The 7/7 Report

[squeegee]

You should really learn to read what you type.

This is now getting surreal. Thanks for making English seem so incomprehensible.

 

[editor]

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"

So, what proof has he that LU was involved?

None.

What new evidence or insights can he add?

None.

So why are you bringing up this bloke and his 9/11-tastic ramblings when you have Powers own words?

And it's funny how he omts to mention the other drills that made up part of the same session, isn't it?

 

[editor]

It's totally my business. I travel on the tube daily. I have a right to know and so does everyone who lives in London and worries they might be caught in another outrage.

You claimed that the LU were involved with these (ON PAPER) exercises.

Have you a single solitary shred of evidence from any credible source to back this up please? YES/NO?

And, for the third time of asking - why did you bring up 9/11 in relation to this exercise?

 

[squeegee]

Jeez, the client set up a crisis scenario dealing with terrorist outrages on the London Underground, involving two stations where bombs went off. Even if the client is private how would such a scenario not involve liasing with LU senior staff when dealing with a possible terrorist attack on the LU?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This is now getting surreal. Thanks for making English seem so incomprehensible.

What bloody walk through are you refering to then?

You contradict yourself at least twice per page.

 

[squeegee]

You claimed that the LU were involved with these (ON PAPER) exercises.

Have you a single solitary shred of evidence from any credible source to back this up please? YES/NO?

And, for the third time of asking - why did you bring up 9/11 in relation to this exercise?

Did you read Michael Chussodovsky's article? The answer's there. I didn't claim, I said it was reasonable to assume this.

 

[editor]

Jeez, the client set up a crisis scenario dealing with terrorist outrages on the London Underground, involving two stations where bombs went off. Even if the client is private how would such a scenario not involve liasing with LU senior staff when dealing with a possible terrorist attack on the LU?

So by your idiotic CoCo the Clown logic, they must have been busy liaising with 'anti globalisation protesters' too, yes?

 

[squeegee]

How could a client conduct an authentic terrorist scenario on the London Underground and not involve senior members of LU staff. What could be learnt from such a scenario?

 

[editor]

Did you read Michael Chussodovsky's article? The answer's there. I didn't claim, I said it was reasonable to assume this.

So he has no proof, no insights, no evidence, just a sloppy page full of selective quotes and an attempt to dredge up 9/11 into the equation.

His comments are an absolute irrelevance.

So why did you bring up 9/11 in this thread please?

 

[editor]

How could a client conduct an authentic terrorist scenario on the London Underground and not involve senior members of LU staff. What could be learnt from such a scenario?

And again: So by your idiotic CoCo the Clown logic, they must have been busy liaising with 'anti globalisation protesters' too, yes?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Did you read Michael Chussodovsky's article? The answer's there. I didn't claim, I said it was reasonable to assume this.

I read it, he dances around facts and supporting evidence far better than you do. But he still has not one single bit of evidence that the 7/7 drills are anything other than what we say they were.

If you think i'm wrong then C&P it up. Otherwise just give up and move onto your next fantasy.

Which bloody LU walkthrough are you talking about?

 

[squeegee]

So by your idiotic CoCo the Clown logic, they must have been busy liaising with 'anti globalisation protesters' too, yes?

Why? What have anti-globalisation protestors got to do with this?

 

[squeegee]

I read it, he dances around facts and supporting evidence far better than you do. But he still has not one single bit of evidence that the 7/7 drills are anything other than what we say they were.

Who's the we you are referring to? So you hold the official line and anyone dissenting MUST provide proof first and is not allowed to doubt the official line that belongs to the "we" you are referring to?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Who's the we you are referring to? So you hold the official line and anyone dissenting MUST provide proof first and is not allowed to doubt the official line that belongs to the "we" you are referring to?

If you think i'm wrong then C&P it up. Otherwise just give up and move onto your next fantasy.

Which bloody LU walkthrough are you talking about?

I'm discussing the source you're using. Back it up or accept that it doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. Untill we get this settled i'm not moving on, because otherwise you'll just keep on making up evidence and arguements ad infinatum.

Edit: Just to make it clear my allegation is that there is not a single bit of evidence in that crap you linked to that supports any doubt that the drill was anything other than a coincidence. All he has is the rubbished theory that the isralis had forewarning and the drills that you are still failing to show are relevant.

 

[squeegee]

I'm discussing the source you're using. Back it up or accept that it doesn't say anything like what you claim it does. Untill we get this settled i'm not moving on, because otherwise you'll just keep on making up evidence and arguements ad infinatum.

Back what up? My doubt? My questions? Which source? Michael C, the crisis management link?

Move on, please. I'm about to anyway. This is what you call a circular argument. Par for the course on this subject here I'm afraid.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Back what up? My doubt? My questions? Which source? Michael C, the crisis management link?

Move on, please. I'm about to anyway. This is what you call a circular argument. Par for the course on this subject here I'm afraid.

See the edit.


Edit: Just to make it clear my allegation is that there is not a single bit of evidence in that crap you linked to that supports any doubt that the drill was anything other than a coincidence. All he has is the rubbished theory that the isralis had forewarning and the drills that you are still failing to show are relevant.

Oh yeah, not to forget:

If you think i'm wrong then C&P it up. Otherwise just give up and move onto your next fantasy.

Which bloody LU walkthrough are you talking about?

 

[squeegee]

See the edit.


Edit: Just to make it clear my allegation is that there is not a single bit of evidence in that crap you linked to that supports any doubt that the drill was anything other than a coincidence. All he has is the rubbished theory that the isralis had forewarning and the drills that you are still failing to show are relevant.

Oh yeah, not to forget:

So we've moved on from what kind of drill to the fact that, in any case, it was a coincidence. Coincidences on such a large scale always give me cause to doubt. Anyway, slow day at work over.

Off to watch the Italians try and overcome the conspiracy against them winning the world cup

Smell you later peeps

 

[editor]

Why? What have anti-globalisation protestors got to do with this?

FFS: can't you read? A protest by anti-globalisation demonstrators was one of the scenarios included in the very same fucking exercise that you're banging on about.

As Power explained, the London bombing scenario was in fact one of three explored: another looked at the disruption that might be caused by unruly anti-globalisation demonstrators. In no case was there any real mobilisation of physical or human resources, which makes the case for 'planned' intelligence alibi look awfully flimsy, if not downright silly.

I've linked to this information at least four times now and referenced it many times and still it fails to sink in your head.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain why you referenced 9/11 in this thread.

 

[editor]

Move on, please. I'm about to anyway. This is what you call a circular argument. Par for the course on this subject here I'm afraid.

You made the claims. You failed to back them up.

About par for the average conspiraloon here, I'm afraid.

 

[tarannau]

I've linked to this information at least four times now and referenced it many times and still it fails to sink in your head.

Sharp this Squeegee one isn't he? I tell you, it'd be really worthwhile to have intellects of Squeegee's calibre scanning through an official inquiry document - with their perceptive powers, memory and comprehension skills they'd be a real threat to the Govt. Or maybe not...

 

[CharlieTum]

<deleted>

 

[Bob_the_lost]

<->

So what's your point caller? Peter Powers did it?

 

[editor]

Manchester Evening News 8th July 2005 final edition.
Mr Power said:

Fuck off zArk.

Obsessed lying nutjob.

 

[editor]

So what's your point caller? Peter Powers did it?

No! It was Peter Powell!

 

[Badger Kitten]

*pops in*

* catches up*


Hello, well that was fun x

 

[laptop]

Off to watch the Italians

* Awaits squeegee's reports of a rugby match *

 

[Prole]

You banned zArk? Was this why? But I thought you always wanted proof?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3655/1515/1600/PeterPowerM.E.N.0.jpg
<editor: FAQ busting 230k image removed>

It reads:

the Manchester Evening News 8th July 2005 final edition.
(author unknown as the article is part of a Terror Blast special page 5 right hand column)

KING’S CROSS MAN’S CRISIS COURSE

A FORMER Metropolitan Police Superintendent who was heavily involved in the aftermath of the King’s Cross fire in 1987 was running a crisis management course when the bombs went off yesterday.
Peter Power was involved in an exercise with a City company when london was attacked.
Mr Power said:
“I was an inspector at the time of the King’s Cross fire and was involved in co-ordinating the operation.
“After leaving the Met, I set up my own crisis management consultancy.
“Yesterday, we were actually in the City working on an exercise involving mock broadcasts when it happened for real.
“When the news bulletins started coming on, people began to say how realistic our exercise was – not realising that there really was an attack. We then became involved in a real crisis which we had to manage for the company.”
Mr Power added:”During the exercise we were working on yesterday, we were looking at a situation where there had been bombs at key London transport locations – although we weren’t specifically looking at a scenario where there had been a bomb on a bus.
“It’s a standard exercise and briefing that we carry out.”
The training exercise was well under way as A&E departments across the capital were deluged with people suffering from blast injuries from the terrorist attacks.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Are you lot on fucking shifts or what?

 

[laptop]

What they're obviously not on is the right drugs.

So a bunch of executives sitting in an office were momentarily confused. That's the entire point of a role-play. Like in the theatre, you know. Or at the movies. It's all to do with the difference between truth and fiction.

Ah. I see why the argument isn't getting through...

 

[Prole]

What they're obviously not on is the right drugs.

So a bunch of executives sitting in an office were momentarily confused. That's the entire point of a role-play. Like in the theatre, you know. Or at the movies. It's all to do with the difference between truth and fiction.

Ah. I see why the argument isn't getting through...

Mock broadcasts?