The 7/7 Report

[editor]

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.

Eggs-fucking-actly.

 

[TAE]

It'll be interesting if anyone denies the train was cancelled though.

 

[squeegee]

You are acting like illiterate imbeciles. On paper it involved a company of 1000 people. That actual drill involved just a few people performing activities in a simulated drill.

How is that difficult to comprehend? You are conceding nothing to conspiracy nuts or anyone else. Just accepting what is said in the quote.

If you prevaricate on such a minor point (or just can't plain understand it) how are we to proceed with getting any truth on this?

By hurling abuse and providing no actual proof of your claims that this was just a paper drill, other than a misreading of PP's first quote, you demonstrate only a willingness to brush this under the carpet.

Much like the Government and mainstream journalists.

Incidentally anyone got any other quotes from PP that says the drill was a paper exercise? You maintain it was such. How about someone here show me proof of that then I'll concede and apologise.

Go ahead. Make my day.

 

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Bob_the_lost
Which company was it then?

That's what I'd like to know. A question, it seems, I cannot ask without being branded a nutjob.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You are acting like illiterate imbeciles. On paper it involved a company of 1000 people. That actual drill involved just a few people performing activities in a simulated drill.

How is that difficult to comprehend? You are conceding nothing to conspiracy nuts or anyone else. Just accepting what is said in the quote.

If you prevaricate on such a minor point (or just can't plain understand it) how are we to proceed with getting any truth on this?

By hurling abuse and providing no actual proof of your claims that this was just a paper drill, other than a misreading of PP's first quote, you demonstrate only a willingness to brush this under the carpet.

Much like the Government and mainstream journalists.

Incidentally anyone got any other quotes from PP that says the drill was a paper exercise? You maintain it was such. How about someone here show me proof of that then I'll concede and apologise.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Yeah, the paper was doing the drill itself, that's exactly what we meant.

A few people were in a room, isolated from the outside reacting to a theoretical situation. This is what i, db, the ed and everyone else who has a foothold in the realm of the sane has been saying. At no point will the majority or even a significant fraction of the company's staff be involved.

You are a nutjob, it doesn't matter what questions you ask or do not ask.

 

[squeegee]

Yeah, the paper was doing the drill itself, that's exactly what we meant.

A few people were in a room, isolated from the outside reacting to a theoretical situation. This is what i, db, the ed and everyone else who has a foothold in the realm of the sane has been saying. At no point will the majority or even a significant fraction of the company's staff be involved.

You are a nutjob, it doesn't matter what questions you ask or do not ask.

So you were involved in the drill, were you? Either that or you are saying all drills are the same. Either way, that doesn't count as proof. I already acknowledged from what you said and your experience that your explanation is the most likely.

But it's by no means proof. And the question still needs to be asked, since LU do contract out to many private companies.

I just want that particular matter cleared up. Nothing nutty about that at all.

 

[squeegee]

On paper it involved a company of 1000 people.

To clarify for those lacking comprehension skills. The drill was carried out and, on paper, it would have involved 1000 people, presumably all members of the private company.

But the drill was carried out by a few people, presumably senior members of this private company.

Not difficult to comprehend really. So what is going on with you lot? Why pretend not to understand? Or are you all really that dumb?

 

[editor]

Or are you all really that dumb?

Bless.

 

[squeegee]

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 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).

Bob, was this a paper drill too? Is that what it says? Care to deny this happened?

 

[editor]

Bob, was this a paper drill too? Is that what it says? Care to deny this happened?

Care to discuss the relevance of the supposed links to 9/11 made by the same, selectively quoting, agenda-driven author?

No? Why not?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Bob, was this a paper drill too? Is that what it says? Care to deny this happened?

What's your point caller?

 

[squeegee]

Care to discuss the relevance of the supposed links to 9/11 made by the same, selectively quoting, agenda-driven author?

No? Why not?

Relevance? Links? How about 9/11 and 7/7 were both terrorist attacks. Do you see the connection? I thought not.

So, no I won't care to discuss it since you obviously have no other agenda than to avoid addressing the many questions I have raised.

 

[squeegee]

What's your point caller?

Just answer the question Bob

 

[squeegee]

Care to discuss the relevance of the supposed links to 9/11 made by the same, selectively quoting, agenda-driven author?

No? Why not?

Care to show me how Atlantic Blue was also a paper drill? Care to deny that the 9/11 jet fighter drill was real?

I'd lay odds that you won't and will continue to concentrate on side issues and insults etc. to avoid doing so.

Go on, shock me and answer the point raised.

As if

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Just answer the question Bob

No that's not a paper excersise you fucking moron, it will have been proceeded by paper drills and training excersises. The entire nature of it is different, one is to teach, the other is to practice. EDIP.

What is your point, you accept there is nothing suspicious about the drill on the day, so now it's one months before that's suspicious?

 

[squeegee]

No that's not a paper excersise you fucking moron, it will have been proceeded by paper drills and training excersises. The entire nature of it is different, one is to teach, the other is to practice. EDIP.

What is your point, you accept there is nothing suspicious about the drill on the day, so now it's one months before that's suspicious?

I accept it is likely there was nothing suspicious. I would still like the questions asked in an independent public inquiry.
So you now state there are different stages to a terror drill.

How do you know which level the Visor drill was at? How? Without asking PP under oath in a legal setting you have nothing that can be considered proof.

Only his word. How do you know he isn't protecting his client? How? Unless you ask him in a court of law.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I accept it is likely there was nothing suspicious. I would still like the questions asked in an independent public inquiry.
So you now state there are different stages to a terror drill.

How do you know which level the Visor drill was at? How? Without asking PP under oath in a legal setting you have nothing that can be considered proof.

Only his word. How do you know he isn't protecting his client? How? Unless you ask him in a court of law.

Court of law? I thought you claimed you were after an inquiry.

 

[editor]

Care to show me how Atlantic Blue was also a paper drill? Care to deny that the 9/11 jet fighter drill was real?

And, once again, could you explain what possible relevance a jet fighter drill on 9/11 has to Power's corporate on-paper exercises on 7/7 please?

 

[squeegee]

And, once again, could you explain what possible relevance a jet fighter drill on 9/11 has to Power's corporate on-paper exercises on 7/7 please?

Just keep pretending I haven't answered. Maybe I'll lose my rag or will just give up. Prevaricator

 

[squeegee]

Court of law? I thought you claimed you were after an inquiry.

An independent inquiry will hopefully discover evidence leading to a prosecution. Just jumping ahead. Pointless to do when there's so much stonewalling going on....EVERYWHERE

 

[squeegee]

Power's corporate on-paper exercises on 7/7 please?

Wasn't on paper, was it?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

An independent inquiry will hopefully discover evidence leading to a prosecution. Just jumping ahead. Pointless to do when there's so much stonewalling going on....EVERYWHERE

You wot? You've already made your mind up, judge jury and executioner squeegee.

You're too stupid to be responsible for other people's lives.

 

[detective-boy]

Either that or you are saying all drills are the same.

In relation to the fact that they are entirely self-contained, yes. They are. Because if someone starts ringing / faxing / e-mailing other people who are not involved in the exercise chaos ensues and next thing the public are panicking, the police, etc. are getting millions of calls, etc. etc.

The only exercise involving ANY publicly observable activity are those involving the emergency services themselves.

And we hear about them. Usually in advance (so fuckwits like you don't panic). Certainly when they run. There was one a few days ago in the Dartford Tunnel I think.

 

[editor]

Wasn't on paper, was it?

It's a commonly used phrase to mean 'not a real exercise', as in one conducted paper and/or onscreen.

So what have these exercises got to do with 9/11 fighter jets, please? What's the meaningful and relevant link, please?

 

[squeegee]

We've already established there are different stages of drills. Nowhere does Peter Power say this was a paper exercise (unless you can show me a quote where he says so. "Involved, on paper, 1000 people" does not even get close.

The war games drill on 9/11 caused confusion to air traffic control. That is fact. This does not prove conspiracy but it should have been investigated at the American inquiry. If some terrorist group had intelligence that that exercise was going on, it would have been the perfect cover.

That should be investigated.

So should a Peter Power who blabbed on national radio a day after that his exercise was carried out in the same stations where bombs went off. You say it was a paper exercise but can offer no proof.

Michael Chossudvsky claims that Atlantic Blue drill was carried out by Peter Power and involved hundreds of people in the London Underground.

I cannot confirm this as fact, but no one has been able so far to dispute this.

But if it was a full on drill, involving senior members of LU (which can only be established by questioning PP further) then it is possible that a terrorist organisation became aware of it and, like 9/11 war games drill, used it as cover.

Yes, so now you'll do your usual and spout no evidence blah blah bollocks.

There's no evidence to dispute this conjecture either, no matter how much you shout your abuse to cloud the issue. The only way is to ask PP in an independent inquiry or just a commons select committee hearing.

So now I've answered your question for the upteenth time, are you able to respond with anything other than personal insults, obfuscation by asking the question again, or can you actually acknowledge that there is reasonable cause to doubt PP's amended version of what happened with the drill that day.

Let me guess

 

[editor]

Nowhere does Peter Power say this was a paper exercise

Are you blind? Or just stupid?

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...

In fact, the 'exercises' he spoke of on Five Live were carried out purely 'on paper', or at least PowerPoint, by a small group of seven or eight executives (Power remains tight-lipped about the client) seeking to examine the impact on corporate decision-making of a potential crisis situation. As Fintan Dunne, editor of BreakForNews.com points out, 'these types of private-sector "risk management" drills never use field staff.
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372&parasStartAt=1

So are you saying that anti-globalisation demonstrators were involved too? And if, not why not? You can't have it both ways. Either these exercises had real people involved or they were on paper. So which was it?

Michael Chossudvsky claims that Atlantic Blue drill was carried out by Peter Power and involved hundreds of people in the London Underground.

And what the fuck does it matter what this conspiracy-desperate, selectively quoting, sloppy journalist thinks?
and what relevance has it to the events of 7/7?

Has he a single scrap of evidence to support any of his assertions?
No? So why pay attention what he thinks? His dubious agenda is there for all to see, and it seems that you've swallowed it whole.

 

[squeegee]

And what the fuck does it matter what this anti-conspiracy-desperate, selectively quoting, sloppy journalist thinks either?

And I don't see a quote from Peter Power saying it was a paper exercise there. Do you?

Or are you saying because it's a Channel 4 journalist then it must be right?

"Right you are squire, sorry to 'ave troubled you"

 

[squeegee]

Has he a single scrap of evidence to support any of his assertions?

"Peter Power Interview CTV 11/7/05"

Now maybe he made that up. But until someone can call up CTV, get a transcript of the interview, or call Michael C to ask him to verify this claim he makes of a real time emergency drill carried out deep in the LU called Atlantic Blue, neither of us can know for sure.

But you'd think if it was just made up, and PP wasn't involved in Atlantic Blue, or there was no such thing as Atlantic Blue, then Michael C would be in line for legal action against him, no? But if Atlantic Blue did happen and PP was involved it would be reasonable cause to ask PP about the client and drill carried out on 7/7 no?

The above bold is a specific question to you. Do you think you can answer it logically with no conjecture, personal insults, obfuscation, misdirection etc etc? Thought not.

So anyway, for now we must assume this drill happened. And if PP was involved then it would be reasonable cause to assume the drill on 7/7 might have involved a private security company or a company somehow connected to the LU.

No proof for that whatsoever. But reasonable cause to ask the question....by professionals...lawyers and independent journalists.

But no one has chosen to follow it up (or are too afraid to for fear of reputations being tarnished by the hound dogs of anti-conspiraloonery). And the matter is far from resolved and the question still hangs in the air....who was the private client? Just answering that would resolve it.

But well done Editor. You've done a great job obfuscating, prevaricating and just plain stonewalling. Peter Power must be hugely relieved that you've protected him and his client so well.

And all because you just can't stand the thought that a branded conspiraloon, fruitloop nutjob (branded by you and your minions with no evidence other than your twisted inferences from what I have said) might have a point in stating that there is reasonable cause to question PP about the events of 7/7.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Has he a single scrap of evidence to support any of his assertions?

blah
neither of us can know for sure.
blah

So that's a NO then.

 

[editor]

But if Atlantic Blue did happen and PP was involved it would be reasonable cause to ask PP about the client and drill carried out on 7/7 no?

If. If. If. Why the fuck should anyone waste time taking the words of a selectively-quoting, agenda driven, conspiracy-desperate, research-lite US journo seriously?

And even if the exercise did take place, so fucking what?

You still haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support the barking fruitloop claims that Power & Co were supposedly 'in on it'. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Jack fucking shit.

Come back with some grown up evidence from a credible, relevant and suitably informed source and I might begin to take you seriously.

Otherwise, look around. You're not exactly impressing people with the strength of your 'argument' here, are you?