7/7 Whistleblower Fired For Exposing False Flag | 22Nov2012 12:54:50
Anyway we’re going to turn now to a special whistleblower report From the 7/7 bombings our reporter Patrick Henningsen got this Exclusive interview, very interesting topic. We will go to now come back with more news. But stay tuned, it’s a big program tonight. This is the info wars nightly news
The terror event that changed the course of European domestic security policy
A devastating attack which hit underground trains and buses It was both bold and brilliant in its execution the official narrative is that of four radical British Muslims, who’s perfectly planned and runned operation claimed the lives of some fifty two innocent victims.
In 2010, while compiling an annual strategic threat assessment South Yorkshire Police’s principal Intelligence analyst, Tony Farrell, learned that the government narrative of Islamic extremists carrying out the attacks of both 9/11 and 7/7 was a lie perpetrated by the mainstream media code of silence and complicity government officials a stance which ultimately led to his dismissal.
Infowars.com had a chance to speak with Mr. Farrell at a recent Employment tribunal appeal hearing in London Where he sheds additional light on his pending case:
My name’s Tony Farrell. I work for South Yorkshire… Used to work for South Yorkshire Police as the principal intelligence analyst; worked for them for seventeen years. And in September 2010, following a stance in July 2010, on the fifth anniversary of the London bombings I made a stance that led to my dismissal.
My stance was when it was to do with terror a strategic threat assessment, which incorporated amongst other things the threat of counter-terrorism, in the light of the realization that the 9/11 and the 7/7 were not, as the government narratives would have us believe, I no longer was able to say that the threat was coming from Islamic extremism as the government rhetoric was saying at that point, and my managers in South Yorkshire Police wanted me to say.
I thought that would be discriminating against the Muslim communities in South Yorkshire and further afield. And I went to my boss, alerted him to the fact that there is all sorts of information and available in open source , including the work of Alex Jones that expose this at the time – that was influential indeed – and they clamped down on me, refused to contemplate the notion that the threat could be anything other than Islamic extremism, saying ‘you and I, Tony, are just our government’s foot soldiers’; you’ll never get the government to tell the truth.
So, they were not saying “You’re wrong Tony”, they were saying, “go along with the lie and say that the threat is from Islamic terrorism.”
And they tried to get me out to occupational health. Now, for the day, I went along with it. But on the eight of July, I went in to work and that was the day of the assignment and the realization that only happened about a week or two before this. I’d given them the red alert, they ignored it, they were cornering me. Now I felt as though now I had to lie and say that the threat was something… That the analysis pointed towards was different. I couldn´t lie in that situation; the professional standards for honesty and integrity, etc.
So at that point, I… On the morning of the eight of July, I made an absurd strategic assessment matrix. I was cornered into lying and I threw this strategic threat assessment to the boss, saying 9/11 truth, 7/7 truth, and other aspects of criminality That South Yorkshire police might be interested in I just put as irrelevant. And scored ill. It was ludicrous, but it was to reflect the absurdity of the situation that would put me into a corner and cornered me into lying. And lying against the Muslim population in the United Kingdom. Whereas in the light of the government’s concept strategy, the government counter-terrorism strategy, Rich Picture, the police forces on England and Whales, And the communities we’re being encouraged to collect intelligence on Muslims.
Targeting mosques, universities. Now, that’s all well and good, if there was a threat there; But in the light of 9/11 and 7/7, and other miscarriages of justice that I was alert to, at that point, I thought ‘without proves, I can’t say that’. That is really being discriminatory to my Muslim brothers and sisters. And the threat, almost certainly, was coming from within. In whatever capacity. Now, I didn’t know clearly how it had been perpetrated, which agents of the State. But What I did know for certain, was that the government now said the 9/11 Commission Report and home office anonymous… Document, official document was just a pack of lies.
No other word for it, it is just ludicrous. So, in the light of that, I made a stance. Knowing full well that it’s likely to end in tears, It’s likely to end in dismissal. But my conscience said ‘take it, Tony, in rather than prostitute yourself’. So they wanted to solve and treat me as if I was insane. So they tried to cut me off to occupational health. First I resisted. But I did go to occupational health and came back with a clean bill of health. I then went to a dismissal reunion in September and I challenged them to do something about this. And let me give the strategic assessment fully to solve everything up, to say that I was more than justified in doing what I did.
They didn’t want to know and said: ‘your beliefs may well be correct, you have exemplary record of the South Yorkshire Police, excellent work – but it’s incompatible with where we are in the moment’. So ‘it’s a very sad occasion, we’re sacking you’. By the way, you can appeal. I did appeal to the police authority who just rubber stamped the deal and said ‘Tony Farrell’s views, this was a counsellor… Tony Farrell’s views are outlandish’. Nobody investigated it; outlandish.
So then it went into employment… A more formal footing, employment tribunal. I sought my legal advice and they said: ‘best to argue on a discrimination, based on your philosophical religious beliefs – which is an unusual thing to do. Unfortunately, for me, I went with it. Because I had said, ‘if you ask what a threat is, It´s a satanic New World Order. But I would never had said that had I not disbelieved 9/11 and 7/7.
‘Ah, that’s religious/philosophical!’, to some degree. So, I was stirred down that route and we had the Pre-hearing, in the tribunal, to discuss whether that belief was a philosophical belief , because if it was, I would have been protected. But the judge, in a way correctly, diagnosed…
‘No, no, that wasn´t the cause of the blockage, was the fact that I disbelieved 9/11 and disbelieved 7/7, based on empirical data. Not in the philosophical belief. So, it was dismissed on those grounds. It left on non fair dismissal. Could they have me deployed? It wasn’t reasonable for them to sack me. And in September… Three days in September 2011, with Lionel Crane, represented me as a lay representative and ruled out not all resources to have legal representation…
I lost on fair dismissal hearing, as well. Now, we have a cause for appeal, we did appeal and the judge dismissed it with no reasonable prospects of success. But there is a rule, in the employment appeal tribunal, Which we’ve taken advantage of to get us to court today. So sat ex parte, I on my own, in front of the judge – South Yorkshire police not present… The argument was really to say I was making… It wasn’t a religious belief, it was a public interest disclosure act. It was a protected disclosure. I, as the intelligence analyst, have been testing the analysis and they shouldn´t have sacked me just because they didn’t like the analysis.
I was speaking truth to power. Not the truth They wanted me to hear, they’re enabling the one truth. But what I consider, as the analyst, been testing that assessment, as the truth. To the best of my knowledge. So I put an inference on that. I didn’t say it was dead certain. I said ‘the inference being that it was almost certainly an inside job, 95% in the UK, 99% in America. With the 9/11. So I also said that the matrix system, of flat assessment – and my first degree is Statistics – was a ludicrous attempt by the government, national police improvement agency, to almost mind control and thumb down thinking in intelligence, in criminal analysis process thinking, on looking at threat.
Why would they do that? Well, the construct they have within the matrix was artificial and deliberately heightened the fear coming from Islamic extremism. And the terror and attack. So JTAC, Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre always put out the threat levels as almost eminent, high or severe. Now, in the crew scoring system, that had to be transferred locally, irrespective of what intelligence you have locally… And the harm potentially that terrorist can do, how far would the imagination stretch?
It could be anything. So the consequence, the harm, the probability, all meant that the resources would be that the resources would be allocated to… Or accounted resources in a special branch And within MI5. But without the intelligence evidences to back it up. And in the light of 7/7, not squiring with the official accounts, I felt I had to make a stance on the strategic threat assessment.
It was totally ludicrous, I’ve always thought that anyway. But in the light of that, I thought: ‘enough, no more’.
I had to make a stance, on the strategic threat. Now, that was why I was in the court today, Arguing that it wasn’t really a philosophical Religious belief, we’ve agreed with that. There’s no point of issue with the police, There´s no facts that we differ on, (?) we are saying that, as an analyst, I was making a protected disclosure. I was doing my job, I had the duty of care, to present the truth.
Now, they didn´t have to accept the truth, But just because they didn’t like the analysis on the threat, did they… Was it reasonable for them to dismiss me?
Now, if you’re suppressing strategic analysis In that way… Because an intelligence analysis is an evolving process whereby you give your intelligence and your intelligence and your intelligence officer opposite may not agree with you, but you start to converge to get to the truth. A new information comes to light and hopefully, you converge on that truth, so in doing my job as an intelligence analyst, I was sacked for telling what my analysis was.
I will stand by that analysis exactly now eighteen months down the line, nothing has come to light that remotely challenges the fact that it was right. You know, I (?) in what I did. So I’m pleased in what I’ve done, out of duty of care, I followed through with my consciousness and sadly I ended up getting dismissed and on the verge of bankruptcy, but… And the reason why I am doing this is not for the compensation; I believe it’s on the public interest for this case to keep on going. Now, the judge today has dismissed it. The appeal, the cause of appeal tribunal said ‘No, the South Yorkshire Police had reasonable… they behaved reasonably in dismissing me and, at the point of law, we can’t really challenge that.
However, he has left… He hasn’t slammed the door down. Not completely. Therefore, there is a cause of appeal, so now it’s getting into that quite high
area now, whereby on new public interest disclosure, because I wasn´t legally represented at room for hearing, right, we never cited the public interest
disclosure act. The UK representative in September wasn’t a trained lawyer.
But to all intents and purposes, he was arguing that I was making a protective disclosure And I shouldn’t be dismissed. Especially when I’m the analyst assessing the threat. If analysis is the very product, strategic defence analysis that should keep chief constables awake at night… And the fact that I was giving unpalatable news… I was only doing my job; why should you be sacked?
Specially, this… You know, every evidence that was presented to this day, on 7/7 analysis, and on all the people who have written widely on 9/11… It’s not as if I’m an alone nut. There is serious academic, weighty people now… Are you bound to an oath when you take the job? I signed up official secrets act…
Are you bound to an oath to protect the public interest? Yeah. Absolutely, yeah. You’re a public servant and you have a duty of care and that’s this duty of care that is really compelling to speak truthfully on this matter. It wasn’t a trivial issue that could be… that you could side step around. I did my job as the principal intelligence analyst, And I have no regrets, no matter what happens.
We have, of course, other sites. The high court. But what I need is to expose this so that… We have, We can start to demonstrate the quality of harms. In other words, it’s time now the public woke up to this, because it’s dangerous if we don’t. And if I can get that public support behind me I mean I’m not about to support the truth movement, But it’s not as high profile as it needs to be by time to get to high court. But interestingly, the judge has left it open So it’s not inconceivable that the analysis that is available, that completely discredits 9/11
and 7/7, could be actually tested in a court.
And that’s all we can hope for. Whether we will ever get there, is another matter. But I’m committed to keep on trying until I drop or win, irrespective of the consequences. Is that important from the public interest perspective. And I was fortunate enough to land on last week a very interesting character, accuse Michael Simpson, who has appeared on the Alex Jones Show, on an interview, and his secondary discipline, besides being a barrister that is, a strategic intelligence analyst at the highest levels.
So he has contacts in America, in the CIA and in the British intelligence, in MI5 and MI6, but he himself is saying there is something radically wrong here. Now, his views don’t exactly square with my views, but there’s enough commonality and his respect for the intelligence analysis function and his appreciation of it – I’m told – for him to portray the reports of that function in front of judge. Because in a way, that’s what he is, an intelligence analyst.
So it’s very helpful for him to come at the eleventh hour, because up until the last week, I was doing this myself and I would have stood no chance, a release that there was a very strong, healthy, high quality debate on the legal side, this morning. Public record? And it’s on the public record.
So there you have it, Tony Farrell, a UK police analyst, intelligence analyst, blowing the whistle but then being driven out of the agency, of course nothing is going on there, I’m sure… Anyway, we have the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in just a couple of weeks here In, of course, July and more reason ever to shine a spotlight on that and all the false flags; the 9/11, the Madrid bombing, the list is really pretty infinite all having to do supposedly with Al Qaeda, But then we’re backing Al Qaeda in the Middle East.
That´s heating up once again. Not only did we put up the Al Qaeda again as the Libyan rebels to topple Khadafy but now they’re Helping to topple Assad which is heating up to the state of war. In fact, Assad has now declared, himself, Syria to be in a state of war, making it that much easier to the west to go full hot, on what has been called a covert war up to now, all part of the path to Persia and the possible lowering of Russia China and other entities to a wider World War III, or what you would call it. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.
But of course, the Syrian rebels stormed the State media, killed seven people and have In fact taken over that television station. Important, of course, to the bolstering of Assad regime, also Iconic to the surge of the rebels. But again, the rebels are Al Qaeda backed western forces. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State and all the other United Nations entities have been backing the Syrian national transition council. Basma Kodmani was at the Bilderberg meeting this year So it’s very clear that the transition council is not Only tied to Al Qaeda, but the entirely western bag. They’re just trying to get Assad out of the way, So that they can get that western foothold in there.
But it’s complicated, with our connections To Russia and China and the tangled we weaved… But we’ve got Condoleezza Rice back on the news, they say she’s a potential Vice-President candidate for Romney. But either way, she loves this going hard with Syria, she wants us to back the rebels, because, well, Russia is funding Assad.
And while I’m sure that’s true, we don’t need to further strengthen the rebel force we’ve Already backs. It’s already been CIA trained, Mossad trained, British MI6 trained, all of it. We put them in there. It’s a whole geostrategic game and it’s the perfect place to point out Why the left and right really have no distinct difference in our currently occupied USA, because they both want war in the Middle East. In many ways, Obama’s regime has been more effective in toppling domino pieces without the larger fallout.
The Iraq war still going on. It’s a big controversy, lots of protesters. Lybia thing was quick. Real quick. The Middle eastern uprising the Arab Spring, supposedly this democratic movement. But look what we have a year later. We have Egypt runned by the Muslim Brotherhood. All those areas getting more and more radicalized, and the West just loves it. They want a clash of civilizations. That’s what these Neo-Cons and these people and the Obama Left, and the CFR… Everything.
They’re part of this larger group. They all want a larger clash of civilizations.
Just look into it. Huntington, I think, has the book