to display it on TV screens around the world is actually one of the objectives of the exercise. Those who encouraged the panic could hardly be terrorists in the conventional sense could they so who were they? At that stage the emergency services had not arrived so it could not have been them. Rail personnel perhaps? Concerned public? Or others placed there for that very purpose?
Actual report: The New Netwar: Countering Extremism Online Dr Martyn Frampton with Dr Ali Fisher and Dr Nico Prucha Foreword by General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Ret.) https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The-New-Netwar-2.pdf
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooGf5p44BI @ 1 min 20 seconds
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcl_PwDXzU