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

[Wess]

This is not true. Nearly all the bad deeds of US foreign policy have been exposed well and truly. But not only is it not stopped, it just carries on with impunity.

You're doing a disservice to anyone out there that questions what our leaders are up to. Anybody questioning them should be welcomed.

..and thats the point...Anyone questioning them..not making up the answers to fit what they are saying

 

[Darios]

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

Great. Its a shame I can't bring up the issue of keeping an open mind (n.b. in the case to the possibility of 'false flag' scenarios) without being erroneously associated with all of the above.

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?

N.B. See my reply to Laptop - it's unlikely I'm going to suppose this exercise is reason to suspect 'false flag' given what other people have already stated on the thread. On the other hand I'm also not throwing false flag out the window (and by the same token I'm not throwing the standard 'Al-Queda' fix out either). If you're wanting examples of false flag operations I can certainly provide those. At the moment the only reason I'd have for considering a false flag (or some element of false flag) is a combination of asking qui bono and looking at the historical precedents. That's too weak for a firm hypothesis I know, but on the other hand it's also not weak enough to make it totally irrational either.

 

[laptop]

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.

It was just a plausibility estimate. But very often one of those is enough to rule out making any further effort on a line of inquiry. If I look out of my window and see a hippo with an Uzi, I'll check whether my coffee's been spiked before anything else

You can do it the other way, too: say conservatively that just 1,000,000 people work in larger enterprises in London, with an average of 500 employees; that implies about 2000 of them. If these do one "exercise" every five years, that's two per working day. I just pulled these numbers out of the air - with a certain amount of general knowledge about distribution of business size - and lo and behold I got the same answer!

 

[editor]

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.

Seeing as you've already declared it 'sinister' how about you explain your reasons for doing so first? I've already asked several times.

And why's it an "extraordinary coincidence"?

Have you checked to see how often these exercises take place?

 

[editor]

Great. Its a shame I can't bring up the issue of keeping an open mind ....without being erroneously associated with all of the above.

You haven't. But those who cry conspira-wolf here every other week can rightly expect buckloads of derision whenever they post up their latest fact-free emphatic claim.

Talking of which, exactly what are your London 'historical precedents' for coming up with your as-yet evidence-untroubled 'false flag' conjecture?

You claimed that it would "seem natural" that a regular disaster exercise on the tube would "raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation".

I don't see many people on these boards - or in the mainstream media, pub, radio phone-ins, journos etc etc - arriving at that supposedly 'natural' supposition, so what might that say about you and your mindset?

 

[Wess]

By the looks of the way that the Emergency Services worked with such efficiency and professionalism on the day ... I'd hazard a guess that they have practised the scenario a lot of times.
So, it comes as no surprise at ll to me that they found themselves at the same location. They probably do this type of thing quite regularly.

Dr. J. ..have you any idea how offensive statements like the one you made in your opening post can be?

 

[editor]

Dr. J. ..have you any idea how offensive statements like the one you made in your opening post can be?

Sadly, I don't think he does.

Really.

 

[Darios]

You haven't. But those who cry conspira-wolf here every other week can rightly expect buckloads of derision whenever they post up their latest fact-free emphatic claim.

Talking of which, exactly what are your London 'historical precedents' for coming up with your as-yet evidence-untroubled 'false flag' conjecture?

You claimed that it would "seem natural" that a regular disaster exercise on the tube would "raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation".

I don't see many people on these boards - or in the mainstream media, pub, radio phone-ins, journos etc etc - arriving at that supposedly 'natural' supposition, so what might that say about you and your mindset?

It says a lot more about your mindest actually. You've completely misrepresented my position. I notice you apparently didn't even bother listening to the audio clip before attacking the 'conspiraloons' (i.e. asking where it was said that it was the 'exact same' stations in question), so I guess in your rush to put me in the same brush-off-don't-think-about-it category you didnt bother to follow the principle of charity and read carefully what I have written.

As I said, I don't come here very often, but just looking at your recent posts I'm quite disturbed. Am I correct in thinking you're the primary moderator here? Instead of constructive moderation you seem to sink regularly into sarcasm and ad hominem. Constructive.

 

[laptop]

it was the 'exact same' stations in question

Here's your transcription of the man who has a business resilience consultancy to promote:

"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"

In order to join the community of rational inquiry, you need to read this with the scepticism of an opposing barrister or, indeed, of a detective-boy (above).

Yer man doesn't say it was the exact same stations, because he doesn't say it was those and only those stations. He doesn't mention buses.

You appear, too, to be leaping to the conclusion that there's a coincidence.

There's nothing more counter-intuitive than coincidences. Which is why any candidate member of the community of rational inquiry needs to do some sums and some thinking about the distribution of prior probabilities.

(As an example of the latter: what scenarios are used in typical "exercises"? Ah, yes, here's detective-boy producing his experience of using very similar scenarios himself. Does that make him complicit in something? Gosh, he knew what was going to happen two years ago, or whenever? I think not.)

So far, therefore, you're showing strong signs of belonging to the "woo, must be something spooky here, let me look for odd factoids" faction. Or, to call it bluntly, of being delusional - more connected with the surface forms of rational discourse than some, to be sure, but not showing much awareness of the method.

Edited to add: Oh, and enough with the ad hominem accusation. I know nothing of you apart from the texts in front of me. If I said "Darios is talking rubbish because he/she/it smells", that'd be an ad hominem / ad feminam / ad rerum dismissal. The evidence of the texts in front of me is that you're interested in nothing more than arguing for the kind of "open-mindedness" that leaves people's brains falling out.

 

[elbows]

In my lifetime there is only 1 'false flag' event theory that I have seen mainstream media such as the BBC actually discuss more than once. Its the Russian one. Whether they give it time because there may actually be a little real evidence, or whether its because its Russia, I dont know.

Here are some example stories, note that I am not suggesting that the BBC have ever talked about this story as if its definitely what happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3357705.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2154100.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1857060.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/679997.stm

 

[editor]

so I guess in your rush to put me in the same brush-off-don't-think-about-it category you didnt bother to follow the principle of charity and read carefully what I have written.

Talking of brush offs, is there any chance of you addressing my points?

What are the London 'historical precedents' for coming up with your as-yet evidence-untroubled 'false flag' conjecture and why do you assert that it would "seem natural" that the tube exercise should "raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation"?

 

[Darios]

Talking of brush offs, is there any chance of you addressing my points?

What are the London 'historical precedents' for coming up with your as-yet evidence-untroubled 'false flag' conjecture and why do you assert that it would "seem natural" that the tube exercise should "raise suspicions about a possible 'false flag' operation"?

Care to quote me where I said "London 'historical precedents' or shall we just gloss over the fact that you erroneously put the two (London and 'historical precedents' of False Flag operations) together?

Are you always this childish?

 

[editor]

Care to quote me where I said "London 'historical precedents' or shall we just gloss over the fact that you erroneously put the two (London and 'historical precedents' of False Flag operations) together?

Silly me thought that when you were asserting it would be "natural" to suspect a "false flag" operation you would have some meaningful 'historical precedents" relevant to London to draw from.

I take it you have none, yet still don't think it odd that you seem to alone in your "natural" suspicions about what (ahem) really happened on Thursday.

I'm beginning to go along with laptop's analysis.

 

[ska invita]

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.

I agree: my wife heard the interview on the radio and mentioned it to me: although she didnt mentione the bit about "the same stations" - and sure enough, that is definitely in the clip.

I think the two questions that must be asked (before getting to full on conspiracy mode) are:

1. What was the excercise they were doing aimed to achieve: this "Jumping from slowtime to quicktime" stuff: who benefits from the crisis managment service they provide? When they switched from the practice mode, to real mode, what is the difference? (I dont fully understand what their role is)

2. What is the company that hired them?

I agree with the poster that said that this should be investigated - you dont have to be a nutjob to want coincidences and possible coverups at least looked into.

-anyone know the awnser at least to question one?

This is the company the speaker (peter power) represents:
http://www.visorconsultants.com/

 

[editor]

Call me crazy if you like, but I always thought it wise to actually hear from the people concerned and find out more about the actual exercises - how often they took place, what they involved etc etc - before heading off to conspiraloonland.

I imagine General secretary Bob Crow and Ken will have more than a few words to say if anything dodgy was going on, so how about waiting for their infinitely more well-informed words before this thread embarks on any more wild conjecture?

The bombs only went off a couple of days ago FFS and already some people are already dreaming up wild complex conspiracies based on nowt but thin air..

 

[no names]

It was just a plausibility estimate. But very often one of those is enough to rule out making any further effort on a line of inquiry. If I look out of my window and see a hippo with an Uzi, I'll check whether my coffee's been spiked before anything else

You can do it the other way, too: say conservatively that just 1,000,000 people work in larger enterprises in London, with an average of 500 employees; that implies about 2000 of them. If these do one "exercise" every five years, that's two per working day. I just pulled these numbers out of the air - with a certain amount of general knowledge about distribution of business size - and lo and behold I got the same answer!

You need to clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying your estimate is of two "exercises" each day concentrating on the locations and timing of the bombs, or are you estimating something else entirely?

 

[laptop]

You need to clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying your estimate is of two "exercises" each day concentrating on the locations and timing of the bombs, or are you estimating something else entirely?

I'm saying that two different back-of-an-envelope, first-cut estimates say two exercises per day. Might be one every other day, might be eight a day.

And detective-boy's experience of organising such "exercises" shows that scenarios compatible with what yer man actually said on the radio are by no means uncommon.

I conclude that it's not worth investing a great deal of effort in establishing the exact background prevalence of exercises: on the face of it, there is no coincidence.

It's like dreams that come true: starting from an estimate of the total number of dreams per night and experience of their content, you can conclude that it's really not worth waking everyone in the country up every 15 minutes to show that precognition isn't happening.

 

[sparticus]

As niksativa says at this early stage all that can be concluded is that this is worthy of further research and questions.

As for previous evidence of false flag operations and collusion with terrorists this collection might refresh people's memories although given Darios and Larry OHara's interest in false flag ops perhaps they can add to this

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/previous_terror_attacks.htm

 

[no names]

I'm saying that two different back-of-an-envelope, first-cut estimates say two exercises per day. Might be one every other day, might be eight a day.

And detective-boy's experience of organising such "exercises" shows that scenarios compatible with what yer man actually said on the radio are by no means uncommon.

I conclude that it's not worth investing a great deal of effort in establishing the exact background prevalence of exercises: on the face of it, there is no coincidence.

It's like dreams that come true: starting from an estimate of the total number of dreams per night and experience of their content, you can conclude that it's really not worth waking everyone in the country up every 15 minutes to show that precognition isn't happening.

Well that's your conclusion as of now. I haven't reached one yet but I would question the numbers of people who receive Crisis Management training specific to early morning bomb blasts at a relatively small number of London rail or tube stations.

Further to that there's also something else that I've been trying to check out today. On Channel 4 news, on the evening of the 7th, John Snow briefly interviewed a Dr. David who appeared to be in charge of the A&E dept. at the Royal London Hospital. During the interview the doctor explained that they were able to react so swiftly because there had been a large number of medical personnel at the hospital for a day of training to address just the issues they faced. Perhaps this is the training that was being coordinated by Visor Consultants, or maybe it was a seperate training exercise. As of now I can't find the clip or a transcript of it, and it can't be verified by the Royal London Hospital as their website has been hacked: http://www.bartsandthelondon.org.uk/

 

[laptop]

I would question the numbers of people who receive Crisis Management training specific to early morning bomb blasts at a relatively small number of London rail or tube stations.

Well, there are those whose training scenario detective-boy wrote for a start...

Perhaps this is the training that was being coordinated by Visor Consultants,

Barts is not "a company of over a thousand people in London" (here) is it?

 

[editor]

As niksativa says at this early stage all that can be concluded is that this is worthy of further research and questions.

Not in DrJ's world. He's already declared things to be "sinister", although he seems strangely reluctant to explain his reasoning.

 

[ska invita]

- BBC2 (hardly a hotbed of conspiracy loons) was proud to show the "Power of Nightmares" series - as discussed on these boards. The series (now coming out as a feature length docu-film) showed explicitly how governments created the myth of al-Qaida where before the was barely such an organisation in existence.

To me that is sinister, and I have every sympathy for everyone who feels twitchy about the actions of our western governmnets when in comes to the "War on Terror". They lied in the run up to war, they lied about Al-Q, they lie in their inquiries (Hutton/Butler/Foreign Affairs Committee etc.,): in good faith my arse. There is nothing I would put past them, purely going on the current form of the last five years, never mind history before that.

I want to be clear: does anyone understand really what these crisis managers were doing on the morning of the bombings when it stopped being training, but went live? Lets say their client was Transport For London, would they have been helping TfL to manage the situation more calmly and proffesionaly? Is that the kind of work they do?

 

[fubert]

yeah. an exercise being carried out by one private company on behalf of another private company. the official london security and emergency services had bugger all to do with it as far as i can tell from the mp3.

 

[editor]

I want to be clear: does anyone understand really what these crisis managers were doing on the morning of the bombings when it stopped being training, but went live? Lets say their client was Transport For London, would they have been helping TfL to manage the situation more calmly and proffesionaly? Is that the kind of work they do?

I'm not being funny, but have you tried writing to them or TFL etc?

Admittedly they may have several thousand more important things to do, but surely it would make sense to actually go to the source for information (or wait a few days for the story to develop) rather than inviting ill-informed speculation here, no?

 

[ska invita]

so having these crisis control managers on hand, working on the situation would make the whole reaction process go more smootly and efficiently than if they weren't there (depending who they were hired to "advise")...

...well, it certainly did go incredibly smoothly.

 

[ska invita]

I'm not being funny, but have you tried writing to them or TFL etc?

TFL was an example of the top of my head... also, ive just come across this thread half an hour ago... if there is one person to approach with all this its Peter Power of the consultancy. He obviously is keen enough to talk to radio 5, so maybe he would want to awnser other questions.

I'll try to write to him if you like.

 

[ska invita]

...just been talking to my wife: she says that she saw Powers interviewed on BBC News 24 that morning - he seemed completely shocked by the "coincidence" as anyone, as was the newsreader.

..not sure if he's have anything more to say than he did on teevee: the only thing left to find out is who hired him, and hes unlikely to divulge that.

 

[bigfish]

Here´s the guy admitting, live on TV, that they were running terror-bombing exercises almost exactly like what happenened, at the same time:

http://www.terrorize.dk/misc/london/resources.php#terror.games

 

[squeegee]

The bombs only went off a couple of days ago FFS and already some people are already dreaming up wild complex conspiracies based on nowt but thin air..

Damn right ed. You can't open a newspaper, or switch on the tv without practically every journalist already absolutely sure that the bombings were the work of Al-Qaeda. FFS they even have timelines of all the bombings Al-Qaeda have carried out, including Madrid, as if there has been a systematic bombing campaign from one organisation. I seem to remember that you agreed, Ed, that Power of Nightmares was a well documented and factual account of the propaganda war the governments are carrying out, but my memory may be hazy.

So I'm sure you will agree with me that all these journalists are guilty of conspiraloon activities for pinning these bombings on Al-Qaeda even though the metropolitan police seem reluctant to do so.

I've just checked the Guardian website and there is no mention of this radio 5 interview. You would think it was at least worth investigating.

The conspiracy that seems to exist now in this country, is one of not daring to question the possibility that the bombings could be the work of anyone other than Al-Qaeda. This is the same kind of attitude which allowed the Oklahoma bombs to be pinned onto militant Muslims and delayed the eventual arrest of Timothy McVeigh.

We are bound, as seekers of truth and justice to ask these questions. We do not jump to conclusions, but suspicions are entirely justified. How in the name of truth can we avoid asking these questions.

It astounds me some of the shit I have been reading in the press, and yes Editor, I am going to do something about it. I will be contacting all my colleagues working in the media, including the Times, Sunday Times, and contact the newsroom at the Guardian etc. I cannot let this conspiracy of silence go unchecked.

Despite the recriminations and disagreements I believe that Urban 75 represents a crucial focal point in all these discussions. Despite also, what you may think, I do appreciate the rational and fact based attitude of the editor and some of the moderators. I wish they would bring their voice of reason with a lot less venom and bile. I still don't understand fully why or where this anger and rage comes from. But I do think that those of us such as Fela Fan, Bigfish, Dr Jazz and others can sometimes make unusual leaps that may be way off. But you have to be prepared to chase red herrings in order to arrive at concealed truths, and as you are aware I think that their overall picture of the nature of this terror campaign (the attempt by nefarious elements of our world governments and secret services, bought or otherwise forced by the corporate elite, to surpress the growing people's movement for justice for all the people on this beleagured planet) is an accurate one.

How can you deny that governments conceal the truth from the public. Surely no one is doing that, are they?


We do have a duty to those who have died a a result of terrorists to search for a way to end this carnage and barbarism no matter how weak and powerless we may feel in the face of this unseen enemy. And I am posting here now because of all the websites I have visited, anarchist ones and all, and despite my real reservations about how these boards view suspicions of government motives and actions, there are some seriously heavyweight discussions on these boards, and though of course, I find much in common with the aforementioned Fela et al, none of us can arrive at the truth without engaging with totally contrary opinions.

Though I disagree intensely with some views such as Mears etc. I need to hear their views to properly place my own. And their views help me understand my own in a clearer light.

I accept I am seen as another one of the conspiraloons, and don't deny I am sometimes quick to jump to conclusions. But honestly, as has been mentioned......the bombings in Turkey to coincide with Bush's visit, the bombings here in London right at the height of G8, and the 911 massacre a month after Genoa, the first anti-globalisation march which had received favourable coverage in the mainstream media........it's all just too convenient for the PNAC/New World Order (Daddy Bush's phrase remember) for me not to be suspicious of who is behind this all and doubt it is the work of Islamic groups hellbent on creating a fundamentalist Islamic planet.

I am not arriving at any conclusion of who is responsible, though as i said I have some guesses but totally accept they can only be guesses. To make a definite statement about who is responsible truly would be foolish.

But not to ask the questions, and not to be suspicious is to turn a blind eye, and that is unforgivable if truth and justice are what we are truly seeking. And that is what is happening in the press and on tv. Nick Cohen has written a sickening piece which is printed in yesterday's Observer basically castigating anyone who dares to link the bombings with the Bush/Blair axis of evil own terror campaign on the middle-east. We are being threatened with assassination of character for daring to suggest a connection.

[Added] Though as you may be aware I do not believe this is retaliation for Iraq, but I reserve the right to suggest this too may be a possibility without having to be branded by the likes of Nick Cohen as some sort of traitor. What would he make of my guesses then?

This is getting very oppressive and it's time we all used our respective talents and abilities to sift through this pile of disinformation and arrive at some kind of truth.

We seem to be at a crossroads here. If we accept this horseshit media coverage as fact our media will go the way of the American one.

Oi people of the world, NO

We must fight for Truth and Justice. Now is the time.

And as the late great, sadly missed Bill Hicks would say (in case you ain't got it yet) Squeegee your third eye

Peace, Justice and Truth

 

[slaar]

Can somebody please spell out a point here for me, it's confusing. London transport networks must have run loads of these type of exercises, entirely predictably. One happened to coincide with a genuine attack. So what?