False-Flag Terror, ‘patsies’ and ‘drills’
Did the four alleged bombers have a ‘minder’ who looked after them?
Anyone who has read my book ‘Terror On The Tube’ , or recent articles relating to the evidence released during the current Inquest into the events of 7/7, will have noticed the case I forward on 7/7.
I.e. that the ‘Official Narrative’ presented to the public by the government is a wicked lie pinning guilt for a great crime on four completely innocent men.
The truth is that 7/7 bears all the hallmarks of a classic ‘false flag’ attack by forces of the state against its own people. At the time, the UK was engaged in a globally promoted ‘War on Terror’ that was short of one vital ingredient…….the ‘terror’ .
It should perhaps be explained that ‘false flag’ events over the centuries follow a template that has become, for many, familiar. Concurrent ‘drills’ and ‘patsies’ with their ‘patsy minders’ are two elements in this template (for the full picture see here.)
I have been demonstrating that the Four perfectly fit the bill of ‘patsies’ hired, for the day, to play the part (as they understood it) of terrorists in the ‘drills’ that ran on 7/7. It would be expected, according to the ‘template’ that such persons should automatically have a ‘minder’ whose purpose is to control the behaviour of the patsies so that they behave exactly according to the pre-ordained scripted events.
The next question arises: is there evidence of the existence of such a patsy-minder on 7/7?
As we shall see, it appears that there certainly is.
The Fifth Man
A clue here comes from CCTV film from Luton station and its car-park, which the Metropolitan police released back in 2008. Since then they have withdrawn it but fortunately the J7 team made backup copies. The crucial film now only exists as excerpts stored on the J7 site – which is in itself a rather peculiar situation.
During the Inquest, a startling if not a brilliant insight has dawned upon that intrepid J7 team, in relation to this film. It has nothing to do with the Inquest as such, but it re-casts the official narrative, and indeed subverts it, giving us a real glimpse into what probably happened at Luton.
This disclosure concerns a Jaguar that drove up and parked in Luton station car park beside the ‘bomber’s’ car on the morning of 7/7, having also appeared on the morning of their so-called ‘dry run’ on June 28th 2005 – in just the same spot. J7 are to be congratulated on this high-quality video assembly, which clearly displays the sequence.
The Jaguar pulls in beside the bombers’ car and on both days the CCTV footage has been edited to exclude what could be vital evidence relating to the role of the driver of this car in the 7/7 operation. The suspicion is, of course, that this driver would be seen greeting and conversing with Khan, Tanweer and Hussein.
Not many Britons will be ready to believe in an Al-Qaeda operative driving a Jaguar.
Over the years we’ve heard various stories of the ‘fifth man’ as the ‘handler’ or ‘mastermind’ of the Four and unlikely characters have here been named (eg, the Beeston-born Haroon Rashid Aswat, who turned out to be a MI6 double-agent.) That whole debate now needs to go back to square one, with this new evidence indicating that a handler (the man in the Jaguar) ‘managed’ the Luton stage of the operation.
We see precision in the linkup between the cars. Lindsay arrived rather early (having driven over from Aylesbury), parked, and nodded off. At 5.56 he was fast asleep when a parking attendant slapped a parking ticket onto the front window of his Fiat Brava. That’s new information that has emerged from the Inquest (Oct 11 am, 70: 7-13) – and it presents us with something that surely doesn’t look like the behaviour of a suicide bomber. Lindsey then woke up and may have wandered around inside the station, before re-parking his car in another bay when the Jaguar turned up.
6.49 On the video, we see Lindsey driving into that new bay of the car park, so he comes in from under the camera, and re-parks his car.
6.52 Then there is an 88-second gap in the CCTV sequence, during which the Jaguar drives in and parks fifty yards away in the same car-park. When the CCTV re-starts, we see it there.
The Jaguar is parked in the same spot of the car-park as it had been on the 28th.
6.52.12 A car arrives at the far-end of the car-park, which turns out to be the Nissan Micra driven down by Tanweer from Leeds. Five seconds later in the misty morning at 6.52.17 the headlights of the Jaguar switch on. Four seconds later at 6.52.21 it starts moving, turning round to drive back towards where the two cars are parking next to each other. Tanweer’s Nissan Micra’ arrives and synchronously within seconds the Jaguar starts driving round, coming towards the Four. Just as the Nissan Micra parks next to the Brava – at 6.52.38 – the CCTV cuts out. (See this video after about 5 mins) It stops, as the Jaguar is turning round to park by the two cars.
This is a key point in the whole narrative: the two cars, from Leeds and Aylesbury, park adjacent to each other – and the CCTV cuts out. Why? The only sensible conclusion is that the film would show that the Jaguar then parked beside the other two cars. ( That’s behind them as seen from the CCTV camera, so it’s hard to spot once it’s there).
Surely the Jaguar could not have seen and recognised Tanweer’s car enter the car-park from its back window in the dim morning light? Whereas, we easily see both from the CCTV images. This is a matter for the reader to judge. In the circumstances it is surely reasonable to infer that there had been phone communication between the two cars, prior to the entrance of Tanweer’s car, to get such a close accord.
Why has the Inquest not mentioned this? It is telling us about lots of other phone messages around this period.
6.54 There is a 77-second gap in the narrative. The Jaguar may have parked next to the two cars, so the three cars are together in Luton car-park. At 07.19 the Four put on rucksacks and walk away from cars.
For comparison, on June 28th: at 8.08 the Jaguar arrives and parks, then at 8.10 the three go into Luton station.
The Official Narrative is hugely undermined by the presence of this car on both occasions, as the editors of the CCTV images well understood.
Patsies need minders. They do not understand the situation in which they are involved and their behaviour must be strictly controlled in a completely predictable way. (For comparison you might want to checkout the Christmas ‘Crotch bomber’ story, where a smartly-dressed ‘minder’ escorted a silent and clueless-looking ‘Mr Mutallab’ onto the plane at Amsterdam airport, despite him not having a passport.)
These young men casually sauntered towards their personal doom……oblivious, at this point, of the dark agenda they were unknowingly serving (though, hearing of Lindsay’s behaviour in King’s Cross station, it seems that they realised their terrible plight later in the morning).
They were at Luton to catch the 7:40 train.
Cancellations decreed that they caught an ‘earlier’ delayed train at 7:42
The delays that held up the arrival of this Train in King’s Cross acted like a knife through the heart of the carefully planned Official Narrative.
This ‘Official Narrative’ has a centre that can no longer hold. Instead, other more compelling and realistic possibilities begin to demand our attention.
Postscript: Incoherence of Timing
Not that it5 matters very much, but contradictions in the timing have been appearing over the years, in this part of the story.
First Version: The ‘Official Account’ of 2006,
5.07 A red Fiat Brava arrives at Luton car-park. Jermaine Lindsay is alone…’ He potters around, entering the station, ‘looks up at the departure board’ and comes back again.
‘6.49 The Micra from Leeds enters car park and parks next to the Fiat Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars’, etc. They then put rucksacks on.
7.15 the Four ‘enter Luton station…’
On the original story, the four met up, spent twenty minutes or so together, then strolled across the car-park into the station. It was straightforward, except that the train they went to catch had been cancelled that morning.
Then, during the 2008 ‘July 7th trial’ at Kingston, a load of ‘new’ CCTV was released which had Germaine Lindsey exiting from the station at 7.15. - just when the Four had entered on the original narrative. The re-adjusted story looks more correct, whereby at 6.49 Lindsay re-parks his car, then the others arrive.
Did the Four meet up with this impressive precision around 6.50, at same spot together, with ‘Lindsay’ having been in the station only 4 minutes earlier? (The film we’ve been shown from inside the station features a lad who may not greatly resemble Germain Lindsey). In that short time does he rush back, start up his car, and then synchronously meet his mates? After they have met up, does he return alone again into the station for a minute, to emerge again at 7.15? Our credulity is strained. The moral here is, that if CCTV is to be used for evidence it should be released at once, not held onto for years – allowing faceless bureaucrats the opportunity to fiddle around with it.