A Last Word (Probably) on the London Bridge Attack and the CCTV Footage…

Posted: June 25, 2017 in And Now... The Weird Stuff, False-Flag Terror
Tags: , , , ,

This post here is essentially to draw a line, for now, under the London Bridge June 3rd terror attack.

I’ve come in for some flack elsewhere – particularly since the CCTV video was released – for posting about the attack having possibly been a false-flag type operation.

Just briefly here, I want to explain/defend myself and make sure there isn’t any real misunderstanding. Firstly, in the original posting, I never said the attack was a ‘hoax’ or that it didn’t really happen. I clearly, specifically, didn’t say that at all.

I generally accept the story of the three identified attackers (maybe I’m just getting lazy), the attack in London, and now the CCTV footage purporting to show the police taking on the attackers.

The questions I raised about the London Bridge and Borough Market attack still stand, however. I didn’t say it was a ‘hoax’ or even necessarily a ‘false flag’: what I said was that it was probably a state-enabled terror operation, like Manchester was.

In that scenario, you have ‘real’ attackers or jihadis, but they’ve been enabled or encouraged to carry out an attack – and then the attackers are taken out.

A couple of people have said the CCTV footage ‘debunks’ what I wrote. But it doesn’t. For starters, all I really wrote was a series of questions based on the official coverage at the time – you can’t ‘debunk’ questions.

But, more importantly, CCTV footage doesn’t ‘debunk’ the underlying suggestion of ‘state-enabled’ terror operations – because I had never said the attack or the attackers weren’t real.


That being said, there is actually a problem I do have with this CCTV footage. Which is that, if you pay attention, the person in the white trousers who is shown being stabbed/attacked goes down and is presumably injured or incapacitated. The officers proceed to attack the perpetrators: however, when a police car starts rolling down the road, the victim in the white trousers is shown suddenly getting up and running off.

Clearly, the person on the ground realised the car might’ve hit him and so he got up and ran off; but it does raise a question as to whether he was genuinely injured or not, just playing dead, or whether – as some people have suggested – this is a staged drill video and not real ‘terror attack’ footage.

The video at the top of the page is by the MatrixBreak channel and features his own commentary and observations. I’ve embedded his video in particular because most of the other YouTube uploads of the footage I’ve looked at are of an *edited version* that cuts out the key frames mentioned above. That edited version also seems to be the version all of the mainstream outlets have published.

There is also a question as to whether or not the attackers shown being shot and killed here are wearing the ‘fake suicide vests’ they were supposed to have been wearing (according to official accounts).


But, getting back to the point: it doesn’t really make any difference to what my argument was.

When I put forward a suspicion in regard to a terror attack like this one, I am not doing it out of a desire or enjoyment in questioning the official version of events. The reflexive suspicion is based on a number of previous terror attacks that were shown to have been either false-flag operations (9/11, 7/7, Boston Marathon, Charlie Hebdo, etc, etc). It’s a long list and most of the terror attacks we’ve seen against Western targets have tell-tale elements to them that are suggestive of conspiracies.

In some instances, like 7/7 and 9/11, the evidence of false-flag conspiracy is so overwhelming that it doesn’t even need to be argued about anymore. In others, like the Paris attacks or the Orlando nightclub shooting, there are tell-tale elements that demand suspicion (the ‘suicided’ Police-Commissioner in the Charlie Hebdo attack, for example).

In some cases, the evidence for a false-flag is more debatable or not as strong – but in those instances, the suspicion is driven/informed by the previous instances. In other words, in my view, anyone who understands that 9/11 or 7/7 were ‘inside jobs’ would be an idiot not to view other terror attacks with necessary suspicion or careful scrutiny – even if, eventually, you come to the conclusion that the official story is true.

In the case of the London Bridge attack, we had literally just (a week and a half earlier) another big terrorist attack in England: and that one could be easily demonstrated to have been likely a state-enabled act of terrorism. Therefore, it is only logical – especially having argued everything I already had about the macro-level of state-enabled terrorism and the creation of the extremist ‘caliphates’ in Libya, Iraq and Syria – that, when another attack occurred in London, I would question it.

That’s not a case of cliched ‘conspiracy theorist’ always going on about false-flags or hoaxes: it is simple logic, based on the past events.

Again, I had never said London Bridge was a ‘hoax’, a ‘fake’, or even necessarily a false-flag: I had said it was probably ‘state-enabled’ terrorism. And the initial post I put up after the London Attack didn’t make any absolute claims – it was simply raising some questions and pointing out some issues in the official story.

In essence – and I even said this in the post – it doesn’t even matter whether a specific attack like the London Bridge attack is a false-flag at the micro level: because the entire paradigm, at the macro level, is one of state-enabled terrorism. You create the conditions or circumstances in which the terrorist operations can thrive (Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc), you aid the circumstances for radicalisation and recruitment at home (Khuram Butt‘s mentor, Anjem Choudary, was claimed by police to have been working with MI5), and then you let shit happen. Some of it you stop from happening, and then some of it you allow to unfold – depending on whether it suits the circumstances of the time.

In general, the wave of attacks serves an ongoing divide-and-conquer paradigm or the Gladio-model ‘strategy of tension’: but in other, specific circumstances it serves a specific purpose at a specific time (like having it influence an imminent election).

It is a multi-purpose monster that can be utilised whenever needed.

So whether the London Bridge attack was ‘staged’ in any way, or whether it was a ‘real’ terrorist attack involving ‘real’ terrorists, the over-arching dynamics are still the same.


See all ‘False-Flag Terror’ posts here


  1. summitflyer says:

    Hello from North America.Like your blog.Left you a small donation for the PDF on Libya .I am deeply interested in all geopolitical events and followed the Libya invasion and read much about it.All the best to you.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. What's going on? says:

    Spot on, Trump, Brexit and other recent ‘tragedies’ (I refer to Trump and Brexit as tragedies because that is how the mainstream media narrative is framing them) are part of a bigger plan, a plan involving a strategy of tension to divide and concquor and achieve difficult political objectives that couldn’t be implemented during ‘normal’ times. We are no longer living in normal times in the UK.

    I think Cameron, Obama and possibly other world leaders have a plan for something that they know would be incredibly unpopular and this is there way of making it happen. I expect the mess the country is in will get nastier and messier so that Cameron can come back and sort it all out with his drastic magic solution. A solution that most would find horrific in normal times, but these aren’t normal times.


  3. Norman Pilon says:

    “In essence – and I even said this in the post – it doesn’t even matter whether a specific attack like the London Bridge attack is a false-flag at the micro level: because the entire paradigm, at the macro level, is one of state-enabled terrorism.”

    I would go even further and say that it doesn’t even matter what the nature of such an attack may be — be it a false flag, or completely staged with so-called ‘crisis actors,’ or in one way or another state-enabled.

    For what matters at bottom is how these alleged events are ultimately used to promote even greater crimes of state, that is to say, to justify additional military interventions abroad, promote the intensification of repression domestically, and further foment divisions and hatred among people everywhere.

    Certainly, on evidentiary grounds, exposing the “operations” for what they are — if state-enabled Gladio-type operations are what they are — helps to shore up resistance to the criminal machinations of the state; but in any event, regardless of who or what may be the agencies behind such atrocities, it is really the ensuing propaganda exploiting these events that ends up easing the commission of even greater state crimes down the line and that, therefore, must be the ultimate focus of any serious exposé or pushback.

    The real danger is that people may en masse fall prey to the engineered terror-hysteria of the subsequent propaganda operations and thereby blindly become complicit in the criminal designs of the elites ruling over us.

    Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with you: in one respect or another, all terror is state-enabled. Such operations as we have witnessed are too difficult in both logistical and material terms to be carried out by individuals who are not tied into some kind of supporting network. But even so, even if an individual (or a handful of such individuals) could on his (or their) own plan and execute such acts, it remains that it is how the state reacts to such events that is far more consequential in its potential reach and devastation, far beyond any consequences such events by themselves could ever entail, as certainly devastating as they admittedly are for any victims directly involved in such events, and thus it is both the state and its supporting organs of disinformation, and not the so-called “terrorists,” that under all and any circumstances comprise the real menace to be countered.

    In my opinion, that is how these terror events should primarily be regarded: on the bases of how they are used, as tools to justify more war and more repression.

    In our name, in only the last decade and a half, literally millions in the Middle East have had their lives completely obliterated, and the war being waged on those who remain seems only to have begun.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.