Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 7/7 Report

I demand an inquest into the suspicious aircraft activity over london on that day preceeding the bombings.

What's do you mean? "What aircraft activity?" That's why we need the inquest!
 
Prole said:
Mock broadcasts?

Baby alarm.

Role play team member in organisers' room, he speak into microphone.

Sound, it come out in executives' room.

Is electrickery.

No-one else hear.
 
laptop said:
Baby alarm.

Role play team member in organisers' room, he speak into microphone.

Sound, it come out in executives' room.

Is electrickery.

No-one else hear.
"When the news bulletins started coming on, people began to say how realistic our exercise was – not realising that there really was an attack."
 
Do any of you lot engage your brains before spouting forth.

Think about it with an open mind.

What happened to zArk, why was he banned?
 
laptop said:
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...

And that's the entire point of a false flag operation. Confusion. Inductive reasoning, maybe. But if there have been false flag operations in the past, it is logical to assume there would be ones in the future.

No wonder I missed the anti-globalisation reference. It was Mr Power trying to sweeten the story, a full 10 days after the incident and over a week after he boobed on national radio.

Well how about that quote that Prole (it's always the proles that come up with the goods when the time is right) pulled up from the newspaper with quote marks next to Power's name???????

Is he about to sue the paper? I think not.

Now, given this new bit of information, do you not think it in the public interest to publicly interview Peter Power, say in a house of commons select committee, and ask him, who the client was, exactly how this walk-through simulation was carried out, who else other than the client was involved, if anyone (and I am assuming since it was connected with the London Underground they would have been receiving real-time feedback from at least one person from LU) where the scenario was held, or where the scenarios were held, and how that scenario moved from simulation to real life event?

You'd think, wouldn't you? To demand that in the public interest. For the sake of the public knowing, just in case it might have involved something like terrorist intent, which is already acknowledged to have happened on 7/7. No one would argue that it was a terrorist outrage. Except the government line is that it was them there Muslims, a few young angry kids clubbing together to hatch mayhem on the tube, cos dem English fucking 'ate us innit.

And I happen to think that is utter bullshit. Whoever executed those bombings did it with meticulous precision. If you can't see that numbskulls, there really is no future for humanity. We should be clubbing together, getting rid of the bullshit and disinformation and getting to the heart of this shit. But all we do, we who are supposed to be on the same side, is argue over side issues, when the real issue is how the fuck do we stop this shit happening again.

Or perhaps we should all just accept what is happening. In the words of George Carlin (who unlike the late and sadly missed Bill Hicks, is still alive) terrorism is entertainment, and we should just sit back and enjoy the show.

Well how about we all rewrite the script instead :p
 
Prole said:
Do any of you lot engage your brains before spouting forth.

Think about it with an open mind.

What happened to zArk, why was he banned?
I think it's only fitting that i use my 12K th post to laugh at your jibbering idiocy.

Mwahahahahaha!
 
Prole said:
"When the news bulletins started coming on, people began to say how realistic our exercise was – not realising that there really was an attack."

Thems was actual news bulletins, word of which got into the room where the executives were.

The executives got them confused with the fake news bulletins, the ones that no-one outside that room had heard.

And Peter P is a fucking marketing man seizing a chance to promote his company.

I'm amazed you're allowed outdoors unsupervised - your grasp of the difference between fiction and reality is so poor it's a surprise you haven't run over by a picture of a car off a billboard.
 
Nice one squeegee good to know someone is capable of actually thinking through the implications of blindly believing, with no evidence other than what they are told, that 4 young Muslim kids are guilty.
 
laptop said:
Thems was actual news bulletins, word of which got into the room where the executives were.

The executives got them confused with the fake news bulletins, the ones that no-one outside that room had heard.

And Peter P is a fucking marketing man seizing a chance to promote his company.

I'm amazed you're allowed outdoors unsupervised - your grasp of the difference between fiction and reality is so poor it's a surprise you haven't run over by a picture of a car off a billboard.
You were there? Or is this your own particular fantasy scenario?
 
What executives? What the clients? Well we don't know who they were so we have no idea of their involvement. But, well, you know, it's a private company and we like to keep these things secret.

[Doffs Cap]"Right you are squire, sorry to have bothered you."

Yeah, I'd like to know who they are so I can determine whether their confusion did prevent more lives being saved. If they were totally unconnected with anyone from the London Underground then fair enough. If this was carried out in some hotel in Mayfair, then fair enough, they can tell us in a house of commons select committeee hearing.

But if this was in anyway conducted within the London Underground transport network, or involved anyone connected with the emergency or security services, we have a right to know. And the only way to find that out is to ask the question...publicly.

Don't you all agree?
 
Prole said:
Nice one squeegee good to know someone is capable of actually thinking through the implications of blindly believing, with no evidence other than what they are told, that 4 young Muslim kids are guilty.
Which implications are you following through, that the PP run drill was infact part of a covert operation, as such the person running it is obliged to go on the radio and announce it to the world?

You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.
 
squeegee said:
No wonder I missed the anti-globalisation reference.
Yes. That'll be because you're too fucking stupid to read the links, references and quotes I've repeatedly posted up for you. In this very thread.

Shall I remind you how many times you've manage to "miss" the reference thus far?

And what's your excuse for not bothering to research primary sources?
 
editor said:
Yes. That'll be because you're too fucking stupid to read the links, references and quotes I've repeatedly posted up for you.

Shall I remind you how many times you've manage to "miss" the reference thus far?

And what's your excuse for not bothering to research primary sources?
What do you think of the Power reference to Mock Broadcasts?

Why was zArk banned?
 
Prole said:
What do you think of the Power reference to Mock Broadcasts?

Why was zArk banned?
He wasn't banned, his spirit was freed from the electronic prison that caged him. Think of it not as a punishment, but as a reward for questioning reality so much that it ceases to hold onto your mind.

His conciousness is now able to roam freely amongst the stars, fliting from galaxy to galaxy, exploring strange new worlds and new civilisations, boldly going where no man has gone before.

*starts humming*
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Which implications are you following through, that the PP run drill was infact part of a covert operation, as such the person running it is obliged to go on the radio and announce it to the world?

You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.

And you call me a conspiracy nut? How can I even begin to treat that with anything other than derision. I'm not the one making the assumptions. I don't know who the client was, where the simulation was carried out, how many people were involved etc etc.

All I know is that bombs went off on 7/7. People died. The government tell me it was Muslim kids angry at the West for bombing Iraq, and I don't believe that. So, given my suspicions about the government story, I want made public, every detail that can be uncovered. Now you can harp on about official secrets, ongoing war, careless talk costs lives etc etc. but something is amiss.

Editor, you accuse me of not reading my posts, then you ask me a question that I answered a couple of pages ago. False Flag operation is what connected 7/7 and 911. It is aknowledged fact that planes were conducting war game exercises on the morning of 911. This created confusion which might have been a contributing factor to the failure to scramble F-16s in time to shoot down the planes about to hit into the towers.

And our mini-me 911 (with total deference to all those who lost their lives to this obscene carnage of a mindset that perpetrates these acts) our "catalysing event...like another Pearl Harbour" to coin the PNAC document written in 2000, is 7/7.

Would you not wonder that the Peter Power game in a hotel in Mayfair, with a few businessmen totally unconnected with LU (which is, of course, why they conducted a crisis situation involving bombs going off in the London Underground) might lead to a reasonable suspicion it may well also have been a false flag operation?

No maybe you don't see it that way. But many people do, not least many Muslims who are sick of being looked at the wrong way because the mainstream media including Channel 4, BBC and the Guardian choose to relay this story, the narrative of the amgry young Muslims, as if it was fact, with no jury, no trial and no inquest.

Don't you think we deserve some answers under oath, if that even means anything other than in public in front of we the people?
 
squeegee said:
False Flag operation is what connected 7/7 and 911.
You don't have a single shred of proof or any credible evidence whatsoever for the existence of a 'false flag' operation on 7/7. Or anything linking it with 9/11.

Nothing. Zilch.

And that's what marks you out as a fucking conspiracy nut. You reach wild conclusions without facts. And you keep on repeating them.

Come back when you have some credible evidence because I'm not going to let you keep on posting up your fact-free fairy stories.
 
squeegee said:
All I know is that bombs went off on 7/7. People died. The government tell me it was Muslim kids angry at the West for bombing Iraq, and I don't believe that.

Why?

You've got absolutely nothing to support your paranoia, so why?
 
Squeegee: Don't you think we deserve some answers under oath, if that even means anything other than in public in front of we the people?
Well there's certainly plenty of questions that we haven't had answers to yet. Although the crock that is the narrative has satisfied many on here.

Release the Evidence!
 
Prole said:
Well there's certainly plenty of questions that we haven't had answers to yet. Although the crock that is the narrative has satisfied many on here.

Release the Evidence!
Release Prole from this electronic prison!
 
editor said:
You don't have a single shred of proof You reach wild conclusions without facts. And you keep on repeating them.
.

Where's your shred of proof that these 4 young men did it? One cctv image from Luton?
 
editor said:
You don't have a single shred of proof or any credible evidence whatsoever for the existence of a 'false flag' operation on 7/7. Or anything linking it with 9/11.

Nothing. Zilch.

And that's what marks you out as a fucking conspiracy nut. You reach wild conclusions without facts. And you keep on repeating them.

Come back when you have some credible evidence because I'm not going to let you keep on posting up your fact-free fairy stories.

The false flag is a conspiracy theory, you are right of course. But history has shown that governments have done this in the past. I'm am not saying in any way that this is what happened.

That's why I want an inquest. That's why I want the questions asked. A conspiracy nut of the type you brand all dissenters with would say definitely it was a false flag it's the illuminati, the new world order, the lizards, the planet nibiru blah di blah di blah holgrams blah di blah.

Believe me that's not what I'm saying. I really don't know, which is why I want the questions asked, and I want it done publicly so that the public can be the judge. Because politicians conspire. That is what politics is all about.

And so we must always be suspicious of our leaders when outrages occur.

So to re iterate, I have no way of knowing if 7/7 was a false flag operation. I might be suspicious that it might have been, and thus I would like to find out more about this simulated war game that Peter Power played.

Given the gravity of what happened that day, I think it right to ask the question and then, and only then, can we start talking about facts, when it comes into the public domain.

That is how a civilised society should conduct its affairs.
 
Prole said:
Although the crock that is the narrative has satisfied many on here.
What credibly-sourced, cross-checked evidence do you have that proves that official narrative is a "crock," Prole?
 
I'd say most of the legal system deals with suspicion. Hence a trial. Or an inquest. If you had fact you wouldn't need an inquest or a trial. Truly barbaric, no?

Reasonable suspicion. Public inquest, independent inquiry. Let the public be the judge of the facts as they are presented to us.
 
Back
Top Bottom