The odd tale of the woman who fell from Westminster Bridge
When we have begun to have seen it all, the most unpredictable and surprising thing about a Ter-ror incident in the UK now must qualify as either one of the following possibilities: 1) Ex-EDL anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson apparently instantaneously on the scene with a budding millennial Youtube personality, only 4 or 5 videos into his career (just in time for the latest big opportunity), doing professional-looking pieces to camera for an “alt-right” channel, to tell everyone in no uncertain terms that they were at war with the Muslims (see criticism here), or 2) the apparent falling into the Thames, off of Westminster Bridge, by a woman from Romania, her then being scooped out of the river as if dead after a life-threatening delay, and the subsequent information of her being alive albeit very unwell. If we had been imaginative, we could probably have seen the first option coming a long whiles off. On the other hand, even if Ter-ror was to become a way of big city life, as the London Mayor insists it already has, and we were confronted on a daily basis by familiar turnings of legend (e.g. “the suspect was known to Mi5” and “spent some time in Saudi Arabia/Syria/Pakistan” and “was radicalised in prison/by hate-preacher so-and-so-also-linked-with-Mi5”), as the old narrative is chiselled out again and again, we might never in a million years have predicted the plight of Andreea Cristea.
If the reader does not know, there exists on the internet certain film (the author understands that it might have been released via corporate-media) showing Adrian/Khalid (take your own pick for a surname) attacking pedestrians in a 4×4 across Westminster Bridge. Andreea Cristea is said to have been the object that can be seen on this film plopping into the mud-coloured river much nearer to one of the bridge stanchions than you might have imagined she might, given that she started more central in the particular span of the bridge in which she had started her descent. This is the first thing you notice if you watch the footage a few times – she definitely describes one half of a parabola as she falls – meaning that horizontal force had been applied on leaving the bridge (otherwise she would have just dropped down and landed underneath her point of departure). There are two possible options to explain this: she pushed herself off the bridge, or she was nudged off by the vehicle.
1) The first time we see the falling object. It is left of centre in the red ring. The car is supposedly within the grey area, and has already passsed.
2) The object appears to begin to fall.
3) The object lands in the river. The trail of black is probably an issue with the resolution.
The author has seen it written in the corporate-media that the vehicle was motoring along at 35mph, and his own time/distance estimations and calculations approximate the same figure* (33mph). Without doing complex maths without any meaningful input to do it, let’s just say this is probably enough to ping and lift Andreea over the side of the bridge – and perhaps we should have expected to see more black specks being flicked into the air than we do see on the footage. However, there is an anomaly. Andreea doesn’t appear to start to fall until the vehicle has gone past her. This is actually hard to see when one zooms in on the frames. Even in the BBC version, where the progress of the attack is highlighted, the vehicle looks misty. Be that as it may, it does look like Andreea has potentially climbed over the side of the bridge to avoid the oncoming car, which is something that at least one other witness said that he had to resort to (a clip on Youtube, link). The footage suggests that only after she has made herself “safe” does she take a fall – and this would be understandable, as hand grips and secure footings might not be found to suffice in a hurry. The footage does show that her descent looks surprisingly plumb as it straightens up – there doesn’t look like a lot of tumbling or flailing, but of course, the resolution is very low, and it could be that we just don’t see it. Obviously, if you are a thinking person and you are presented with this data, you start to ask if Andreea actually dived, or leapt into the river without having to. Why should she do that?
When one has been looking at this sort of thing for a while, one is suspicious that there will be a conjuring trick to spot. Look at the daddy of all false flags – 911. Lots of people were killed, but how? Not by airplanes, as we are meant to believe, but by placed charges (and something else at the Pentagon). Making this distinction enables us to contemplate the real culprits. So, when you look at the video of the Westminster Bridge attack, and the car being driven by “Adrian” appears very ghostly, and at times completely invisible, while all the other vehicles on the road are just not as phantom-like, then the natural and right thing to ask is are we seeing what we’re being told we’re seeing, or what we think we’re seeing? In short, is the offending car of the same reality shared by everything else in the film, or is it separate and added by modification of the film? Then the following might occur: if a vehicle didn’t plough into pedestrians on this video, but we were meant to be made to think it did, then someone leaping into the river would talk directly to our reasoning faculties to tell is that it must have. Don’t forget, we’re not talking about other knowledge we might have of the event: how other images seem to show injured people, and how witnesses have told of how these injuries were caused by a car. We are talking about what we can see with our own eyes in one particular film, and what those eyes are telling our brains. The one detail that we can see that suggests that pedestrians are being attacked by a man in a car is the “woman” “falling” of the bridge.
As it happens, Nick Kollerstrom reports (in the comments) acquaintances who themselves report being on the bridge at the time of the attack, and also of sustaining injuries. The author trusts this information, and it appears that there definitely was an attack on Westminster Bridge – but who did it? We’re being made to think that it was a radical Muslim with all the information we’re being given. But is the information trustworthy? After all, this is what “event cynicism” must be all about: sifting the trustworthy from the untrustworthy in the certain knowledge of corrupt and unscrupulous government that self-admittedly doesn’t let a good crisis go to waste.
So, in this seam of thinking, consider the apparent fact that a member of public managed to get into the parliamentary compound through front gates to attack a policeman. How likely is this, given armed guards bar the entrances? There are two possibilities that explain how such a thing could occur: 1) security stood down to make it possible, or 2) when the car crashed into a perimeter of the compound, this caused a diversion to enable a second person to get past the security. Now we are looking at two people being involved in the attack, and indeed there were initial reports of an accomplice. It’s a sure sign of something fishy when the authorities are satisfied with having nabbed (rubbed) only one of them – with the other one disappearing completely from history. It is an old sign of the other being a facilitator for the State.
Likewise, there are good reasons why the story of the falling woman doesn’t make sense. Firstly, consider some nonsense that appeared in the Daily Mail that looks like the typical sort of thing the Daily Mail does; i.e. builds the sort of padding into a narrative that no one else seems to discover (or over-eggs the pudding – source):
[Andreea’s] fiancé, engineer Andrei Burnaz, who celebrates his birthday tomorrow, suffered a knee injury but has been discharged from hospital…
One witness, bus driver Michael Adamou, 25, said he believed at least one woman had jumped into the Thames to escape.
‘The first thing I saw was the two people laying lifeless on the floor,’ he said.
‘I heard one guy come running behind me shouting his wife had jumped into the river to avoid getting knocked down.’
…The couple were due to meet a friend, retired surveyor Patrick Tracey, 64, from Derby, at the London Eye.
Mr Tracey said: ‘I realised that my friends were over at Westminster Abbey coming to meet me and I got a telephone call from him.
‘But I couldn’t hear anything because of the din… That was when he said he had lost Andreea. I don’t know how seriously hurt she is. He was injured on his leg. I imagine it’s the vehicle.’
What we see here is a technique that does two things: 1) establish that Andreea and her fiancé are real by quoting someone who claims to know them, and 2) establish confirmation of what happened to them through a witness on the ground. Haven’t these witnesses been ever so convenient?
But seriously? The bus driver claims that the man who lost his “wife” in the river ran behind the bus. With a wounded leg. Not likely, is it? Unfortunately, we can’t judge how likely it is that Andrei Burnaz, while he was being admitted into hospital – and somewhat reluctantly being taken from the scene, one should imagine – would have the presence of mind to give their old pal a tinkle to let him know they couldn’t make it on account of his fiancé falling into the river.
The other aspect of the narrative that raises doubt about the story of Andreea is the matter of her “rescue”. Consider the following extracts:
The couple were on the bridge at about 2.40pm when the terrorist waged his manic attack in the London tourist hotspot.
Mr Burnaz suffered a fractured foot during the attack as the pair walked in the direction of the London Eye.
(Source)
Her boyfriend suffered a foot fracture. It’s understood she was rescued just before 3pm London time.
(Source)
Putting aside the difference to the Mail version regarding the exact nature of Andrei’s injury, collectively this tells us that Andreea sent a long time in the water – too long, the author supposes, to come out of it alive, or in any shape whereby there could be a happy ending to a story. As far as that story does go, it was a pleasure boat that came about to intercept her against the tide. However, the crew could not get her out of the river (despite the Mail reporting this: “miraculously, the Romanian architect was plucked to safety by a passing cruise ship”). The pleasure boat was joined by a “nearby” fire and rescue boat. This is shown in images hooking an object in the water and manoeuvring it into a scoop. When this object is hoisted out of the water, it does tend to look like a body. But read this (from the Mail, link above):
The staff, on a City Cruises pleasure boat, could not get her out of the water but a nearby fire service boat came to her rescue.
A witness told the Sun: ‘They tried to fish her out with a pole but she was not responding. Then a rescue boat came and took her out.’
We should take this to mean that Andreea couldn’t help herself to be rescued by the City Cruises crew – that she was incapacitated; unconscious. Of course, it occurred to the author that what everyone was trying to receive had already become a corpse, or had already irretrievably started to drown to death.
The Fire dept rescue craft: moving the object into place for scooping.
What looks like a body in the scoop.
City Cruises had reached the object first, but had been unable to fish it out of the river.
Despite this, we have been told in the corporate-media previously cited here that Andreea is currently in a stable condition; after having had an operation to remove a clot, the main concern has been the damage to her lungs. And so, if we find it difficult to believe this information after seeing the images of her retrieval, the right and natural question to ask is did those pictures show Andreea being pulled out of the water, or someone, or something else? There are no answers to be had as yet. We wait to see what happens to Andreea – the reader must surely join the author in hoping that she recovers to be able to tell all for herself, although we might not hear anymore even then – “her family.. have asked for privacy as she recovers and [the Romanian embassy]… would not issue more statements on their behalf”. Notably, the fiancé Burnaz has been remarkably silent too. Usually the corporate-media likes to promote a survivor/witness into a kind of celebrity for a few months after this sort of thing. If we don’t see hide or hare of this story from hence forth, then we’ll renew the asking of the above question.
As it happens there was a drill that took place on the river on the Sunday ahead of the same week in which the Westminster Bridge incident happened. To wrap up, let’s pick a bone with regards Ter-ror drills as part of the overall security apparatus that perpetually gets so much taxpayer money poured into it. The truth is, the point of this sort of stuff, with the blank firing going on (or sound effects) – for the drill on the Thames involved mock terrorists hijacking one of the river’s pleasure boats, and the authorities engaging them in warfare – is to scare the sheeple. Evidence? Consider how the head of the operation says that Government had no specific intelligence about what a future terror attack would look like (source):
Commander BJ Harrington, head of the Met’s public order command, said “It’s important to point out that the exercise has not been designed in response to any specific threat. There’s no information that we have that we’re preparing for.
“Of course, we have seen a number of incidents abroad in the past few years: Nice, Berlin – we have seen different methodologies developing, and, of course, the river runs right through London, so why wouldn’t we prepare for that.”
Summarised: although we’ve noticed that the fashion in Ter-ror is to have someone (supposedly) mount a kerb and kill pedestrians, we’re actually going to practise to contend with something entirely different (because it’s not about fighting terrorism, it’s about scaring the sheeple). Yes, there has been a spate of man-in-car/truck violence against pedestrians, and this time, just to make sure that everyone knows it was Ter-ror to blame, this rampant 4×4 also crashed vaguely in the vicinity of parliament (so that Theresa May could find herself being bundled out of the building in cinematic thriller style) and a knife wielding man was somehow allowed to run into the grounds of the palace. The awful shame is that now, more money will be spent on security apparatus that evidently fails – and we’re talking about complete failure: the drill mentioned above even had an element where it had to rescue a person from the Thames, but in the real ter-ror attack, it couldn’t even do that properly. A private boat was first on scene to try to hook the fallen woman on board – but even then it could have already been too late. So much for Ter-ror drills and security apparatus.
*Four and half spans in 11 seconds. The main spans of the Westminster Bridge measure 37 m
