Apart from the following text and photographs being compelling evidence that what we have been told happened; really couldn't have - and especially not the way the media, police and politicians have portrayed it. To appreciate the argument, it's advised this article is fully read and the photos studied to help you understand what's being claimed here.
There also appears to be compelling evidence that the film and photograph footage presented to the world - has been photo-shopped?The section where the mans finger-tips completely disappear, then re-appear is puzzling. Of course it's probably a digital problem, though perhaps indicates this area of the hands have probably been interfered with.
The rest of the footage clearly reveals that other parts of the film have been edited and manipulated. However, who and when this video was first edited by - we currently do not know other than the person who has posted it on youtube has apparently worked from the original film footage released by the Mirror, and whose name is branded across it.
Considering how long this event took place to carryout, said to be around 20-30 minutes, the lack of police officers responding - even after the shooting - is incrediblly low. - It was claimed by a witness in The Mail newspaper; that around 40+ officers got there in the end. There's a local police station not that far way. We know the police have said why; i.e.; 'Only 'armed officers' could be deployed'. Yet we also know in many other cases; when a man is reported killing someone in the street and yeilding a chopper and a gun, [though we haven't seen any film footage or photos of either of the men holding a gun], that they would at least be in high numbers and on the fringe of the scene, - on the sidelines so to speak - and ready to immediately assist the firearms officers and paramedics who too should have been at the scene by then.
There are 1000s of police officers with Taser guns, so where were they during this crucial stage?
How is this the normal and expected response to a 999 emergency call of this kind?
Why is it that it often turns out that the security forces or the police knew all about the suspects - and in most cases it appears they have either colluded with them, or had had them under some kind of surveillance?
Why is it, that in all these major "Terrorist" news stories - that it appears 'staged' - 'False Flag' events have probably taken place?
"False Flag" in this context; means that some horrific event is deliberately contrived to happen or allowed to take place, despite having prior knowledge that an attack is about to occur; - that "they" still let it go ahead so as to justify their own means;
No signs of blood on his clothing or shoes? Though as you'll see in the above video, it seems to appear the blood was 'added', or manipulated to say the least.
Since this alleged attack in Woolwich, an official of the goverment has stated: "Following the brutal murder of a young soldier in London, British politicians have called for the resurrection of a bill that was shelved last month that would see the creation of a dragnet surveillance database, allowing police and intelligence agencies to effectively monitor the communications of everyone in the country."
Why is it that there always seems to be a problem when it comes to these types major incidents, that do not seem to happen in other everyday crimes or incidences? - i.e. the bank robber, street mugger, shoplifter or trian ticket avoider seem to get caught bang-to-rights and 'red-handed' - that the CCTV footage is then often shown to the offender that results to them pleading guilty, or a jury finding them so when it goes to trial.
Here is an audio version of this blog made by a young lady in Holland.
Yet why is it vital CCTV footage often goes missing, or it is claimed that on the day of a major incident, such as the Charles de Menzes shooting at Stockwell Station, following the 7/7 London bombings; that there were no tapes-DVDs in the machine/s or that some others had been malfunctioning, - though this was later proved not to have been the case? Meaning the CCTV evidence was keep secret, and some probably destroyed, - apart from that that eventually was discovered and shown to an inquiry.
Take what happened in New York on 9/11; to this day not a single piece of CCTV footage has ever been shown that would identify any one of the alleged passengers whose airplanes were allegedly hi-jacked and that they were then allegedly killed in.
How is it possible?
Why are the families of the those passengers not demanding to see such CCTV footage; such as seeing their loved ones queing up to check-in, going to the lavatory, a bar, a shop or making a telephone call and all the other kinds of things people normally do in an airport and just prior to flying off to somewhere?
Let's not forget, there were at least four Airports involved, three specifically, and four aircraft. That's a lot of CCTV cameras that should have filmed an abundance of CCTV footage of the alleged passengers at those airports that day on 9/11. - So why has no CCTV footage ever surfaced showing any of the alleged victims just prior to boarding their airplanes?
No CCTV footage that day; yet we had the "miracle" of the 'surviving passport' of one of the alleged hi-jacker-terrorists; that was miraculouslly found on the ground and only metres away from the WTC, - and when the worlds media reported; 'the passport had simply being blown-out of the exploding and burning aircraft as it impacted with one of the towers, - and then conveniently fell to the ground, - and out of all the millions of pieces of paper and tons of debris created following the collapse of the WTC, - the passport was suddenly discovered!
We also know about the CCTV footage that surrounded the Pentagon, - and that the FBI confiscated all that footage and that to this day still have not released much of it. It's possible this evidence has since been destroyed?
We'll look at the CCTV problem with this Woolwich case in a moment.
We've not the time or space here to discuss anymore details about those events, - and only mention these cases for the evidence doesn't add-up, - nor does it in many of these kind of "Terrorist Threat" events and tragedies.
Many people think those are crazed if they question such events like 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Aurora - Batman Shooting, the recent the Boston bombings and now this Woolwich, London - hacking-off the head of a British soldier, by arguably two of the most polite, calmest and coolest "terrorists" the world has ever seen. Why they even hung around for almost half an hour and before the police arrived to "shoot" them.
Yet the reason people "question" these types of "attacks", - is because and like I've said; time and again the evidence simply doesn't add up, as we can see the police, M15 or CIA-FBI etc. have had previous dealings and prior knowledge about these so called "homemade-terrorists", and as in this case - the blood or lack of it, surely has to be questioned.
There are multiple reasons as to why a "False Flag" event may take place, and they're not all to do with the wishing to introduce more laws or regulations etc. - Take a look at the evidence of the Chilean mine disaster and when 33 men were trapped underground, - it has all the hallmarks that it was 'staged', - though not to the poor miners knowledged that is!
The countries murderous rate of killing it's own citizens and all the corruption and poverty out there, - the country was about to explode into civil unrest. They "needed" a diversion with a "feel good" factor thrown into the staged "disaster", - that ultimately worked.
How can you question yourself, your poverty etc., when you are 'lucky' to be alive! - "Thank God" - 'it was not you trapped down inside that mine', - and in a predominately Catholic country such as Chile, it worked miracles!!
Do your own research into what really happened in Chile and to the trapped miners.
Then there was the recent building collapse in India;
The BBC's Akbar Hossain: "People here are extremely surprised." Photo courtesy Shariful Islam
It's being widely reported that a woman has been pulled alive from the ruins of an eight-storey building that collapsed in a suburb of Bangladesh's capital, Dhaka, 17 days ago. Yet what's even more remarkable; is how is it possible she lay hidden and unheard for all this period of time in the worlds worst building collapse, - in which it's claimed in excess of a 1000 people, mainly women, died as a result of the collapse. The building floors almost pancaked on top of each other; - creating plumes of dust and mountains of broken bricks, cement and twisted wire lay strewn all over the place. - Yet this young girl not only survived for 17 days and with little or no water at all, her "Purple" dresswear and attire remained in pristine condition, and all within hours of the bulldozers being sent in to totally flatten the whole area.
Hardly any dust in her hair or on her face, and with 'none' on her clothing? It's as if she had not long dressed herself, and not of the appearance of someone who had laid buried underneath tons of cement and dust in general and for seventeen days at that!
It begs the question; "How is this possible?" - It's surely more miraculous that her clothing, face and hair survived so well.
Let's not forget; this buildings collapse has created a lot of anger in the local community, people will be prosecuted and jailed, if not executed. Over a thousand innocent exploited workers have been killed due to corporate greed. The buildings owner, who tried to flee the country, but was later on captured, knew how dangerous the building was. Companies in the West seemed to not really care about the conditions where their garments and clothing are made, so it could be argued they too have 'blood on their hands', for had they cared, then surely they would have seen what an overcrowded sweatshop the place was in the first place. - Chickens are kept in bigger coops!
Did someone; - as we've seen this type of pattern of a "Feel Good" factor story emerge following such a no hope type of disaster as this one; - Did "someone" devise a plan and decided to plant the young girl down inside the rubble?
It could easliy be achieved during the night and when perhaps rescue teams were on a break and away from a specific area. This would permit someone, such as a young girl to then be able to hide themsleves amoung the rubble and until the following day and when she could then call out for help.
And if this is the case then of course it's worked, it's worldwide news and it gives "hope" to everyone; that even in the worst type of tragedies; a "Miracle" can still take place! - NOT!!
In hospital she is fine, and when you can see her wince and show signs of discomfort or pain, is when the two nurses standing in front of her and the cameras, are putting needles into the backs of her hands so as they can place Saline drips into them.
More than 1,000 are now confirmed to have died, most of them women. The authorities said 2,437 people had been rescued, of whom about 1,000 had suffered serious injuries.
At least nine people have been arrested over the accident, including the owner of the building and several factory bosses.
Reshma: "I kept banging whatever I could with my legs but no-one could hear me"
Now we have the same type of problem with this alleged attack on a soldier in Woolwich, London.
In light of the overall picture it could seem trival, but there really is one major problem when it comes to these attackers clothing and like that of the girls above; there does not appear to be the expected soiling or staining on the clothes that one would expect to find?
These attackers have no blood on any part of their clothing, other than the hands - only in the case of one of the alleged attackers - as seen in the photo above, - and the weapons he was holding appear to be saturated in blood, almost too much one could say. It's almost as if they had been dipped into a bag of blood, but as we now know and thanks to the chap who made the above video, the blood really does appear to have been added at a later date, or as I say; manipulated at the very least.
Were these men wearing any kind of bullet/stab-proof vests? Their jackets, - a winters coat on one, seem rather bulking/packed out. Which also makes you wonder; why did the police and after firing 8 shots, then immediately go to the aid of the men instead of shouting commands for them to remain down and having their guns trained on them?
Because more chillyly and suspect; is that these men could have had a bomb strapped to their waistsbelts!
The response of the "trianed" armed officers, seems to be totally off the expected remit. Look how they normally deal with armed suspects. These men were wriggling or moving on the ground after being shot. You can see one photograph of one of the armed officers dealing with one of the attackers - with his gun still in his holster, he was looking away; the attacker was waving his arms and legs around and could have very easily grabbed the police officers gun. Besides, even after shooting them, this still allowed them to be able to produce a whole host of other weapons hidden under those bulky coats they were wearing, - or even detonated a bomb!
I suppose we will have to wait until this goes to the Crown Court, - though this will probably never go in front of a jury, as these two will probably plead guilty, [they technically already have, one has confessed to the world on film "why he did it", - so it's likely we will never get to hear the full story or see the evidence involved.
This is the beauty of 'flase flags'; knowing the person/s - 'patsy/s' - involved will either end up being killed, sectioned off, or "plead guilty"; if and when the mission is completed, and if of course they survive.
In addition; you can use whatever witnesses you wish, people can make the most wildest of claims - that the media will then just publish, knowing it will never have to be proved or heard in a courtroom, - for it will never go in front of a jury!
This how it normally plays out in these type of 'flase-flags', the perpetrator/s are either killed, found to of 'diminished responsiblity', or they plead guilty to the offence; indicating the possibilities a "deal" had been made with the authorities, - as it often turns-out they had been working with, or there was prior knowledge about them by the secret services.
It's since been reported that the coroner had to rely on the soldiers dental records to be able to identify him?
This would indicate the injuries to the man were so horrific that he was unidentifiable. Yet if this really was the case then there really would be blood everywhere around the body. It doesn't make sense, but by reporting this was the case - it upholds the false kind of picture that they tried to 'behead the man'.
Because on the other-hand it was reported on the same day that one of the two men, and the first to be released from hospital, was due to appear in court, - it was on BBC News that the body of the soldier had been 'stabbed', - there was no mention of his neck, head or body parts being removed, as has been widely reported. This is completely different, for had he been stabbed, say in the chest, then this could explain the lack of blood on the scene, as his clothing would have helped absorb that blood.
The above video was made by Eddie Boyce from The Kent Freedom Movement, they take a look at the Woolwich "terrorist" murder, with author Nick Kollerstrom and KFMs Deborah Williams.
So what's the truth?
Is this just a matter of sensationalism gone mad, - where street talk - text messages, tweets and facebook posts have ruled the day? - That were obviously made-up, 'invented', that influenced the media to then report these completely unfounded injuries, - such as having his 'head hacked off', his 'body organs ripped out', - for if this is the real reason, then it really does need to be addressed!
It's distorted everyones perspective as to what really has gone on here. People cannot let their hearts rule their heads in these types of circumstances. - They shouldn't take sides, especially if they are not being told the truth. They have to imagine they are members of a jury; - let the evidence speak for itself, - does it add up - then decide?
So again, we will have to wait to see if we get to hear what the coroners report really says, though as mentioned, we doubt it, or if we do get to hear about it, it will probably be preened parts of it and not the specifics. Take a look at the coroners involved in the Charles De Mennzes, Ian Tomilinson and Eriksson twins cases, and how often they get things wrong, or write-up blatantly false reports with evidence that has later on been proved to have been totally incorrect - and even totally fabricated in places!
Of what we currently know about this Woolwich incident, really is not that clear. There are witness reports that the blue vehicle involved - clearly showing signs of damage; had hit the soldier, then the men jumped out of it and attacked him?
Though this was first said to have happened in John Wilson street, which quite a few hundred metres away at the junction, and where one of the photos below show a police tent positioned. The car is in Artillery Way, so perhaps these reports were incorrect? It just don't add up, if that damage is due to hitting the soldier, then that would very likely be enough to have killed him, or at the very least render him badly damaged and unconscious, - and we look more into this further on.
Why is this tent here in Wilson Street? It's obviously in the wrong place, as you'll see in the next photos the tent has been moved and to various points. The next left turning is Artillery Way and where they body laid. So why and when was this tent erected? What was the need for it?
Why does this shot show the tent so close to the lorry?
Where the "body" really was, - note how conveniently placed the truck is blocking both the CCTV camera on the shop and the Rectory Road turning.
Close-up of the scene.
The Mail newspaper reported the following, so we assume the police must agree this happened? Also most of the media reported pretty much the same as The Telegraph newspaper - which was;
"...what they were witnessing was not a suburban road accident, but the most brutal murder imaginable, as two Al-Qaeda inspired Islamic terrorists hacked at their victim “like a piece of meat” in an “animal” frenzy on the suburban pavement.
The soldier they had targeted was so badly butchered that it looked as if “they were trying to remove organs”, according to one man who saw the first terrorist murder on British soil in eight years.
When they finally finished beheading and mutilating the soldier’s body, they appeared to say a prayer “as if it was a sacrifice”, one witness said.
Police took so long to arrive at the scene that the killers casually paced up and down the street, their hands dripping with blood, making a series of pronouncements that were filmed by onlookers.
Now considering these above witness statements - that the world now believes really did happen, take a look at the photos; - does it look like the scene where that sort of horrific attack took place? Where's the blood? It's not feasible for these two men to have done such a brutal thing, without being smothered in blood, as would the body and ground.
You can see the corner of John Wilson street, where the attack was first reported to have happened, and why there appears to have been a tent there. Though as we know it happened around the corner in Artillery Way.
The attackers were said to have allowed women to approach the body after the soldier was killed
Aftermath: Said to be the dead soldier, circled left, and one of the shot terrorists, right.
Mr Huseyin said: ‘Two black guys got out of the car dragging a white guy across the road towards the wall. One of the guys had a knife that looked about a foot long and a machete. The other bloke had a gun.
‘They started slashing him up with the knife and hitting him in the stomach with the machete. [Where's the blood?] I don’t think it took long before he was dead. There were people passing by who were screaming and running away. I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m still really shaken up.’ [Yet in the video we can see how calm everyone appears.]
Another witness said: ‘My partner in the car let out an almighty scream, we saw clearly two knives.
SOLDIER WAS WEARING A HELP FOR HEROES HOODIE
The soldier (left) appears to be wearing a dark blue 'Help for Heroes' hoodie or t-shirt.
‘One was a meat cleaver, they weren’t little knives, they were big kitchen knives like you use in a butcher’s. They were hacking at the poor guy. They were chopping him, cutting him. [Where's the blood?]
‘My partner jumped out of the car and shouted, I jumped out as well. One of the black guys went into the crashed car, got into the front and pulled out a bag. He pointed a gun. He shouted at my partner, “Get in the car, get in the car”.
‘I called police and said, “You need armed response, you need police, you need someone here – these two guys are chopping this man to pieces”. [Where's the blood?]
Julia Wilders, 51, witness - 'These two guys were crazed, they were not there, they were animals, they then dragged the poor guy. He was obviously dead, there was no way a human could take what they did to him, they dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road and just left it.’
‘I thought there’d been an accident. But then I saw they were using meat cleavers to hack him up,’ she said. [Where's the blood.]
Mr Wilders, 50, said: ‘When we walked back down to see what was happening, one of the black men pulled a handgun out from behind him.
‘There was a lorry driver and it looked like he was waving it at the lorry driver. He got down out of his cab and legged it. It was absolutely terrifying.
‘I saw a load of kids come out of school gates and I just yelled at them to get back. I ran up to the school shouting there’s a gunman and to get everybody inside.
‘The headmaster came out and they closed the school gates and kept everyone in. That was when I heard four shots." [So this witness is saying they heared one of the attackers fire four shots, where did these bullets go?]
A police forensics officer examines a gun at the scene of the attack in London.
So as said, we're not really sure what happened to the car, as others have reported it hit the post, though you can see that's not the case with any in the photos and in this video someone has made; there is no damage to the post, the film gives a very good example as to how the car was meant to have sustained it's damage and the post, as you can see, are deeply embedded, yet it should still be knocked slightly over, it's a much thinner type than in the video below, bits of damaged paint would be found. You'll note the car in Woolwich, has a smashed windscreen as well, in which the Rover in this video example below doesn't. Was this to indicate a body had impacted with the windscreen? Like said, if it was the soldiers body that caused the damage, then surely that would have probably killed him or at least caused serious injury.
Others have said; 'they dragged his body 'up the road', though it's very near the vehicle and still in the road. So again, - it has to be exactly investigated as to how did this vehicle become so damaged, what did it really hit, if not the post or body?
Then we have to consider the 'strategic positioning' of the white lorry that conveniently stopped in the road and right infront of the CCTV camera and alleged body.
Why is this lorry showing no number-plate? That black strip is far to long to have been used to black it out, besides it's to high. Though let's not forget this white truck, and more so it's driver, as after all they must have been a major witness as to what took place right in front of them. According to other witnesses; they said they said he pulled-up, panicked and then ran off? Though he obviously was around and he no doubt gave the police a statement.
By the lorry being situtated where it was, it worked as a screen, for that's where one of the CCTV cameras is positioned, on the shop wall - behind the vehicle, so the lorry was blocking the cameras eyeline.
In fact, in the opening video, and others the chap has since made, it shows there was movement of the red LT bus that is often seen in the shots. It was reversed back at some stage, [it even appears and then disappears in some edited shots] and by doing so - this in a sense also acted as a screen and helped to block the view from the other end of the road - and the CCTV camera positioned on the corner and inside the fence of the barracks.
If you stood where the blue-crashed car and body are positioned, - opposite is an entrance to the barracks, either side of the gates is a very long fence and wall that goes on for at least a quarter of a mile to your right, - its fencing goes all the way down to the road junction - and which is to your left. So there is nothing or anything other than the fence and wall that overlooks this area. If you turned around and looked up, you'd see the tall block of flats and where someone filmed the shooting from.
On the corner of Rectory Road, is the "Function Room" shop, - next door to it's right is a very long fence, behind it is a primary school.
We could imagine how quite it would be on the street around the time it happened - 2pm-2:20pm - the children were in school, Artillery Way is a long road, on the other side of the junction and towards the town centre it gets a lot busier.
Now this is a crime scene, - though let's look at this as an 'armed robbery' and a Securicor guard had been robbed and killed. As a detective you'd want to first findout where are the CCTV cameras placed in the direct vicinity and then obtain that footage. That's one of the very first things the police would normally do.
There are four CCTV cameras that we know of; one is on the corner of Artillery Way junction with John Wilson street, it's mounted on the other side of the fence and on the grounds of the barracks. Our last view of this camera; - it was facing in the direction of where the alleged took place. Another CCTV camera is opposite to where the attack took place, it's mounted outside the barracks' main gate, though can be swivelled around to face in the direction of the incident. This must be monitored by the soldiers inside the barracks.
There's also another typical council CCTV camera mounted on a long black post; it's at the crossroads and opposite the other CCTV camera inside the fence of the barracks, and can point in the direction to where the alleged attack took place. Though this doesn't seem to have been the case at the time of the incident? This is monitored by employees of the local authority, whom are in 24/7 contact with the local police.
But it's the CCTV camera outside and mounted on the wall of the "Function Rooms", which is a Newsagents-Grocery kind of store, that is of the most interest. For as we say; detectives looking into the mock "armed robbery" just mention as an example; they'd would want to know how conveniently this 'white lorry' so happened to be positioned in such a strategic way that it actually blocked the complete view of where the attack took place. That had that lorry not been there, then the CCTV camera on the shop would have likely recorded the 'armed robbery', - as would it probably have captured the alleged attack on the soldier as well.
So it's the 'driver' of that white lorry who would become a major interest into the investigation, or at least he should be!
You'd want to know; who is he? Do a CRB check to see if he had any previous criminal record. His employment record, i.e. ex-military, police. You'd want to know what was in the lorry? What was he delivering? Where had he come from and where was he going to - for him to happen to be there at this precise time?
Who is this driver? Has anyone read about his own experience?
Why has he not been interviewed and appeared in the media like the many others?
We understand they often 'fuzz-out' the number plate of a vehilce if it's going to appear on TV, though there's no fuzzing-out here. There just doesn't seem to be a front number-plate on the lorry, and wonder if any shots were taken that would reveal if there was one on the back of it? [Or front if that's the case]. And if there are; why did they remove it in these shots, and not fuzz it out like they normally do?
It's important the lorry driver and registration number is known.
There's also meant to be CCTV cameras on the roofs and sides of the residential block of flats that are opposite to where the police allegedly shot the two men; So who knows whatever other CCTV footage exists?
We can clearly hear on the video; the children talking on the bus and their relaxed conversations about when can they get off the bus and go and buy some sweets and drinks etc. - Yet they are directly facing and someone is filming whats taking place outside on the road; though we don't hear the expected; "Oh my God, he's got a chopper!" "Oh, look at all the blood on his hands." "Look, look there's a man on the floor with his head cut off, - yet where's the blood?"
Instead we can hear the childen asking when can they next get off, when one of them says and indicates; 'they have 'another film shot' to do!'
Of course our hearts go out to the family of the alleged victim; we do not state this event did not happen, - we only question the things that dont seem to add up, and suggest perhaps the events didn't happen and take place exactly how we've presently been led to believe they did.
Nor can we in anyway say or suggest this soldier is or was involved in a "False Flag Operation", though hope to explain how this can easily be achieved.
How could you get someone to agree to have their own life taken away?
In some countries, it is an honour to be a martyr. It's not suicide in their eyes, it's a priviledge to be chosen. They look at it as dying on "Gods battlefield", they're willing do so, [of course these types are indoctrinated] as they know their families will be well looked after and provided for, - and they can proudly proclaim they have an hero in the family.
Then there are the types who 'give-up' their 'identities', - the 'Bourne-Identity' comes to mind, - and who are enrolled into covert secret agencies, they perhaps take on a new indentity and role in their new positions.
Remember; the "families" of secret servicemen and women quite often have no knowledge whatsoever as to what their husband, wife, dad, mum, brother or sister etc. actually get up to "at work". That's the nature of their "job", it's how you protect your own family from danger, it's best they know nothing. And the same can be said of soldiers and their families.
It's said Drummer Lee Rigby was not based at Woolwich, so other soldiers based there didn't know him. - He was said to belong to an overseas unit. It's also been alleged he was in Woolwich alone, as the rest of the unit was away overseas, though a conflicting report read the unit had just returned from overseas, so what's the truth? Why was Lee Rigby not with his unit, if it turns out they were abroad?
It takes a certain type of person and character to wish to join the military. To have the desire to wish and kill others is often felt by many angry young men, [and women] and the military know this. It's how the corporates, TV and Hollywood and our educations have indocrinated most children to feel this way, but often goes away in later life as most people take different directions. Though those who join the military are then sprung upon by their "enforcers", whose sole objective; is to indocrinate them into all things to do with defeating and killing "their" enemy, - and who wasn't their enemy before.
Who could be so cruel and lie to their families by pretending they have died?
Many young men join the forces for various reasons, - one high on the list; a member of their family was in the military before, if it's not due to this type of reason, it's because they were either not that great at school, so got bad exam results and didn't have good prospects of getting a job, or it's because their home conditions; quite often coming from council homes, they have become over-crowded, new siblings have come along and it's getting all too much for the youngman to stay. High unemployment and drugs could also play a key role, there could be drug dealing and gang culture problems where they come from, and being the UK then that's highly likely. Many more come from broken homes and are angry bitter youngmen, and these types of men are often singled out, that's what promotion is all about and he would probably be shifted to the right type of section in which to serve, i.e. the Paratroopers, SAS or perhaps some kind of covert operations unit, if of course they showed the right traits for such a recommendation in the first place, for not everyone could do this sort of thing.
Imagine if you were a serving soldier and had done duties in say; Iraq and Afghanistan. You'd have probably witnessed many fellow soldiers being wounded or killed. Your own life would have probably been only inches away from a stray bullet, bomb or road-mine. The hundreds of bodies you would have seen being flown back to the UK or USA etc., followed by the hundreds of funerals attended by thousands of grieving families and what had been shown all around the world via our TV networks. You would have been exposed to the same kind of grief your own family would have to endure, if and when they too were to receive that dreaded knock on the door confirming you had been 'killed in action'. No doubt they'd feel solice in knowing you had died a "hero" and was honoured for doing so, - but that would be it, they would be joining the ranks of all the other families who too had lost their loved ones.
In the book Trapped in a Masonic World, it explains how the secret services and military directly recruit from uninversities and other insitutions, as do the church and other religious interest groups, including our governments and secret societies. There are those who are then initiated into these secret societies, and it is the 'society' they pledge their oath and alligence to and beyond everything else - and in which they are to be totally loyal to - and until the day they die.
Like that in the military and where you can be givien a Court Marshal for disobeying an order. The same applies to these secret societies, you will be brought to appear at somewhere like the Grand Lodge or their own Lodge, according to the seriousness of the 'crime' and dealt with as if you were a 'traitor', - this is of course if the person was a Freemason, though we're not suggesting that's the case here at all.
Knowing you are a serving soldier and that you've been invited to join an 'elite' secret operation or squad, - and that if you were to be 'killed in action' like that of your buddies; - then your family will be informed and the grieving would start, - though you and they have always been aware this day may come, and why your family in due course of time will accept it more easily, - they knew of your job and what it entailed.
If the 'order' comes in ordering you to play a part; which requires to make it appear you have died, - though you haven't really, - you'd probably think; 'How odd an order? Can it be 'for real?', though it's still 'an order', and you'll likely agree to carry it out. These kind of "Operations" have taken place in the past and dating back to WWII, mostly devised and written by the James Bond author, Ian Fleming, and when he was employed by our secret services to do such a thing and before he became famous as a writer.
It's being argued that those behind giving such "orders" for "False Flag" operations to take place, are doing so because they wish to introduce even more draconian and Big Brother laws and regulations that take away people rights and freedom along with the suppression of the internet. In the USA; it's said in some states, they're on the verge of Martial Law, following 9/11 and other "False Flag" operations. This has happened all over the world - post 9/11. It's almost as if other Western countries have been ordered by the USA; to "Beef-Up" and "Crack-Down" on peoples liberties, - especially on the internet.
What does a soldier do?
Disobey the order?
It's a lot better than being really killed.
What about all the pain and heartache to his family? Well as said before; they would have come to terms as to why he joined the army in the first place and knew this day could come. Though this is a little better, as he is still alive - times a great healer, he would continue his life undercover and as a hero working on the most sensitive and dangerous missions around the world and 'for his country'. Only now are we hearing about such men who did such things to their own families during WWII. Who knows, following such a 'mission', a soldier could be retired and living anywhere in the world, with of course backing and help from his "superiours", whose job it is, is to keep and eye on him and until the day he dies. They will of course financially look after his own family.
We all know about Dr Kelly's death - and the Weapons of Mass Destruction - 40 minute warning was proved to be false, - and that 'dark forces' work in the shadows - which means a far more sinister scenario could be possible; where these two alleged murderous fanatics were 'trained' and 'ordered' to carryout such an outrageous attack on an innocent and sacrificial soldier - such as Drummer Lee Rigby, [or to make it appear it happened this way], and in broad daylight, - for full impact and worldwide coverage - and possibly with the prior knowledge [and assistance] of someone else embeded within our secret services, the police or military - and who may well have colluded with them to help carry it out.
We don't know for sure what took place at any of these mentioned tragedies; other than what did take place then the evidence surrounding them - is without doubt questionable to say the least.
Witnesses need to come forward, people are asking; Were any of the roads blocked off just moments before the incident? Did you notice any police at the ends of the roads etc. - but prior to the incident happening?
Was there a pick-up truck - transporter parked-up nearby, in a side street? Was it the same pick-up truck that must have taken the "crashed" blue car away after the incident and investigation had been carried out?
If such an incident was "staged", then it's possible the white unmarked lorry it-self could have transported the blue car that was allegedly used in the attack.
It's been suggested, that on Google Maps, the arial view of Artillery Way, were taken some time ago and at least one year prior to this alleged incident; where the blue vehicle has allegedly crashed in to that sign pole that shows no signs of damage, - however, the car does appear to have at the very least been made-up to appear as if it hit something like a pole, and more like a bollard, - in the Google shot it shows that there were in fact bollards along that part of the pavement. This means that when the bollards were in place, the blue car would not have been able to have mounted the pavement like it is alleged to have done, and instead it would have had to have hit one of the bollards, thus causing such damage in which the car now appears.
Is this an indicator that if this was a preplanned false-flag attack, that those who devised such a plan, were working on the scenario - as to how that part of the street used to be with those bollards in place.
It would have looked even more convincing, for the car could have appeared to have hit the bollard and would have remained on the road with the alleged body of Lee Rigby laying in the road in front of it, - though because the bollards were no longer there they had to position it next to the nearst post, which is now the one people question - due to it showing no signs of damage whatsoever.
Did you see any of the incident - and get to film it or take photographs? Were you on one of the two or three buses that can be seen in the film footage?
Were you on the streets, in car, or do you live in the area, or were you in the flats that overlooked this area and where someone had filmed the "shooting" from, and if so, did you see anything?
Do you know who the driver of the white lorry is?
Where you on or do you know any of the bus drivers whose buses could be seen stopped in the road - and reversing in the film footage? Not forgetting the other red bus behind the white lorry, acting as a block so no other traffic could pass it.
Do you have any relevant information about what really took place that day?
If so, then why not contact us.
Above is the car that appears to have crashed, - as said before, we're not sure what it hit, as we can see in other shots the posts are fine, and this has been proved by Eddie Boyce's [from the Kent Freedom Movement] in his film seen below.
It's clearly hit something, but what and when? Where's the damage to the other "thing" the car must have hit to have sustained such damage?
Underneath and flowing away from the car, - seems to be the water from the radiator, perhaps some oil as well? The two round black marks on the pavement - one near the front and the other at the rear of the car - has previously been mentioned as drains,thus when they have gone there to look for them, they are no longer there, - this is because they are wheel-trim-hubs, and not drains.
In front of the car is a large area of what we assume to be blood. Though it starts at one end and then abruptly ends, - the trail of blood does not seem to follow-on to the body? - [Which in this photo is surrounded by a white tent, just under the trees.]
For in the next shot you can see there appears to be no blood leading to the body or even around it, - yet how can this be possible - if according to the above "witnesses" accounts and statements - are true?
The blood seen in the above photo doesn't seem to be on the ground in front of the car in this photo below; perhaps it's the angle of light that's giving it that appearance? Though clearly there is no other blood about anywhere. In some other shots, it clearly not there at that particulary stage. You would think it's virtually impossible to get into a fight and attack someone; trying to hack their head off or cut out their internal organs - as has been widely reported and described - 'without' getting smothered in blood. It should be all over their clothing, the front and arms of the jackets they were wearing, would surely have blood on them, - if we are to believe this is how the attack took place.
So why isn't there more blood and in the places you'd expect to find it - around the body?
Here we can see the women termed by the press; as the 'Angels of Woolwich', Gemini Donnelly-Martin, 20, and her mother Amanda (right) - talk to Adebolajo, one of the alleged attackers with blood all over his hands but not his clothing.
The alleged body of soldier Drummer Lee Rigby, lies dead in the road, his head has been blurred out in the photo, yet it seems odd there are no signs of blood around the body? - Meanwhile, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett (left) talks to the other suspect.
Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, is said to be a 48-year-old British woman and Club Scout leader from Cornwall. It's said she was visiting her children after a trip to France and just happened to be riding on a bus when she saw the soldier’s body lying on the ground (being “cradled” by another female passerby, who was praying over the dead body), she jumped off the bus to try and help.
Ingrid Loyau-Kennett [inset] -Prime Minister David Cameron lauded Ingrid, saying; “She spoke for all of us.Confronting extremism is a job for us all. And the fact that our communities will unite in doing this was vividly demonstrated by the brave cub pack leader – Ingrid Loyau-Kennett."
We wonder where her children live then, if not in Cornwall with her? When asked later how she could have confronted the two killers, she said, “I wasn’t scared. Rather me than a child.” Loyau-Kennett herself is the mother of two children. Yet why did she feel the need to say that, - when no children were in danger?
Here in a TV interview Ingrid Loyau-Kennett is talking about her experience; her accent appears to be Swedish or Dutch, and not French, - as it's been claimed in other reports she's originally from France.
Mr Nusaybah, speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme last night about Abebolajo's MI5 claims, said :'His wording was, "They are bugging me - they won't leave me alone."
'He mentioned initially they wanted to ask him if he knew certain individuals.
'But after him saying that he didn't know these individuals, what he said was they asked him if he would be interested in working for them.
'He was explicit in that he refused to work for them but he did confirm he didn't know the individuals.'
Interview: Abu Nusaybah, a friend of Michael Adebolajo for more than 10 years, claims MI5 tried to recruit Adebolajo as a spy.
Nusaybah also said he thought Adebolajo had undergone a 'change' following his detention by security forces on the trip. He said Adebolajo suggested he had been physically and sexually abused while he was interrogated in the African country, and after this he became withdrawn and 'less talkative - he wasn't his usual bubbly self.
Following the interview Nusaybah himself was arrested at the BBC in relation to terrorism offences. The Metropolitan Police said a 31-year-old man was arrested in relation to terrorism offences and search warrants were executed at two addresses in east London.
He was held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and is being held in custody at a south London police station. The arrest was not directly linked to Drummer Rigby's death, the police said.
It emerged earlier this week that Adebolajo was so high profile he was photographed outside Paddington Green police station six years ago behind notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary. He was even intercepted by officials as he attempted to travel to Somalia to fight alongside Islamist terrorists in 2012.
It also emerged that Adebolajo was a violent ex-prisoner who was a member of a banned terrorist group. He was said to have been preaching jihad on the streets of Woolwich earlier this week, only a few hundred yards from where the alleged took place.
Of course it’s a dreadful thing to have to feel the need to question the official storyline that’s being fed to us by the police and media. It’s not being suggested the media are involved, though we know they collude like hell with the police, governments and conglomerates, as they will often report whatever they are told. It appears that no investigational journalism comes into play following any of these types of alleged terrorist attacks, – it seems as if they just “report” what is given and told to them and question nothing else.
Take for instance the BBCs Madness in the Fast Lane documentary about the Swedish Eriksson twins and the murder of Glenn Hollinshead - the recent book A Madness Shared by Two, proves that police officers lied when they spoke about the case in the documentary, and that hospital officals and members of the legal fraternity have probably colluded with the police and helped cover-up what the book now reveals. There is also a problem with CCTV evidence in the case, - there just doesn't seem to be any that can show these two sisters travelling from either the USA, Ireland, Sweden, Norway or the UK.
It was the way the police reacted to the Eriksson twins and the way the police treated them that led the author of the book, to investigate the murder of Mr Hollinshead, and to look at what really took place when the two sisters ran out and into the oncoming traffic on the M6 motorway in May 2008. - Ursula Eriksson went under the wheels of a 40 ton truck, whilst her twin, Sabina, was ploughed down by a silver VW car. - Amazingly Sabina was released from hosptial after only five hours and whilst her sister Ursula still lay in intensive-care.
It's then alleged she went on to murder Glenn Hollinshead by stabbing him four times, - she was charged with murder and almost 17months later she pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead, and was setenced to five years in which she served two and half years. The author implies and the evidence the book produces - seems to suggest Sabina was innocent of murder or manslaughter and that the real killers remain free. It was reported to the police by the manager of a service station and prior to what took place on the M6 motorway, that the Eriksson twins could have a "bomb" in their bag/s. When the police arrived, they did a name-check and the twins were left alone as the police just went away, at no time were they or their luggage searched.
Is it the way the police reacted to the Woolwich "attack", that perhaps is a telltale sign that things were not really what the public have been told and led to believe what really happened?
This gruesome alleged attack took place in the middle of the afternoon in a high street in Woolwich, London, - and allegedly in full view of the public, whom some were able to film parts of what supposedly happened. It's been said that at least 20 minutes had elapsed before the first police officers arrived. It's alleged the attackers were carrying guns, though we haven't seen any evidence supporting these claims, [footage of them holding holding them.]
As stated before; the police are trying to say that they were waiting on the arrival of an armed squad, though that doesn’t explain why other officers weren’t on the scene? Instead we see members of the public standing around and then negotiating with the alleged killers, with two other women attending the alleged body of the soldier on the ground, which oddly has no signs of blood anywhere near it.
Why weren’t police officers in attendance doing these things? Why weren’t there at least a police presence - using a loudspeaker to talk to the two men? Why did ‘armed officers’ then arrive on the scene almost 30 minutes later - to confront the two men - without any form of liaising or negotiating with them prior to this?
Where were the paramedics? I understand they would probably be ordered not to attend the actual body, whilst the men weilding knives still stood by, however, like that of the police, you'd think they'd be on the fringes of the crimescene. - Why was it left to the public to sort out?
How did the police or anyone else know that these two alleged attackers weren't about to run away?
As is what normally happens, take the recent copycat kind of attack reported to have taken place in France over the bank holiday weekend on the 27th May 2013, the "attacker" was said to have stabbed a soldier or security person in the neck and then fled, - the French police are still looking for him.
It not so important why these two attackers remained standing around in Woolwich and talking to "members of the public”, whom some have been accused of being actors and what seems to be confirmed in the above video - as what is more important; is the way the police responded to it. These two men could have easily escaped if they chose to do so, but they didn't! “Someone” wanted a clear message to be sent out. As said; the police or anyone else [shouldn't] wouldn't have known this - unless of course you were privy to the kind of information that told you in advance and step-by-step in how it was supposed to play-out; i.e. that the "atackers" would not be fleeing, - that they will remain at the same spot of the alleged attack, - so there is no real to rush to the scene.
This allowed the time for "those" really behind it and who sent these two men on their "mission" - to film and record what it is they wanted - and for the worlds media to get enough time and footage to then send out their wider message that indirectly would help stir-up racial tensions and permit “them” to introduce more stringent laws and regulations.
Community tensions rise as police investigate London soldier murder
It could be argued it helps justify why our troops are invading other countries. Many soldiers, like those who returned from Vietnam, returned traumatised, - many more went AWOL and were jailed. It's difficult to fight a war when you know you're really the aggressors. It's even worst to find out that your own country has secret servicemen and women, whose job it is, is to exploit the situation and employ "agent-provocateurs", and from whatever camp they can employ them from.
You only have to look what's taken place in the USA, and where they have recently arrested several young men who had agreed to carry-out acts of terrorism, - yet they were all caught in sting-operations carried-out by the CIA and, or the FBI, - after these agencies had set-up these young men to carry-out such barbaric attacks in the first place. They were done so after meeting with secret servicemen from these agencies, and who supplied and gave them the instructions as to what to do next.
"Entrapment" to help guarantee an arrest and conviction; is not the way to go to defeat terrorism, but works wonders to be able help create fear and get your agendas through to government/s.
If you want to be reminded or educated of what type of corruption has been long swept under the carpet, then don't forget Bertie Smalls; that notorious 'Super-grass' and armed bank robber of the 1970's, who helped convict scores of fellow armed robbers, and whom many officers of Scotland Yards' - Flying Squad were on the criminals pay-books.
The reason I quote the Supergrasses, is to show how corrupt our whole system is. The police have been in a political deadlock with Teresa May of the Conservative party, whom has made drastic cutbacks to the police forces around the UK, we see how they handled the London protests and riots, which was a clear message to parliament; "You need us."
Imagine this; in one year alone in 1972, 380 armed robberies took place in London, by 1978, it had risen to 734 and by 1982 it had more than doubled, to 1,772 - a 366 per cent increase in a decade.
Though this was and is only possible when the police themselves are involved, - the culture of the Flying Squad was rife with bribe-taking, sharing in the proceeds of the robberies and "verballing-up", or fabricating evidence against suspects - was a common practice following each armed robbery.
That same year Sir Robert Mark became Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, he felt compelled to remind his detectives which side of the law they were supposed to be on, he told them in his inaugural address: "A good police force is one that catches more criminals than it employs."
On 2 January 1974, Smalls asked for a meeting with the lead Inspector. Smalls (having been informed by his solicitor that he would be serving at least 25 years if convicted) offered the police ‘a deal’ to name and incriminate all those involved not only in the Barclays Bank job but in every other piece of criminal activity he had ever been involved with or known of.
An agreement was drawn up between Smalls and the Director of Public Prosecutions,SirNorman Skelhorn, that gave Smalls complete immunity from prosecution in exchange for his help. Jack Slipper was involved in his debriefing and subsequent handling.
On 11 February 1974 the trial commenced at the Old Bailey, of the Wembley Mob in relation to the Barclays Bank robbery. Smalls duly informed on those in the dock and assisted the authorities. The jury returned with a guilty verdict on all participants on 22 May. The judge haned out sentences totalling 106 years. Over the next 14months, Smalls evidence convicted a further 21 associates for a total of 308 years.
Superrasses, such as Maurice O'Mahoney, in 1974 then one of Britain's most violent armed robbers, grassed on more than 150 people in exchange for a much-reduced sentence. O'Mahoney faced a minimum of 20 years, but was sentenced eventually to 5 years and served 2 ½ years.
At the centre of Sir Robert's focus was the Criminal Investigation Department, and its pinnacle, the Flying Squad - Ken Drury, commander of the Flying Squad and one of his inspectors, Alistair Ingram, were later sent to prison for corruption.
The supergrass system was taken to its pinnacle by a Metropolitan Police officer named DCI Tony Lundy, - known as the "Supergrass Master", running the system from a Finchley HQ. From 1977, Lundy often had four trials per week running at any one time. Can you imagine the multiple of millions of pounds of the tax payers’ money that was spent and then earned by the legal fraternity whilst processing all these cases?
The Lundy report into the police corruption and the Police Authority concluded Lundy's team had 'got too close to the criminals'.
An understatement by any means, which is telling that the "inquiry" into the Lundy Report, was more of a whitewash than an actual inquiry. It wasn't a matter of; ‘getting to close to the criminals’, many of these robberies were allowed to go ahead with certain police officers having prior knowledge they were about to happen. They could have prevented them taking place. - But that's no good if you're expecting a percentage of the loot!
Double-agents are working for both sides, they are paid to help recruit and radicalise vulnerable and discontented young men into becoming homemade terrorists. Some of the men, who do the dirty work, often have a low IQ, or have mental problems and should be on medication. Whilst others would probably have ended up in a gang and becoming drug dealers and addicts, whereas by joining these other types of religiously motivated gangs, they are then brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that what they are doing, is what "Allah" - "God" is asking them to do.
"Shill" like people often quote; "How could they keep something like the above killing - in which involved many people - a secret?" - Well may I remind you of the Hillsborough disaster, and which went to the highest levels within the police, ambulance force and the government, yet was kept covered-up for over 20yrs!
It revealled 100s of officers had colluded and lied.
If you don't see it with your own eyes - then don't believe it!
It's despicable that young men - "soldiers" - from around the world are regularly losing their lives in "Wag the Dog" style enterprises securing corporate businesses as opposed to actually protecting the people.
This is why we must question everything and anything when it comes to these types of 'false-flag' attacks, - as it's in the interest of the Government, Military and the police that they take place, as without them many would be unemployed and they would not be able to easliy pass draconian laws and control us.
If the evidence is there, and it proves to be a genuine "terrorist attack", then we are confident enough that people will be able to make up their own minds and see it for what it really is.
In a madmans eyes; soldiers are just cannon-fodder, and where they die is not important; the High Street, Sand Dunes or Jungle - they're all battlegrounds to the madman and places they regularly sacrifice their own.
"Terrorism" is "CREATED" within our own governments and their related bodies by groups of subverted individuals that JFK was exposing and not long before he was killed - and whose interest and purpose has always been; - that the 1% always remain in power!
Suspect: Michael Adebowale, 22, of Greenwich, south-east London, with a knife in his hand at the alleged scene where Lee Rigby was stabbed to death, there's not sign on the blood on the ground, which extends the post on the far left post in the photo, and as seen above, however, the trick of light could be altering the effect, and it is there on the ground after all? Though why is there no signs of blood on Adebowale above?