Monday, January 5, 2009

Fake War on Terror, more on 7/7 & 9/11 and "Common Purpose" in UK

Re: The Fake War on Terror, New Information About 9/11 & &/& and Common Purpose in UK

Dear Chief Constable,
It is now almost 3 years since I completed a nationwide police force mailing about important issues relating to the perceived threat of terrorism. Both my mailings to you have been motivated by the knowledge that the official stories of events on September 11, 2001 and the events of July 7, 2005 are bogus – in ways only a few people seem willing to examine in any detail.
Since 2006 I have been involved in ongoing research and campaigning and I have even had ancillary involvement in US-based legal action relating to the 9/11 cover up. During the same period, we have seen an increasing number of laws relating to terrorism either created or amended and "hardened". This has essentially resulted in the removal of habeas corpus and a general erosion of certain civil liberties. The consequences for our freedom are already far greater than any small illusory group of Muslim fundamentalists could ever have created. Thankfully, there are an increasing number of people who are beginning to wonder just what is going on in the world – and they are beginning to look at the "bigger picture".
Another part of this picture seems to have been exposed during a recent incident in Liverpool and it is primarily this that has triggered my wish to write to all UK Police Chief Constables again. This incident took place on Church Street in Liverpool on the 11th of October 2008. I have already written to the police Chief Constable of Merseyside police to express my dismay at learning of events of 11th October on Church Street in Liverpool city centre. The main instigating officer involved was P.C Wilson – he and others seized leaflets and property of a peaceful group of people. (Mr Howe was kind enough to respond and advise me the he had asked another Officer to look into the incident and write back to me, but that Officer has not yet responded to me).
I was most surprised that so many officers were suddenly able to show a complete disregard for the law and seize property and suppress freedom of expression. There seem to be some problems in the training of those officers – in that they did not know that they were breaking the law – how is this possible? Was it Merseyside Police's policy to just break the law for "something to do"? What I mean is, we can clearly see from the video record (google it) that it was a completely peaceful situation – basically people walking around, just talking, discussing "the state of the world" and officers casually walk in and seize property from legal and pre-authorised street stalls! One has to wonder if these officers have attended Common Purpose training courses (yes, some of us know all about this – see below!) It does seem like this sort of policing policy could have been dictated by Common Purpose Graduates rather than according to laws already voted on by elected representatives.
Now, you must at some point realise that all this nonsense about terrorism (which is likely what the Merseyside police action was somehow, some way – vaguely, probably, potentially related to) is soon going to be fully exposed. For example, we have a video clip of Sir Ian Blair saying "If London could survive the Blitz, it can survive four miserable bombers like this.... I'm not saying there are four bombers.... four miserable events like this." And there is much other incriminating evidence that shows the 7/7 bombings were not the work of mythical "home grown" Muslim fundamentalists. The train that the suicide bombers were supposed to have caught was cancelled, Bruce Lait described how he saw no one with a rucksack – nor did he see a bag where the bomb was supposed to have been. Peter Power of Visor Consultants stated that he was running a simulation of bombs going off at the exact same stations where the actual events took place – at the exact same time. I could go on.
At some point your policies for matters relating to supposed terrorism will need to be scrapped (as they are based on a scam). It is often said that terrorists attack because "they hate our freedoms". Judging by what happened on 11th Oct, some members of Merseyside Police seem to dislike certain freedoms, even if they don't "hate them". Would you be concerned about this if a similar incident or situation arose in your own force area?
I have included a couple of leaflets here for you I suggest you study and research the topics that they cover. You will then realise "you've been had" and someone is lying to you – and to the rest of us. Look at what is really going on in the world – if you want a future, that is. As a suggestion, contact me for more leaflets and booklets to use on a new training course for your officers (or just distribute them to all stations). It will be far cheaper and far more important and valuable than any Common Purpose training – of that I can assure you. Feel free to copy the leaflets, which I have posted on the Web for easy download ( For the moment, I want to discuss the link to Common Purpose – Cressida Dick, the senior officer described as the "decision maker" on the day that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed, is a Common Purpose graduate.
According to Wikipedia, "Common Purpose UK is an influential educational charity delivering a range of leadership training programmes to decision-makers drawn from all sectors of society." Common purpose's own website makes it less clear whether it is a charity, a trust or a company. One somewhat troubling statement found on their "about" page is:
"Common Purpose programmes produce people who lead beyond their authority and can produce change beyond their direct circle of control."
Does this sound like they are encouraging people to trample over the authority of others? It sounds to me like something akin to megalomania. Indeed, Brian Gerrish has documented a number of examples of Common Purpose Graduates behaving in a way which could be described as being like megalomania. A response to an enquiry about Cumbria County Council's use of Common Purpose training contained this:
The information is specific to the courses held by Common Purpose. It details the content and structure of the training provided by Common Purpose. If this information were disclosed to competitors, this could allow others to emulate their programme style, undermining its ability to provide unique leadership training. It would therefore be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of Common Purpose.
(This was in response to an FOI request about how Common Purpose training was being used). Why does a charity have commercial interest? Are charities now in competition with one another? Surely CP's aims are purely altruistic if they are a charity? I trust that your Force will consider carefully the evidence presented by Brian Gerrish and others as to what the real agenda behind Common Purpose is – and thereby review its policy regarding the use of their "training" programmes.
In relation to 9/11, since January 2006, I have learned a great deal about what happened. I would contend that this knowledge is important to our very survival, impinging as it does on political, technological and even environmental matters.
In early 2006, I had already calculated the time of freefall for an object dropped from the top of the WTC towers and found that the towers came down in almost that same time – about 9 or 10 seconds. Back in 2006, I had assumed that explosives were responsible for the destruction of the towers. By the end of 2006, however, I had begun to see that explosives could not explain the complete powderisation of most of the steel (which gave the towers their immense strength - a total of over 250 columns).

In 2007, I got to know former Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Dr Judy Wood, and became involved in her attempts to sue NIST's contractors for fraud. NIST (The National Institute for Standards in Technology) were tasked with producing 1000's of pages of reports to explain the "collapse" of the WTC towers. They used external contractors. It turns out that at least 3 of these contractors are involved in the development of Directed Energy Weapons technology (SAIC, ARA and Boeing). Funnily enough, Dr Wood, in preparing her case against the contractors, had already come to the conclusion that a Directed Energy Weapon of some unknown type had been used to destroy most of the WTC complex. All her legal documents are posted online for anyone to review.

Later, Dr Wood's research uncovered the presence of Hurricane Erin – a Category 5 storm, which was closest to NYC at about 8am on 9/11 – this isnot a coincidence. All this information was sent to the BBC and all UK media outlets. Without exception, they have remained silent on the legal case and on Hurricane Erin.

In January, I advised Dr. Wood not to agree to an interview with BBC producer Mike Rudin who asked her to have a "quick chat" in relation to the documentary he produced called The Third Tower which was aired on the BBC earlier this year and was repeated more recently. I asked Mike Rudin to make sure Radio 2 News Bulletins included news the NIST's contractors had been sued for fraud by Dr. Wood. He said he was not able to do this. When I said to him that the BBC was promoting a fake war on terror and asked him if he could produce any evidence that it was genuine, he was either unwilling or unable to do so – he did not even argue that the War on Terror was genuine. (Adam Curtis' important documentary series, thePower of Nightmares provides plenty of evidence that any threat from the mythical Al Qaida "sleeper cells" is either grossly exaggerated or entirely fabricated.)

As a summary, I will say that there are quite a few people have become aware of the information laid out here before you. This number is not decreasing. At some point, you will need to deal with the very fundamental issues set out here – and you will either do it by serving the people above you or by serving the people below you. Therefore, in the final analysis, I hope you will ask yourself who are you (and your officers) serving? I hope you can answer that question comfortably enough to sleep at night.
Yours Most Sincerely,
Andrew Johnson

No comments: