It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7/7 Exercise - why would they have pretend bombers?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh

Really? you think that a homeland security operative would actually use a name like that do you? If it was true you can rest assured you would no longer be posting.

You may put your tin-foil hat back on now.

/program end

Actually, I really believe you are a disinfo agent, and a rather poor one at that
You've exposed your colours
I hope I'm wrong but I don't make such accusations lightly

[edit on 17-7-2005 by dh]


Really? And you deduced that from those sarcastic comments I made?
Are you going to be 'the best darn detective on the street' one day?

I merely become annoyed with people that distrust the media so much, because they are 'puppets of the evil government', yet pick what they see as evidence for their cause out of the information they provide, choosing to ignore the information that contradicts anything they want to believe.

At least I take the time to research into things and explain why I can see it is not accurate, true or as perceived. However some people cannot seem to do the same in return.

Read their website, learn about what they do and look at the transcripts, all of them not just the one that is so vague it can be molded to your idea.

Every time anyone says anything against a conspiracy theory they are immediately a 'disinfo agent' or 'feds' or 'MiBs'. God forbid the chances that 'gee, it might actually be right'.

[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



dh

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
If you're not you need to cool it
You don't answer the points, you avoid the questions, you're sneeringly dismissive and you're always in there



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
But I have replied! Lke was said here by CTID56092:


Originally posted by CTID56092
Chaps - the exercise was a seminar among managers only not an actual on the ground exercise . No need to close stations / have dummy bombers. The risks / economic cost of closing 4 Tube stations would be great just for an exercise. On the ground drills inc NBC etc have been carried out - on Sunday Mornings!

Coincidence not conspiracy



There was no ground excerise, there were no fake bombers. simple as that.
This company does not conduct realtime exercises involving a physical simulation at ground level. This excerise was not that kind of exercise, try and find anything that says otherwise. You won't because these are the facts. Hell why don't you ring them tomorrow and ask?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Actually, the only reason I posted here is i'm trying to piece together what company Power was running this excersise for as i believe that would answer most of the peoples questions on this subject.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Creative_Seeker
Actually, the only reason I posted here is i'm trying to piece together what company Power was running this excersise for as i believe that would answer most of the peoples questions on this subject.


It would be useful to know, but I believe that they are keeping that informaiton confidential, however if anyone knows better then it would be a good piece of info, as you say!

[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Well it would certainly answer the arguement most people use, and the one I still dont fully get. Sure Power wouldn't just abandon them after the attack and leave them too it, but Power himself stated that all they had to do was get a list of employees that hadn't shown for work and report them. Surely their HR dept are competant enough to do that themselves. But I suppose it totally depends on the type of company it was as to the exact crisis management they would require.


dh

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,


For the calculation either read my post from a few days ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or go here...

groups.yahoo.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Ringing them up and asking them is ridiculous. . . . who would ever admit to being involved in planning a terrorist bombing?

If you expect us to believe that it isn't possible for M15 to dupe four guys into being part of an exercise then think again.

It is obviously possible, and saying 'This company had a policy of only running paper exercises' is not proof that it didn't happen. . . . the agent doing the hiring could spin a story to the 4 blokes easily. . . it wouldn't be hard for an M15 agent to sound convincing would it?

Obviously the four guys could have been duped into thinking that they were part of an exercise even if there wasn't one running at all. . . . .and the fact that there was one running would provide all sorts of opportunities for cover even if it was 'only a paper exercise' (which I doubt, with 1000 people involved, and the statement from Power that they 'swung into action'. . . )

And isn't Power ex M15? . . .not that he would need to be, just wondering.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Creative_Seeker
Actually, the only reason I posted here is i'm trying to piece together what company Power was running this excersise for as i believe that would answer most of the peoples questions on this subject.


No it wouldn't, but it would be interesting to know.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
(which I doubt, with 1000 people involved, and the statement from Power that they 'swung into action'. . . )


Power is ex-Scotland Yard.

And it was a company that employed 1000 people not the actual 1000 people that took part. I remember reading somewhere that it was only a small board of crisis managers that actually took part.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,


Who worked that out though anyone can quote statistics? It's not impossible and I don't see how they could come to such a low probability.

I have already shown that terror attacks on underground trains are the best methods to use to cause maximum death and disruption.
These sort of private excerises are run every day by various companies, and the scenario is a likely one. The government even ran a bio-attack simulation on the underground not long back. Even though the chances are low, they are not as low as the probability quoted, who calculated it? what paramerers did they use?

The chances of winning the lottery are low but most weeks at least one person wins it.

Why would there be a admin based exercise in one company planned to be running in conjunction with a real attack? there is no reason, it accomplishes nothing and would be sloppy.

If there had been a government sponsered ground based excerise running with emergancy services, etc then yes, it would be suspicious, but it wasn't. It appears little more that one of the little quirks of coincidence that the universe consistantly likes to throw at us.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
There was no ground excerise, there were no fake bombers. simple as that.
This company does not conduct realtime exercises involving a physical simulation at ground level. This excerise was not that kind of exercise, try and find anything that says otherwise. You won't because these are the facts. Hell why don't you ring them tomorrow and ask?


That's funny because you're the only one I've seen that is putting this "spin" on it. No one else has said it was not a physical exercise. This would of been a nice excuse for Peter Power, but he sure didn't say it. So I think you're throwing your opinion around as if it's "already a known fact" when you still haven't proven anything, and you're still the only person I've seen using this excuse. It isn't the Government or the media, just AgentSmith a guy who posts on ATS. No one else, yet it's a fact? I don't think so until you prove otherwise.


Well I just listened to the Radio5 replay on the official BBC site and it's real allright. Now that is weird.

And for the record I donwloaded the MP£ and it is an exact copy of the replay you get on the BBC site, though you can't download from the BBC site.

Co-incidence - most likely, however considering the same thing happened with 9/11 it is an unusual one.

If we bother to entertain the 'inside job' theory it would not make much sense, maybe the universe is a funny place and likes messing with us.


I don't see this theory in your post here, or by anyone else on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seemed like at the time you were too weak to say "it was too much of a coincidence, the Government was probably behind it" instead you tried to convince your brain otherwise. And it seems now you've gone completely back on the defensive, defending one in a million drills that just so happened during 7/7 AND 9/11, very weak.


[edit on 17-7-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by Creative_Seeker
Actually, the only reason I posted here is i'm trying to piece together what company Power was running this excersise for as i believe that would answer most of the peoples questions on this subject.


No it wouldn't, but it would be interesting to know.


So according to you, knowing what company it was wouldn't answer the question of why they needed to run a crisis management excersise such as this in the first place? Or whether they had any ties to the governement, or whether they'd gain from the bombs? see, it'd answer a whole load of questions.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Power is ex-Scotland Yard.

And it was a company that employed 1000 people not the actual 1000 people that took part. I remember reading somewhere that it was only a small board of crisis managers that actually took part.


OK, but it could have been a set up even without the exercise taking place, the exercise is certainly suspicious though.


dh

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
It's like the lottery only with many more stations and the 365 day/24 hour time factor mixed in



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   


So according to you, knowing what company it was wouldn't answer the question of why they needed to run a crisis management excersise such as this in the first place? Or whether they had any ties to the governement, or whether they'd gain from the bombs? see, it'd answer a whole load of questions.


Yes, it would, what I said is that it wouldn't necessarily answer most or all questions about the bombing. . . .partly because if there was a set up then it is definitely not going to be visible as a part of company policy or operations it would be hidden.


We read somewhere who the company they were working for was I will see if I can find the link.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
deleted in error

Something along the lines of:

It's not my own conclusion, it says it in this email from Power's company, taken from Creative_Seeker's thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

quote: Official Email Response
"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)."


Can't remember what else I had written, sorry.



[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

quote: Official Email Response
"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)."


Umm, I've read this before. Exactly where does it say they were pen and paper drills? Did you just post it and not even read what you posted? It says NOTHING of the sorts.



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.


Umm, this actually goes AGAINST what you are saying. Do... you.... understand..this?





[edit on 17-7-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
duplicate

[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join