Unwarrented Censorship

[detective-boy]

Isn't there a problem ... that ongoing investigations and intelligence gathering would be compromised by fully disclosing all the evidence collected so far?

In a general inquiry would there be any clear yardstick for disclosure?

Could a presiding judge be both impartial and able to weigh up the importance of keeping ongoing investigations out of the public realm? Does this kind of issue arise in the French system of investigating judges?

The problem with prejudicing the trials of others involved would mean that it could only take place if and when those trials were concluded or appeared unlikely to ever get off the ground (at the stage where an investigator says there are no realistic lines of enquiry still being pursued). It is the main reason that little detail is being released about the evidence which has been gathered.

The problem with revealing techniques and how they came unstuck is one which the police and security services frequently hide behind, often (in my opinion) foolishly (e.g. the constant "We can't allow phone tap evidence into evidence because then people will know we do phone taps ..." refrain). The difficulties exist within criminal trials and there are procedures in place for minimising the impact whilst ensuring fairness. Those procedures could be employed in the system I propose, leaning even more towards protecting techniques as they would not be a trial and, hence, there would not be the overriding need for fairness. It would be a balance to be struck by the authorities - the public right to be told the facts versus the need to protect the public from future danger. (And don't forget, my proposed system would not just be for terrorism or even criminal events either - would be for any major incident, many of which never get anywhere near criminal charges).

An evidential standard would not be needed if there was no verdict, but if, as I suggest, "case closed" is the only outcome aimed at, I would suggest the "balance of probabilities" as the appropriate one. As for disclosure, some detailed thought (and probably some trials during a pilot phase) would be needed to establish an approriate level of detail to be released in advance - it should be sufficient, I would suggest, for someone to realise they had an issue they wished to raise, or that they had evidence with contradicted what was available.

I do not see the problems as being insurmountable, tough problems would undoubtedly arise. I think a competent judge could effectively tread the middle ground (many of the issues from current public enquiries have arisen from mixing their role as investigator and judge - investigating and judging are two very different fields with their own skills, my proposal seperates them and lets good investigators investigate and good judges judge). As for how it works in France, I do not know!

 

[banjoboy]

In reply to Detective Boy.

I have met Ian Crane once. He is not malicious and definitely not stupid. Delusional....well we all think those who disagree with us are delusional. The more certain we are about our own assumptions the more delusional our antagonists.
For myself, I believe little that I read and see in the mainstream media....paticularly when the credibility of established political agendas is potentially on the line.
Evidence is all important and where it does not exist we need to be very cautious before accepting anyone's 'narrative'. When evidence seems to be withheld that is, in itself, cause for suspicion. Were ALL the security cameras at the relevant stations really not working that day?

Re Peter Powell....he definitely stated on one radio show and one American

DOWNLOAD 7/7; A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE (20MB .WMV)

TV show that he was engaged in drills simulating explosives detonating in the very three stations where the bombs actually went off. Any statisticians in the house? What are the odds that this was pure fluke? Millions to one against for sure. Does this anomaly not not suggest government foreknowledge of the 7/7 outrage? Come on now...be fair about it.

Do you still think it is wise to accept the government narrative without the most intense scrutiny of the evidence in an open public enquiry?

For what its worth, my guess is that Peter Powell came forward very quickly with his evidence because he realised that the information he held was possibly very threatening to the narrative prepared by powerful and ruthless forces within tye UK government. He took the 'Jennifer Flowers' option (the Clinton floozy who noticed that a another couple of his mistresses had died in suspicious circumstances)....get the information out there as a self-protection mechanism. One he had had his say there was much less reason for anyone to try and 'silence' him.

That's only a theory though. Am I clearly another 'conspiraloon'?

 

[TeeJay]

You are either (a) stupid; (b) deluded or (c) malicious.

What about (e) An MI5/Mossad/CIA asset?

 

[banjoboy]

Sorry,

The link to the Powell 7/7 statements is:


http://www.911truth.ie/video/77release6.wmv

 

[editor]

well we all think those who disagree with us are delusional.

You're speaking for yourself there, mate.

Why do you think anyone who disagrees with you is 'delusional'?

TV show that he was engaged in drills simulating explosives detonating in the very three stations where the bombs actually went off. Any statisticians in the house? What are the odds that this was pure fluke? Millions to one against for sure. Does this anomaly not not suggest government foreknowledge of the 7/7 outrage?

Wow. Now there's a leap of logic.

Do you have you the exact details of the nature of these drills, verified from a credible source?
Do you know how often they take place (otherwise your quoted odds are a total nonsense)?
Why on earth would they pretend to have drills on the same day that they were about to unleash a slaughter of innocent passengers?
What actual evidence do you have of government foreknowledge?
What evidence do you have for an alternative theory?
What happened to the suspected bombers?
If it wasn't them who placed the bombs there?
How were they fitted?
And how come no tube staff/maintenance teams/accident investigators have remarked upon the explosions not matching the scenario of a carried bomb?

 

[laptop]

Oh gawd, another one.

well we all think those who disagree with us are delusional.

Wrong.

The conspiraloons show specific traits in their postings and the failures of their logic.

Take by contrast the poster here, mears: very very wrong but exhibits none of these signs of disordered thought or paranoia.

It is, however, a feature of the delusional that they are unable to spot this difference.

Am I clearly another 'conspiraloon'?

Almost certainly. Who asked you to come here to "back up" Mr Crane? In what terms?

 

[TeeJay]

The problem with revealing techniques and how they came unstuck is one which the police and security services frequently hide behind, often (in my opinion) foolishly (e.g. the constant "We can't allow phone tap evidence into evidence because then people will know we do phone taps ..." refrain).

There might be more to it than this tho':

The military et al have all sorts of techniques for collecting signals info. The information held may not be just vanilla phone taps done within the UK using warrants etc.

Just some "maybes":

* Foreign agencies tapping each other (eg UK in US and US in UK) - and then swapping info - thereby exploiting a legal loophole about warrants etc. Interesting to see the Sun publish transcripts of recorded telephone calls between Mr Peter Foster and his mother (in Ireland) in the Cheriegate affair - noone ever explained how they got hold of them exactly. Not a major case but revealing in the fact that everyone went totally silent about it, case closed, Cheriegate story went dead almost the next day etc. Also see Bush's recent "yes I am tapping phones inside the US without warrants, but I am the President" speech. Of course outside the US or for non-US nationals no warrant is needed. Maybe if a call is routed via satellite it "leaves" US territory? Who knows.

* Other "loopholes" such as the fact that warrants tapping for mobile phones are given out on a person rather than a phone number and cover any and all phones that person has ever used, even if they don't own them - making a single call from someone else's phone would allow that phone to be legally placed under tap indefinitely.

[Also my own bonkers/paranoid story: For some reason my local carphone warehouse said I had to come back the next day went to get my new phone, at which point the assistant had to go and "sort out the box" (ie the sim card 'cd case') for some unexplained reason. Weirdly when I got home and looked inside I found a receipt with someone else's name on it! Of course, I am sure that there is a completely innocent explanation for how this piece of paper jumped into the off-the-shelf factory-sealed box while the assitant went to 'sort it out' and has nothing to do with my previous involvement with various alternative/radical protests, campaigns and groups ... but theoretically this 'switch' technique could be used to legally tap almost any phone.]

* The fact that consumer mobile phones sold to the middle east (for example) have most of their encryption removed - just one example, but the overall principle of not wanting people to know the extent, methods etc of surveillance and decryption possible - both to be able to monitor things that people think are safe, but also to force people through fear and uncertainty to actually not use non-monitored channels or to spend a lot of time, effort and money on more complex encryption and avoidance than necessary.

* Various cutting edge and military grade technologies such as monitoring traffic without even having a physical tap on a line or at an exchange (see the stories about monitoring Iraqi phone traffic before the war).

* The general technique of keeping people completely in the dark about what can and can't be monitored, what is and isn't monitored.

* The possibility that companies like Microsoft have built secret backdoors into various things - China and Russia are very keen to develop their own Unix alternatives for their domestic PC market presumably because they have the same suspicions about Windows software and similar products.

* The judgement that it is better to prevent terrorist attacks and disrupt terrorist networks rather than get terrorist convictions - pull their teeth rather than lock up one lot and degrade the capacity to disrupt and render useless the next lot.

 

[TeeJay]

As for how it works in France, I do not know!

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

The main feature of the inquisitorial system in France (and other countries functioning along the same lines) in criminal justice is the function of the juge d'instruction, often translated as investigating magistrate. The juge d'instruction is a judge who conducts the investigations in the case of severe crimes or complex enquiries. He or she is independent from the political power as well as the prosecution. Contrary to the prosecution, which is, in final, supervised by the Minister of Justice, the juge d'instruction, as a judge, is independent (though of course in some occasions political pressures have been exerted through various means).

The judge hears witnesses and suspects and orders searches for other investigations. The goal of the juge d'instruction is not the prosecution of a certain person, but the finding of truth, and as such his duty is to look both for incriminating and exculpating evidence (à charge et à décharge). Both the prosecution and the defense may request actions from the judge, and may appeal the judge's decisions before the court of appeal. The scope of the enquiry is limited by the mandate given by the prosecutor's office: the juge d'instruction cannot start to investigate crimes on his own accord.

While in the past, the juge d'instruction could order remand (that is, imprisonment pending trial) for defendants in cases that he supervised — this power being subject to appeal —, this is no longer the case nowadays. Other judges have to approve any remand decision.

If the juge d'instruction decides there is a valid case against a certain suspect, he defers the suspect to a tribunal or court, where the proceedings oppose the prosecution and the defense. The juge d'instruction does not sit in the court that tries the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting on future cases involving the same defendant. The case is tried before the court in a manner similar to that of adversarial courts: the prosecution (and, possibly, the plaintiff "civil parties") generally ask for the conviction of the criminals, the defense counsels fight their claims, and the judge or jury draw their conclusions from the evidence shown.

Juges d'instructions are used only for the most severe crimes (murder, rape, etc.), and for moderately serious crimes (embezzlement, misuse of public funds, corruption, etc.) when the case has a certain complexity.

Due to the judicial enquiry and the possibility for defendants to have judicial proceedings cancelled on procedural grounds during the initial phase, cases where the evidence is weak tend not to reach the trial stage. Conversely, France, until recently, did not have a notion of guilty plea and plea bargaining, and now has it only for proposed sentences less than one year in jail; thus very strong cases for the prosecution are tried in court, whereas, in countries such as the United States, they would be settled by plea bargain.

 

[TeeJay]

Delusional....well we all think those who disagree with us are delusional. The more certain we are about our own assumptions the more delusional our antagonists.

You are wrong. saying someone is delusional doesn't simply mean you disagree with someone.

wikipedia again:
Delusion
plus
Thought disorder
Psychosis
Paranoia

 

[TeeJay]

TV show that he was engaged in drills simulating explosives detonating in the very three stations where the bombs actually went off. Any statisticians in the house? What are the odds that this was pure fluke? Millions to one against for sure. Does this anomaly not not suggest government foreknowledge of the 7/7 outrage? Come on now...be fair about it.

If I was simulating a terrorist attack on London, especially after the Madrid bombing, I would assume that an attack would be made on one or more of the main London railway stations:

Blackfriars, Euston, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Paddington, Victoria and Waterloo

If I was planning one for a company in the City then the most relevant of these would be King's Cross and Liverpool Street.

If I was planning one for a company in Westminster I would reherse for Victoria and Waterloo.

Millions to one against? Bollocks.

 

[banjoboy]

re editor

"Why do you think anyone who disagrees with you is 'delusional'?

Do you have you the exact details of the nature of these drills, verified from a credible source?"



I mean 'delusional' in the sense of 'mistaken'...nothing more than that.

Is Mr Powell not a credible source? Did he not outline the nature of these drills in his interviews?
If there are regular drills of this kind then yes, the statistics of any such calculation would be affected but the odds against such a coincidence occurring would remain very, very high.
As for the other questions you raise. This is exactly the kind of information we need to know. A public enquiry is badly needed to establish the truth. I am not claiming to know who bombed the trains or the number 30 bus but when the government and mass media pop up with a coherent narrative in a day or two we should not accept their story without seeing the evidence...and if evidence is withheld from us (denial of a public enquiry) that should be a major cause for concern.

Re 'Laptop'

As a member of the 911 forum I read a notice that Ian Crane was taking some abuse on your site for raising the 7/7 issue. I decided to take a look for myself. The venom and ignorance of some comments are depressing.
Can I say that I will be very happy when someone presents evidence to prove that 9/11 was not an inside job....but that ain't going to happen. Look at the collapse of WTC7 and explain that away to me please.

I am fairly new to this information (saw a documentary 'Loose Change 2' about 5 months ago) but the implications of 911 are as serious as can possibly be.

7/7 is much muddier water because there is less material evidence available but some alarming similarities show themselves....the drills, the immediate 'narrative', the suppression of evidence, the failure of mainstream media to seriously investigate anomolies in the evidence.

Anyway, I expect this post will elicit yet more abuse and do not care to continue arguing this case.

 

[detective-boy]

So the field is left wide open for both understandable scepticism and paranoid true-believer stuff.

Which is why I'm agreeing there is a need for change.

Whilst pointing out that any rational suggestion / debate is not helped at all by the conspiracy theorist's approach.

 

[laptop]

I mean 'delusional' in the sense of 'mistaken'...nothing more than that.

Not understanding the difference is a symptom of being delusional.

Is Mr Powell not a credible source?

He's marketing his consultancy services.

There is one of these paper exercises going on in London most working days. Nothing to see there, then.

 

[editor]

7/7 is much muddier water because there is less material evidence available but some alarming similarities show themselves....the drills, the immediate 'narrative', the suppression of evidence, the failure of mainstream media to seriously investigate anomolies in the evidence.

So have you got any actual evidence to back up your suspicions or not?

And what's your alternative theory and what credible evidence do you have to support it?

Anything?

I mean 'delusional' in the sense of 'mistaken'...nothing more than that.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. I suggest you consult a dictionary before posting up such tosh again.

Can I say that I will be very happy when someone presents evidence to prove that 9/11 was not an inside job....but that ain't going to happen.

How about you produce some credible, solid evidence from a credible source that says it was an inside job?

Oh, and how do you feel about conspiraloons hassling members of the families of 7/7 survivors?

I think they're despicable, cowardly scumbags. How about you?

 

[Lock&Light]

Having allowed this thread to wobble on so far, I'm now left wondering why the editor found it necessary to lock Ian Crane's first thread.

All that has been said here could have been said on that thread, perhaps even without the insults.

 

[detective-boy]

For myself, I believe little that I read and see in the mainstream media....paticularly when the credibility of established political agendas is potentially on the line...

When evidence seems to be withheld that is, in itself, cause for suspicion. Were ALL the security cameras at the relevant stations really not working that day?

Re Peter Powell....he definitely stated on one radio show and one American
TV show that he was engaged in drills simulating explosives detonating in the very three stations where the bombs actually went off.

Do you still think it is wise to accept the government narrative without the most intense scrutiny of the evidence in an open public enquiry?

That's only a theory though. Am I clearly another 'conspiraloon'?

So why do you believe anything you read in non-mainstream sources?

I agree that the witholding of evidence can be suspicious. My point is that I have yet to see any official account which says what evidence is or is not available and whether or not it is being witheld. If you show me a request for (e.g.) the CCTV on the trains and an official response which says "We've got it but you're not having it. The reason being because we say so" then that would raise suspicions. The current situation which, so far as anyone has been able to show me, is that no such footage has been released followed by a leap of logic to "so they must be witholding it cos it doesn't show what they want".

But Peter Power did NOT state what you say he stated. Listen to it again. Transcribe it. Read it carefully. It does not say what you (or Ian R Crane) say it says.

I have never said that the narrative should be accepted without question. Let's wait and see what it says.

And are you a conspiraloon? If you honestly believe what you have written, yes. If you haven't thought it through and are just following the crowd, no.

 

[detective-boy]

There might be more to it than this tho': ...

I didn't say there wasn't. There will be instances where it would be foolish to divulge a technique which is not commonly known. This will frequently be a new technique. But the problem is not beyond satisfactort resolution using a little wit.

It is not, in my opinion, an excuse to avoid properly investigating and publicly airing things. Otherwise the system implodes (e.g. Use of informants in the bad days in Northern Ireland - good idea, intended to prevent serious crimes and save lives. Eventually comes to the point where the system has become corrupted so that information which would have prevented serious crime and aved lives cannot be acted upon because it would endanger the informant. People operating the system unable to stand outside it and say "Hang on, if we've reached this point why are we here at all")

 

[Badger Kitten]

As a member of the 911 forum I read a notice that Ian Crane was taking some abuse on your site for raising the 7/7 issue. I decided to take a look for myself.

Where? I can't see it on the 9/11 site. Or is it in the 'hidden' part of th esite that has been set up for discussing tactics? Despite the repeated avowals of members and moderators on the 9/11 site that '' all discussions should be in the public domain'' until recently.

Which is interesting because when I PM-d a few members of the 9/11 site askign them to desist with the personal attacks and allegations that I was ''a team ''of ''criminal spooks'' I was loftily told that all communications must be public.

Link would be appreciated.

By the way, I am quite happy to look at alternative versions of 7/7. And I have done so. And I find them to be bollocks. I am not paid to believe or peddle the ''official version'' but when my original 7/7 account of a bomb is twisted and misquoted by conspiracy theorists to argue that there were ''power surges'', then I will come and investigate who the fuck these people are and what they believe. I then discover they are reading my blog, commenting on it and busily discussing me on their forums, who I am and what i do and what I believe. At which point, I thought, sod it, and decvided to contribute to the thread about who I am, what I do and what I believe, rather than let a bunch of strangers slag me off all over the internet.

Since I am now a part time writer on 7/7 and set up a survivor group of 100+ people, it is not that great to be attacked as a fantasist, a spook or a liar.
More importantly, since I am campaigning for a public enquiry, with other victims, and sensible people it does our cause no good to be associated with Holocaust deniers, and the clearly delusional. Hence my involvement with this sorry state of affairs. I am trying to prevent the baby of a possible independent public enquiry being thrown out with the bathwater of conspiraloonery. Clunking metaphors aside, I am no fan of new Labour, I am constantly banging on about civil liberties and peace campaigning and what have you, but I have tried to guard against being dumped in with the extremist crank fringe for being a rational dissenting vioce, like hundreds of thousands of other bloggers and ordinary people who feel let down by and lied to by New Labour. Not in my Name, etc.


It would be more dignified to let them [edit for clarity: the conspiracy theorists] blather on and I have now got to that point, but there have been months of me feeling immensely frustrated and angry that these people who do not even know me should sit about speculating so wildly about my motives and background since stepping off a bombed train. Or whether |I was there in the first place. I'd hoped they could be reasoned with, but you might as well talk Darwin with a Creationist.

And I use the fundementalist religion comparative advisedly.

Anyway, over here to u75 they all swarm now, where I am pleased to see once more that their theses are advanced without proof or evidence, their arguments poorly constructed and require huge and uncritical leaps to be made i.e: they were not on the 7.48 train SO THEY WERE NEVER THERE AT ALL AND IT IS A L LIE, A LIE! , and so on and so on, questions, questions, never answers. They want the publicity, they want the hits.

They don't expect to be mocked, they are martyrs to the cause, after all. This is the sort of thing you get on the 9/11 boards

[QUOTE='thoughtcriminal' on 9/11 boards ]It's up to us to stop them. We have been used and abused by governments and parties for far too long. I dont know how we will ascend, it is part and parcel of our present evolution. The people on here have ascended to some degree because that is why we are here. We are truthseekers. The old rules dont apply anymore. We have to believe this. If youve read any of Icke's stuff you will realise that we create our own reality and I dont agree that we are powerless. Ive just got a real gut feeling that this wont go away, it wont be put out tp pasture, like for instance, the Kennedy assasinations. We have the evidence...( snip) [/QUOTE]


x a lot

 

[banjoboy]

Oh, and how do you feel about conspiraloons hassling members of the families of 7/7 survivors?

I think they're despicable, cowardly scumbags. How about you?[/QUOTE]


If that has happened I agree.

The videos of WTC7 and WTC's 1 and 2 coming down provides masses of very hard evidence. The NASA thermal imaging photos of the 3 World Trade Centres show temperatures of the rubble of over 1000 degrees Farenheit 5 days after the collapses. There is documentary evidence (workers on film) describing molten metal in the basements of the WTC's weeks after they fell. Only controlled demolitions melting the steel at thousand of points could have caused this. There are many live news reports that are on documentaries but have never been retransmitted on mainstream media where firemen, reporters, and many other witnesses describe bombs going off in the buildings. Look them up. They are easy to find. Here are a few links:

http://www.question911.com/links.php for 'Loose change 2'

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/WMV/DR_Griffin_Madison.wmv

With 911 there is absolutely no shortage of the hardest of evidence.

 

[fela fan]

I think it would be interesting if it could be made workable though, because I suspect that there is a useful distinction to be made between people who are understandably suspicious of our evidently dishonest government and 'true-believers' who are getting emotional fulfillment from possessing the TRUTH.

But look, who are these people on urban? Who are these 'true-believers', who are these 'conspiracy theorists'? And how do you know they are getting 'emotional fulfillment'?

I'd really like to know mate.

Coz i'll tell you one thing, the most vehement of 911 observers on this forum are the likes of editor. They have the most inflexible of ideas on this topic. I'm glad you began your experiment, coz it's uncovered a few salient truths...

 

[detective-boy]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

Very instructional. Can't see that it would make any difference to the situation we are discussing. Seems the "juge d'instruction" combines the role of investigator and judge to some extent - not sure that would help.

 

[Badger Kitten]

For the last time, here is the refutation of the Visor/Peter Power thing.

Done by a proper investigative journalist whom if it had been true would have had the story of his career and one that Channel 4 news would have run and run.

Please. Just. Read. It.

 

[editor]

There are many live news reports that are on documentaries but have never been retransmitted on mainstream media where firemen, reporters, and many other witnesses describe bombs going off in the buildings. Look them up.

Right. That's it. You're another fucking consipiraloon.

We've discussed these supposed "bombs" going off a thousand times here already and you know what: not a single shred of hard proof has ever emerged, neither has anyone ever come up with a remotely plausible explanation about how a massive amount of explosives was invisibly brought into the building and invisibly installed by invisible operatives.

So if you think you're going to be allowed to post up the same clueless bollocks written by unqualified nutjobs posting on ludicous sites, think again.

Read these and go away.

http://www.911myths.com/index.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
http://tommcshane.bravehost.com/refute.htm

 

[detective-boy]

There is one of these paper exercises going on in London most working days. Nothing to see there, then.

I am personally doing one on 27 April and another on 5 May. Both based on scenarios in Central London ... perhaps you'd all like to make sure you are out of town that day!

* Realises that this post now means that the conspiraloons will claim that U75 had advance warning if anything does happen and that, clearly, editor is behind it all - at least it'll make a change from the bloody Jews ... *

 

[Groucho]

You are either (a) stupid; (b) deluded or (c) malicious.

I don't agree. It could be a combination or it could be all three, it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

[fela fan]

Those who simply want to question the official account, or to seek further information, are "drowned out" by those who substitute alternative conspiraloon theories and ignore any answers / explanations provided. They turn off the vast majority and bore them. Sadly this means that reasonable questions are also lost.

But DB, who ARE these people?? I'm asking bernie the same question.

And i can tell you, i've had reasonable questions and valid points run right off the boards before this. And it wasn't anything to do with 'conspiraloon' sorts 'drowning' me out.

It was editor who just simply binned the thread. Goaded on by the usual suspects who did all the drowning out of those of us who are rightly suspicious of the official version that requires us to accept the most staggering levels of incompetence, and then to let them off of any responsibility for this bumbling ineptitude.

Tell me mate, who are these 'conspiraloons'? Can you or bernie list them?

 

[editor]

If there are regular drills of this kind then yes, the statistics of any such calculation would be affected but the odds against such a coincidence occurring would remain very, very high.

Read this you stupid, ignorant, wilful liar:

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.

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.

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372&parasStartAt=1

 

[Joon]

In reply to Detective Boy.



Re Peter Powell....he definitely stated on one radio show and one American

DOWNLOAD 7/7; A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE (20MB .WMV)

TV show that he was engaged in drills simulating explosives detonating in the very three stations where the bombs actually went off.




Peter Power didn't say they were running the exercise only on the underground, but also on mainline stations. And I think it is widely accepted that these terror exercises were more or less seminars in a company's boardroom with on-screen presentations. I don't think people actually went out into the underground as part of this exercise.

We do need a proper enquiry into July 7. It was the biggest attack on London in peacetime. A narrative is not good enough. I think we could all write our own narrative of what happened. The government must be pressured somehow into holding a full enquiry. But of course Blair doesn't want an enquiry because it just might conclude that Britain has indeed paid the "blood price" that he said we should be prepared to pay to secure its special relationship with the US - and we have.

 

[TeeJay]

Having allowed this thread to wobble on so far, I'm now left wondering why the editor found it necessary to lock Ian Crane's first thread.

All that has been said here could have been said on that thread, perhaps even without the insults.

You still can't say anything about the actual topic can you? Just whinging and critical comments about other posters.

You really do have some sort of passive-aggressive problem don't you?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Peter Power of Visor Consultants response to the conspiracists...

Peter Power of Visor Consultants response to the conspiracists...

"Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows.It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.
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) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.
Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).