The 7/7 Report

[Badger Kitten]

Using a little-known thing called ''google'' I was able to find this about Atlantic Blue, a not-at-all secret drill covered by the media.


Guardian


Anti-terror drill revealed soft targets in London

Mark Townsend and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday July 10, 2005
The Observer


A massive anti-terror exercise carried out last April to find out how safe London's transport systems were from attack raised concern over the vulnerability of passengers, The Observer can reveal.
Washington sources have revealed that the biggest transatlantic counter-terrorism exercise since 9/11 - which included 'bombs' being placed on buses and explosives left on the London underground - raised fears over the vulnerability of 'soft targets' in the capital.

The anti-terror drill, codenamed Exercise Atlantic Blue, involved 10,000 personnel in the UK and 2,500 in the UK. It was billed as the biggest test of the anti-terror defences of both the UK and the US and was designed to improve security. The exercise featured simulated explosive, biological and chemical attacks and, in the case of London, concentrated on testing security weaknesses in the transport system...

Whitehall sources said the tube had long been the focus of concern, both because of the difficulty of rescuing people and because of the way that, in some cases, tunnels amplify the blast. A full-scale mock attack was staged in September 2003 to give emergency services the chance to rehearse: lessons learnt from it, including the need for specially adapted trolleys to use in rescuing passengers from narrow tunnels, were put into place last week. Firefighters have also been trained to drive tube trains, so that if a driver were killed they would be able to move a train to the safety of a platform; the trains hit last week were too badly disabled to be moved.

A subway attack formed a prominent element of Exercise Atlantic Blue. During the exercise, led in the UK by the Metropolitan Police, the role of the intelligence services in intercepting 'chatter' is understood to have been praised....

 

[Badger Kitten]

More on Atlantic Blue via the BBC

5th April 2005

The biggest anti-terrorism exercise ever held in the US has entered its second day, with the focus shifting to how hospitals cope with casualties.
More than 10,000 people are taking part in the five-day exercise, which also involves Canadian and UK officials.

The drills are being monitored by Department of Homeland Security officials from a command centre near Washington, as well as regional centres in New Jersey and Connecticut.

Over the course of the five days, an international element to the crisis will unfold, involving officials in Canada, where the exercise is known as Triple Play, and in the UK, where it is known as Atlantic Blue, to test how the three countries will react and co-ordinate information.

 

[editor]

A subway attack formed a prominent element of Exercise Atlantic Blue. During the exercise, led in the UK by the Metropolitan Police, the role of the intelligence services in intercepting 'chatter' is understood to have been praised....

Funny how all these "truth seekers" making big claims seem totally unable to research even the most basic of facts, isn't it?

 

[squeegee]

I didn't need to since I had no reason to doubt Michael Chossudovsky. Is anyone denying Peter Power was part of that exercise? So if he co-ordinated Atlantic Blue, wouldn't it be reasonable to enquire whether the mock terror drill he conducted on 7/7 might have been similar?

And I didn't say Peter Power was in on it. Just that if it was an exercise connected with the London Underground, any organisation that gained intelligence of this could have chosen 7/7 to attack London believing it would cause confusion.

But all specuation until the question has been asked. A question you say is crazy to ask. I say crazy not to ask.

 

[sparticus]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4749881&postcount=1786

As I made clear in my post I don't have a prejudged theory about the lads. It is the responsibility of the authorities to present their theory and provide the evidence to back it up.

Unlike BK I do not assume that the official theory that the Leeds lads were 4 clean skins or that the bombings were suicide bombings is true

We should have a public inquiry and it should not prejudge its outcome.

Evidence is in to the public domain that challenges the official theory (such as the theory that the explosives were homemade or that the bombers were self radicalised and operating completely independently.

There appear to be connections between Khan and Aswat to British intelligence and security services, so it is reasonable to consider various nefarious theories involving them.

If we always demanded hard evidence to back up every theory of conspiracy then the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 would still be banged up

 

[editor]

So if he co-ordinated Atlantic Blue, wouldn't it be reasonable to enquire whether the mock terror drill he conducted on 7/7 might have been similar?

No, because:

(a) he hasn't claimed it was
(b) no one from London Underground has claimed it was
(c) no one from the Met Police has claimed it was
(d) no one from the emergency services has claimed it was
(d) no LT staff or anyone involved in the exercise has claimed it was

In fact, the only people claiming it was are fruitspud loon-nutcrackers who aren't letting the complete absence of credible evidence get in the way of their "it's all a 9/11-related inside job, I tell ye!" yarn.

Nuff said.

 

[editor]

If we always demanded hard evidence to back up every theory of conspiracy then the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 would still be banged up

You've got some fucking gall trying to link your barking 'truth seeking' activities with those sound souls who worked hard to overturn those terrible miscarriages of justice.

 

[Prole]

You've got some fucking gall trying to link your barking 'truth seeking' activities with those sound souls who worked hard to overturn those terrible miscarriages of justice.

Such as the Israeli Embassy bombings?

http://www.freesaj.org.uk/ and here

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/botmehalami/index.html

Lone bomber theory, suppressed intelligence etc etc

I must say I'm impressed by the level of debate that's been going on.

Keep up the good work.

 

[editor]

Such as the Israeli Embassy bombings?

And the connection with 7/7 is what exactly?


But now you're back, are you going to FINALLY answer my questions about who verified these emails, by what method they were verified and the qualifications of those people checking them?

I've asked you about ten times now and still you keep on wriggling and squirming away from the question.

Why won't you answer the fucking questions? Show me the evidence please.

Seeing as these emails are absolutely central to your conspiracy claims, your continuing refusal to answer these highly pertinent questions is beginning to suggest that you've got something to hide. I mean, why else would a 'truth seeker' suddenly go so coy?

PS Posting up a slab of text is not proof, as anyone could alter the headers/content. I want to see how the email was "independently" verified please.

 

[squeegee]

No, because:

(a) he hasn't claimed it was
(b) no one from London Underground has claimed it was
(c) no one from the Met Police has claimed it was
(d) no one from the emergency services has claimed it was
(d) no LT staff or anyone involved in the exercise has claimed it was

In fact, the only people claiming it was are fruitspud loon-nutcrackers who aren't letting the complete absence of credible evidence get in the way of their "it's all a 9/11-related inside job, I tell ye!" yarn.

Nuff said.

"I confess, I confess"

As if they would. How dumb is this post of yours? Very dumb. It has no logic to it whatsoever.

 

[squeegee]

You've got some fucking gall trying to link your barking 'truth seeking' activities with those sound souls who worked hard to overturn those terrible miscarriages of justice.

Sound souls who were thwarted for decades because of the kind of stonewalling that you make a habit of. The kind of drivel you spout is the very similar to what went on in the media about the calls for an inquiry into Bloody Sunday massacre, for example. Oh of course we weren't allowed to call it a massacre, because there was no proof etc etc.

They are the people you most resemble. You care more about yourself and your hallowed "reputation" than in seeking the truth. So where do you get the nerve to have a go at those who have the search for truth as their driving motive?

What's your driving motive, eh? To ingratiate yourself with the mianstream press? Oooohh look, there's a good review on in the papers about Urban. Such a good editor who does such a good job of stonewalling truth-seekers. He's someone who we can rely on.

You should be a thorn in their side, but choose to be their discreet veil.

You must be so proud of yourself. Well done!

 

[editor]

Sound souls who were thwarted for decades because of the kind of stonewalling that you make a habit of.

Are you going for some sort of record for bringing up completely unrelated events?

So far we've had the Bloody Sunday massacre, the Israeli Embassy bombing, the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 and, of course, 9/11 all brought up without any attempt to provide a remotely meaningful connection with 7/7.

What's your driving motive, eh? To ingratiate yourself with the mainstream press?

So how does that work then? What "mainstream press" have I recently "ingratiated" myself with, please?

I'm sure a self-declared truth-seeker such as you will have plenty of examples to hand, so let's hear them.

Errr, you have got some examples, haven't you or is this another fact-free "theory" dreamt up to suit your own prejudices?

Such a good editor who does such a good job of stonewalling truth-seekers. He's someone who we can rely on.

Sorry. Who's the "we" you're referring to here, please?
Names, please, because I haven't the foggiest what you're on about.

But - to get back on topic for perhaps just a few seconds - what's your opinion about Prole's curious reluctance to explain how these emails were 'validated' ?

Now, I'm not really one for conspiracies, but her continuing refusal to provide any details at all -despite being asked some ten times or so over the course of many days - sure smells fishy to me.

What do you think?

 

[detective-boy]

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.

No. He didn't. He has never said ANYTHING about it being "carried out in the same stations" in any account or interview I have seen. Go back and listen again.

 

[detective-boy]

So if he co-ordinated Atlantic Blue, wouldn't it be reasonable to enquire whether the mock terror drill he conducted on 7/7 might have been similar?

And, if it was, don't you think someone may have noticed ... like they noticed Atlantic Blue?

Any chance of getting round to answering my earlier question?

(Bearing in mind how you are totally incapable of finding your arse with both hands, this one: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4751115&postcount=1809)

Fuckwit.

 

[detective-boy]

If we always demanded hard evidence to back up every theory of conspiracy then the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 would still be banged up

I think you may find the Law Lords and the Courts of Appeal do require hard evidence before overturning convictions. (In those two cases, evidence that cast doubt on the reliability of confessions and of breaches of the rules governing people in police custody amongst other things).

 

[Prole]

What's your driving motive, eh? To ingratiate yourself with the mianstream press? Oooohh look, there's a good review on in the papers about Urban. Such a good editor who does such a good job of stonewalling truth-seekers. He's someone who we can rely on.

You should be a thorn in their side, but choose to be their discreet veil.

You must be so proud of yourself. Well done!

Stonewalling badgering hectoring demanding and abusive methinks.

Well said, made me smile to find such a good soul on these boards.

Ed: No to expert verification. No idea what it is for a start. The emails are real & valid and they have been checked.

I have been thinking a lot about what has been said on here re; the Luton CCTV image and the question 'if it was fake why fake it so badly?' It is so obviously a strange image, the blobs instead of faces and bars and stuff. Apart from someone who could be Hussain, noone else is vaguely identifiable and perhaps that's the real point. What court would accept this image as evidence? 3 of these 4 could be absolutely anyone. Perhaps they are, who knows? Until more images are released of the 4 which can actually be identified as the accused, this image cannot be taken as evidence. What do you think Ed? Wouldn't you want to see something that can be verified even if it's only by your own two eyes instead of an expert (or do you only trust experts?)

 

[laptop]

Ed: No to expert verification. No idea what it is for a start. The emails are real & valid and they have been checked.

We deduced that, but it's refreshing that you admit you have no idea what evidence is.

3 of these 4 could be absolutely anyone. Perhaps they are, who knows?

One of them is you! Be very paranoid

 

[editor]

The emails are real & valid and they have been checked.

For a self declared "truth seeker" you sure seem mighty keen to avoid facing the truth here.

Why can't you back up this claim? How do you know the emails are valid? Who checked them? By what process? What was their technical qualifications? How can you be sure that the content hadn't been tampered with or you're being told porky pies by an agenda-laden fruitloop?

More importantly, why are you expecting us to believe this absolutely crucial piece of 'evidence' when you refuse (or are unable) to provide any information about their validity?

For someone who likes to parrot, "show us the evidence!" with monotonous regularity, your hypocrisy here is breathtaking.

Why don't you show me the fucking evidence you claim to have seen, or if you have none, admit it and discount the claims made about the emails until you do have credible verification.

So which is it?

Wouldn't you want to see something that can be verified even if it's only by your own two eyes instead of an expert (or do you only trust experts?)

I'm still waiting for you to name who 'verified' these emails that you seem to hold such unswerving faith in.

 

[detective-boy]

Didn't someone on one of these threads send a letter to the Network Rail person asking for confirmation the e-mail being bandied about was genuine? Or am I dreaming that?

If so, was there any response?

 

[Prole]

Didn't someone on one of these threads send a letter to the Network Rail person asking for confirmation the e-mail being bandied about was genuine? Or am I dreaming that?

If so, was there any response?

It's Thameslink and yes I have the email verifying the original information. If I knew it would come under this sort of scrutiny (the sort of scrutiny I would expect of the evidence against the accused contained in the official report), I would have insisted on something handwritten and with a company seal on it and signed by the MD down!
Aren't we fortunate that we didn't make these enquiries by phone!

I am not the one who has to make a case to prove their guilt and whose evidence should be being questioned Am I?

This is the sort of evidence I am sure many of you would be appalled at if used to convict by a totalitarian regime, but then it is always easier to look outside one's own country and see these things, not so comfortable when it's your own.

 

[editor]

This is the sort of evidence I am sure many of you would be appalled at if used to convict by a totalitarian regime, but then it is always easier to look outside one's own country and see these things, not so comfortable when it's your own.

Stop fucking wriggling and show us the evidence!

Verified by suitably qualified, independent authorities, natch, and not just your fruitloop mates-with-no-names.

 

[Prole]

We deduced that, but it's refreshing that you admit you have no idea what evidence is.

I said I had no idea how to get an email verified apart from requesting another email asking for the original information to be verified by sending to a valid email address on the Thameslink website.

 

[Prole]

BTW The person (or persons) who wrote the narrative doesn't have a name, so how can we verify anything in it? Or maybe no one was willing to put their name to it. But don't let that worry you, just keep picking on me.

 

[Prole]

Stop fucking wriggling and show us the evidence!

What a shame you don't have the courage or balls to make this demand of the PTB.

 

[editor]

I said I had no idea how to get an email verified apart from requesting another email asking for the original information to be verified by sending to a valid email address on the Thameslink website.

Hold on. You said earlier:

It was posted on his website. It was sent to an independent researcher and verified by another independent researcher. We have copies with headers as you know.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4742731&postcount=1656

So what was the name of these "independent researchers" please? I've been asking for over a week now, so why are you refusing to give the details of something that makes up a major part of your claims?

And just to get something straight: what does the bloke with the dodgy makey-uppey charity and the talking terrier got to do with these emails? Were they sent to him in the first place?

 

[laptop]

I said I had no idea how to get an email verified

Exactly. You insist that "the email" is "evidence", despite not having any idea what that would mean if true.

And that goes for subsequent emails too, silly.

To you "evidence" means no more than "something that appears to you to back up your preconceived story".

 

[editor]

BTW The person (or persons) who wrote the narrative doesn't have a name, so how can we verify anything in it? Or maybe no one was willing to put their name to it. But don't let that worry you, just keep picking on me.

So you think it's OK to criticise others for being secretive and not being forthcoming with information while you do exactly the same, yes?

Fucking hypocrite.

 

[Prole]

Hold on. You said earlier:
So what was the name of these "independent researchers" please? I've been asking for over a week now, so why are you refusing to give the details of something that makes up a major part of your claims?

And just to get something straight: what does the bloke with the dodgy makey-uppey charity and the talking terrier got to do with these emails? Were they sent to him in the first place?

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database1.htm

 

[Prole]

Ed I don't think you should ask me to post up personal details like names do you?

 

[Prole]

And another

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/Thameslink_info.htm