There is a school of thought that says that one shouldn’t try too hard to lay out the evidence for a false flag attack because, largely, the public won’t even try to look at the data. It is true, and the author agrees with the sentiment. However, when one is in a war, and one does not analyse how the opponent fights the war, then a defeat is certain. In the end, whenever there is a state crime in the form of a terror event (ascribed to a scapegoated section of society for the purposes of building consensus for subsequent acts that the public wouldn’t normally tolerate), it needs to be examined for the intelligence that it imparts.
It is quite clear to the author that the Manchester Arena bombing was a state crime because:
1) the British Intelligence and security agencies (the British Government) were aware of a community of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group terrorists living in Manchester, and allowed these people to swan in and out of the country to and from war zones (where they would be an asset to the British Government in activity that assisted Britain in its stated geopolitical goals). Other evidence strongly points to the British Government being complicit in this activity – namely that the LIFG have a documented history of military alliance with the British Government as a proxy in the overthrow of Gaddafi, and other activity prior to the so-called “Libyan Civil War” (assassination attempts and other terrorism), and also ongoing efforts in Syria to overthrow Assad.
The bomber, Salman Abedi, is the son of a long-time LIFG member, who fought against the Gaddafi government in a unit called the “Manchester fighters”. This name comes from an account by a fellow combatant in an interview obtained by the Guardian (the corporate-media always have access to terrorists when the security services never seem to be able to find them) who also said
Three-quarters of the fighters at the beginning of the revolution [“Libyan Civil War”] were from Manchester – the rest came from London, Sheffield, China and Japan. From everywhere.
(Interestingly, Abdel Hakim Belhadj, the infamous LIFG commander, was supposedly living in China in 2004 – recruiting?). It could not be clearer from this testimony that what happened in Libya in 2011 was something that was mostly organised from outside the country. But readers of this website would have already been aware of that.
And so, given that it is emerging that the explosive device was made by a professional bombmaker from that LIFG Manchester enclave, and that the British Government has historically been in cahoots with the LIFG, but more credibly for the purpose of making an accusation, has permitted the LIFG to reside in Manchester unmolested, the British Government is ultimately responsible for the Manchester Arena bombing through negligence.
2) With point number 1 establishing the basic fact of culpability as it could be presented to a naïve public, on another level there are problems in the narrative that indicate the bombing was an event of which Government had foreknowledge.
In the first article on this subject (links to all previous articles at the foot of the page), the author discussed something that is very noticeable about an event like Manchester, and how there is a disconnect between what the Government’s liason with the public communicates, and what happens on the ground – as though there is a script – and if things go slightly differently in the field, the public will still, in an official narrative, receive the script.
Since then the author has discovered an article by Paul Craig Roberts: “Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations”. This is an extract:
Years ago James Jesus Angleton [chief of CIA Counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975] left me with the impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been prepared in advance.
So let’s modify the idea previously stated. There’s not one script, but many to choose from – and so let’s suppose that if anything goes slightly awry in the field, then the script that best fits is picked. The important thing is, there may be some wriggle room at first, but as soon as a script is fixed on, any evidence that occurs thereafter to counter it is completely ignored. Now, Roberts argues that the US intervention with the leaking of intelligence from the scene was an attempt to steer which script to go with – and the author agrees with this.
But this was a problem for the British Government, hence why it was so very angry at the US meddling. The British Government were going to establish a different storyline – and we can see that they were by the early reporting.
It is arguable that British Government were fixing to blame the Manchester Arena bombing on a lone wolf spontaneous jihadi character, using a homemade bomb, with links to ISIS by which he was radicalised. This is certainly suggested by the ludicrous booklet presented to photographers outside the home of Abedi, as discussed in the previous article at FBEL on this subject, which implied that the suspect was teaching himself about chemicals needed to make a bomb. And this narrative of a lone bomber would fit in with attacks, and attempted attacks that immediately preceded Manchester – namely the Westminster incidents. As it happens, the British Government is still pushing the idea that the bomber has links with ISIS when the more substantial relationship is with the LIFG, and events in Libya – and this would indicate that the Government’s intention is to exploit the bombing to escalate against Assad.
The story of how the US intervention sealed the course of the narrative is in the “real-time”, completely out in the open, changing of some of the elements of the narrative – changes that were very awkward and revelatory in terms of process. The first thing to notice was the tentativeness with which the British Government approached the issue of identifying the bomber. As discussed previously in these pages, it appears the US intervention forced the Government’s hands when American news not only announced the bombers identity, but also stated that it was known because of a banking card fond on his body. So, the US intervention steered the narrative right from a crucial moment at the start with the identification of the culprit.
And then we saw some details about the incident, that corporate-media had been attempting to institute as facts, disappear down the “memory hole”. The first example of this is the appearance of the bomber. There was an initial a report in various corporate-media that a mother collecting her daughter had “seen the bomber”. He was wearing a bright red top. The updated information about the appearance of the bomber is that he was wearing dark clothes:
The Arndale pictures show a man dressed in dark clothing, wearing a hoodie and baseball cap and distinctive white trainers.
It is believed Abedi was wearing similar clothes at the time of his attack, which took place at the end of an Ariana Grande pop concert at Manchester Arena.
Just in case the reader didn’t follow that – police released a number of CCTV images of Abedi (or someone purported to be him) as he visited the Arndale Centre a few days prior to the attack, and the way he is dressed in these images is supposed to resemble his attire on the day of the bombing. Crucially, these CCTV images are supposed to show that he bought a rucksack – the one used in the bombing, no less.
This brings us to a second alteration in the story (and please see the previous articles for the links to the source material) which is how the transporting receptacle for the bomb was, in the final analysis, a rucksack, and not a suitcase – as had been reported in all seriousness. Now, this stuff is very important to consider. It was said that the Times had seen CCTV footage that showed Abedi placing a suitcase down at the scene. After that we had the US intervention, and one of the pieces of information leaked was a picture of a raggedy piece of Karimor rucksack. This image was one of many “crime scene photographs… leaked to the New York Times after being shared with US intelligence, prompting a furious response among ministers” (source). Of course the British Government would be furious because now its supposed newspaper of record, its flagship sleeve for an intelligence arm into controlling the knowledge of current affairs and its received perception, the Times, is completely discredited – if only people would notice. This incident means that we cannot trust government when it says it has CCTV of a terror incident, but won’t show it. This incident forever after means that any unseen CCTV that is claimed as evidence for a terror incident probably doesn’t contain what government says it does, or it doesn’t exist.
Furthermore, we should notice that this CCTV information appeared after the revelation of the rucksack. And so what we can suggest has happened is that the US intervention has produced a storyline of bomber goes rucksack shopping. The purpose of this would be to give the public a hook and eye to link the suspect with the incident (and how many times have we seen this tactic?). But look at the figure in the photos. Is there any way that a member of the public could tell that this was Salman Abedi? And notice that there are no timestamps. These images could have been produced after the event – and more importantly, after the US had produced the intruding intelligence.
Finally, the American intelligence intervention provided evidence by which we could support the supposition made by the author in the previous articles: to wit, we shouldn’t write off the idea of Salman Abedi not even being on site when the bomb went off. Consider the following:
Photographs of bomb remnants found at the Manchester Arena show a trigger switch with a tiny circuit board soldered into the end, which experts say could point to a remote-control or timer built into the bomb to ensure an accomplice could detonate it if Abedi lost his nerve.
So, the bomb had remote-detonation capability, meaning that it only needed to be delivered to the location, and it didn’t need someone physically interacting with it to cause it to explode.
Now, consider this (source as above link):
Abedi’s upper torso was found some distance away from where the bomb went off, suggesting it was thrown forwards when the bomb went off on his back. A gap in the circle of bodies around him suggests his body shielded those directly in front of him from the worst of the blast.
An image that accompanies this text is shown below:
Notice that it has Abedi being flung through the doors that separate the exit area from the concourse. There are pictures of these doors in the first article on this subject. Please have a look, and see if you think they would open if hit by a flying torso, or – if they were being held open by people coming through them – would they give enough room for a flying torso to get through the gaps?
Essentially, what this graphic is saying is that the body of the bomber isn’t in the immediate crime scene. It has been mentioned before, but it becomes very important to know if people can access the exit zone without having a ticket to enter the concert.
What we’ve seen with this event is the same as we have seen with others that are demonstrably not what the authorities say they are. But the really important thing about this event is that, with the intervention of the US intelligence leak, we got to see the process. We saw a script being switched – which brings us to the overall point that we’ve been labouring towards. If there is script switching, then that in itself points to Government (meaning pertinent components of it) having prior knowledge of the attack. In fact, it basically means that Government is embroiled with activity related to the crime – or in other words, is directly involved in it.