The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
editor said:
Peter Power's first interview. And it wasn't on paper. As has been established, at the very least it involved a television screen with what was supposed to be a mock broadcast. Why would the executives get confused between an on paper exercise and a news bulletin on TV?
That is evidence that the exercise was not on paper. And if it was not on paper then everything PP said subsequently must be questioned, not by a journalist trying to get brownie points for exploding another conspiracy theory, but by lawyers in front of the public.
I am not saying PP was involved or did this or did that. I want to establish the facts. When investigators ask questions they don't only ask suspects to a crime, they will investigate anything and everything possible. Leave no stone unturned.
As I have said, I accept the likelihood is that PP and the private client had nothing to do with LU.
But the fact that the drill involved explosions on LU stations might be considered a reason for questioning him. Not accusing him, but questioning him about this particular drill.
But it seems even the suggestion that PP should be questioned is now reason for some to question my sanity, my intelligence, my reading comprehension etc etc in as abusive a way as possible.
It won't stop me or many others from asking the question though.
editor
hiraethified
No, it's not evidence. It's not even remotely close to being credible evidence of any involvement by Power in the events of 7/7. That's all in your desperate-for-an-exciting-conspiracy mind.squeegee said:
So exactly why are you choosing to completely ignore Powell's subsequent clarifying statement after the event, the detailed and informed Channel 4 article and the wealth of inside information offered by Detective Boy?
Does this not count as a teeny-weeny bit of evidence for questioning further? Really?
You gonna move the goal posts again? Was this a paper exercise too?
Michael Chossudovsky
"Britain's Atlantic Blue, April 2005
In Britain, there were several documented exercises of terror attacks on London's underground system.
In addition to the 7/7 exercise conducted by Visor Consultants, a similar mock terror drill on London's transportation system entitled "Atlantic Blue" was held in April 2005, barely three months prior to the real attacks. In 2003, a mock terror drill labelled OSIRIS 2 was conducted. It consisted, according to Peter Power in testing the "equipment and people deep in the Underground of London". It involved the participation of several hundred people. (Interview with Peter Power, CTV, 11 July 2005).
"Atlantic Blue" was part of a much larger US sponsored emergency preparedness exercise labelled TOPOFF 3, which included the participation of Britain and Canada. It had been ordered by the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Charles Clarke, in close coordination with his US counterpart Michael Chertoff.
The assumptions of the Visor Consultants mock drill conducted on the morning of July 7th were similar to those conducted under "Atlantic Blue". This should come as no surprise since Visor Consultants was involved, on contract to the British government, in the organisation and conduct of Atlantic Blue and in coordination with the US Department of Homeland Security.
As in the case of the 9/11 simulation organized by the CIA, the July 7, 2005 Visor mock terror drill, was casually dismissed by the media, without further investigation, as a mere "coincidence", with no relationship to the real event."
You gonna move the goal posts again? Was this a paper exercise too?
Michael Chossudovsky
"Britain's Atlantic Blue, April 2005
In Britain, there were several documented exercises of terror attacks on London's underground system.
In addition to the 7/7 exercise conducted by Visor Consultants, a similar mock terror drill on London's transportation system entitled "Atlantic Blue" was held in April 2005, barely three months prior to the real attacks. In 2003, a mock terror drill labelled OSIRIS 2 was conducted. It consisted, according to Peter Power in testing the "equipment and people deep in the Underground of London". It involved the participation of several hundred people. (Interview with Peter Power, CTV, 11 July 2005).
"Atlantic Blue" was part of a much larger US sponsored emergency preparedness exercise labelled TOPOFF 3, which included the participation of Britain and Canada. It had been ordered by the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Charles Clarke, in close coordination with his US counterpart Michael Chertoff.
The assumptions of the Visor Consultants mock drill conducted on the morning of July 7th were similar to those conducted under "Atlantic Blue". This should come as no surprise since Visor Consultants was involved, on contract to the British government, in the organisation and conduct of Atlantic Blue and in coordination with the US Department of Homeland Security.
As in the case of the 9/11 simulation organized by the CIA, the July 7, 2005 Visor mock terror drill, was casually dismissed by the media, without further investigation, as a mere "coincidence", with no relationship to the real event."
OK. So let's pretend that Peter "Secret fucking Squirrel" Power was working on some complex exercise for London Underground Ltd on 7 July.
Why did he (a) go on TV to mention this fact almost immediately and then (b) clearly realise his mistake in doing so within hours, going back on TV to retract his earlier statement?
Don't you think he may have just kept his fucking mouth shut in the first place? This wasn't discovered by some top journo skills - this was discovered by him running to a TV camera and gobbing off to big up his bloody company. Can't you see that?
Why did he (a) go on TV to mention this fact almost immediately and then (b) clearly realise his mistake in doing so within hours, going back on TV to retract his earlier statement?
Don't you think he may have just kept his fucking mouth shut in the first place? This wasn't discovered by some top journo skills - this was discovered by him running to a TV camera and gobbing off to big up his bloody company. Can't you see that?
editor
hiraethified
Err, perhaps you'd be so kind as tell me what actual fresh evidence, expertise, inside knowledge or insights this Michel Chossudovsky has to contribute to this?squeegee said:
His article is nothing more than his own personal and highly selective interpretation of Power's comments, with an added evidence-free conspiraloon 9/11 link thrown in for good effect.
Look at this quote of Power's that he completely ignored:
But seeing as you've brought it up, I'd like you to explain - in full - what the fuck 9/11 has to do with this, please.
editor said:
Since you can't even get the word prevaricate, I'm not suprised you choose to read into sentences what you want.
Involve, on paper, 1000 people does not mean the exercise was done on paper. It means on paper it would have involved 1000 people. You are the one trying to twist words to satisfy your anti-conspiraloon agenda.
Read it again, watch for the commas and try to understand that these drills are also carried out in real time in real situations. It seems common sense to me.
Either you really are lacking in reading comprehension (unlikely despite the definition fuck up you made that you still haven't acknowledged) or you are doing your usual and prevaricating cos you think I'm a fruitloop so you don't want to accept I have reasonable cause for suspicion here since it will make you look bad.
squeegee said:
That's how I read it.
You read it as
In short, our paper exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving 1000 staff
and that is not what Peter Power said no matter how many times you say it was.
editor said:
You're wrong. It was simulated cos it wasn't real. They "actually" responded to these simulated "activities" which, on paper, would have involved 1000 people.
I can't believe I'm giving you reading comprehension lessons. You believe what ever cosy fairy story you wish to believe. What's the point of finding any proof that would satisfy your disingenuous mind?
You continue to believe it says "on paper" exercises. Cos you really need to believe that. Or else, oh my god, a conspiraloon might have a reasonable cause to.....ask a question.
You are utterly pathetic. Enjoy your day
Badger Kitten
oof
and we're off...
Front page and everything...
'Give us our 7/7 inquiry' front page
'Why Are we still in the dark?' by BK
'An insult to Britain 'by Paul Greengrass Utd. 93 Director
'20 Unanswered questions'
The Government's already spent £250m on inquiries by the Mirror
Voice of the Mirror
laptop said:Want it online now.
OK, I'll have to wait until the morning to read it...
Front page and everything...
'Give us our 7/7 inquiry' front page
'Why Are we still in the dark?' by BK
'An insult to Britain 'by Paul Greengrass Utd. 93 Director
'20 Unanswered questions'
The Government's already spent £250m on inquiries by the Mirror
Voice of the Mirror
Badger Kitten
oof
squeegee said:
RPTFL, PMSL, \o/ \o/
editor
hiraethified
I wonder if she's going to say how these emails were 'verified', who 'verified' them and what their technical qualifications were?particulars said:
For all this bullshit about 'truth-seeking,' all I'm seeing is endless wriggling and obfuscation. Why can't I get a straight answer to a very important question?
So important in fact, that the loons entire argument is based around it. So where's the fucking evidence?
Badger Kitten
oof
Mmmmmm, well, thanks for the conspiracy theorists ''support'' over the last year - you know who you are. There are others I would rather support than those who claim the bombers were innocent and obsess over macarbre trivia as a hobby.
BBC - bereaved families are asking for a public inquiry
BBC - bereaved families are asking for a public inquiry
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You fucking idiot.squeegee said:You're wrong. It was simulated cos it wasn't real. They "actually" responded to these simulated "activities" which, on paper, would have involved 1000 people.
I can't believe I'm giving you reading comprehension lessons. You believe what ever cosy fairy story you wish to believe. What's the point of finding any proof that would satisfy your disingenuous mind?
You continue to believe it says "on paper" exercises. Cos you really need to believe that. Or else, oh my god, a conspiraloon might have a reasonable cause to.....ask a question.
You are utterly pathetic. Enjoy your day
Which company was it then? Because if there was 1000 people involved in a drill on the day you'd damned well have heard more about it. People talk.
You can be told the truth time and time again, but you're too fucking stupid to listen.
Similar threads
- Locked
