The 7/7 Report
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
It seems from the random crisis management guideline I pulled up that phone calls, faxes, emails would be sent to the simulators, who would simulate the actions of London Underground staff in the event of an emergency. I'm still not clear whether those simulators were LU seniior staff or members of Visor, or both.
In any case I think it safe to assume senior members of LU were involved. Stations were located to act as crisis points, which Peter Power acknowledges in two cases were exactly the same as two of the LU explosions (unless a bus exploding was part of the scenario on paper).
If this random crisis management website that I found on the web suggest faxes, emails, phone calls would be made to the simulating team, would it not be safe to assume that there would be confusion while the actual bombs were going off?
Still that proves nothing, since we have not been told who was involved, and exactly what occurred when the crisis became real.
Given the seriousness of 7/7, how do you not think that answers to these questions are in the public interest?
But all we get is a private company with a private client saying it's in their interest to keep these facts secret.
And that doesn't raise a doubt in your mind?
In any case I think it safe to assume senior members of LU were involved. Stations were located to act as crisis points, which Peter Power acknowledges in two cases were exactly the same as two of the LU explosions (unless a bus exploding was part of the scenario on paper).
If this random crisis management website that I found on the web suggest faxes, emails, phone calls would be made to the simulating team, would it not be safe to assume that there would be confusion while the actual bombs were going off?
Still that proves nothing, since we have not been told who was involved, and exactly what occurred when the crisis became real.
Given the seriousness of 7/7, how do you not think that answers to these questions are in the public interest?
But all we get is a private company with a private client saying it's in their interest to keep these facts secret.
And that doesn't raise a doubt in your mind?
squeegee said:
I doubt that you exist. Happy now?
It struck me this afternoon that:
- sane rightwingers waste shedloads of time because they peddle mere narratives without evidence - "good stories" from which they can draw conclusions they like - and it takes far longer to rebut and refute their yarns with reference to observation of the world than it does for them to spin them;
- what conspiranoids do is peddle anti-narratives - which is even more time-wasting. All they do is yell "hang on, there's this loophole".
So yes, doubt is the point. For you. If you say so.
squeegee said:
No, I would not. Peter P, self-publicising twit that he is, is consistent: he re-iterates in your C&P that the training ay was for "for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential)".
Not for LUL. Not involving LUL. One of Peter P's assistants might have been sat in the next room playing LUL in order to pass responses back to the private company executives in their room. As your other C&P observed:
you said:
That's the only way such a "simulation" can work. If anyone inside the room called any real person outside, the entire role-play would break down - quite apart from the chaos ensuing if the real person believed and acted on the lies they'd just been told.
(I've organised such "simulations" - labelled more accurately as "role-plays" - I kept getting assigned to play Gold Commander at Scotland Yard
)Types of simulated drills
Classic. Insult me, tell me I need proof to have doubt. Do it all. Suddenly the proof that a walk through happened in one room on paper is that someone here has done a walk through for their business.
And you really think no Underground senior staff were involved, since of course why would they be when it was a crisis drill in the London Underground.
I mean the logic here is startling when it needs to be to stonewall any doubt.
And it's not an anti-narrative. It's simply a question raised by doubt about what exactly went on at this drill. At what stage was this drill? All done on paper or a little more real a scenario?
No editor, I have no facts, proof, evidence other than what I have posted which suggests a far more complex scenario especially as this involves one of the biggest transport networks in any city in the world.
But fair enough, some here have done paper walk throughs for their computer companies. Well it must be the same thing, no. So who's clutching at straws now?
Look I have no desire or interest to review grainy pictures, holographic planes, train timetables. I agree they provide no proof of anything whatsoever and are most probably the product of wanna-believe internet conspiracy professionals as researchers searching for clues.
But I think it fair to ask, what the fuck went on with this drill/walk through on 7/7 and any independent inquiry would want to ask the same question.
But go on latching on to a couple of words that I posted as proof of a paper exercise by a private company with no connection to LU senior staff which has absolutely no connection with any crisis scenario that happened on 7/7.
While I will continue to ask who was involved in Visor's drill. A rational, reasonable question by someone involved in searching for the truth.
Unlike some who's role, it seems, is to prevent truth from seeing the light of day, a far harder task that is doomed to failure.
Have a nice day y'all
Classic. Insult me, tell me I need proof to have doubt. Do it all. Suddenly the proof that a walk through happened in one room on paper is that someone here has done a walk through for their business.
And you really think no Underground senior staff were involved, since of course why would they be when it was a crisis drill in the London Underground.
I mean the logic here is startling when it needs to be to stonewall any doubt.
And it's not an anti-narrative. It's simply a question raised by doubt about what exactly went on at this drill. At what stage was this drill? All done on paper or a little more real a scenario?
No editor, I have no facts, proof, evidence other than what I have posted which suggests a far more complex scenario especially as this involves one of the biggest transport networks in any city in the world.
But fair enough, some here have done paper walk throughs for their computer companies. Well it must be the same thing, no. So who's clutching at straws now?
Look I have no desire or interest to review grainy pictures, holographic planes, train timetables. I agree they provide no proof of anything whatsoever and are most probably the product of wanna-believe internet conspiracy professionals as researchers searching for clues.
But I think it fair to ask, what the fuck went on with this drill/walk through on 7/7 and any independent inquiry would want to ask the same question.
But go on latching on to a couple of words that I posted as proof of a paper exercise by a private company with no connection to LU senior staff which has absolutely no connection with any crisis scenario that happened on 7/7.
While I will continue to ask who was involved in Visor's drill. A rational, reasonable question by someone involved in searching for the truth.
Unlike some who's role, it seems, is to prevent truth from seeing the light of day, a far harder task that is doomed to failure.
Have a nice day y'all
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Squeegee you don't have a clue.
Computer company? These drills were designed to improve the ability to kill people. Idiot, you deserve all the abuse you get here. The email you source as conclusive proof effectivly confirms that's exactly what's going on.
For a disaster simulation the rules change slightly, you keep getting fed more information at various stages by the DS, to see how flexible you are and to show you how the situation can render your plan worthless in a matter of minutes.
"In no case was there any real mobilisation of physical or human resources"
Mobilisation, no. Because they say it of course. But emails, faxes, phone calls? To who? Who was involved?
Anyway, no matter how many times I point out that these are relevant questions it seems you want to ignore that and concentrate on irrelevant side issues.
The abuse you mete out and the unwillingness to concede that the questions are relevant, that there is doubt, that it seems highly likely that Peter Power, having blundered in speaking the day after the bombings, has covered his tracks to protect the "private client".
I'm not making any wild claims here. This is not holograms, doctored pictures or any of that rubbish.
It's simply a logical desire for this private client to be revealed and to find out who was involved in the exercise and what happened when they became aware of the real bombings.
Some of you here speak to me with such vulgar abuse, which is symptomatic of quite a few on these boards, I wonder whether you would do that in real life? If you think that simply by shouting abuse you can win an argument, you're wrong. You have to provide a logical reason to rebutt my point, if you wish to do so in a civilised way.
But you shout and scream and insult and shout and scream some more. It really is savage, vulgar and obscene and if you did that in a debate with me in front of an audience (unless the audience were a bunch of drunken hooligans) YOU would look foolish and lose the argument. Your style is made for Nicky Campbell, Littlejohn and the other reactionaries.
But here in the safe confines of a bulletin board you can be as abusive as you like. And moderators and the Editor backs it up or at least allows it to flourish. It always starts from the top. Just ask GWB.
None of you here have demonstrated any logic or reason when debating your points. You simply shout "stupid, conspiraloon blah blah" at anything that upsets your cosy reality of a safe world where police nab perpetrators straight after a crime and where we can accept the government explanations without question.
But the question is legitimate. The drill could have been any number of scenarios and likely involved senior members of London Underground, who then had to manage a crisis situation for real. Tell me why that would not be the case again?
Nah, no proof, but plenty of LEGITIMATE questions. But this is not the place for any serious discussion of 7/7 never mind 911.
This board is just a reflection of the real world where nastiness, brutality, rudeness and deceitfulness hold sway for the time being and where brute force is lauded above reason and understanding.
To disagree with me is your right. None of you have the right to act like barbarians. You are not interested in truth only presenting a false version of history, where no one dissents for fear of the consequences.
Well guess what. I dissent to all these lies, vulgarity and barbarity.
Mobilisation, no. Because they say it of course. But emails, faxes, phone calls? To who? Who was involved?
Anyway, no matter how many times I point out that these are relevant questions it seems you want to ignore that and concentrate on irrelevant side issues.
The abuse you mete out and the unwillingness to concede that the questions are relevant, that there is doubt, that it seems highly likely that Peter Power, having blundered in speaking the day after the bombings, has covered his tracks to protect the "private client".
I'm not making any wild claims here. This is not holograms, doctored pictures or any of that rubbish.
It's simply a logical desire for this private client to be revealed and to find out who was involved in the exercise and what happened when they became aware of the real bombings.
Some of you here speak to me with such vulgar abuse, which is symptomatic of quite a few on these boards, I wonder whether you would do that in real life? If you think that simply by shouting abuse you can win an argument, you're wrong. You have to provide a logical reason to rebutt my point, if you wish to do so in a civilised way.
But you shout and scream and insult and shout and scream some more. It really is savage, vulgar and obscene and if you did that in a debate with me in front of an audience (unless the audience were a bunch of drunken hooligans) YOU would look foolish and lose the argument. Your style is made for Nicky Campbell, Littlejohn and the other reactionaries.
But here in the safe confines of a bulletin board you can be as abusive as you like. And moderators and the Editor backs it up or at least allows it to flourish. It always starts from the top. Just ask GWB.
None of you here have demonstrated any logic or reason when debating your points. You simply shout "stupid, conspiraloon blah blah" at anything that upsets your cosy reality of a safe world where police nab perpetrators straight after a crime and where we can accept the government explanations without question.
But the question is legitimate. The drill could have been any number of scenarios and likely involved senior members of London Underground, who then had to manage a crisis situation for real. Tell me why that would not be the case again?
Nah, no proof, but plenty of LEGITIMATE questions. But this is not the place for any serious discussion of 7/7 never mind 911.
This board is just a reflection of the real world where nastiness, brutality, rudeness and deceitfulness hold sway for the time being and where brute force is lauded above reason and understanding.
To disagree with me is your right. None of you have the right to act like barbarians. You are not interested in truth only presenting a false version of history, where no one dissents for fear of the consequences.
Well guess what. I dissent to all these lies, vulgarity and barbarity.
editor
hiraethified
So, have you got any proof to support your assertion that "Underground senior staff" were involved or not?squeegee said:
YES/NO?
You made the claim. Back it up, please or admit you made it all up.
Wow. Now there's a first for me - being compared to GWB!squeegee said:
But if you're so conerned about the truth, why not start closer to home and back up your own claims?
And do you think real anti-globalisation demonstrators were involved in these on-paper exercises too?
And if not, why not?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Incapable of adressing your failings or the failings of your arguement. Not very bright are you?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
911? So you're not capable of sticking to one point as it's demolished around you? Coward.squeegee said:What about the drills for 911? Were they pretend f-16s? You present here a classic logical fallacy. And you think you can buy me off that way.
Purleese
Edited for Typo
For fuck's sake. What is is with these conspiracy-obsessed nutters?
First it was Zark making a darn fool of himself about photo manipulation, next it Squeegee's turn to find some kind of revelation about 'walkthroughs,' but entirely failing to actually read or comprehend the article he's linking to.
It's more embarrassing than anything else, especially with the added diversionary nonsense about 9-11 when old silly Squeegee realised he'd made a fool of himself. However if this is the calibre of 'truth seeker' that osessively harks on about a public enquiry then you can half understand the Govt's lack of urgency to publish a full independent inquiry - these guys would only misunderstand or misrepresent its findings anyway.
First it was Zark making a darn fool of himself about photo manipulation, next it Squeegee's turn to find some kind of revelation about 'walkthroughs,' but entirely failing to actually read or comprehend the article he's linking to.
It's more embarrassing than anything else, especially with the added diversionary nonsense about 9-11 when old silly Squeegee realised he'd made a fool of himself. However if this is the calibre of 'truth seeker' that osessively harks on about a public enquiry then you can half understand the Govt's lack of urgency to publish a full independent inquiry - these guys would only misunderstand or misrepresent its findings anyway.
editor said:Indeed.
What the fuck's 9/11 got to do with some on-paper drills that happened to be taking place in a private company in London on the 7th July?
Where's your proof it was only on paper? So no phone calls were made, no faxes, no emails. Even though the crisis management link I posted suggested this does happen.
Read Michael Chossudovsky's article. You know, the link I posted earlier. On 911 a war exercise was being conducted at the same time. Was this on paper too? Or maybe you deny this happened too.
Of course you can maintain it was an on paper drill, since it can be argued Peter Power suggested this. Though I'd like to see him questioned under oath by a lawyer in the public domain. That would at least be a logical way to proceed.
How can I provide proof of a doubt? It's about belief. I believe one thing, you believe another. Neither of us can provide proof of our beliefs.
Why are you willing to accept Peter Power's interview a full 10 days after the incident, after he had been inundated with emails and calls from journalists and conspiracy theorists (loony or not) throughout that time.
You don't think his priority is to protect his client? What about the safety of every Londoner? Is that not more important than a private client.
If there is any doubt as to who was involved in this "paper" walk-through, surely the prevention of another terrorist outrage should outweigh the privacy of a client.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
squeegee said:
No it doesn't.
It says the opposite.
You posted the email.
You used it as a source.
Your doubt is soley down to your stupidity and your bias. Nothing at all supports it, not one source, not one single fact, hell you haven't even explained why it would be benifical to run this drill at the same time. You're delusional.
squeegee said:
What bit of this don't you understand? As I said this proves nothing as it is one crisis management organisation outlining a possible scenario.
I'm not holding it up as proof of anything. Just a reasonable cause for questioning what happened at the LU walk-through.
Were calls made? And to who? Senior members of LU staff? Visor consultants? The private client (whoever that is?)?
Can you say with 100% certainty that the calls were made in a sealed room, to people who then were not involved in the emergency? Who is Peter Power referring to when he says we had to move to real time.
All legitimate questions to ask in the public interest
editor said:
Michel Chossudovsky
Would you accept this academic as a credible source?
Does he not raise legitimate, reasonable cause for doubt?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
squeegee said:
You are yet to show that LU is involved in any way, idiot.
Every quote so far mentioned leads to the conclusion that LU is NOT involved. A company of 1,000 people?
LU have a staff of 12,000 you stupid clod.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You're taking the piss.squeegee said:
Fruitloops central as a source? The same allegations and crap that you've been spouting?
squeegee said:
And if the question is answered as clearly as it is in Power's response (above) are you still going to get the wrong end of the stick, cut and paste from dodgy websites without independent thought and generally bleat like an obsessed one-trick pony.
Most of us want an independent inquiry. Idjuts incapable of basic comprehension and research like you aren't helping the case.
Bob_the_lost said:
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and is the author of America's "War on Terrorism" , Second Edition, 2005, forthcoming.
A fruitloop according to you. Laughable.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You should really learn to read what you type.squeegee said:
squeegee said:
Similar threads
- Locked
