London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well just suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are a shady figure in an intelligence service, and you are looking to stage a terror attack on your own soil. How are you going to carry it out? You can't go telling people what you are about to do, even your own colleagues, they would be horrified and call the police. You can't do it yourself, far too risky!

The 'exercise' scenario is one way you can accomplish your goal. People are recruited to take part in the exercise to plant 'fake' bombs on trains... they do so, where's the problem? Except that the bombs are real. But, they don't know that.

Consider that on 11th September 2001 the Pentagon was running war game scenarios involving the multiple hijackings of passenger jets!

all of this aside you implacted the emergancy services here you need to accept that that is unacceptable....

 

[no names]

More information on this Peter Power character. To simply call him a former scotland yard officer would seem to do him a disservice: http://www.wcdm.org/wcdm_power.html

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well just suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are a shady figure in an intelligence service, and you are looking to stage a terror attack on your own soil. How are you going to carry it out? You can't go telling people what you are about to do, even your own colleagues, they would be horrified and call the police. You can't do it yourself, far too risky!

The 'exercise' scenario is one way you can accomplish your goal. People are recruited to take part in the exercise to plant 'fake' bombs on trains... they do so, where's the problem? Except that the bombs are real. But, they don't know that.

Consider that on 11th September 2001 the Pentagon was running war game scenarios involving the multiple hijackings of passenger jets!

I've considered it, and it's crap, utter shit.

1) The security services aren't involved here, this is a private contractor working with a private company.

2) Where do you get your explosives?

3) What do you do with your recruits aftwerwards?

4) This isn't an excersise as you're thinking of it, it's a mental excersise, you put people in a room and give them information.

5) There is no need to plant false explosives in this sort of excersise (the ones described by the company website..)#

6) There was no physical excersise going on (you'd have known)

7) Why let anyone leak the information

There's so many problems with this idea that it's beyond a joke. It's utterly laughable.

 

[editor]

There's so many problems with this idea that it's beyond a joke. It's utterly laughable.

I'd call it more of an embarrassment to be honest.

Well, I'm certainly embarrassed to have such ill-researched conspiraloon bullshit on my boards.

 

[Darios]

(in reply to Spartacus: "Allegedly the exercise consisted of bombs going off at the same stations at the same time.")

Back that up please, there's a good chap.

With grown up sources, of course. I've no interest in reading any more conspiraloon sites, thanks.

If you listen to the audio clip, Peter Power says:

"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning"

While I appreciate the need for scepticism and very careful analysis I think it's a shame that you wrote off the topic so early that you didn't even listen to the audio clips before casting judgement.

As the thread has already run straight into ad homs there isn't even a chance of discussing this seriously and carefully at all. Nice one.

 

[Jazzz]

all of this aside you implacted the emergancy services here you need to accept that that is unacceptable....

No, I haven't.

 

[editor]

No, I haven't.

Why are you continuing to refuse to actually spell out what you mean?

Your conduct in this thread is highly disruptive and reflects very badly on you.

 

[fela fan]

If you think that you are very much mistaken



I don't think I am doing a disservice to those asking questions. If sensible questions about how the world is run and the misdeeds of our leaders are subsumed in a morass of chemtrails, distorted suns, alien abductions, mind control, HAARP, and other such tinfoil hatted bollocks then it i natural that people will treat the genuine questions with the same justfied distdain as the conspiraloon shite if they are presented in the same style, in the same environment and sadly by similar wankers like Joe Vialis et al.

Look now mate, you don't seem to see it. I'm talking about folk questioning what our leaders are doing. NOthing about any of all that other crap you're mentioning. And i doubt anybody out of urban even has heard of that bloody vialls name.

It just seems a bit dodgy to me conflating two ideas into a false one. I've personally got fuck all to do with dodgy bullshit the likes of which you wrote. But i definitely will continue to question, and deeply suspect, what our leaders are doing, and how all these terrorist acts dating back to 911 seem to always benefit bush and blair. Every time the timing couldn't be better. What terribly thoughtful terrorists we have...

 

[fela fan]

drjazzz, stop being naughty, there's a good lad.

 

[Jazzz]

I've considered it, and it's crap, utter shit.

1) The security services aren't involved here, this is a private contractor working with a private company.

2) Where do you get your explosives?

3) What do you do with your recruits aftwerwards?

4) This isn't an excersise as you're thinking of it, it's a mental excersise, you put people in a room and give them information.

5) There is no need to plant false explosives in this sort of excersise (the ones described by the company website..)#

6) There was no physical excersise going on (you'd have known)

7) Why let anyone leak the information

There's so many problems with this idea that it's beyond a joke. It's utterly laughable.

I don't know the details of this exercise, the people that were in charge of it... and neither do you..! How can you assume that someone did not plant 'fake' bombs thinking they were simply taking part in the exercise (whatever was officially involved in the exercise)?

What I am outlining is a possible mechanism by which an attack, such as 9-11, or the London bombings can be carried out, by deception, with hardly anyone knowing about it. And the only way you can be rumbled is if people realise that it is simply too much of a coincidence. But do we think that?

If you do this, you don't want the information coming out, but in the immediate aftermath it's too early. I note that when Peter Power was interviewed on Channel 4 News later that day (I watched it) he made no mention of this exercise; why not?

 

[steeplejack]

The immediate aftermath of the bombings was just beginning the other day when you clammy-palmedly posted up your first conspiracy-alluding drivel on UK P&P, entitled 'the bite of the sheepdog' or some such. You slunk away complaining that you 'hadn;t meant any offence' when it was hastily binned.

This desperate scratching around for a ludicrously unlikely 'inside job' theory is absolutely pathetic and shows you to have been lying through your teeth the other day- you don't care who you offend with this shit.

Why you, and this fact free 'specualtive' rubbish, are still entertained on these boards is beyond me.

 

[Jazzz]

1) The Radio 5 clip does seem genuine--the interviewer was Peter Allen.

2) On further examination, the exercise was not at exactly the same time--they sat down to a planning meeting at 9.30am, ie 40 minutes after devices in the underground had gone off.

Peter Power states, however, that the attacks went off while they were running the exercise - and this is confirmed by the interviewer's next question to which he answers 'precisely'. So categorically, the exercise did not simply start with the meeting of crisis managers et al., it was already taking place. This also corrects a claim of Bob the Lost's above.

 

[editor]

I don't know the details of this exercise, the people that were in charge of it... and neither do you..! How can you assume that someone did not plant 'fake' bombs thinking they were simply taking part in the exercise (whatever was officially involved in the exercise)?

So how come you've already attached wildly inflammatory conspiraloon-tastic labels like "sinister" to something you know precisely fuck all about?

This thread is yet more proof of the needless kind of disruption brought about by your conspiracy-seeking knee-jerk posts.

 

[editor]

Why you, and this fact free 'specualtive' rubbish, are still entertained on these boards is beyond me.

This time around I'm considering this situation very carefully right now.

 

[detective-boy]

Having listened to the clip, I would say that he's probably using a little poetic licence (there's no such thing as bad publicity!). If we could see the actual exercise I would guess that it reveolved around simultaneous bombs at some of Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Waterloo, Victoria (as opposed to Edgware Rd, Kings Cross and Moorgate) and I doubt if there was a bus involved at all!

Transport hubs is not a new thing. Railways is predictable (following Madrid). I have put together similar exercises in the past and have actually used a similar scenario myself.

Above quote copied from another thread on this topic. As for the "theories" on this thread about fake bombs being planted as part of the exercise actually being real ....

Matron, screens please ... and more of the small blue tablets ...

 

[Jazzz]

He said 'precisely at the railway stations' where the actual attacks took place - very clear language DB. He makes no mention of the bus attack.

 

[editor]

He said 'precisely at the railway stations' where the actual attacks took place - very clear language DB. He makes no mention of the bus attack.

A reminder of your earlier post:

The 'exercise' scenario is one way you can accomplish your goal. People are recruited to take part in the exercise to plant 'fake' bombs on trains... they do so, where's the problem? Except that the bombs are real. But, they don't know that.
Consider that on 11th September 2001 the Pentagon was running war game scenarios involving the multiple hijackings of passenger jets!!

Still waiting for you to get to the fucking point.



Is the above what you believe happened or are you just posting up random bonkers ideas as they enter your head?

And exactly what is "sinister" here?

 

[Darios]

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here.

Is it that you're critical of someone's arguments and sources?

Or is that you simply don't want discussion of certain topics on these boards?

 

[laptop]

I've had a look, and unfortunately the Business Continuity Institute doesn't publicly list its members, the outfits that lay on such training days.

Let's say that there are just a dozen actively soliciting business in London.

Some of those I found have found have a distinct whiff of nuclear-shelter/double-glazing flakiness about them. Let's say that on average those dozen are desperately unsuccessful and get only one gig a week. Leave out the big companies with in-house continuity departments. You still have, on any given weekday, an average of more than two such "exercises" taking place in London.

Add that to detective-boy's point that the targets are obvious...

 

[detective-boy]

He said 'precisely at the railway stations' where the actual attacks took place - very clear language DB. He makes no mention of the bus attack.

Er ... that is my point. He said precisely the same but I doubt very much that if we could see the actual exercise it would be Edgware Rd and Aldgate but Paddington and Liverpool Street and probably some others not affected in real life (e.g. Waterloo to shut down SW London transport). And I doubt a bus would have been included either.

Using a bit of poetic licence would allow what he actually said without actually being a lie ... and what he said would be far more likely to get his company some free publicity than "We were running one of our standard sessions about the time of the bombs - strangely enough we regularly use the scenario that lots of rail terminii are hit so the delegates have transport difficulties to contend with". No mention of the bus because that would be an outright lie and could rebound on him.

 

[editor]

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here.

The 'problem' is that a handful of obsessed people relentlessly post up a stream of evidence-free, woefully unresearched conspiraloon theories in ever-decreasing circles and. This thread is merely the tip of a very deep iceberg.

As I have patiently pointed out several times, these boards were not set up to be a one-stop shop for conspiracy fans keen to post up fruitloop nonsense sourced from laughable websites.

I do believe, however, there are a host of rather less critical websites who welcome such 'contributions' with open, unquestioning arms. I'd say these would be a more suitable vehicle for some of the kind of wild nonsense that gets posted here.

I do hope that answers your question.

 

[Darios]

The 'problem' is that a handful of obsessed people relentlessly post up a stream of evidence-free, woefully unresearched conspiraloon theories in ever-decreasing circles and. This thread is merely the tip of a very deep iceberg.

As I have patiently pointed out several times, these boards were not set up to be a one-stop shop for conspiracy fans keen to post up fruitloop nonsense sourced from laughable websites.

I do believe, however, there are a host of rather less critical websites who welcome such 'contributions' with open, unquestioning arms. I'd say these would be a more suitable vehicle for some of the kind of wild nonsense that gets posted here.

I do hope that answers your question.

Thanks for your response. I haven't spent enough time here to be able to notice a pattern. If you think something is "fruitloop nonsense", sourced from "laughable websites" I fully support coming down hard on people who use sloppy arguments and crappy sources. The last thing we need is more rubbish information to sift through.

However, every web community at some point develops its own consensus. What concerns me is that this consensus often includes some kind of self-censorship; where some topics are irrationally disregarded at the very outset. I'm concerned that this may be happening here. For the record I'm incredibly sceptical of prisonplanet, propagandmatrix etc material not least because some of their contributions I can personally attest to being false (a great example is the recent article on a bomb scare in Sheffield. The bomb scare happened, the other events described in the article however are incorrect AFAIK (I'm in Sheffield and have friends at the Transport Executive)).

But the history of False flag operations across the globe is long, bloody and well documented. Her Majesty's government is no exception to this, especially with regard to involvement in Ireland. It is therefore rational to maintain an open mind regarding *any* terrorist attack given such precedents. It would seem natural that the kind of exercise reported in the Radio 5 interview would raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation. I make no claims whatsoever about whether the London bombings were a false flag op or not, or who was responsible, or how it was carried out. There is so little information to go on - even the current mainstream narrative of 'Al-Queda did it' is being maintained on the basis of tentative evidence. The investigators involved seem to be aware of this, but the media is not conveying that impression.

What I am respectfully asking is that such trains of thought or investigation are not immediately snubbed for fear of 'conspira-loony-spooky' labelling. It is possible to have a sober, careful consideration of evidence before us and usefully speculate about various models providing we are clear about what is speculation and what has been confirmed or denied through credible sources.

 

[laptop]

It would seem natural that the kind of exercise reported in the Radio 5 interview would raise suspicions

Maybe "natural" in the sense that delusional states and one of the substances that produces them temporarily are "natural". And so, in a sense, is is natural that there are people whose reaction to any story is "woo, must be something spooky here, let me look for odd factoids". Non-delusional states are natural too, and "naturally" want not to expend energy giving a voice to the delusionals.

But you haven't even tried to read my post, have you? How many such "exercises" do you think take place on an average London weekday?

 

[editor]

It is possible to have a sober, careful consideration of evidence before us and usefully speculate about various models providing we are clear about what is speculation and what has been confirmed or denied through credible sources.

We've had lots of them, thanks.

Long, long, long threads carefully examining claims about 9/11 conspiracies involving invisible missile firing pods, invisible wired towers stuffed full of invisible explosives, CIA covers up over the child murdering scumbag Huntley, non-existent disappearing planes, invisible experts posting untraceable proof on invisible boards about Saddam's sons and now some more evidence-untroubled guff from DrJ suggesting that there's evil conspiracy at work over Thursday's horrendous bombs.

It would seem natural that the kind of exercise reported in the Radio 5 interview would raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation.

Not in most people's minds, I'd wager.

But if you've got a shred of credible proof to support such a terrifying and dastardly assertion, lets see it. What have you got?

 

[Citizen66]

Personally, I don't think this was the work of marsians, zionist conspiracy, lizard inc - but I still find it flabbergasting that the security level in london was dropped from imminent to substantial only days before G8. Perhaps they think the G8 is a bigger target? If it is an islamic fundamentalist group responsible, seeking a worldwide islamic revolution then surely their objectives would be to attempt to cripple a leading western economy whilst further alienating fellow muslims to create more home-grown extremists.

I'd say (and have always said) that the tube would be a number one target for those reasons. Still, it hands a lot on a plate to old Bushie and his war on terror.

 

[detective-boy]

What I am respectfully asking is that such trains of thought or investigation are not immediately snubbed for fear of 'conspira-loony-spooky' labelling. It is possible to have a sober, careful consideration of evidence before us and usefully speculate about various models providing we are clear about what is speculation and what has been confirmed or denied through credible sources.

Maybe it would help if people with such theories actually looked for credible , direct evidence in support of it. Sadly most of the alleged evidence amounts to little more than speculation. State the possibility as soon as you like - you are entitled to your view. But don't start making claims that it is / must be true on the basis of irrelevant / unreliable / unsourced facts. Otherwise you will immediately lose many people who would otherwise remain sceptical.

 

[Citizen66]

What I am respectfully asking is that such trains of thought or investigation are not immediately snubbed for fear of 'conspira-loony-spooky' labelling. It is possible to have a sober, careful consideration of evidence before us and usefully speculate about various models providing we are clear about what is speculation and what has been confirmed or denied through credible sources.

You're in the wrong pub!

 

[Jazzz]

Er ... that is my point. He said precisely the same but I doubt very much that if we could see the actual exercise it would be Edgware Rd and Aldgate but Paddington and Liverpool Street and probably some others not affected in real life (e.g. Waterloo to shut down SW London transport). And I doubt a bus would have been included either.

Well, let's hope we hear more about this exercise! I would consider that Peter Power isn't a person to say 'precisely' when actually meaning something else. Of course, the reason you doubt his words is that you wish to discard the possibility of such an extraordinary coincidence.

 

[Citizen66]

Of course, the reason you doubt his words is that you wish to discard the possibility of such an extraordinary coincidence.

Why would it be an 'extraordinary' coincidence?

For insurance purposes, commercial premises have to do fire-alarm tests with some regularity (at least once a week) with a full drill happening less frequently, say, at least once every three months. Would it be a coincidence to have a fire on the same day as a fire-alarm test? (I've actually raised a concern about fire alarm tests happening at the same time every week for this reason)

 

[Darios]

Maybe "natural" in the sense that delusional states and one of the substances that produces them temporarily are "natural". And so, in a sense, is is natural that there are people whose reaction to any story is "woo, must be something spooky here, let me look for odd factoids". Non-delusional states are natural too, and "naturally" want not to expend energy giving a voice to the delusionals."

I wish I could be as certain as you. As a consequence of rarely being certain about anything, there's very little I find myself actually believing.

But you haven't even tried to read my post, have you? How many such "exercises" do you think take place on an average London weekday?

Yes I read your post - along with everyone else's on this thread. If these exercises occur with a high frequency and focus primarily on the same points (i.e. including all of the above stations) then that is a reason for supposing that in this case there is nothing unusual. I didn't know these exercises were so regular - on the grounds of what you and others said I was in the process of modifying my opinion on the matter. Thanks. I say I'm 'in the process of' because - no offence - it's something I now want to check on myself instead of just taking you at your word. Just taking people at their word is why Alex Jones style sites frequently end up getting such an awful reputation.

I hope that's good enough for you.