zArk said:
This is not the answer of someone who still has great expectations as to his future on a discussion board.
The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
This is not the answer of someone who still has great expectations as to his future on a discussion board.
You are deluded!ZAMB said:
You have CONSISTENTLY substituted alternative theories:
- they were murdered
- Hussein travelled alone
- the video frames are forged ...
If all you've ever asked for is a public, independent enquiry your posts would simply read "Well, I've seen the stuff which has been released and, to be honest, I'm not convinced yet - there are far too many inconsistencies for me. I'd like to see the rest of the evidence released and / or there to be a public enquiry to establish what happened".
See? No mention of alternative theories needed at all.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
You want the truth? You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth! 'Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face, you don't know what to do! Forget it, Marge, it's Chinatown!zArk said:
editor said:
Oh sod off. Do what your gonna do.
This is a witch hunt.
My explanations of the 'simulacrae' are in the Banking Thread. step by step.
I aint reproducing them here.
You just cannot accept my theory of the who and why based through the debt based economic system and the false capitalist system.
and so i will leave on a song.
<lyrics deleted: ed>
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
So, kitten time?
zArk said:
Er no. I don't know which translation you're reading, but it's not often used by Baudrillard ime. And I didn't take 10 years to qualify with my degree and masters either.
Seems Google agrees with me too, with 145,000 matches for baudrillard and simulacra. How many for baudrillard and simulacrae? A mere 123...
You're laughably bad at this accuracy lark aren't you.
Fullyplumped said:
It is all alleged, until proven in a court of law. Even then it can be disputed, hence the ability to appeal a decision. I mean, "overwhelming" evidence is simply your opinion. Nothing more.
And I don't have to prove my beliefs to you any more than you have to prove your beliefs to me. That's why they are called beliefs.
Some believe the government, police and intelligence services' official version of events. I do not.
detective-boy said:
YOU are deluded ....... you are confusing me with another member [now banned] whose name begins with ZA--. Please apologise - I only posted here to try and reduce the alarming level of bitching on this topic and to point out the need for a public independent enquiry. Wish I'd stayed out of it now - both sides have entrenched opinions and are not prepared to back down, it seems.
squeegee said:
Would you say it was prudent to disregard the 'official' version of events in favour of something much less logical, poorly evidenced and far more inconsistent then?
I'm as cynical as the next man and don't have any great reason to 'believe' the official line, but I'm hardly likely to swap it in favour of a load of ill thought-through codswallop from a delusional nutjob with a conspiracock-crazy agenda either. We need to have decent standards of evidence all round, not some plonker attempting to pick holes (way beyond their own knowledge and capabilities) to suit their own bizarre beliefs, offering nothing convincing in return.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
zArk said:
1) I have read your OP there--its merely a claim about debt creating a 'false' capitalist system. If not twaddle, then (at one remove) very familiar from reading Far Right wailing about financial vs industrial capitalism.
2) The term simulacrae--which other posters have reminded you is not the term used by Baudrillard--seems to mean merely 'bankers', and certainly you have not shown it is a term used by this supposed cabal about themselves.
If this is the best you can do, go back to writing Richard & Judy's scripts, why don't you (helped by Annie Machon of course).
editor
hiraethified
Bye nutjob! You were given every chance to state your case, but I'm not having serious debates about 7/7 trashed by your evidence-free moonfruitery.zArk said:
But be sure to look out for *them!*
<User banned for never-ending, non-stop, disruptive conspiraloonery. And for posting up lyrics>
[Sir Ian Blair mode]ZAMB said:
Oh, sorry! This was a case of mistaken identity. I hadn't registered a ZAMB before and sort of assumed it was the other idiot continuing as they had started.
Please note that all related comments relate to zArk. ZAMB is entirely innocent of any of the alleged behaviour and I apologise unreservedly.
£10 to the server fund when I next see editor.
[/Sir Ian Blair mode]
zArk said:
It a bit after the fact now I suppose, but FWIW Zark *is* making sense when he talks about "agency," "identity," simulacrae" and such unfamiliar terms. He's using the terminology and ideas of Jean Baudrillard, a famous and very well-respected philosopher. I don't agree with his conclusions, and I've no opinion about whether he should have posted them here, but he's not talking nonsense.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Can i borrow the ban button till you get back?
*looks trustworthy*
*looks trustworthy*
My bold and italics added...
From: "Peter Power" <p.g.power@...>
Date: 2005/07/12 Tue AM 12:21:59 EST
To: "Greg Nixon" <gnixon@...>
Subject: Re: Website Contact Page Submission
Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.
However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will
henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power
Visor Consultants Limited
Sorry Editor, but that conclusively proves that there were "walk through" excercises and that it was not, as you have continually maintained, all done on paper.
It proves nothing conclusively, but raises suspicions as far as I'm concerned and the Channel 4 response is already a bit more vague. Who was the client? It is something that an independent inquiry would be expected to demand becomes public knowledge. But we ain't gonna get that.
But just thought we could clear this up at least.
From: "Peter Power" <p.g.power@...>
Date: 2005/07/12 Tue AM 12:21:59 EST
To: "Greg Nixon" <gnixon@...>
Subject: Re: Website Contact Page Submission
Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.
However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will
henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).
Peter Power
Visor Consultants Limited
Sorry Editor, but that conclusively proves that there were "walk through" excercises and that it was not, as you have continually maintained, all done on paper.
It proves nothing conclusively, but raises suspicions as far as I'm concerned and the Channel 4 response is already a bit more vague. Who was the client? It is something that an independent inquiry would be expected to demand becomes public knowledge. But we ain't gonna get that.
But just thought we could clear this up at least.
Walkthrough means playing out a scenario in one's mind, we use it in software design all the time.squeegee said:
It's also used in gaming to describe a way of completing a certain objective.
http://www.zzutils.com/walkthru.html
http://www.eternal-legend.com/thief/
It seems slightly different in crisis management situations. Although it does seem that the players and simulators would normally conduct the exercises in a room, how do we know what specific calls, faxes, emails etc were sent during these specific excercises – which we are not allowed to know about – and how they affected the ability of the security at LU to respond?
Shouldn't it be public knowledge exactly how that exercise was carried out? Oh no, it's a secret so we can't know. As I said, it doesn't prove anything conclusively, but it does raise very plausible doubts about whether this simulated real time "walk through" might have caused some confusion in the Underground as the people involved would no doubt have been senior members of security at LU (or is that an presuming too much?)
In the event, the senior staff and peter power were able to switch very rapidly to the real, real-time situation and actually saved many lives.
But such an operation could have been a perfect cover for someone aware of the actual scenario, if one is inclined to go that route.
The suggestion on these boards by many seems to be that anyone inclined to do so is a conpiraloon, crazy and paranoid.
But when senior academics, writers and politicians suggest as much, it simply cannot be dismissed as paranoia with any degree of credibility.
Taken from
Crisis Management "Walk Through"
"To conduct a tabletop exercise, the leader begins by presenting each "player" with a scenario to read and make any personal notes or observations. The exercise leader then takes the teams on a "walk through" of their initial response activities. Discussions about how to respond will naturally occur and help balance roles, responsibilities and expectations as well as reveal the type of resources required. The process is repeated, using a later point in the time to address issues that occur after the initial event.
An evaluation report is created and distributed which outlines the strengths and improvement areas in the plans and makes recommendations. These are moderately complex exercises to design and conduct and should be done on an annual basis.
The Simulation
The objectives of this type of exercise are to:
Improve the team's ability to handle a real business unit or corporate crisis.
Validate the team plan under simulated real-time, dynamic crisis conditions.
Identify strengths and weaknesses in the plan and the team members in an "under tension" situation.
Allow the team members to experience the emotional and resource issues of a crisis.
A simulation involves two groups - the "players," who are crisis team members responding to the incident scenario, and the "simulators," who are "producing" the incident, controlling the drill and observing and evaluating the response. The drill moves in real time as simulators place information via phone, fax, and in person into the players' rooms. The information revealed to the players about the scenario is dynamic; changing based on the decisions and actions of the players.
The simulation team acts as the entire universe outside the players' room; thus while responding to the "incident," the players always contact a member of the simulation team. That is, if they want to contact the president, site, their family, technical resources or other members of the business, they call specific phone numbers to reach the simulators who play those roles. Simulators also play the roles of the media, public, regulators, customers, competitors, government officials, activists, emergency responders and so on. At the end of the drill, a complete debriefing is conducted including the players, simulators, and evaluators.
As with tabletop exercises, simulations should be progressively inclusive, starting with individual teams and broadening scope to multi-team then company wide exercises, with progressively less of the corporate response simulated. These exercises are very complex to design and conduct."
Shouldn't it be public knowledge exactly how that exercise was carried out? Oh no, it's a secret so we can't know. As I said, it doesn't prove anything conclusively, but it does raise very plausible doubts about whether this simulated real time "walk through" might have caused some confusion in the Underground as the people involved would no doubt have been senior members of security at LU (or is that an presuming too much?)
In the event, the senior staff and peter power were able to switch very rapidly to the real, real-time situation and actually saved many lives.
But such an operation could have been a perfect cover for someone aware of the actual scenario, if one is inclined to go that route.
The suggestion on these boards by many seems to be that anyone inclined to do so is a conpiraloon, crazy and paranoid.
But when senior academics, writers and politicians suggest as much, it simply cannot be dismissed as paranoia with any degree of credibility.
Taken from
Crisis Management "Walk Through"
"To conduct a tabletop exercise, the leader begins by presenting each "player" with a scenario to read and make any personal notes or observations. The exercise leader then takes the teams on a "walk through" of their initial response activities. Discussions about how to respond will naturally occur and help balance roles, responsibilities and expectations as well as reveal the type of resources required. The process is repeated, using a later point in the time to address issues that occur after the initial event.
An evaluation report is created and distributed which outlines the strengths and improvement areas in the plans and makes recommendations. These are moderately complex exercises to design and conduct and should be done on an annual basis.
The Simulation
The objectives of this type of exercise are to:
Improve the team's ability to handle a real business unit or corporate crisis.
Validate the team plan under simulated real-time, dynamic crisis conditions.
Identify strengths and weaknesses in the plan and the team members in an "under tension" situation.
Allow the team members to experience the emotional and resource issues of a crisis.
A simulation involves two groups - the "players," who are crisis team members responding to the incident scenario, and the "simulators," who are "producing" the incident, controlling the drill and observing and evaluating the response. The drill moves in real time as simulators place information via phone, fax, and in person into the players' rooms. The information revealed to the players about the scenario is dynamic; changing based on the decisions and actions of the players.
The simulation team acts as the entire universe outside the players' room; thus while responding to the "incident," the players always contact a member of the simulation team. That is, if they want to contact the president, site, their family, technical resources or other members of the business, they call specific phone numbers to reach the simulators who play those roles. Simulators also play the roles of the media, public, regulators, customers, competitors, government officials, activists, emergency responders and so on. At the end of the drill, a complete debriefing is conducted including the players, simulators, and evaluators.
As with tabletop exercises, simulations should be progressively inclusive, starting with individual teams and broadening scope to multi-team then company wide exercises, with progressively less of the corporate response simulated. These exercises are very complex to design and conduct."
And this guy surely can't be dismissed as a loon. Can he?
Michael Chossudovsky
Well written article I think
Michael Chossudovsky
Well written article I think
JHE
.
La Ingeniosa Doña zArk
The above-named lady whenever she was at leisure (which was mostly all the year round) gave herself up to reading books of French Post-Modernism, by Delueze and Baudrillard, with such ardour and avidity that she almost entirely neglected other pursuits. To such a pitch did her eagerness and infatuation go that she believed Baudrillard's conceit that the First Gulf War had not really happened.
Her wits being quite gone, she hit upon the strangest notion that ever madman in this world hit upon, and that was that she fancied it was right and requisite, as well for the support of her own honour as for the service of her country, that she should make a knight-errant of herself roaming the world over in cyerspace in quest of murderous simulcra, and putting in practice herself all that he had read of as being the usual practices of French Critical Theorists; righting every kind of wrong, debunking Official Narratives and exposing herself to peril and danger from which she was to reap eternal renown and fame.
The above-named lady whenever she was at leisure (which was mostly all the year round) gave herself up to reading books of French Post-Modernism, by Delueze and Baudrillard, with such ardour and avidity that she almost entirely neglected other pursuits. To such a pitch did her eagerness and infatuation go that she believed Baudrillard's conceit that the First Gulf War had not really happened.
Her wits being quite gone, she hit upon the strangest notion that ever madman in this world hit upon, and that was that she fancied it was right and requisite, as well for the support of her own honour as for the service of her country, that she should make a knight-errant of herself roaming the world over in cyerspace in quest of murderous simulcra, and putting in practice herself all that he had read of as being the usual practices of French Critical Theorists; righting every kind of wrong, debunking Official Narratives and exposing herself to peril and danger from which she was to reap eternal renown and fame.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
So, that email shows that:
a) we were completely right about the nature of the drill.
b) the conspiraloons are wrong
c) IT COULD NOT HAVE SERVED AS FUCKING COVER
d) YOU HAVE THE READING COMPREHENSION OF A 5 YEAR OLD
*takes deep breath*
I feel better now.
a) we were completely right about the nature of the drill.
b) the conspiraloons are wrong
c) IT COULD NOT HAVE SERVED AS FUCKING COVER
d) YOU HAVE THE READING COMPREHENSION OF A 5 YEAR OLD
*takes deep breath*
I feel better now.
I read it quite well thank you. I don't feel the need to hide anything to prove a point. The point is doubt. That was an excerpt from one guideline of a random crisis management team. If you think that proves anything one way or the other then you have the reasoning skills of a five year old, never mind reading or comprehension skills.
It shows a guideline. One that could be upped and made as believable as possible.
Would you not say it was plausible to assume that those involved in the exercise would have been senior people involved in the security and emergency services of the London Underground? Or would you say it would have been five or six random members of LU, maybe the cleaners or perhaps the tannoy announcers?
Neither the Channel 4 interview nor any of Peter Power's emails proves anything either way, since we do not know who was involved, who the client was and exactly how this particular operation was carried out.
How do you not think that's a relevant thing to ask?
It shows a guideline. One that could be upped and made as believable as possible.
Would you not say it was plausible to assume that those involved in the exercise would have been senior people involved in the security and emergency services of the London Underground? Or would you say it would have been five or six random members of LU, maybe the cleaners or perhaps the tannoy announcers?
Neither the Channel 4 interview nor any of Peter Power's emails proves anything either way, since we do not know who was involved, who the client was and exactly how this particular operation was carried out.
How do you not think that's a relevant thing to ask?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
It's only in doubt by you because you can't accept the idea you're wrong. You won't take the word of people who have taken part in these excersises, run these excersises, the companies guidelines or the email sent by the company when it disagrees with you.
You've got the intellectuall integrity of a politican and the reading ability of GWB on ketamine.
Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.
I think you're scrabbling for clues to back up conclusions you've already made.
You've got the intellectuall integrity of a politican and the reading ability of GWB on ketamine.
Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.
I think you're scrabbling for clues to back up conclusions you've already made.
Similar threads
- Locked
