London Tube ‘Bombers’ Were Shot Dead At Canary Wharf

From Nick Kollerstrom –

At 4pm on Thursday 12th May at Southwark Crown Court the jury returned and declared Muad’Dib (Anthony John Hill) innocent of attempting to ‘pervert the course of justice’.
Mr. Hill has spent 151 days incarcerated in Wandsworth prison over the past few months and this verdict spared him, mercifully, a sentence of up to 20 years in jail.
Muad’Dib’s trial started on Monday 9th May, with a challenge to the monarchy and, hence, the authority of the court. This was ruled ‘out of order’ by the judge. On Tuesday a jury were sworn in.
On Wednesday they watched all of his film, ‘The Ripple Effect, in open court.
Over the Tuesday and Wednesday the jury heard in-depth discussions of both 7/7 and 9/11, with Mr Hill laying out clearly, and at his own leisurely pace under cross-examination, the reasons he believes that both these ‘attacks by terrorists’ were, in fact, false flag attacks by agencies of the state against its own people carried out with the purpose of providing a pretext for invasion of innocent countries in the middle east in order to control their natural resources.
This was surely the first ever fully-explored set of such allegations of false flag terror made against any state before an ordinary collection of the citizens of that state.
It is also clear from the verdict that, when such information is placed before such ordinary citizens the majority of them ‘get it.’ The jury had announced that it could not be unanimous, so the judge allowed a ‘majority verdict’, i.e. ten or more of the 12.
It is surely not unfair to deduce that Southwark Crown Court’s jury of ordinary persons did not reject Muad’Dib’s false-flag narrative as outrageous or even necessarily untrue. One wonders how many of that jury have now themselves been converted into active ‘troofers’?
During the trial (on Wednesday) JAH/Hill/Muad’Dib was asked why he moved to Ireland: “To pursue my study of the lost Ark of the Covenant” was his reply. Here is a character, both serious and refreshing, who brings a mythic dimension into life. Onlookers were impressed by the way he was able to conduct himself without fear in the witness-box, sometimes pausing 5-10 seconds to reflect, before replying. A group of  up to 25 supporters attended the four days of the trial, a couple travelling from as far afield as Finland and the state of Montana.
Let’s hope that will be the end of the persecution of Mr JAH by the British state – and, that he soon starts on a 2nd edition of his Ripple Effect.
It’s the opinion of Sheffield University philosophy professor Ridley-Duff, that Mr Hill’sRipple Effect’s narrative of what happened on that day, is more plausible than that of the BBC’s 7/7 ‘Conspiracy Files program. His study focussed very much on what happened at Canary Wharf on that morning, seeing the Ripple narrative, whereby the young alleged bombers had been inveigled into a terror drill that morning, then fled to Canary wharf where they were shot – as the best account yet. The new 3rd edition of my bookTerror on the Tube endorses this view. In contrast, the so-called ‘July 7th Truth Campaign’ has scoffed at this narrative calling it ‘evidence-free conjecture,’ a quite breathtaking (and very revealing) remark. 
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

4 Responses to “London Tube ‘Bombers’ Were Shot Dead At Canary Wharf”

  1. Me says:

    Thanks for the link. Seen Alex Jones’ Terrorstorm but I’ve never watch that.

  2. Derek says:

    Watch also ‘Ludicrous Diversion’:

    Very pleased for John Hill to hear of his aquitall.

  3. Tapestry says:

    Yes. It’s great news. Trial by jury saved him from 20 years in clink for exposing the truth about the London 7/7 bombing.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I am pleased Mr Hill was found not guilty as i don’t believe he meant any harm, however, he should have known better than to post his opinions about an active court case to the foreman of that jury, a fact you either don’t seem aware of or are neglecting to mention, if the latter then hey, I thought this was about the truth. He could have presented it to the court/defence for consideration, fair enough, but directly to a jury member is jury tampering which is a very serious offence.
    Hmm, let’s see if you post this.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.