3 Options For Woolwich 'Beheading'; Crisis Actors Re-evaluated

WARNING! VERY GRAPHIC AND UPSETTING IMAGES CONTAINED. NSFW.

I have spent the past few days observing the Woolwich attack incident and collating the limited evidence that has been presented to the public. During the course of this I was saddened, shocked and appalled to see the level of bitter, hateful vitriol being flung back and forth on social media, forums and youtube comments. I am not talking about the cretinous racists and bigots who have seized on this opportunity to peddle their simplistic rhetoric against Muslims and black people for fear of “Muslamic ray guns” and the imposition of “Sharon’s law”, rather I am talking about the levels of dissent within the ranks of critical analysts and conspiracy theorists.

            Concerning Woolwich, two factions seem to have emerged; those who believe the event took place and a young man was murdered and those who believe the entire incident was staged using paid actors. I have seen comments such as “You are blind if you can’t see this… I doubt all the rest of your research” and “If you believe that, you are obviously an asset of the intelligence agencies” or “You are a shill for suggesting this” - none of which I agree with. My initial thought was: is somebody trying to stir things up and divide and conquer? Why all this anger?

            I am of the opinion that we should all be sensible enough to examine evidence and look at other theories in a calm, rational way. You may not agree on certain aspects but this does not mean that person with a contrary opinion is automatically a stooge or an agent of the NWO. Is this attitude not throwing the baby out with the bath water, putting all your eggs in one basket, cutting off your nose to spite your face and numerous other clichés?

            I want to say from the outset that my intention here is not to debunk, disavow, denigrate or disprove any particular theory; I merely want to look at the evidence presented to see if it is as comprehensive as is being stated by some. I feel that all avenues of enquiry presented have merit but want to test the strength of the evidence.

            I also would like to point out that I am aware of the existence of crisis actors (Crisisactors.org) and understand that they are frequently used by military, police, medical staff, corporate entities and education facilities to provide realistic (but fake) examples of major incidents including traffic accidents, terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc to provide people with a vivid dress rehearsal in case of a future real event. Knowing that these actors do exist, do we see anything that proves their use in the Woolwich incident?

 

There are three competing theories that provide an explanation for the events that took place in Woolwich.

 

Option one - Mainstream: The incident is exactly as the media states. Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, extremist Muslims radicalised organically, on their own merit (or possibly as part of a cell containing four to five terrorists) followed soldier Lee Rigby and seized an opportunity to murder him in the street. This was done to draw attention to the plight of Muslims worldwide and to frighten the public into an understanding that their government cannot protect them in line with the political intentions of Al –Qaeda.

 

Though I would point out that if this is true, these people no more speak for or represent Islam than the Yorkshire Ripper (God’s messenger) represents Christianity.

 

Option two - False Flag: The men involved are MI5 or MI6 assets acting under orders or alternatively, they have been purposefully radicalised by the intelligence agencies and allowed/programmed to commit crimes in order to provide a justification for the continued war on terror and to highlight the need for greater security and the reduction of civil liberties (all in the name of protecting the public).

 

Option three - Hoax: The incident was a hoax. All those involved are actors and the incident has been staged like an elaborate piece of street theatre. No one died and all parties seen on the screen were involved somehow. Some have claimed that the families of those involved, the victim and the police and paramedics attending are also actors. This scenario was shown in the Hollywood film Wag the Dog, in which a fake war was created to garner favour for the American President.

 

            Option one seems increasingly unlikely as at least one of the suspects appears to have connections to MI5. These connections have been touted in the mainstream and alternative media and have also come from personal statements made by the suspects’ family and friends. It has also been officially raised by the government of Kenya who had previously arrested Michael Adebolajo for terrorism and sentenced him to death, even informing his family that he was to be executed. It seems that the young man was sent to Somalia to fight on behalf of MI5 and had previously been involved in conflicts in Nigeria, acting as a proxy army for British interests abroad.
 

            When arrested in Kenya, the British authorities secured his deportation and allowed him home with no charge hanging over him. This is strange considering teenagers have been imprisoned for ‘illegal’ tweets or sent to Guantanamo for owning a so-called terrorist manual. This gentleman was caught in the act, brought back to England and then later allowed to return to Kenya, the country in which he committed his crimes.  As information comes out that MI5 were aware of his activities and monitoring him for years it seems clear that at the very least one of these terrorists is actually an intelligence agency asset.
 

 

            This may seem strange to some but, sadly, intelligence agencies have a habit of financing, creating or infiltrating extremist groups worldwide in order to utilise them for their own ends. Terrorism justifies the existence of the protection agencies, allows an excuse for encroaching (protective) laws and provides an enemy, an ‘other’ that can be blamed for society’s ills. It also keeps the population in a perpetual state of fear and therefore unable to critically analyse circumstances. Extremists are also used in proxy wars such as Libya and currently Syria to overthrow regimes that are believed to be unfavourable.

 

            Osama Bin Laden (codename Tim Osman) is provably an asset of the CIA. It has been admitted in both the UK and American media that Rashid Aswat (the architect of the 7/7 bombing) is an asset of MI6. Abu Qatada, the infamous hate preacher, is an asset of MI5. Anjem Choudary, another hate preacher, is also an asset of MI6 and I strongly believe that Abu Hamza is also connected to British intelligence.

 

 

Anjem Choudary (MI6) is pictured with Michael Adebolajo (suspected MI5) and is accused of being responsible for his radicalisation.

 

 

Michael Adebowle is reportedly the son of a Nigerian diplomat. This is remarkably similar to the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (escorted on to the plane by the FBI with no ticket or passport, shortly before immolating his own testicles) who is also the son of a diplomat. Anders Brevik, who killed numerous people in the Oslo massacre, is another infamous son of a diplomat.

 

            Michael Adebowle was previously held for a time in Feltham Young Offenders institute, the same institution that fabled shoe bomber Richard Reid was interned at. The suggestion has been made that this would be an excellent opportunity to attempt MK ULTRA style, trauma-based mind control on the men. Again, this may seem strange, but a small amount of research into the subject will show that trauma-based or hypnotic control of a person’s thoughts and actions has been a practised reality since the 1950’s. Prisons and psychological hospitals are often used in these experiments.

 

 

Concerns about a change in behaviour were made by a friend of the other suspect, Michael Adebolajo, too.
 

“In his Newsnight interview, Abu Nusaybah said he thought "a change" had taken place in his friend after a trip to Kenya last year.

 

He said Mr Adebolajo had told him he travelled there "to study", but instead, was part of a group rounded up by "Kenyan troops" and interrogated in a prison cell.

 

During his detention he said he was "beaten quite badly", Abu Nusaybah said, and in his opinion, his friend had also been subjected to sexual abuse, although he was too "ashamed" to say exactly what happened.” www.bbc.co.uk/news/

 

This could also be indicative of the techniques used to obtain mind control of a subject. Though there is no proof of this, it could explain the bizarre calmness of the attackers whilst waiting for the armed response unit to arrive. The Police arrived after three minutes but had to wait for the armed response for a further seventeen minutes, during which time the killers spoke to members of the public who went to aid Lee Rigby and also demanded that they be filmed by passers by. The armed response was required as one suspect had a revolver – which explains why no one tackled them.

 

            So finally, let us examine option three, the concept that actors were used.
 

            This was originally raised by those who saw the two, apparently contradictory, television shots of the terrorist explaining his actions to a member of the public who was recording him on a camera phone. These two pieces of footage have become known as the news footage and the raw footage. The claim is that the news footage is unnaturally vivid, the blood on his hands is far too red and therefore it must have been digitally added after the incident. To support this theory, it is claimed the raw footage shows no blood on his hands as he makes the same statement.

 

 

 

            To counter this argument, people have stated that the blood is visible on the man’s hands, however, it is for some reason coloured orange. So what has happened? Either the raw footage has been manipulated (the colour drawn out to muddy the waters), the news footage has been deliberately altered by digital effects to add fake blood or that the raw footage was simply recorded on a camera of poor quality, combined with sun saturation, to make the image looked washed out.
 

            In my opinion, the blood can be seen on the hands in the raw footage, though the hue is orange. This shade perfectly matches the red route road markings on the floor, which also appear orange despite their normal colour being red. Also, are we to believe that orange is the natural colour for the palms of a black man? Comparing one video to the other may be a slightly moot point as in theory, either could have been manipulated.

 

            However, in the raw footage, when paused, you can clearly see a liquid smeared on the blades of the weapons in several frames.
 

 

 

 

 

What may provide an explanation is that when the footage was received by the television channels, they processed it in order to give the most aesthetically pleasing and dramatic image. The raw footage was too washed out and so a digital contrast filter was used to highlight the colour and give it a more impressive shade. This would explain the burgundy blood which seems to match the hue of the London bus in the background- as it is also too dark.
 

This leads me to believe that the blood is there and visible in both sets of footage.

 

            I have seen arguments that state the red from the bloodied hands magically jumps onto the tree in the background, though this can be easily explained by corruption of files during transfer of information (from a low-quality mobile phone clip to a high-definition piece of television footage) that causes digital interference.

 

 

It has also been argued that there is a distinct lack of blood at the scene. The overhead photo of the crashed car (apparently used by the assailants) shows a distinct line of blood that has been explained as drag marks in front of the car but we can also see a second trail at the top of the image. This is above the driver’s side door and appears to have come from the sight of the stabbing. Some have dismissed this as fluid from the engine, but the photo shows this to be too far away from the car. The photo also seems to suggest that Lee Rigby went over the bonnet into the windscreen rather than being crushed in front of the vehicle, which would explain a lack of blood directly in front of the car.

 

            Questions have been raised by many as to the appearance of the perpetrators, chiefly why are they not covered in blood from head to toe? In theory, if they have just decapitated a man, and severing arteries, they should both look like the end scene of Carrie, particularly the man in the light sheepskin jacket - who does not have a drop on him. This has been cited as a clear smoking gun and proof that something strange has happened as it seemingly defies logic.
 

 

I too thought this was a smoking gun until I began to watch some real life beheadings. I purposefully avoided Al Qaeda videos as some believe these to be fake and instead concentrated on Mexican Narco syndicate killings. After watching about a dozen I was astonished to discover three things.
 

One: It is not like Shogun Assassin; there is no fountain of blood as most arterial spray in such a circumstance does not have the required pressure to rise more than the height of the deceased person’s eyes.

 

 

Two: It is not uncommon for the killers to avoid getting any blood on themselves…at all! If you google ‘Mexican beheadings’ or ‘fastest beheading ever’, there is footage on bestgore.com of a woman in a pink vest being executed by a drug gang. The woman’s head is taken completely off and the killer avoids getting any blood on even his fingers, let alone his clothes or shoes. There are numerous examples where this is also evident, meaning the lack of blood on the suspects is a redundant line of enquiry. Some will say “Aha! Then the blood on his hands must be fake if it’s rare to get bloody”, however if the suspects dragged the body into the street this would explain the blood. Additionally, Adebowale and Adebolajo may be novices in the art of decapitation.

 

Three: Often there is far less blood than is expected coming from the decapitated body, dependent on how it falls. In some cases where a person is beheaded against a wall, after the heart stops and if the body remains upright, gravity prevents almost any blood from spilling out. Obviously some scenes are very bloody but this is not indicative of all blade-based deaths.
 

Please do not take my word for it, have a look for yourselves.
 

WARNING - REAL NSFW:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some have questioned why the murderer would be allowed to broadcast his hate speech and criticism of the UK government, so soon after committing his crime, arguing that this proves this is a contrived situation as the British Press would never allow the sentiment of a terrorist to be heard.

 

 

I am afraid this simply does not ring true. There have been dozens of pieces of footage broadcast on the news that are just as (if not more) inflammatory, including videos from Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda clerics, hate preachers, neo-Nazis, anarchists, suicide bombers and political terrorists. I have also seen numerous interviews with Mafia crime lords and hit men describing killing and the benefits of a life of crime. Serial killers are also often interviewed; Charles Manson, deemed too dangerous to talk in a court room, has been broadcast on TV nearly a dozen times. Ted Bundy was interviewed just prior to execution and Arthur Shawcross extolled the virtues of eating the vaginas of dead children in a broadcast interview. So it is clear that horrible and ‘dangerous’ messages are broadcast regularly, including letters from the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber that served to terrify the public.

 

News agencies would be diving all over each other to show this horrific incident, racheting up the horror to peak people’s morbid curiosity – if it bleeds, it leads – so the most sensational images will be broadcast along with headlines drawn out of hyperbole.

 

It also sells the terrorist narrative (particularly if we believe this to be a false flag) as the public are left in no doubt as to the motivation and political affiliation of the attackers.

 

            Many have stated that the apparent lack of damage to the lamp post the car hit is clearly a sign that there was no car crash and the smashed vehicle was merely a prop. It’s been stated that there should be more damage to the pole than there is, to be consistent with the state of the crashed vehicle. Again, I thought this was a smoking gun…however a quick google search under “car crash lamp post” will return several images that contradict this assumption. There are several photos that seem to show more damage to the car and the post is still intact and shows no, or nearly no, markings. This does not prove or disprove anything but it certainly means that the evidence cited is not as conclusive as it would appear.
 

 

 

 

 

The question must also be asked, if the car was a prop, how was it positioned without anybody noticing this?

 

            Many have stated that the apparent lack of blood on the body of Lee Rigby is also suspicious, particularly as he has been decapitated. Firstly, he was not decapitated; he died from stab wounds to the neck. Secondly, there is a patch of discolouration next to his right hip that may (or may not) be blood and there is also blood on his hands as if he had tried to apply pressure to his own throat before dying, which can both be seen in some photos. The argument could be made that these images are photoshopped but the assumption that there is no blood visible at all is a slight misrepresentation.

 

 

 

 

The aerial shot also obscures a larger puddle of blood near the wall, as the trees block the view, however this is visible in other photos.

 
 

 

The counter argument can be made that Lee Rigby’s heart had either slowed or stopped when he was moved to the road, so blood would not pump out but rather begin to settle under gravity. This again does not prove or disprove anything but reinforces that perhaps the evidence is not as concrete as assumed.

 
 

            Some have argued that blood trails can be seen in some photos and not in others, proving that the blood stains were added afterwards. Again this appears very strange and needs examining but may not be as conclusive as first imagined.
 

            In some shots (though they are from tabloids so have to be viewed with suspicion) there is a discoloured patch that is consistent with the blood patches in other pictures. If you cannot see this (as my long-suffering girlfriend could not initially), this may be due to the glare/light on your screen, so try looking from a slightly different angle. Again this is not proof, but it could easily be blood. In other photos, reflections can be seen that could be collected liquid

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument can also be made that this is merely due to the angle of the photo and the qualities of the surface captured. The quality of the camera phones recording facilities also hinders this. By altering the contrast of the picture the stains may be more apparent – or not, as the case may be!
 

            Several people have pointed to the apparent markers that seem to dot the ground around the incident. At times the suspect appears to stand on these marks, raising the suspicion that these are set markers used to position the actors. Others have stated that there are also painted arrows in the road. Again, this could well be true and I am not discounting the possibility, but it seems strange to me that in several pictures there are numerous ‘set’ markers that are never used – so what are they for? Would they not confuse the actors? In one shot there are nine unused, so-called ‘set markers’ surrounding the one that is ‘used’. Unfortunately this theory seems to focus on the marks that support the line of enquiry and ignore the rest that seemingly have no purpose. The argument could be raised that rather than set markers, these are in fact discarded pieces of chewing gum trampled into the ground and arrows left by workmen to highlight underground pipes, gas mains, etc.

 

 

 

 

There are two apparent eyewitnesses that have come forward to support the idea of crisis actors being used: a policeman who did not recognise any of the other on-duty officers (which therefore suggests they were actors) and a busker that apparently witnessed the set being dressed and the props brought in. The following statements have been quoted on blogs:

"I asked the on-site police officer in our school:

"I bet your briefing this morning at the station was an intense one.

"Officer: I was expecting exactly that, but it was just too odd. I asked why there's no briefing, believing we'd be told which streets to be in and what to look out for, but no. Nothing. It was as if it hadn't happened.

"'In fact, the skipper said 'it didn't happen.'

"He told me he didn't recognise any of the officers on his own patch at the scene either nor any of the members of the public, despite always seeing the same people."

 

And an unknown acquaintance of the unknown busker:

 

"I know the busker who watched it all.

"He said they put chalk marks on the ground where the actors, sorry terrorists, involved had to stand.

"He said it was so obviously fake; the police threatened to beat him up unless he moved and kept his mouth shut."

 

            These are both being touted as fact and to be honest, they may well be accurate. However, at the minute they are anonymous second-hand reports from unnamed sources – it is merely hearsay and conjecture. Either story would have more credibility if the source was named; as of yet they are merely stories and cannot be taken as evidence.

 

            Some have suggested that there is no way that anyone would film the killers. This too seems strange but it may have just been to appease the bloodied maniac carrying a meat cleaver. Though I have to admit, the footage is remarkably steady; personally I would be shaking like a leaf, but is this a solid cause for suspicion? We all react differently under pressure. It could even be the case that the cameraman is involved in the plot to give the most effective footage, though this is pure speculation and even if proven true, would not necessarily mean the murder was not real.
 

            As one of the terrorists delivers his speech to the cameras, three women (at separate times) walk past the killer from behind, seemingly not frightened and oblivious to the danger and the dead body in the road. Some have taken this as proof that these women are in fact extras, actors there to dress the scene.
 

            Again, initially this seems very unusual, however we must remember that Lee Rigby was not beheaded, the blood was not as apparent as it might be and the traffic had stopped. Therefore, the women could have assumed the man was hit by a car, had a heart attack or simply fallen over. They approached the killer from behind, thus obscuring his weapons so it may be that they simply blundered into the situation not realising what had happened.
 

            The question has to be raised that if these women are actors (which I am not discounting) then what is their purpose? What do they add to the mise en scéne of the incident? Do they not just make the scene more surreal?
 

            Which players are actors and who is genuine? Are the tearful family actors and this display a true tour de force performance? Was Lee Rigby an actor? Some say he has been whisked away to an island somewhere (with Elvis, Hitler and Jim Morrison, no doubt) though I cannot see the logic of this, as surely it makes little financial sense?
 

Others have said the actors will be ‘disappeared’ (murdered) afterwards, which begs the question, why not just commit a murder in the first place? Thousands of civilians are murdered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali and Syria by the authorities each week; why not knock off a couple more? Some have claimed that Lee Rigby died previously and his corpse (or alternatively, a dummy) was used (meaning all the women who attempted to comfort the man were also actors) but no one has explained how the ‘body’ was positioned without anyone seeing this. It is possible but at the moment, it is still just speculation.

 

            It must also be asked, what is in it for the actors? What actor trains for a profession, possibly for their whole life, to perform one role for which they can never take any credit? This would also ruin any future career as an actor or a crisis actor for fear of being exposed in the future. Some have said they are paid off with huge sums. Aside from the fact that there is zero evidence of this, again, it does not make financial or logistical sense. The crisis actors would have to continue playing their false roles, possibly forever, in case somebody spotted that they were not who they said they were. Their past résumés would have to be deleted and their present careers (as crisis actors) would have to cease immediately.
 

It has been suggested that the actors genuinely believed they were part of a crisis scenario (a drill) and then were threatened into silence, bought off or killed afterwards - is this not a ridiculously risky manoeuvre, leaving potential witnesses all over the place? Remember that these actors will have to speak to the media at some point and can be approached by suspicious members of the public. I suppose they could all be mind controlled and then placed into false lives, with false families and jobs and a history that has to stand up to scrutiny….forever… but does this not seem a little convoluted?

 

            If we consider other suspected false flag attacks (the JFK assassination, Columbine, Virginia Tech, 7/7 and 9/11), we can see that the patsies are often killed before they can speak, to protect evidence of a conspiracy. As well as the perpetrators, would the inclusion of actors from an agency not just mean that there are more potential leaks and more people to keep quiet?

 

            The other question that needs to be asked is why does no one come forward from the ‘actors’ past to expose the discrepancies in their back story, particularly in today’s global internet age?
 

Again, I wish to reiterate that I know crisis actors exist and I am aware of the real nature of their performances, but nothing in this incident thus-far constitutes proof of their involvement. The pieces of evidence put forward as facts or smoking guns are unfortunately not as solid as they first appear.

 

            My chief concern about the promotion of only the crisis actors’ scenario is that if we accept this incident was a hoax, then this means no one really died, which in turn means there was no crime committed per se. The result of this is that, as critical thinkers, we have already figured it out and our job is done. Furthermore, there is no need to investigate any other threads of evidence as these are clearly ‘red herrings’ designed to take us away from the ‘truth’. This could lead to a rather channelled and blinkered investigation, whereby anything that seems to contradict the crisis actors’ scenario can be instantly dismissed.

 

If this is the case then I pose a question…who would benefit from stifling investigation or channelling it in a particular direction…maybe those who wish to keep the truth hidden?

 

DO NOT get me wrong, I am not accusing anyone of muddying the waters who promotes this angle, as investigation is admirable and the fact that anyone questions the official narrative at all is fantastic.
 

I believe that contradictory evidence (that all seems plausible) is being purposefully fed to the analysis field in order to cause confusion and dissent.
 

What I am saying is that we are piecing together a patchwork quilt of evidence from the few scraps the media have been kind enough to release and it would be possible to feed information in such a way that it seemingly supports a false narrative. We must not focus solely on one line of enquiry and dismiss any others; remember the terrible consequences during the Yorkshire Ripper investigation when ‘Wearside Jack’ was pursued, to the detriment of other seemingly solid trails of evidence.

 

If you begin to investigate threads before all the dust has settled then you may get incorrect results. This is similar to the archaeologists who, on the discovery of a new bone several years later, had to rethink the established shape of the skeletal remains of dinosaurs.

 

Also, if you start your investigation with an assumption and build the evidence around that, your methodology is flawed. Some people have said because they believe Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing to be fake (involving actors) then that is the model that must be applied to all future events. This is as ridiculous as a doctor treating a head injury with a leg plaster cast because his previous patient had broken a leg. To be too close to an incident is like the five blind men with an elephant: no one gets a clear representation. We must be aware of the possibility of the use of actors but not assume that it is definitely the case, even if it has been done in the past. Terrorist attacks in the past have been real but that does not mean that any future cases will be.
 

 

 

My worry is that all these contradictory theories are being bounced around to cause dissention in the ranks of critical analysts and ultimately reduce any discussion into arguments, which I have observed usually amount to using someone else’s opinion as a weapon. Can’t we all just get along?
 

I wish to reiterate that I do not discount the possibility of the use of actors and I know they exist. I also freely admit that I am no expert and there may be hundreds of pieces of evidence that I have not seen and also, my interpretation of the pictures could be flawed. I am merely trying to counter what is becoming accepted as fact as, if we wish to solve this thing and expose those ultimately responsible, the case put forward must not be easily rebuffed – we need to cover all the angles.

 

            However, it needs to be said that be it a false flag or hoax, the intent and the result are the same: chaos, fear, hatred, distrust, racism, reduction of civil liberties and the proliferation of the phoney war on terror.
 

            Again, I am not trying to start an argument, merely discuss the strength of the collected evidence. At the moment none of the pieces of evidence I have seen constitute proof…yet.


If you would like to watch any videos of me being interviewed, see me at a live event or buy one of my books, please check out my website at:

www.neilsandersmindcontrol.com

or follow my Facebook page at:

https://www.facebook.com/NeilSandersMC