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

Ok so again, we're coming back to your own interpretation. Again why isn't the media saying this? or the Government? Why is it just AgentSmith and it's a fact? You still have shown no proof of it being a "pen or paper drill" it's only your opinion.

You can't just add your own thoughts of what happened to an entire theory, and then assume like everyone should know them already as "fact" Again you're the ONLY ONE saying this. It is not a fact, it is your idea of what happened. Just like I have an idea that the London bombings were set up by the Government. There are coincidences, but I cannot prove it. Just like you cannot prove it was a pen and paper "drill" Does that make sense?



[edit on 17-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice
Ok so again, we're coming back to your own interpritation. Again why isn't the media saying this? or the Government? Why is it just AgentSmith and it's a fact? You still have shown no proof of it being a "pen or paper drill" it's only your opinion.

As I just said if you look at my post before yours, the company in their own words said they were conducting a walk-through exercise.
In the industry a 'walk-through' exercise is a plain paper exercise.
They said it themselves, so I suppose they must be liars now.

Here it is again for anyone that can't be bothered to go back a page:

Originally posted by NoJustice
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?

Uh, yes.. clearly you however do not. I never denied that it was similar to the actual event? as you say it was said from the start.

However, I think you should look into what the industry define as a 'walk through' exercise:

Take a look at this website, 'Disaster Recovery Journal' (nothing better than the horse's mouth huh?)

How does Industry define "Walk-Throughs"?

Walk-throughs may be defined as gathering team members for a set period to read step-wise through the action plans (s), usually with a disaster scenario that is likely for the site and plausible.

Walk-throughs of operational recovery plans are more preferred because they can be scaled to include or not include "injects" - throwing a plausible obstacle in the path of the smooth progression of recovery steps - and they are far less costly in labor, travel and vendor costs than IT infrastructure recovery tests. The scale you choose is a matter of budget and availability of response team staff.

Further, they can be done without requiring special resources, such as an emergency operations center, which would (hopefully, for survivability reasons) be at least some distance from the site, thus saving a drive for attendees. This also raises the attendance figures.

Finally, and most importantly, the objectives should always include giving the plan(s) a reality check (Does this make sense? Is it logically what would work?) and making team members THINK about what they are expected to do. So, it's a combination of continuous process improvement and training. If the plan is revised in ways that enhance it's effectiveness and if the people come away having learned something, then the walk-through exercise has been a success.

Walk-through to me is reading the plan in chronological order (who will do what and when and how). It is a perfect tool to train people on procedures, to make them realise what will they need during disaster and as a result it's very convenient for validation of plan procedures and Minimal Acceptable Recovery Configuration.

Of course I'm sure you have far more knowledge of the lingo used than the people that use it. How stupid of me.

"You have voted AgentSmith for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."


For services in the face of overwhelming odds of conspiracy junkies with no supporting evidence he (she?) bravely held the line.

No greater love........

Originally posted by CTID56092


"You have voted AgentSmith for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."


For services in the face of overwhelming odds of conspiracy junkies with no supporting evidence he (she?) bravely held the line.

No greater love........

It is characteristic of people who wish to believe the official line that they think they have made a good point by saying that the 'conspiracy theorists' have no evidence. This was, and is still, the case with 9/11 in spite of the overwhelming evidence against the official story.

It is also characteristic of these types that they try to discredit the opposition by calling them 'junkies' and using other irrelevant and unfounded terms of abuse.

Please be aware that I object in the strongest terms to being called a 'junkie'. . . .

As I have asserted before, if you demand firm evidence to support a theory then start demanding it of the British goverment, who are spinning a story which is at least as unprovable as any other theory out there, and possibly more so.

It is called hypocricy.

Please cease to be a hypocrite.

Thankyou.

Please end this crap
The likelihood of the objectives of both an emergency planning drill and actual bombings in the same Tube stations, at the same time , and on the same date is infinitissemal
The official story is crap from beginning to end
Without a shadow of a doubt


[edit on 18-7-2005 by dh]

Interesting how now at least three of them travelled to Pakistan, and two met with known terrorists while there. But you're right, they were duped into carrying the bombs.

Sorry, but the alleged 'meeting with known terrorists' is not something which can be independently verified. . . . . we have to take the official word on it, which is exactly what we cannot do if we are examining the 'inside job' theory.

It also seems likely that if the 'Inside job'guys from M15 were picking candidates for a framing, then they would pick from people who had travelled to Pakistan. Meeting with 'known terrorists' is, even if it is true, not proof of anything, and is possibly just an embellishment added by the propaganda merchants. . . . . . let's face it, moreand more people are being labelled as 'terrorist suspects' every day. . . . . often just because of their travel movements, ethnic origin, haircut and so on.

Not hard evidence sorry.

Apologies - no insult intended.

It's just there appear to be people who, within a week, are convinced it's all a conspiracy, MI5 and innocent muslim saps used to unwittingly deliver bombs. BUT there is no evidence at all to support this.

I think Elvis, The Clangers and Mossad pulled it off as they wanted the Circle & Picc lines closed down so they could steal the secret horde of Jewish Gold hidden deep beneath Harrod's [you heard it here first!!] without being disturbed. This actually happened but the authorities then killed & chopped up people after the bomb being detonated to hide their embarassment. There's no evidence but it works for me!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I've seen quite a lot of people and sites on the internet talk about this exercise that was happening on the day of the attacks, but everyone seems to assume that they would have pretend bombers on the trains.
This idea appears to be a popular basis for ideas that revlove around the hypothosis that the terrorists were set up.

But why would they have pretend bombers? It was not a government excercise and a private company (which it was) would not be able to do this without authoristaion I'm sure.
I also see no need for it as from what I can make out (and maybe I'm wrong), it was an excercise dealing with the effects on part of the private sector and not anything to do with security, prevention or emergency response.
I don't recall them saying anything that actually implies there were pretend bombers and I can't see a need for any in that particular type of excercise.

As this is being used as the basis for theories such as 'the bombers were set up by the government', I think it is very important we establish for certain if there were any.

Here's that transcript again:

POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bear in mind now that I'm in the private sector - and we sat everybody down in the city - 1000 people involved in the whole organization - with the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was it was we based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time -

INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

POWER: Almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialize in helping people to get their crisis management response, how you jump from slow time thinking to quick time doing. And we chose a scenario with no assistance, which is based on a terrorist attack because they've been close to a property occupied by Jewish businessmen there in the city, and there are more American banks in this city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do.

INTERVIEWER: How extraordinary today must feel for you as it unfolds. You mentioned a few moments ago there our experience with Irish Republican terrorism. And of course it was very different wasn't it because however perverted their behavior, the IRA believed itself to have some sort of code of honour, and tended to issue some kind of warnings, of course they often came too late to do any good.

I would also advise reading their website, here:

www.visorconsultants.com...




[edit on 17-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Maybe they do it like the FBI. Check this out.

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Now does it sound a little more plausible? Maybe a possibility?

That is FBI/Intelligance gathering personnel training.
Nothing to do with private 'walk through' exercises undertaken by companies.
The company you work for may do them, most large companies in the city should. It simply delas with things such as locating staff, managing losses, etc. Crisis management basically, not intelligence gathering.

The simple, yet crucial, mistake so many of you seem to be making is in distinguishing the difference between:

Emergency services/security/intelligance gathering/etc type exercises (undertaken by the government in the guise of agencies, the emergency services in general, local government, etc),

and

Private 'exercises' which deal with the aspects which deal with the immediate and repercussive effects on businesses and organisations. Such as accounting for staff and reporting any that are unaccounted for, any necessary evacuation(s), minimising financial and capital losses, etc.

The exercise in question was the latter.

I have explained this as simply as possible and given you 'evidence' from the horse's mouth.

There are plenty of other genuine discrepancies that can be discussed without these failing attempts to cling on to flawed ideas.

Yes, the fact there was ANY exercise resembling the actual incident is an oddity, no denying that.

However, as the title suggests, there was no requirement for 'pretend bombers' in this type of exercise. End of story. FACT.

This makes any ideas that bombers were hired as part of this exercise rubbish.

This is not a discussion, it is a statement of FACT.
You can argue that the information may not be accurate, but then you would have to accept that ALL the information is inaccurate, and maybe there was no exercise at all. You CANNOT pick and choose which parts you choose to accept.
I have used all the information provided:

1) The Transcripts
2) The website of the company conducting out the exercises
3) The email sent to one of our members by the company
4) Interpretation of the language used by cross-referring with an informative website in the business of crisis management which the company in question is.

NONE of it contradicts the point I have made which is:

Pretend bombers were NOT a required part of the exercise and there would be no need for them

End of discussion and Goodnight!

[edit on 19-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Pretend bombers were NOT a required part of the exercise and there would be no need for them

End of discussion and Goodnight!

Good morning and time to wake up!

Whether or not 'pretend' bombers are required during a legitimate exercise of the type described is a red herring. The point is that such an exercise would provide excellent 'cover' opportunities for an undercover bombing. . . . and if the four guys were hired supposedly as part of the 'exercise' then it would obviously be easy to convince them that this was normal or legitimate. . . . . this deception would be easy to arrange even without an exercise actually taking place. . . .one smooth talking agent could do it. . . . . . .the 'fact' that these exercises might not employ 'pretend' bombers as a usual practice is hardly an impediment to the exercise being used as coverand wouldn't be known by the 4 accused men.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
Good morning and time to wake up!

Whether or not 'pretend' bombers are required during a legitimate exercise of the type described is a red herring. The point is that such an exercise would provide excellent 'cover' opportunities for an undercover bombing. . . . and if the four guys were hired supposedly as part of the 'exercise' then it would obviously be easy to convince them that this was normal or legitimate. . . . . this deception would be easy to arrange even without an exercise actually taking place. . . .one smooth talking agent could do it. . . . . . .the 'fact' that these exercises might not employ 'pretend' bombers as a usual practice is hardly an impediment to the exercise being used as coverand wouldn't be known by the 4 accused men.

If the terrorists were that dumb then, as you say, they wouldn't need to organise a cover exercise, let alone be stupid enough to announce it all over national TV and Radio.

Your trying to imply that the 'people that be' are smart enough to be in power and organise an event such as this, but so stupid they practically bleat a confession on TV.

This isn't Marvel Comics mate, they wouldn't leave a 'calling card'.



[edit on 19-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

They didn't expect their employee to sound off
They hadn't considered the possibility that he would
They can't be expected to cover every contingency, but just rely on the Main Media to establish the cover story in the end

Originally posted by dh
They didn't expect their employee to sound off
They hadn't considered the possibility that he would
They can't be expected to cover every contingency, but just rely on the Main Media to establish the cover story in the end

The employee your talking about is Peter Power, the Managing Director.
I suppose he was a pawn in the whole game to was he?

(Robinson)

Your arguments are weak and even when faced with evidence that shows your theory is wrong you still insist on expecting us to believe your version without any evidence to support it whatsoever.
At least I have managed to show a lot of evidence to support my claim.

Having a discussion with you is pointless, as your 'mission' is obviously to spread your ideas (or are they the ideas of someone above you?) without any backup and just expecting people to believe it.

A proper conspiracy theorist will look at things from different angles and provide strong evidence for their claim, which you havn't.

You have become so paranoid you cannot see past your own ideas and are the sort of person that could be presented with a recording of the entire event and yet still argue that it was probably faked.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by dh
They didn't expect their employee to sound off
They hadn't considered the possibility that he would
They can't be expected to cover every contingency, but just rely on the Main Media to establish the cover story in the end

The employee your talking about is Peter Power, the Managing Director.
I suppose he was a pawn in the whole game to was he?

(Robinson)

Your arguments are weak and even when faced with evidence that shows your theory is wrong you still insist on expecting us to believe your version without any evidence to support it whatsoever.
At least I have managed to show a lot of evidence to support my claim.

Having a discussion with you is pointless, as your 'mission' is obviously to spread your ideas (or are they the ideas of someone above you?) without any backup and just expecting people to believe it.

A proper conspiracy theorist will look at things from different angles and provide strong evidence for their claim, which you havn't.

You have become so paranoid you cannot see past your own ideas and are the sort of person that could be presented with a recording of the entire event and yet still argue that it was probably faked.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

Smit,

A don't give a fig for what a 'proper' conspiracy theorist is supposed to do according to you or anyone else.

You appear to be waffling as you are not saying anything specific, and your post consists only of a claim that you are right and I am wrong.

My main point so far has been that the hard evidence is insufficient to show that the four accused were intentional bombers.

I have also pointed out that your continual posting of the same photo does not prove anything about what the four accused thought they were doing at the time.

These are very modest claims.

Please attempt to refute them if you can.

Yes the fact there was any exercise is suspicious, it is also suspicious that if it was a government op then they would be so clumsy to allow this out, not even mentioned just once one radio but on TV as well.
One minute they have an iron grip on the media, the next minute they don't depending on what you want to believe and think supports your theory.

How about this, maybe someone in the Crisis Management company or someone working for the company who was having the walk-through, is part of the terrorist organisation or (delibrately or unwittingly) leaked information detailing the background story of the exercise to them.

It would make it ideal to then carry out the attack mirroring the hypothetical one on paper the morning of their walk-through, as it helps to create conspiracy theories that the government may have done it.

It makes more sense that they have people strategically placed in various positions who have the capability to collect information, feed false information and, in the case of the CCTV not working on the bus, maybe even conduct sabotage.

This is far more likely than your theory but I imagine you will refuse to accept it as a possibility.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AgentSmith]

An interesting possibility, Smith, and possibly one which should be lined up
with the other uproven theories (this lineup includes the other mutating and contradictory official theories).

I think that you are being very hasty in awarding your latest creative storytelling effort the title 'More likely' .. . . . . but you are in good company, your previously stolid British government is setting new records for hasty judgement.

Carry on.

"You have voted AgentSmith for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Nice work Smith, you naughty dis-info agent you.

Can I just point out that the statistics being presented are totally flawed. You have taken two completely unrelated events (the actual terrorist bombing and the walk through excercise) - somehow come up with odds of them occuring (although neither of them were random events) at the same time.

Here's another bit of stats that will show the fallacy of this reasoning. What are the chances I was wearing brown shoes at the same minute the bombs went off:

Well lets take this over a 10 year period (no reason at all to do this, but the original calculation did).

I have not worn brown shoes in the last 10 years and I only bought them from the Moorgate (these coincidences are everywhere if you look) M&S the day before. I put them on at 8 that morning and therefore had been wearing them for 60 minutes out of the last 5,256,000 minutes - so there is a 1 in 87600 "chance" I would have been wearing them at 9:00AM on the morning. And the "chance" that the bombs went off at 9:00AM (during that minute) are just 1 in 5,256,000 therefore the "chances" that I was wearing my brown shoes at the same minute as the bombings was:

1 in 460425600000

Well those odds are very unlikely, so I can't have been wearing my brown shoes. But I was. Obviously this calculation is pure nonsense, but so is the one to calculate the chances of there being a emergency traiuning drill at the same time as a real attack.

Two other things to bear in mind on this topic:

1 I haven't yet seen anyone show any flaws in the official story. I'm sure there are some, as the security services rarely tell the whole truth. However I have no reason to not believe the general outline of what happend that day.

2 You really think that 4 deeply religious young muslim men from Leeds would have just gone "yeah OK" to take part in a terror training excercise in London? These people would have no trust in the British "authorities" anyway, let alone ones asking them to carry 4 "pretend" bombs on to the London Underground.

In fact they probably had a deepseated hatred of andone in authority. Would you trust some MiB asking you to do this?!? Would you just go off into the underground system without even looking in the bags? Or asking why you needed the bags, or why you even needed to there at all? Or why they couldn't use their own people for the exercise? These 4 blokes would have to have been severly stupid and the most naive people in the planet to go for this, when in fact they have all been described as "intelligent" (one was a teacher).


This "they were duped by the government theory" has no credability and is pure speculation.