Article: How Khan was set up

[Peter Presland]

You can view the page at https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/con...was-set-up

[David Guyatt]

Bravo! Peter, for continuing to bring more 7/7 detail into this forum. I believe we need greater insight and discussion on this, as do you.

The foregoing seems to me to be a perfectly plausible mechanism to set-up a state sponsored terror campaign in order to push through decisions to support the US in Iraq, but also to become allies in the global new Crusades "War on Terror".

[Peter Presland]

I'm following the inquests quite closely.

All we get from the MSM is the expected reinforcement of the official narrative - heart rending tales of suffering; stirring tales of selfless bravery; hate-stoking tales of the wickedness of the perpetrators whose identities are known with absolute, unquestionable certainty.

But beneath the theatre of it there have been startling confirmations of many more absurdities in that by now 'cast-in-stone' ON - and it's not over yet.

Among the more egregious of them, confirmation by the police under close questioning and under oath, of two things:

• They first identified the suspects and their mode of travel to London, using ID information from forensic reports on items collected at the various explosion scenes.
  
• that they were led to Luton Station and the alleged bombers parked cars by those same forensic reports which - wait for it - they did not receive until nearly 48 hours later.
  

There are at least 6 other anomalies as glaring as that, NONE of which has been pursued at the inquest, with the witnesses involved now dismissed. They mainly concern evidence that the explosives HAD to have been placed directly on or under the floor to explain the damage caused, but that the only witnesses claiming to have seen 'suspicious males with rucksacks' (though no positive ID's from any) stated that immediately prior to explosions the rucksacks were held in their owners laps - several attempts to get them to say 'on the floor', but none successful. The police diagrams also place each bomber further away from the damage epicenters - and by a considerable margin - than many of the named and questioned passengers who survived the blasts with relatively minor injuries, whilst the alleged remains of the alleged bombers were unrecognisable as human remains at all - I could go on, use of special mobiles being another rich source of comedy - and all of these are additional to gross anomalies well known prior to the inquests in, for example, the nature of the explosives and the number of explosions.

Nick Kollerstrom spends a lot of time on all this. In spite of my fairly serious spat with Bridget Dunne (Webmaster of the 7-7 Truth site), she has a very good forensic brain and posts good stuff on the 7-7 blog by way of analysis. I would be most surprised if - soto-voce - she is not revising her stubborn refusal to see our SIS's for what they are - that or she's been made an offer she can't refuse of course.

I correspond with Nick and hope to meet up with him in London soon.

The big BIG problem is this: I have no more doubt that 7/7 was an operation planned, facilitated, steered and executed by the UK/US Deep State Nexus than I have about the same for 9/11. From what I know now, it's simply a no-brainer. That being so, it's also a no-brainer that the same Nexus will 'use all its power' (aka Michael Corleone to Kay) to prevent its exposure - and they are playing this in deadly earnest and for keeps - big-boys rules.

I am already sensing that serious further pursuit of this thing could become dangerous.

[Bridget Dunne]

Peter I will ignore the scurrilous comments on whether I have been made an offer I can't refuse or your claim that I refuse to see our SISs for what they are, both deeply and seriously untrue.

What I do wish to take issue with is this Khan article by Nick Kollerstrom that you deem worthy to reproduce here.

If anyone wanted an example of confirmation bias masquerading as research, deep research, then this article would be perfect.

Both yourself and Nick choose to ignore the fact that the poster on the David Icke forum claims:

i have worked in the past with the teachers of south leeds high school (where one of the "bombers" worked as a teacher).
i was told (in confidence) something, which was the real reason i joined this forum around a year/ 2 years ago.

Khan didn't work as a teacher at South Leeds High school, he worked as a teaching assistant at Hillside Primary. South Leeds High School was the school that Khan was educated at. Confirmation bias prefers to ignore facts, research requires facts to be accurate.

The poster then claims that:

before he left for london, he told his colleagues this much. he even showed them the "suicide video" in the staff room before he left.

Leaving aside the fact that Khan didn't have colleagues at this school, he had resigned from Hillside Primary in November 2004 - after a period of sick leave since September so he hadn't been back since the school broke up in July 2004.

My concern is that rubbish like this is so easily spread and believed amongst people who claim to be researchers, neither leading to clarity of the issues or nearer the truth. Truth after all is the goal.

The 7/7 Inquests blog (J7 were described by counsel for the bereaved in her questioning of DS Stuart this week as an organisation that are following these proceedings very closely) can be found here: http://77inquests.blogspot.com/

[David Guyatt]

Bridget Welcome.

If you were to present, say, three keys pieces of evidence from the inquest that you think demonstrates that 7/7 was -for hat of a better word, an "inside job" - what would those three be?

David

[Peter Presland]

Welcome to DPF Bridget

I'm sorry you consider my oblique, tongue-in-cheek reference to being 'made an offer she/he couldn't refuse scurrilous. In fact, in the circumstances I apologise for having made it. Same goes for the SIS's remark.

If you spend much time here you will come to understand - if you don't already know - that trite and cliched though its common usage undoubtedly is, 'making offers that cannot be refused' is in fact an accurate encapsulation of the modus-operandi of the Establishment and its Security and SIS enforcers everywhere. My usage of the term was so intended - but nonetheless inappropriate. Sorry.

As I tried to make clear in the above post, I respect both your commitment to the truth of what happened on 7/7 and your encyclopedic knowledge of the forensic details. Please accept my word for that. I am less impressed by your apparent faith in the in the 'Establishment' - for want of a better catch-all term to describe the nexus of powers and their agencies that effectively control what we are allowed to know of the actual evidence.

Not wishing to reprise our exchanges on Nick Kollersrom's blog last November, I'll leave it at that for now - 'Sabretache' is me as I'm sure you have already sussed.

But I repeat, your understanding and analysis of such evidence as we ARE allowed to see, together with your analysis of the bluster, obfuscation and contradictions in the evidence of police and other official witnesses at the inquest hearings, is much respected.

I for one will be very happy to engage further with you on 7/7 - though I appreciate you have a site dedicated to that. I know how time-consuming that is because I too have WikiSpooks.

[Peter Presland]

Oops - another apology. I didn't address your substantive points.

I posted the article because I admire much of Nick Kollerstrom's work. I did not de-construct it first and I did not subject its claims to verification other judging it against what I already know about the Muslim communities in Leeds and elsewhere; which is that they feel under siege and seriously threatened by the Security and SIS apparatus that claims to be their protectors.

As among all comparably demonised minorities, there are the 'House Negroes' whose lives become comfortable and whose importance and career advancement is assured by adopting the positions they do adopt. You and I know who they are and the Establishment organisations they front, whilst claiming to be the authentic voice of Muslim 'moderates' in this country. But the 'House Negoes' (or 'House Niggers' as their race was more often described - shades of Rag-Heads, Sand-Niggers and the like which our latter-day Western Establishment Enforcers apparently find so amusing) are vastly outnumbered by the indentured 'Field Negroes' who live hand to mouth and in fear of the 'Massa'. So it is with the vast majority of the Muslim population of this country, and if you think differently you should try speaking to a few.

Having had them pointed out, I agree that the claims made on the David Icke forum contain serious errors. So thanks for correcting them. The motives behind those posts and thus the loyalties of the poster, are open to serious question though. They are the sort of thing that I do NOT accept at face value - and I agree, neither should Nick Kollerstrom.

I also agree that accepting them at face value IS a good example of confirmation bias. But the lesson I draw is probably different from your own. They may indeed be an example of a simple over-zealous Muslim man trying to rubbish the official narrative and getting his facts arse about face. But, in light of repeated calls for coordinated 'cognitive infiltration' of dissident groups by you-know-who, they are just as likely to be something quite different.