It has now become reasonable, in light of history and current
events, to make the assumption that any major ‘terrorist attack’ is a black
op (see definitions below), until sufficient evidence is brought forth to prove
otherwise.
By history and current events I mean the sufficiency of
evidence about the Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident,
the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X, Desert Storm, 9/11, the Bali
and the Madrid bombings, to name some. Take only the assassination in 1968 of
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In 1999, in a month-long trial in Memphis, TN – a
trial unknown to most because of a media blackout – a jury of six black and
six white persons took just one hour to arrive at a guilty verdict against ‘co-conspirators’
that included "conspirators within the US government," specifically
"J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Richard Helms and the CIA, and the
military." The suit was brought by the King family and was not about money
(only $100 was awarded), but rather truth. (www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial.html.)
But to say it is reasonable to assume each new ‘terrorist
attack’ is a black op is not the same as saying we have a right to instantly
believe that. The distinction is critical. A working hypothesis is something we
test. A belief too frequently assumed is something resistant to testing.
The scientific method as our approach to ascertaining reality
is our best defense against the formidable resources the black operators have
assembled to create bogus ‘reality.’
To become informed about the events mentioned above is to see
an unmistakable pattern of deception by invisible governments and to reveal a
critically important and much camouflaged category of event: the false flag
black op.
Pattern recognition, in our right brain, needs an
accumulation of data in order to kick in with those valid assumptions and
hypotheses, as observed by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Blink, No. 5 on
the New York Times non-fiction best-seller list on July 10, 2005.
Gladwell also discusses ‘thin slicing.’ This refers to a
single aspect of an event, process or person that is immensely revealing. (See
"One Thin Slice" below.)
The accumulation of evidence about the 9/11 terror fraud is a
valuable resource that can be applied to 7/7 and 7/21 and future outrages. For
instance, those aware of the multiple war games on 9/11 (see pp. 11 and 65) will
see a parallel with the ‘anti-terrorism’ exercise in London on 7/7 by Visor
Consultants based in Picadilly. Visor’s managing director Peter Power said on
Canadian TV that by coincidence a theoretical terrorist attack that his company
was simulating for security experts the morning of 7/7 occurred on the same day,
at the same time, in the same city, using the same modus operandi and the same
four locations where the actual bombs went off.
Only more amazing than this one-in-a-trillion alleged
coincidence is that he would talk about it publicly. It may be a test balloon by
the black operators to see how credulous the media and general public can be
counted upon to be, to see what they can get away with in their future outrages.
But the wheels may come off the black op wagon yet, as the oligarchs of the
Anglo-American alliance rely on it increasingly to keep alive their agenda of
resource theft and world domination. People are slowly catching on to these
covert operations.
In the case of London 7/7 one thin slice is the report by
David Pallister of The Guardian reported on July 8. He writes that the
first claim of responsibility for the London bombings was by "the Secret
Organization of the al Qaeda in Europe" posted on an Arabic website,
al-qal3ah.com, registered by Qalaah Qalaah in Abu Dhabi and hosted by a server
in Houston.
"The server in Houston has intriguing connections,"
Pallister writes. It is operated by a company called Everyone’s Internet,
founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998. Roy Marsh counts among his
friends US President George Bush’s former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the
President’s Navy Secretary."