We are claiming that the Woolwich incident was a hoax in as much as things, including any deaths (if there were any) didn’t happen as the official narrative said they did – and it’s understandable that a response to this would be “well, how did it happen then?” Again, we don’t need to suggest an alternative. It’s enough to point out that what is claimed is impossible, improbable, or downright stupid – whatever it is that shows things are not what they seem. In law, an innocent man must be proved guilty. The people who want us to believe Woolwich as the way they tell us it happened have to prove it. They can’t prove it when it is scattered with startling anomalies. This is why what they did instead was present an impression of the incident via corporate-media which beams into the homes of people who are barely paying any attention, and they appeal to the emotion rather than stimulate an intellectual response. People didn’t need to know the ins and the outs – all they had to know was that a soldier had been murdered by Muslims, and that everyone should feel grief and invest emotionally. Truth through specifics, after that, will challenge the emotionally embedded response and cause cognitive dissonance. That’s why detailed real journalism about such an event in the first instance will never be seen coming out of corporate-media.
There is also a drawback to attempting to explain an alternative to the official narrative of a hoax or a false flag attack. The operation to expose the fraud is then made wide open to a new opportunity to undermine it. This happens by the playing off of two versions of an alternative against one another. An advocate of one theory, who is in fact on a mission to discredit the whole truth-seeking community, will attack another theory. What happens is that if this attacker has enough weight, then by association all the evidence against the official narrative that more often than not does form a basis for an interpretation that leads to an alternative narrative becomes tarred as well. This has happened in the 911 truth movement where a group of people who think that the airplanes were not real attack others who do believe the planes were not holograms, but have the soundest evidence to disprove the official narrative that planes did not cause the towers to collapse. More often than not, individuals in the former group will attack the evidence because of the hypothesis born out of it.
So, having explained how we don’t need to offer an alternative, and how this offers an opportunity for detractors to undermine proof against the official narrative – we are going to outline and develop an alternative. Doing this involves understanding that actually the initial attack happened earlier than was claimed – not much earlier, but it enabled a new dynamic of a certain risk to school children – remember how important it is when carrying out a hoax or a false flag to appeal to emotion in the first instance. Secondly, through looking at the emergence of tweets and images from the incident, we can tell that the supposed armed police intervention happened later than the officially stated time. This enabled that action to take place after roads had been officially closed down – but the great trick was that once there was supposed official police reaction, it meant that the authorities really did have carte-blanche to control traffic to best facilitate the ongoing theatre without raising any suspicion. Thirdly, we’ll see how the news was spread to a wider audience in a controlled fashion so that confirmed news stories started appearing in mainstream media long after the end of the operation so that people in the area were not generally alerted to what was going on. Most importantly, we’ll look into how the operation was staged on a wider scale – like how it was arranged so that the Tigra could be on the same stretch of the road as Rigby at the same time – and how it was executed in its details – like how Rigby was seen to be hit by the Tigra.