Thursday, 30 March 2017

Westminster Outrage. A Detailed Examination

See how images are used to push the underlying narrative?


http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10099484.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/PROD-MAIN-BPP_CHP_250317khalid_127JPG.jpg

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/westminster-terror-attack-everything-know-far/

"Questions are more reassuring than answers. Answers, even good ones, right ones, are temporary. The questions return - each generation must ask them and try to answer them again. It's the clichés that cause the trouble." Jeanette Winterton. Land'. Landmark Trust. 2016.

"But bad things can be hard to bear when we cannot make sense of them. We search for clues as though every strange event were a riddle with the answer written upside down at the bottom of the page. We lionise, sometimes to our ruin, individuals who offer overarching explanations." Matthew Parris. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/some-atrocities-make-no-sense-the-westminster-attack-may-be-one/#

INTRODUCTION

We are wise to ask questions. It is wise to be sceptical of mainstream explanations, particularly where alleged terrorism is involved. Naïveté may be comforting but part of growing up is to realise that although fairy tales are not without their purpose and meaning, they cannot and should not, be taken literally. 

The Apostle Paul perhaps summed it up best: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

As regards the events of Wednesday 22nd March, 2017, at approximately 2.40 pm, in Westminster, London, there appears to be only one story in town - the 'Official One'. 

That is not unusual in such situations. The problem is that it has been proved by numerous previous examples, that the 'official version' in such matters cannot always be trusted. It may be inaccurate in detail or fundamentally. That is why questions are absolutely necessary and why we have to wonder if the story we are being told as regards this one, is reliable in all respects.

The official version put out by government and media is that this was a 'lone wolf' attack, for which the motivation is unclear, although later reports suggested that ISIS sources had 'adopted' the attacker named Khalid Masood (52) (he went under numerous other names) as its own. An encrypted communication immediately prior to the attack, has been used to argue for increased access powers and controls. 

In fact originally a completely different man with an extremist background was named by at least two sources. Both Channel 4 and The Independent publicly named Abu Izzadeen, 42, as the perpetrator, but it seems the sole basis for him being named was a blurry picture of a wounded man on Twitter with a similar complexion and facial hair. Channel 4 has since apologised, and the Independent has deleted its story. In fact at the critical time Izzadeen was still in gaol. To be fair, there is a superficial facial likeness.

Abu Izzadeen (aka Trevor Brooks)

http://images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/844000/620x/17844.jpg

See: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/the-story-of-the-man-mistaken-as-the-westminster-attacker; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Izzadeen

It is claimed that he hired the Hyundai 4x4 SUV vehicle EK66 RWO (!) from a Stratford Road, Solihull, branch of the 'Enterprise' car hire firm the previous day. He drove it to Brighton where stayed overnight in an average hotel and then travelled to London for the attack.

An unexplained detail is that he rang the firm after hiring it, to cancel the arrangement! Now how does that work? Was he or someone else having second thoughts? And why was it necessary to to travel to Brighton first, instead of going directly to London from Birmingham? Did he meet someone there to obtain instructions before his fateful trip to the capital?

He drove over Westminster Bridge on and off the pavement injuring many pedestrians, three fatally, before crashing it into the stone pillar and railings on the eastern side of Parliament. He then continued on foot to the vehicle entrance to New Palace Yard under which the underground car park is situated.

 At the opening of the Coroner's Inquest, Detective Superintendent John Crossley described it thus: 

"The driver mounted the pavement twice in the an apparently deliberate attempt to target pedestrians, before mounting the pavement for a final time and crashing his vehicle into the east parliament gates of the Houses of Parliament. The male then exited the vehicle carrying two large knives and ran into the vehicle entrance gateway known as Carriage Gate at the northern perimeter fence of the Houses of Parliament. The male attacked a police officer in the grounds with knives, causing grave wounds and killing the officer. The male was then shot and killed by other officers." 

Note in this official account PC Keith Palmer was attacked "in the grounds" as distinct to at the gate itself. Also that the people that shot him were "officers" - that is more than one.


https://s.yimg.com/iu/api/res/1.2/SJ6Bvv1037W8xhvGmpzqNw--/YXBwaWQ9eXZpZGVvOzY1Njt4PTY1Njtyb3RhdGU9YXV0bw--/https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/170323/58d2d6dbdee17_3822100_230317m_londonincident_1280x720.jpg

The drive over the bridge, partly on the pavement, resulted in three deaths Aysha Frade, 44, a Spanish teacher and mother of two, and Kurt Cochran, 54 an American tourist from Utah and Leslie Rhodes, aged 75 and up to forty injured, some very serious. A woman was thrown or jumped into the Thames and luckily was rescued by passing river craft. A woman was reportedly killed under a bus which raises a question as to who that was and whether the death in that case could be strictly attributed to Masood.

After being diverted by road signage he must have crossed a raised island and cycle lane before mounting the pavement and crashing into an elegant stone pillar and railings with sufficient force to completely deform the bonnet, smash the windscreen and set off the emergency airbags. Rather weirdly however it does not appear to have damaged the pillar or railings at all. Nor did it interfere with Mosood being able to exit the vehicle with two large knives that surely must have been thrown into the well of the car on impact.

After exiting the vehicle he walked or ran around the 90 degree corner carrying the large two fixed blades without apparently being challenged until he reached the main gates where it is claimed he met two officers who obstructed his path. In response he attacked PC Palmer, stabbing him several times despite his stab-proof vest.

Here the story becomes somewhat confused as to how PC Palmer managed to get inside the premises where he was photographed being subject to attempts to save his life by persons including a Government Minister. Reports appear to disagree over where and how he was stabbed and where he fell. 

It has not been explained, given the high state of threat and the high profile of the location, why the policemen at the gate were not armed, or why if they were, Masood's attack did not provoke an armed response from them. The gate itself was wide open to facilitate the passage of vehicles in and out to the underground car park. It is hard not to conclude that security at the gate was amazingly lax, given the circumstances particularly when compared to that provided at the entrance to Downing Street, that some might regard as excessive.


COINCIDENCES

As Matthew Parris suggests in an article, from which the above quote is taken, humans always endeavour to make meaning and purpose out of catastrophe and chaos - it is after all how science was born - even if it does not exist. However I am not sure 'terrorist acts' fit that mould, after all they are always planned and carried out by someone, which makes reasoning and purpose part of it. By definition they are never incoherent in the mind of some individual and/or organisation. In theory at least, this allows for discovery and explanation.

One feature of the recent well publicised attacks in Europe and America, have been the apparent "coincidences" associated to them. In contrast much worse terror and terrorist events have been occurring further afield which have been given hardly any attention by western media, which of itself some might regard as something more than a coincidence.

It is dangerous to afford coincidences in terrorist events greater import than they deserve, but by the same token, the more coincidences there are, the more likely is it that they were not coincidences and that they point to purpose and meaning in the event itself. So to begin it may be worth noting what coincidences there were in the Westminster event.

COINCIDENCES LISTED

  • It happened on the first anniversary of the Brussels airport and tube bombings which have been shown to be highly suspect with multiple Israeli connections. 
  • It happened on the same day as an international football match between England and Germany replicating a feature of the Paris attacks
  • It happened soon after Prime Minister's Questions ensuring most MP's and Ministers were in the Chamber and Parliamentary Estate effectively imprisoning them in subsequent 'lock-down'
  • It was an historic Parliamentary occasion, as Mrs May made her BREXIT announcement.
  • It happened just three days before the 60th Anniversary of the Rome Charter that set up the EC and a meeting to celebrate it that the British Prime Minister did not attend owing to BREXIT
  • It came exactly three weeks after Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent and half way through the 40 days of that festival of abstinence leading up to Christ's cruxificion.
  • It came just THREE DAYS after a massive terrorist exercise in London Docklands in which a River craft was boarded and one person fell in the water and had to be rescued.
  • It came ONE DAY before Denis Voronenkov, 45, former Russian MP and critic of Mr Putin, was fatally shot three times outside the Premier Palace Hotel in cental Kiev. His un-named attacker subsequently died in hospital.
  • It came two days before Hamas leader, Mazen Fuqha was assassinated by an Israeli kill ('Kidon') team in Gaza.
  • It came only two days before the BBC's charity 'Red Nose Day' which broke all records for amount raised on the night (£48 m)
  • On the 22nd a woman, Andreea Cristea, 29, fell or jumped from Westminster Bridge and was rescued by a boat operated by the same firm hired for the exercise on the 19th. A purpose made rescue craft and crew was also in the vicinity at that exact moment. (It was subsequently reported that she had sadly succumbed to the trauma)
  • The modus operandi follows closely numerous French and German incidents, namely (1) Muslim male (2) uses vehicle to injure pedestrians (3) uses knife to (4) kill by stabbing an individual (5) causing widespread panic and disruption the assailant (6) shot dead by police (7) in the context of incredibly poor security (8) and absence of CCTV and (9) other strange features with (10) subsequently linked to or claimed by ISIS. To date unlike these others, so far there has been no overt link to Israel demonstrated though like them it has led to calls for increased security including armed police, barriers and Internet access. (Even in Devon and Cornwall armed police were placed in position at certain locations to "reassure the public"!)
  • Just at the very moment the assailant enters the New Palace Yard precinct, two armed individuals, said to be the Defence Secretary's personal body guard, but neither matching that description or that of Police Officers despite being described as such, appear and three shots are recorded. It is not clear whether these were all from one weapon or both.
  • At the very moment the assailant appeared, the main gates were open to allow a vehicle in which was located the Met's Acting Deputy Commissioner, Mark Rowley, who is in overall charge of Britain’s Counter Terrorism Police, to leave. 
  • The security police detail on the gate were either not armed or did not utilise their weapons to disarm or disable the attacker despite the fact that the nation was on the highest (but one) terror threat level and Parliament itself must be one of the highest targets.
  • Not only did the attacker have a history of knife crime and prison, he was a Muslim convert, had spent five years in Saudi Arabia, lived or had attachments to, locations with terrorist connections, was five years prior "peripheral to terrorist investigations" by MI5 the top anti-terrorist organisation of the State, yet he was not even on a superficial watch or monitoring list and hired a vehicle in Birmingham without any warning trigger in police or secret organisation circles!
  • The vehicle he hired had the registration number  EK66 RWO.  I will leave the reader to spot the possible ironies here.  
  • It was a Hyundai Santa Fe. Santa Fe is the Capital of New Mexico and literally means "holy faith" in Spanish, Originally La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís ("The Royal Town of the Holy Faith of Saint Francis of Assisi"). St. Francis founded, amongst other things Custody of the Holy Land,  a custodian priory of the Franciscan order in Jerusalem with a duty to protect the holy places there.
  • was hired from an American outlet in Birmingham but was  registered in Chelmsford, Essex. 
  • Film of the event on the bridge  - the first on the Internet - posted on Twitter was taken from a taxi by Radek Sikorski, Poland’s former foreign minister and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Centre for European Studies who happened to be crossing at just that time.
  • Quentin Letts the Daily Mail columnist just happened to be looking out of his window at the right time to be able to describe the actual stabbing incident.
  • The BBC managed to interview Richard Tice who said he was coming out of the Tube station as the events unfolded. Mr Tice just happens to be a British property developer, who was CEO of real estate group CLS Holdings from 2010 to 2014. He was co-founder of Leave.EU with Arron Banks, and is co-chair of Leave Means Leave.
  • Westminster Council turned off and remove its 75-camera system from September 2016
  • Government and Parliament must have its own CCTV system covering the whole area but no clear and detailed footage has emerged of the two minutes of the attack.
  • Police have asked the public to hand in any iPhone images they might have rather reminiscent of Paris and Nice which received considerable opprobrium.
  • A superficial likeness to a well-known Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen (aka Trevor Brooks) with whom he was originally confused.
  • The 69th anniversary (April 9, 1948) of Deir Yassin massacre, when around 120 fighters from the Zionist paramilitarygroups  Irgun and Lehi attacked 
  • Deir Yassin, a Palestinian Arab village of roughly 600 people killing at least 107 - suitably airbrushed by current 'terrorist events'.
  • On the 4th April, 2017, 80 people were killed in a chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria. Western governments immediately blamed Assad but this appears to be increasingly unreliable and suspicious.
  • Only two days later on 6th April (clearly the plans were already in place) the above event was used to justify a huge (59) Cruise missile strike (at a cost of about $50, 000,000)  aimed at the Shayrat Airbase controlled by the Syrian government.

I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH COINCIDENCES FOR NOW DON'T YOU? 


THE ATTACKER


Scott Watts, 52, who runs his own music business, was a classmate of Khalid Masood at Huntley's School for Boys in Tunbridge Wells from 1975 to 1981. Mr Watts said Masood – who was known as Adrian Ajao in his schooldays – was a 'great guy' who had shown no hint of violence in the time he had known him.

Read more at http://www.cornwalllive.com/westminster-terrorist-khalid-masood-was-an-old-school-friend-says-lostwithiel-man-scott-watts/story-30227708-detail/story.html#UB2DlbGmiGFUoYfx.99



"This is Westminster IS-inspired jihadi Khalid Masood (circled in 1980) when he was a student at Huntleys Secondary School in Kent. The school is now closed and a housing estate built on the land."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4348306/Westminster-terrorist-Khalid-Masood-lust-blood.html#ixzz4cX9MJoYT



This hardly accords with the Met statement on the 24th March that he had been born in Dartford as Adrian Russell. In fact it was Adrian Russell AJAO - his mother's maiden name. Or at least that is what we are told.

Immediately after the attack he had become in the words of a national daily, "a psychopath" and along the way a violent criminal and wife beater. Matbe he was but others spoke of him as reserved and serious - someone who took his religion seriously. 

There is we should be warned, a common tendancy to demonise named after the event as responsible whether they are or not. Further the huge difference in assessments of the man should caution us to ask are we dealing with the same man here and even to pose the question under what circumstances was he motivated or controlled to carry out an act so out of character?

Khaled Masood was 52 and a Muslim convert. A summary of what is known about him is provided here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/24/khalid-masood-everything-know-london-attacker/

The first rather unusual thing is that he had had a number of names and that accounts differ as to when he had them. Some reports state his birthname was ADRIAN ELMS, the above suggests he was brought up with his mother's name ADRIAN RUSSELL AJAO. The article also suggests "he had a host of identities" as his life progressed around the country and abroad, one of which was KHALED CHOUDRY. This clearly leads to suspicions of intrigue and the sort of thing covert organisations are renowned for. Is it possible he was an agent or asset of one of the many that operate in the world or even under some sort of hynotic control. Sadly neither of these are beyond the realms of possibility. Do we really think that off his own back, he had chosen such an auspicious occasion and location?

The article poses the question as to whether he had any links to ISIS-related organisations, but we must also ask in such cases whether he had any links to Secret Intelligence Agencies at home or abroad. Apparently he was known to MI5 as being of "peripheral interest" in another enquiry about "five years" before - therefore some time in 2012. It may or may not be significant that this was the same time that the present Syrian conflict began and the British Government was actively involved in backing anti-Assad forces with money, equipment and people.

We do not know the extent or nature of the MI5 involvement but it is very clear from other cases that it was actively involved in recruiting suitable individuals that could act as assets and/or double agents to monitor particularly Muslim/Arab topics. This may not have happened in Masood's case, but nor can MI5's denial be taken as gospel, such is the nature of its business. Nor should we exclude the possibility that he was acting for some other non-ISIS secret agency. He could have been acting merely on impulse but there are extraneous factors such as the timing and the nature of the response, that might suggest otherwise.

Certainly he has a personal profile that fits many other cases both here and abroad of the alleged "Muslim Terrorist". A mixed background and conversion to the faith; petty crime and some violent acts; time in gaol (where apparently he was converted and "became more serious); locations with terrorist connections such as Luton (2011 -13) and Birmingham; travel abroad in his case Saudi Arabia between 2005 and 2009 working as an instructor for the Civil Aviation Authority (GACA) It is well known that secret agencies target prisons to recruit useful subjects when they are vulnerable and susceptible to offers or threats of one sort or another.

Back in England he was a manager at Aaron Chemicals in East Sussex. This firm founded in 1992 appears to be mainly concerned with the supply of cleaning materials to small businesses, with a certain amount of in-house manufacture. It may not be significant, but here we have two potentially helpful ingredients for terrorist acts.

Luton was significant in that a terrorist cell was allegedly based there, broken up just one year prior to the 7/7 bombings because of a gaff (?) by American Homeland Security leaking the name of the chief Pakistani suspect. Mohammed Sidique Khan thereby slipped the net. An alternative interpretation of those events is not difficult to conjure. Then Luton was chosen as a staging post for the alleged bombers on their journey from Leeds to the Capital with some very strange goings on in the car park.

So to summarise Masood comes out of gaol in 2003/4 after a second knife offence, where he is said to have come under the influence of Jihadists (and possibly MI5?) then sets off for Saudi Arabia a year later around the time of the London bombings. His times in prison do not appear to have interfered with his job application. One wonders who his referees were? 

He returns in 2009 to take a job with a chemical wholesaler. Only three years later he is said to be "peripheral to" an MI5 anti-terrorist surveillance operation. Five years later he is shot dead carrying one out.

The story promulgated by Government/Police/media sources from the first, may be accurate in every detail, but we would do well to approach it with a  certain degree of caution. This is born of factors external and integral to it which I will attempt to summarise below.


FRAUDULENT TERRORISM

Anyone even half-informed, know knows that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks cannot be true, yet government both here and in America, continue to defend it and dismiss those with the scientific proof it is a pack of lies are dismissed as 'conspiracist' and fantasists. A very similar situation exists regarding the events of 7/7 in London. Thus the case is made that when it comes to 'terrorism' governments knowingly lie and deceive in the most heinous ways imaginable, and then continue to lie to cover up the true details and to protect those involved, because to do otherwise would be tantamount to admitting guilt and a level of depravity scarcely conceivable.

Government depends on the mass of the people having trust and faith in its credibility and rectitude. A realisation that in such crimes the government could be implicated would of course have profound implications, including potentially public disorder on a widespread scale, and it is not impossible that this scenario is envisaged and for which the government is preparing itself - god forbid.

Unfortunately nothing we have learnt about recent terrorism events on mainland Europe, in mainly France and Germany, have done anything to reassure us, indeed quite the opposite. In almost every case, as I and others have demonstrated elsewhere, there are multiple reasons to doubt the veracity of the official account, yet not a single government or mainstream media outlet questions or challenges it. Only a conspiracy of silence can explain it away.

Of the many indicators of fraud is the consistent evidence of foreknowledge by agents or associates of the Israeli State. This was evident in 9/11 and 7/7 and has been repeated in most, if not all of the recent European cases as has been detailed elsewhere on this blog. The fact that European Governments have not admitted such, must mean a degree of cooperation and complicity at some level or other.

So as regards the Westminster Outrage, the track record is not good. We must in considering it, admit to the possibility of fraud and of collusion, whether it is the case or not. We can no longer, on the basis of recent case history, regard Government itself as above and beyond criminal conspiracy, for extraneous purposes, usually but not exclusively linked to American and Israeli objectives in North Africa, the Middle East and latterly Russia, to which President Putin has drawn attention.

Insofar as what we now know about the creation and evolution of Al Qaeda/ISIS/Daesh (the latter seeming now gone out of favour!) there must be a presumption that any terrorist act attributed to it, or them, is initiated and/or controlled by American/Israeli agencies. That should now be a given. But it has also been complicated by developments in Turkey where the recent coup attempt appears to have been NATO inspired despite the fact it is an important member of that organisation and its support for and facilitation of, ISIS, has been more than proved. 

Clearly in this matter of ISIS-related terrorism, nothing is as it seems or is portrayed, and it would be the height of foolishness not to treat any manifestation of it with the greatest degree of caution.

TIMING

I have dealt with elements of this topic elsewhere as regards terrorism incidents in general and this one in London in particular.
Very frequently occult, masonic and cabalistic numerology elements make their appearance. (See: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/london-322.htmlOf course this is always countered with the charge that this is the result of an over-active and conspiratorial imagination or just a result of chance and coincidence. However when it keeps happening, the chances get progressively less.

This Westminster attack happened on the first anniversary of the Brussels airport/tube attack that clearly had fraudulent/ pre-knowledge/Israeli elements to it. That alone should ring warning bells. But also of course there were other significant timing characteristics. 

It was on a Wednesday soon after the most watched parliamentary event of of Prime Ministers Questions, thus ensuring a 'full house' of Ministers and MP's. Parliament was subject to "lock-down" (another familiar element to these events) for two hours, no doubt bringing home to MP's a rather sobering consequence.

The way in which the Prime Minister was bustled out of the building, may in itself speak volumes. Remember it comes only weeks after a bullet or two landed close to President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel has come under intense pressure. Do these events constitute subtle reminders particularly in the context of Brexit? We all know that European political union has long been an American objective promoted by the CIA.

Video of Mrs May being ushered to her car at the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLvkZhDmvXo. Note yet again someone has been in a position and prepared to capture the moment. Their voice has been disguised. Interestingly the video was released to the Sun newspaper, Murdoch sister-paper to the Times that carried the exclusive shooting picture below.

The numerology aspects I have dealt with inadequately in an earlier article so I will not repeat here. The following Saturday EU leaders met to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty creating the EEC of six nations. Mrs May decided not to attend. The same day tens of thousands attend a london anti-brexit rally despite security concerns. 

See: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-701_en.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/mar/25/brexit-protest-thousands-march-in-london-to-unite-for-europe-live



So to summarise leaving aside the numerology, the date chosen by this man was the Brussels attack anniversary, the day when all Ministers and MP's would be in the Chamber, three days before both the 60th EC anniversary and a huge anti-Brexit rally. If not coincidence, perfect timing but for whom? 


WHAT HAPPENED ON 22nd MARCH?

Frazer Clarke, 25, quoted by the telegraph said the attacker had two knives. “There was a car crash and all the crowd surged around the corner. I couldn’t work out why they were  surging. But as the crowd surged, this guy with a beard came over my shoulder, brushed me and then he got a huge knife and was plunging into the policeman. He was literally with a huge knife plunging it into this guy. The police officer was stumbling and fell on the floor.” 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/terror-attack-westminster-bridge-unfolded/

Daily Mail journalist Quentin Letts, who was working in an office overlooking New Palace Yard described what happened as follows:  
"This man had something in his hand, it looked like a stick of some sort and he was challenged by a couple of policemen in yellow jackets and one of the yellow jacketed policemen fell down," We could see the man in black moving his arm in a way that suggested he was either stabbing or striking the yellow jacketed policeman and one of the policemen then ran to get help which was very quick to come. And as this attacker was running towards the entrance used by MPs to go into the House of Commons, as he was running he ran about I'd say 15 yards perhaps, two plain clothes guys with guns shouted at him what sounded like a warning, he ignored it and they shot two or three times and he fell." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39351842

See interview and accompanying video of the Telegraph Chief Political Correspondent Christopher Hope  here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/man-shot-police-outside-parliament-officer-reportedly-shoots/  It is difficult to make out what is actually happening and at which point from the video and there appears to be a man in WHITE jacket where Masoor fell, but it certainly doesn't tally with the video of an alleged witness at the scene below.
In this Sky interview with a witness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2_-GQe7c8U) with very blurred video imagery, there are some significant features and inconsistencies. If genuine it shows policemen running away from the man into the yard.
Still from that:
http://e3.365dm.com/17/03/288x216/e77c0daab174ef53d1fcc49f3c73980f444545c971d97fa8be6f7aa879be7176_3917447.jpg?20170326085506

He describes the individual that did the shooting as "young and in uniform" and that he calmly walked towards Masood before firing his pistol and "doing what he had to do." This would entail PC Palmer being stabbed at the gate before running inside and collapsing from his wounds.

The witness adds that PC Palmer was "repeatedly stabbing him ... he was trying to kill the officer." If as appears to be the case, he was doing the filming, and what transpires on it is accurate, it is hard to explain how he could have seen this or imputed intention. 

He then goes on to say that "an unidentified package was discovered in the car which added to the panic". From his location it almost beyond the realms of possibility he could have known this fact (if true) at the time.

Much of the front page of Friday's edition of the London Times was taken up with a photograph of two plain-clothed persons, apparently shooting at the assailant within New Palace Yard. They appear to be tall, middle aged, in plain dark clothing with no head gear, with blond or ginger hair. They point hand guns rather than standard issue semi automatic rifles as shown in the image below. They cannot be seen in most images so must have disappeared fairly swiftly after the event. 

Try as I may using standard search engines, I cannot find that image on the Internet. It is therefore somewhat special and electronically elusive. It is just one of many evidential peculiarities about this case. 

I tried to reproduce a photograph of the front page but for some technical reason this proved impossible. At last I have found it. Thank you Times.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7owuwdWsAAqx0e.jpg


Most published images (see below) show a uniformed officer pointing a semi-automatic rifle at the now presumably deceased target. Was this an intentional ploy to give the impression he was the shooter or just an over-reaction born of panic with no other significance? Initial reports certainly stated it was a policeman that shot him, hardly supported by later statements and photographs.



http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.4401107.1490219954!/image/image.jpg


Another image (below) may well contain the two men that did the shooting but they are harder to pick out. What is clear is that when their job was done they did not hang around. Later photographs do not reveal them. Who is the person in the white jacket? Where are all the policemen in high viz jackets who apparently ran in panic past the Sky witness/filmer referred to above? Note at this point in time, before the para medics arrive, the gates are closed or being closed, AND an inner barrier is down. Although it was stated the gates were open to allow the Assistant Commissioner for terrorism to leave, there is no evidence of any cars or vehicular movements within the vicinity.


http://brightcove01.brightcove.com/24/4221396001/201703/880/4221396001_5368483117001_5368311782001-vs.jpg?pubId=4221396001


The next image appears to be a slightly earlier and puzzling one, shot from a slightly different angle. Earlier because virtually all the policemen appear to be absent although Masoor appears to be on the ground with two people standing over him, one in plain clothes who we must assume to be the shooter, plus an officer in high viz jacket. But there also appears to be an officer just standing to the right. Is he talking to a figure in black? In which case are these Palmer and Masoor before the stabbing took place? If so what are the two on the left doing? There are comparatively few high viz jackets to be seen in this image. Where have they all gone? Is the single individual in black (far left) the shooter? Note cars still appear to be passing outside the gates.



http://brightcove01.brightcove.com/24/4221396001/201703/3936/4221396001_5368480510001_5368454704001-vs.jpg?pubId=4221396001




However this conflicts with the description in this Sun report here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3179476/london-terror-attack-lasted-just-82-seconds-before-khalid-masood-was-shot-dead-cctv-analysis-reveals/ 

 "Masood ran 50 yards round the corner and into the grounds of Parliament where he was confronted by PC Keith Palmer and a colleague.The maniac shrugged off the colleague and then dived on PC Palmer, 48, as he fell against a barrier and to the ground." 

If this account is accurate he must have got up and run inside away from Masood before collapsing some distance away where he was treated without success.


If this had happened as described it is difficult to reconcile it either with the film clip or the location of PC Palmer's body well away from Masood. Is it possible that the policeman seen retreating on the right side of the Sky video was PCPalmer after he had received his injury but still able to run or is the video and commentary totally unreliable?

Then compare it with this account which claims that PC Palmer fell and Masoor was on top of him! 

Sun report here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3179476/london-terror-attack-lasted-just-82-seconds-before-khalid-masood-was-shot-dead-cctv-analysis-reveals/  

"A source revealed: “Keith slipped on the cobblestones which were wet after it had rained. He had his stab-proof vest on but Masood dived on him and stabbed him in the neck and armpit which were still exposed.”  Moments later at 2.41 and 30 secs the knifeman ran towards a police firearms officer who shot him."

So in this scenario PC Palmer would have had to have lain BEHIND Masoor as he advanced towards his killer - clearly not the case. 

In the Times photo referred to but not shown here, Masood is nowhere near PC Palmer when he falls so the above account cannot be accurate and it is still unclear where PC Palmer was stabbed.

The Sky (also a Murdock outlet) videoed interview and footage is here:  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-westminster-terror-attack-footage-10100911

It is hard to reconcile this video footage and account with the Times photograph where it is clear the shooter is neither young or in uniform and there are two shooters not one. How can it be explained?


Yahoo here has a significantly different take on what happened here: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/34761528/four-dead-in-westminster-terror-attack/#page1
"The whole crowd just surged around the corner by the gates just opposite Big Ben," said witness Rick Longley. "A guy came past my right shoulder with a big knife and just started plunging it into the policeman. I have never seen anything like that. I just can't believe what I just saw."
Daily Mail journalist Quentin Letts said a man in black attacked the police officer before being shot two or three times as he tried to storm into the building.
"As this attacker was running towards the entrance two plain-clothed guys with guns shouted at him what sounded like a warning, he ignored it and they shot two or three times and he fell," Letts told the BBC.

Note no sign of blood on the alleged weapon that killed PC Palmer
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/03/22/16/knifewestminster2203a.jpg

There has certainly been some secrecy and confusion surrounding the actual shooters. The Daily Express reported the situation as follows:

"A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed the terrorist was killed by a Met Police officer - despite confusion earlier today regarding his exact role. Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor, told the Daily Politics show earlier today the officer was actually a bodyguard for Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon.This was rejected by the Met, who told Express.co.uk there is "no such thing as armed private security" in this country. The spokesman confirmed the man was a member of the Metropolitan Police, although could not expand due to the ongoing investigation." Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782980/London-terror-shooting-terror-Sir-Michael-Fallon. 

It was first stated that he was shot by an armed Police Officer, then that it was the Minister of Defence's private bodyguard, then that such person was employed by the Metropolitan Police. Even so this still does not accord with the Times photograph which shows TWO dark clothed individuals pointing hand weapons and presumably firing at the accused. It would appear further correction/clarification is required.

There has certainly been some secrecy and confusion surrounding the actual shooters. The Daily Express reported the situation as follows:

"A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed the terrorist was killed by a Met Police officer - despite confusion earlier today regarding his exact role. Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor, told the Daily Politics show earlier today the officer was actually a bodyguard for Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon.This was rejected by the Met, who told Express.co.uk there is "no such thing as armed private security" in this country. The spokesman confirmed the man was a member of the Metropolitan Police, although could not expand due to the ongoing investigation."  Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/782980/London-terror-shooting-terror-Sir-Michael-Fallon.

Oh the familiar "ongoing investigations" excuse for obfuscation!

It was first stated that he was shot by an armed Police Officer, then that it was the Minister of Defence's private bodyguard, then that such person was employed by the Metropolitan Police. Even so this still does not accord with the Times photograph which shows TWO dark clothed individuals pointing hand weapons and presumably firing at the accused. It would appear further correction/clarification is required.


Note the appearance of Fallon's close protection detail which in no way matches those said to have shot the attacker.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Westminster-782980.jpg

In addition, and perhaps in the scheme of things, more importantly, someone might like to explain the extraordinary circumstance that allowed Masood to enter the square past arm guards without apparently being challenged despite all that had transpired immediately before, and carrying in full sight two knives, yet at that very moment - remember the whole incident from start to finish took less than two minutes - there were two armed body guards at the scene and able to not only immediately assess the situation, but shoot to kill. 

After all it would have been impossible to have taken a clear view of what had happened at that stage or the degree to which PC Palmer had been injured. Masood they could see did not have a gun so posed no real threat to them at that distance but they had no compunction to shoot to kill. There is no suggestion, under threat of lethal weapons, to submit or surrender to arrest.

Is this not MIGHTY STRANGE? And does it not suggest an element of being fore-warned, not to mention fore-armed, where a course of action had been pre-known and pre-determined by an element other than the standard police on duty? As usual the actual details are shrouded in secrecy under the guise of "on-going investigations" so the public is left to draw its own conclusions about the nature of the operation. 

And also as usual, the largely theatrical display of hundreds of officers that come flooding onto the scene are too little and too late, and merely act to highlight what appears to have been a shambles in security at one of the most high profile targets in the country. So in addition to an explanation as to were the two shooters came from at precisely the right moment, there are questions to answered why there was no appearance of the standard armed officers at the gate and how PC .... could be attacked right inside it?


THE VEHICLE

The Sky witness claims to have somehow known a package was found in the crash car that added to the panic. Apart from this being quite unfeasible, it is not supported by photographs of the car. Indeed surprisingly no attempt is made by police at the scene to even open the boot (to check for suspicious packages or clear people away from it in case of explosive devices) for an extended period of time.

Why the board?


Image may contain: one or more people, car and outdoor



Arm Gestures to whom and why?


http://www.originalfm.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/03/parliament-attack.jpg



The Cyclist
https://i0.wp.com/www.thebriefng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/One-Dead-As-Suspected-Terrorist-Wreaks-Havoc-On-Westminster-Bridge-London.jpg?fit=564%2C423


Who were the injured here?



https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/video_thumbnail/public/thumbnails/image/2017/03/22/16/westminster-shooting-car-.jpg



AN AMERICAN MEDIA LINK

(One of many)


http://www.wowt.com/content/news/Lincoln-couple-in-London---on-Westminster-Bridge---before-terrorist-targeted-pedestrians-416889183.html

"In the aftermath of the attack, and with another week left of his European trip, Ben Callahan is now on alert. He said: "When you grow up in Nebraska... we really don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. So when you come to an international city and this happens, it makes you realise there are definitely more concerns that the people over here have that we don't have to worry about back home.""



POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF EVIDENCE?

  • The photographic images appear to show no signs of blood on the alleged blade!
  • If PC Palmer was stabbed at the entrance gate and fell there how can that be reconciled with the fact that he is pictured falling well inside the Yard and some distance from the attacker. Both accounts cannot be accurate unless he somehow stumbled badly injured from one location to the other.
  • It is impossible to reconcile the Sky video with that of Christopher Hope's.
  • The Sky witness described the police shooter as young and in uniform but this is not supported by the Times and other photo images.
  • Nor does he make any reference to TWO such individuals clearly shown in the Times photograph.
  • The Sky witness claims to have somehow known a package was found in the crash car that added to the panic. Apart from this being quite unfeasible, it is not supported by photographs of the car. Indeed surprisingly no attempt is made by police at the scene to even open the boot (to check for suspicious packages or clear people away from it in case of explosive devices) for an extended period of time.
  • This Sky witness states two of his colleagues are inside the barrier. Who are they, what are they doing there and why is this not supported by other images?
  • Although it was stated the gates were open to allow the Assistant Commissioner for terrorism to leave, there is no evidence of any cars or vehicular movements within the vicinity.
  • Letts account suggested that Masoor was stopped by bullets before "he stormed into the building". This is hardly supported by the photographic evidence as he is some distance from the entrance with barrier and other officers in between.


QUESTIONS

The questions we might pose are:


  • Is the mainstream description wholly accurate in every respect?
  • Are there unexplained anomalies or inconsistencies in the related accounts?
  • Was Masoor responsible for all the acts attributed to him?
  • Did he act alone on a whim, or was he following directions, and if so by whom?
  • If Mansood did do what he is accused of doing, what was his motivation and was he fully in control of his actions?
  • Is it possible that he was in under some form of hypnosis or under some other form of control?
  • Were all the deaths and injuries solely attributable to Mansoor?
  • Why were initial reports of casualties, perpetrator and shooter so inaccurate?
  • Why was there such an absence of real-time, clear video footage of the bridge crossing, vehicle crash and actual attack in one of the most densely covered CCTV areas?
  • Given the high level of alert and likely target, why was security at the main entrance to Parliament so lax and how was it possible for a clearly threatening individual to gain access and stab an unarmed policeman?
  • Where precisely was PC Palmer stabbed in relation to where he fell and expired?
  • Where did the two shooters come from, how were they alerted to be there at precisely the right moment and why was false information given out about them?
  • If the above were Michael Fallon's close protection detail, where was he at the time?
  • If wholly genuine, does this incident replicate previous 'false flag' indicators that suggest pre-knowledge in certain quarters?
  • Were any of the people affected or appearing as witnesses, suspect of being placed for the purpose or what is termed 'crisis actors'?
  • Have post-mortems been carried out on those killed and will the results be made public?

Meanwhile an image of the recovering wife (and American family) of killed Kurt Cochran. Am I being harsh in thinking there is little evidence of grief here?

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/pri_350610171.jpg?w=620&h=781&crop=1

http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/458000/620x/58de10d14d8a4_melissacochranhospital.jpg

See: Related articles on this Blog.

6 comments:

  1. In response to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krEfFI4N1Ms I made this observation:

    "These films are inherently unreliable if not intentionally misdirecting. As usual focus on everything OTHER than the difficult questions. They concentrate on the very understandable and moving emotional consequences for the next of kin. Post Paris, it cannot escape notice that despite the distance in time there are strange similarities. Notice the wording: Major says "What happened cannot be understood". Those were the words used by Bush and others about planes flying into the twin towers. In both cases we now know in fact it could be understood, but the explanation could not be revealed. Indeed in an unprecedented move all the documents relating to the Dunblane case were by the order of Lord Cullen made secret for a century! Why? The reasons given are unconvincing. It replicates what happened in the not unrelated Holly Grieg case. There are many dubious issues that are glossed over - the fact that he set off much earlier than stated yet missed the assembly, his technical ability to cut telephone wires, the ability to carry so much ammunition into the school, a Smith and Wesson, a convenient letter to the Queen just before, the fact that he had TWO head wounds(!) - but so many accurate shots in so short a time including head shots, both technically and psychologically points to a trained killer. Hamilton might have had many defects, but those were not some of them. The unrevealed hinterland of high-level political and other contact around the topic of pornography and child abuse creates question that were never even addressed by Cullen and all emphasis was placed on perhaps largely irrelevant gun control that would not have been possible without the incident. How often have we seen these recurring in other incidents around the world? The question never posed in MSM (what a surprise) is did Hamilton in fact shoot himself, was it him that shot the children, was he in fact a 'patsy' that had to be eliminated in a military style operation with a two fold objective of removing a risk and achieving policy objectives that would otherwise be impossible?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Ian. I have added your assessment to the blog article. Every little helps to spread the word hopefully. I wonder if anyone ever reads it let alone poses the questions? The shooters were certainly specialists on hand at the right time. They fit neither Met Police, Fallon close protection or even SAS profiles. So who were they and how come they were so prepared, 'decisive' before they could have really known what Masood had done, disappeared from the scene so quickly, and were lied about by the Govt/Met sources until proved otherwise? Regards, Tim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ian Davis
    16 mins ·
    There are a number of questions surrounding the Westminster attack that need to be answered if the official story is to be believed.
    As with most of these supposed terrorist or “lone wolf” attacks (inspired by ISIS) the official story emerged almost contemporaneously with the actual event. It is not unreasonable to ask how investigators were able to know so much about what has happened so quickly. Nor is it unreasonable to ask how reliable that information can be so early in the investigation.
    The mainstream media are of little use in this regard. All they do is parrot what officials have told them. This of course has nothing to do with journalism. It is simply the dissemination of “official statements.”
    People say that to question official narratives, especially surrounding so called “terrorist” events, constitutes something they like to call “tin foil hat conspiracy theory.” Presumably they say this because they themselves chose not to question anything at all about official narratives but rather wholeheartedly accept them in their entirety. They assume that their unquestioning acceptance is the rational position whereas to seek clarification and corroborating evidence is irrational.
    The argument is then often made that to question the story in some way shows a lack of respect for the victims.
    This is all nonsensical drivel.
    The only real way to show genuine respect for the victims is to find out what happened to them, who harmed them, how and why. To simply accept everything you have been told about the harm that befell the victims shows a marked lack of respect. It is unthinking and therefore, by definition, uncaring.
    So I offer here the excellent work of Tim Veater for your consideration. Please take a moment to consider the questions he raises.
    • Is the mainstream description wholly accurate in every respect?
    • Are there unexplained anomalies or inconsistencies in the related accounts?
    • Was Masood responsible for all the acts attributed to him?
    • Did he act alone on a whim, or was he following directions, and if so by whom?
    • If Masood did do what he is accused of doing, what was his motivation and was he fully in control of his actions?
    • Is it possible that he was in under some form of hypnosis or under some other form of control?
    • Were all the deaths and injuries solely attributable to Masood?
    • Why were initial reports of casualties, perpetrator and shooter so inaccurate?
    • Why was there such an absence of real-time, clear video footage of the bridge crossing, vehicle crash and actual attack in one of the most densely covered CCTV areas?
    • Given the high level of alert and likely target, why was security at the main entrance to Parliament so lax and how was it possible for a clearly threatening individual to gain access and stab an unarmed policeman?
    • Where precisely was PC Palmer stabbed in relation to where he fell and expired?
    • Where did the two shooters come from, how were they alerted to be there at precisely the right moment and why was false information given out about them?
    • If the above were Michael Fallon's close protection detail, where was he at the time?
    • If wholly genuine, does this incident replicate previous 'false flag' indicators that suggest pre-knowledge in certain quarters?
    • Were any of the people affected or appearing as witnesses, suspect of being placed for the purpose or what is termed 'crisis actors'?
    • Have post-mortems been carried out on those killed and will the results be made public?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is a serious point about PC Keith Palmer relating to his location relative to Masood and the conflicting witness statement, photographs and videos which all tell slightly different stories. They are difficult to reconcile.

    On the one hand it is stated by individual OUTSIDE the gate he was multiply stabbed there; on the other the statement by a senior officer to the inquest that he was stabbed INSIDE the New Palace Yard (NPY). They can't be both right.

    If he was stabbed outside, there is the obvious question of how, mortally wounded he was able to get away from the attacker and get all the way inside. Note he would also have had to negotiate one of the two inner barriers which are shown down.

    Alternatively if he was in fact stabbed inside the NPY, it has to be explained how a witness could be so wrong and how Masood got past the outer gate policemen without being stopped and then ended up well away from the fallen PC Palmer.

    To further complicate the issue another witness says Palmer slipped in the wet and Masood fell on top of him. If so where did that happen and again achieve the distance between them?


    http://kharasach.us/vi/c2_-GQe7c8U/mqdefault.jpg

    The "Sky video" and interviewed "witness" though very fussy and unfocused at times (as often seems to be the case with these alleged recordings) shows something quite different - ie numerous high-viz jacketed policemen apparently running away from the attacker as the official shooter(s) appear(s).

    This in turn is flatly contradicted by the Times photo or still from a different video.

    Of course no one in the media has raised these apparent inconsistencies, let alone any one explain them.

    Conscious of the supreme sacrifice made by PC Palmer, an ex soldier, and deservedly lauded for his bravery, one is reticent to point out the problems with the account and images, but as usual the absence of any reference to, or explanation of, them, merely increases the reservations.

    We are told he was wearing a stab-proof vest under the high viz jacket, so where he was actually stabbed becomes critically important and must have been in an unprotected area of the body.

    Yet there appears to be absolutely no sign of any external incisions or tears in the outer garment, that because of its bright yellow colour, would be likely to show, although this is not conclusive as the tears may be out of sight. But neither is there any obvious sign of injury about the neck and head so we must assume the knife penetrated an unprotected part of his torso. There is some suggestion of this in the above photograph.

    Rather famously the undoubted hero of the hour, the Foreign Office junior minister Tobias Ellwood MP, got PC Palmer's blood on HIS head, but precisely from where and how it got there is not known - presumably during his efforts to save Keith Palmer's life.

    Although blood was clearly on him, and significantly on no other first aiders, there is perhaps somewhat surprisingly very little blood to be seen elsewhere, which rather rules out serious wound(s) to major arteries. Both in respect of Palmer and Masood, considering the fatal injuries from respectively multiple knife wounds and three bullets from one or two handguns, there is remarkably little sign of blood loss. The assassination of Denis Voronenkov the very next day in Kiev, provides something of a gruesome but useful comparison.

    Only the A&E staff (if he was admitted to hospital) or the Home Office Pathologist, would be in a position to know precisely the location and nature of the wounds and this information has not been revealed.

    Given the fact that absolutely no photographic evidence has been published showing contact between Masood and Palmer, let alone multiple stabbings, the account that it happened must at this stage be taken on trust. Given what appears to be conflicting evidence of the event, this may not be altogether sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The miraculous surviving terrorist identity document:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-berlin-paris-nice-london-new-york-passports-and-ids-mysteriously-discovered-in-the-wake-of-terror-attacks/5592063

    ReplyDelete