posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:56 PM
which i have not
a single idea as to
what they could be
about. i come here to
ATS to see if there is a
lad out there willing to give
me a hand on helping me
find out what this might
be. it looks like a log.
the words used are
sort of code.
I will not and
cannot say where
or how, or when these
documents fell into
fact of the matter
is that they did
not do so by
All I seek
is a little
OPERATIONS BOARD: OPERATION MANNEQUIN 26/03/05
From Staff Sergeant A Frederick 00:20 27/03
Press speculation mainly contained. Simple truth acknowledgement and standard position maintained. Statements based around substantive elements –
Shop dummies were animated and casualties occurred, London Eye did glow with a halo. Position news agenda towards emphasis on casualties, homeland
Demphasise exact nature of threat and potency of clear-up. Do we focus efforts on removing footage from the net?
From Lt David Judd 01:03 27/03
Common video files containing video footage of the event now identified, and a bandwidth squeeze placed on downloads of them. Standard interference
patterns run across satellite retransmission of footage.
Advantageously, global communication interrupted anyway due to the signal beamed from the London Eye. The pulse wasn’t just an activation trigger,
but also sent out a cross-frequency jamming wave (why? Is the Consciousness vulnerable to certain radio signals?).
Mobile telephony appears to have worked in the area, initially, but luckily sank swiftly under weight of calls.
Very few cameras were working, and failed to capture as much footage as we could have feared.
From Capt Panos Karpidas 02:03 27/03
Careful, casual debriefing of those affected hasn’t proved possible. Too many casualties, too widespread, I’m afraid. I’m hoping to minimize
exposure through general misinformation and exaggeration.
Field operatives already calling Radio Phone-Ins and bombarding websites with their stories – common themes are that the mannequins talked, that
waxworks were included in the assault, etc.
Launching simultaneous spread of operatives claiming that nothing happened in their area. Advised operatives to stay away from linking incident to
genuine terrorist threat.
From Sgt Catherine Petts 06:03 27/03
Clear-up going well, and we’re enjoying an early breakfast and some strong, sweet tea. Who’d have thought scraping plastic off the pavement would
be so damn hard?
It’s all gone remarkable well. Triage of casualties in my area arranged speedily and as follows:
- Shock, Grief, Disorientation (Common) 247
- Conventional Wounds (eg Glass cuts, burns) 583
- Unconventional Wounds: Non-Fatal (eg Internal burns) 26
- Unconventional Fatalities 430?
Problem with the latter statistic caused by impact/implosion nature of mannequin fire. Currently forced to rely on trace residuals, or eye witness
It has made the clean up considerably easier, though. But the smell of burning plastic is a shocker!
From Staff Sergeant A Frederick 06:20 27/03
Trying to seed the following theory with the press. Probably more chance of a broadsheet science correspondent taking it. But little chance of anyone
swallowing it, I’m afraid.
“The incident was caused by a batch of faulty plastic used in the manufacture of display dummies, combined with a gas main explosion. During
manufacture, it seems that bubbles formed within the dummies. When exposed to high temperatures during and after the explosion, expansion of air
within them caused them to distort and twist in a way that already panicked observers interpreted as movement.”
If there is
there who has
any clue on just
what this might be.
you know where
to find The
new so this
could be in