Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 7/7 Report

squeegee said:
And as for Peter Power, why turn it around? Do you say it is fact that his client was in no way involved with the LU a public organisation that since PFI tenders out alot of it's business to private companies?
Click to expand...
Have you the slightest, teeniest weensiest remotest shred of credible evidence to suggest that his company's on-paper exercises on 7/7 had any direct involvement with the London Underground?

Do you?
Anything at all?

Let's hear it.
 
editor said:
Have you the slightest, teeniest weensiest remotest shred of credible evidence to suggest that his company's on-paper exercises on 7/7 had any direct involvement with the London Underground?

Do you?
Anything at all?

Let's hear it.
Click to expand...

Peter Power's first interview. And it wasn't on paper. As has been established, at the very least it involved a television screen with what was supposed to be a mock broadcast. Why would the executives get confused between an on paper exercise and a news bulletin on TV?

That is evidence that the exercise was not on paper. And if it was not on paper then everything PP said subsequently must be questioned, not by a journalist trying to get brownie points for exploding another conspiracy theory, but by lawyers in front of the public.

I am not saying PP was involved or did this or did that. I want to establish the facts. When investigators ask questions they don't only ask suspects to a crime, they will investigate anything and everything possible. Leave no stone unturned.

As I have said, I accept the likelihood is that PP and the private client had nothing to do with LU.

But the fact that the drill involved explosions on LU stations might be considered a reason for questioning him. Not accusing him, but questioning him about this particular drill.

But it seems even the suggestion that PP should be questioned is now reason for some to question my sanity, my intelligence, my reading comprehension etc etc in as abusive a way as possible.

It won't stop me or many others from asking the question though.
 
editor said:
Stop making a twat of yourself and answer the fucking questions.
Click to expand...

I've answered the fucking question. Now will you answer my fucking questions? Or will you continue with your tautologous prevarications? :rolleyes:
 
squeegee said:
Peter Power's first interview. And it wasn't on paper. As has been established, at the very least it involved a television screen with what was supposed to be a mock broadcast. Why would the executives get confused between an on paper exercise and a news bulletin on TV?

That is evidence that the exercise was not on paper..
Click to expand...
No, it's not evidence. It's not even remotely close to being credible evidence of any involvement by Power in the events of 7/7. That's all in your desperate-for-an-exciting-conspiracy mind.

So exactly why are you choosing to completely ignore Powell's subsequent clarifying statement after the event, the detailed and informed Channel 4 article and the wealth of inside information offered by Detective Boy?
 
Does this not count as a teeny-weeny bit of evidence for questioning further? Really?
You gonna move the goal posts again? Was this a paper exercise too?


Michael Chossudovsky

"Britain's Atlantic Blue, April 2005

In Britain, there were several documented exercises of terror attacks on London's underground system.

In addition to the 7/7 exercise conducted by Visor Consultants, a similar mock terror drill on London's transportation system entitled "Atlantic Blue" was held in April 2005, barely three months prior to the real attacks. In 2003, a mock terror drill labelled OSIRIS 2 was conducted. It consisted, according to Peter Power in testing the "equipment and people deep in the Underground of London". It involved the participation of several hundred people. (Interview with Peter Power, CTV, 11 July 2005).

"Atlantic Blue" was part of a much larger US sponsored emergency preparedness exercise labelled TOPOFF 3, which included the participation of Britain and Canada. It had been ordered by the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Charles Clarke, in close coordination with his US counterpart Michael Chertoff.

The assumptions of the Visor Consultants mock drill conducted on the morning of July 7th were similar to those conducted under "Atlantic Blue". This should come as no surprise since Visor Consultants was involved, on contract to the British government, in the organisation and conduct of Atlantic Blue and in coordination with the US Department of Homeland Security.

As in the case of the 9/11 simulation organized by the CIA, the July 7, 2005 Visor mock terror drill, was casually dismissed by the media, without further investigation, as a mere "coincidence", with no relationship to the real event."
 
OK. So let's pretend that Peter "Secret fucking Squirrel" Power was working on some complex exercise for London Underground Ltd on 7 July.

Why did he (a) go on TV to mention this fact almost immediately and then (b) clearly realise his mistake in doing so within hours, going back on TV to retract his earlier statement?

Don't you think he may have just kept his fucking mouth shut in the first place? This wasn't discovered by some top journo skills - this was discovered by him running to a TV camera and gobbing off to big up his bloody company. Can't you see that? :rolleyes:
 
squeegee said:
Does this not count as a teeny-weeny bit of evidence for questioning further? Really?
Click to expand...
Err, perhaps you'd be so kind as tell me what actual fresh evidence, expertise, inside knowledge or insights this Michel Chossudovsky has to contribute to this?

His article is nothing more than his own personal and highly selective interpretation of Power's comments, with an added evidence-free conspiraloon 9/11 link thrown in for good effect.

Look at this quote of Power's that he completely ignored:
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)
Click to expand...
But seeing as you've brought it up, I'd like you to explain - in full - what the fuck 9/11 has to do with this, please.
 
editor said:
No, it's not evidence. It's not even remotely close to being credible evidence of any involvement by Power in the events of 7/7. That's all in your desperate-for-an-exciting-conspiracy mind.

So exactly why are you choosing to completely ignore Powell's subsequent clarifying statement after the event, the detailed and informed Channel 4 article and the wealth of inside information offered by Detective Boy?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was evidence of his involvement. I said it was reasonable cause to question him further in a legal setting.

You say it's not evidence. But you are not judge and jury.
 
editor said:
Err, perhaps you'd be so kind as tell me what actual fresh evidence, expertise, inside knowledge or insights this Michel Chossudovsky has to contribute to this?

His article is nothing more than his own personal and highly selective interpretation of Power's comments, with an added evidence-free conspiraloon 9/11 link thrown in for good effect.

Look at this piece he completely ignored:


But seeing as you've brought it up, I'd like you to explain - in full - what the fuck 9/11 has to do with this, please.
Click to expand...

Since you can't even get the word prevaricate, I'm not suprised you choose to read into sentences what you want.

Involve, on paper, 1000 people does not mean the exercise was done on paper. It means on paper it would have involved 1000 people. You are the one trying to twist words to satisfy your anti-conspiraloon agenda.

Read it again, watch for the commas and try to understand that these drills are also carried out in real time in real situations. It seems common sense to me.

Either you really are lacking in reading comprehension (unlikely despite the definition fuck up you made that you still haven't acknowledged) or you are doing your usual and prevaricating cos you think I'm a fruitloop so you don't want to accept I have reasonable cause for suspicion here since it will make you look bad.
 
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)
 
squeegee said:
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)
Click to expand...

That's how I read it.

You read it as

In short, our paper exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving 1000 staff

and that is not what Peter Power said no matter how many times you say it was.
 
squeegee said:
and that is not what Peter Power said no matter how many times you say it was.
Click to expand...
You clearly can't read properly, but I'm sure people will make up their own minds about your selective reading comprehension.

But, moving on, let's talk about this supposed 9/11 connection.

Seeing as you brought it up, please explain its relevance to 7/7.
 
squeegee said:
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)
Click to expand...
Funny how you can't see the words, "simulated series", isn't it?

The "few people" were "actually responding" to the "simulated" activities "on paper", you dim wassock!
 
editor said:
Funny how you can't see the words, "simulated series", isn't it?

The "few people" were "actually responding" to the "simulated" activities "on paper", you dim wassock!
Click to expand...

You're wrong. It was simulated cos it wasn't real. They "actually" responded to these simulated "activities" which, on paper, would have involved 1000 people.

I can't believe I'm giving you reading comprehension lessons. You believe what ever cosy fairy story you wish to believe. What's the point of finding any proof that would satisfy your disingenuous mind?

You continue to believe it says "on paper" exercises. Cos you really need to believe that. Or else, oh my god, a conspiraloon might have a reasonable cause to.....ask a question.

You are utterly pathetic. Enjoy your day :rolleyes:
 
Squeegee: England have a good team on paper

Editor: No wonder they couldn't beat Portugal. How can you beat Portugal with a team made out of paper.
 
editor said:
But, moving on, let's talk about this supposed 9/11 connection.QUOTE]

Well for a start BK reckons the 9/11 inquiry (with its presumption that it already knew who was responsible, with its lack of legal teeth, with its secrecy, with its endless ommisions and contradictions and its staffing with Bush cronies and yes men) is meant to be some kind of model for a 7/7 inquiry.

Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzze

In calling for an inquiry in to who else 'the bombers' were in contact with I do hope the inquiry won't overlook the connections between Khan and Aswat and the UK security services
Click to expand...
 
squeegee said:
You continue to believe it says "on paper" exercises.
Click to expand...
Because that's what he said both at the time and afterwards and you haven't a single solitary teeniest weensiest piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Now, why did you bring up that article that linked 7/7 to 9/11 please?
 
particulars said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1811911,00.html

Today's Guardian
Click to expand...
I wonder if she's going to say how these emails were 'verified', who 'verified' them and what their technical qualifications were?

For all this bullshit about 'truth-seeking,' all I'm seeing is endless wriggling and obfuscation. Why can't I get a straight answer to a very important question?

So important in fact, that the loons entire argument is based around it. So where's the fucking evidence?
 
sparticus said:
Well for a start BK reckons the 9/11 inquiry (with its presumption that it already knew who was responsible, with its lack of legal teeth, with its secrecy, with its endless ommisions and contradictions and its staffing with Bush cronies and yes men) is meant to be some kind of model for a 7/7 inquiry.
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant to the article that was referenced, but nice try anyway.
 
squeegee said:
You're wrong. It was simulated cos it wasn't real. They "actually" responded to these simulated "activities" which, on paper, would have involved 1000 people.

I can't believe I'm giving you reading comprehension lessons. You believe what ever cosy fairy story you wish to believe. What's the point of finding any proof that would satisfy your disingenuous mind?

You continue to believe it says "on paper" exercises. Cos you really need to believe that. Or else, oh my god, a conspiraloon might have a reasonable cause to.....ask a question.

You are utterly pathetic. Enjoy your day :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You fucking idiot.

Which company was it then? Because if there was 1000 people involved in a drill on the day you'd damned well have heard more about it. People talk.

You can be told the truth time and time again, but you're too fucking stupid to listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DrRingDing
King Abdullah accused the UK of ignoring Saudi's forewarning of the 7/7 bombing.
Replies
24
Views
3K
selamlar
S
I
  • Locked
7/7 - The London Bombings, Islam & the Iraq War
Replies
4
Views
1K
editor
editor
C
What no 7/7 bombers release video tape thread?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
maldwyn
maldwyn
B
7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
23 24 25 26 27
Replies
806
Views
27K
jæd
J
mod
Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
653
Views
25K
tollbar
T
Back
Top Bottom