The 7/7 London Bombings Brilliantly Exposed as an Inside Job

every one is talking about maths and i watched that documentary it did my head in, the soundtrack and the way it was compiled was absolutely awful.

Anyway a random event such as someone going out and bombing something is random, not sure how you can calculate random.

But then again what is the possibility of life? and then life that develops intelligence? and then a life that manages to invent the internet and sits in front of the screen and read my typing? all seams impossible but it has happened.

7/7 was cut from the same cloth as 9/11. both flawed in their execution. both bogus false flag psy-ops. both will be publicly denounced as such in time. both perpetrated by the same evil f*cks who WILL have to pay for their actions one day. count on it.

NORAD was conventiently away on training vs terrorists on the morning of 9/11

These guys happen to be training terrorist bomb attacks the same day terrorists bombed the place

That's not even a coincidence anymore...

2 Staged events

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think a lot of this can be ignored, the one important aspect to focus on and spread is the admission by Mr. Powers live on TV that day stating that his "group" were conducting a drill that is impossibly similar to the actual events unfolding.

This is the smoking gun.

Everything else can be ignored and left for a later date. People need to know about that drill and there needs to be more media and discussion about that single thing. As mathematically calculated, it would be completely implausible that the same thing would happen on the same day, in the same locations.

That man should have been taken into custody immediately, his staff arrested, his company seized and every line of text, every graphic, every instruction and every plan, along with every communication him and his company had with anyone for a decade before, should have been scrutinized.

IMO, that man and his company running the "drill" were suspect number one, and they have NEVER been asked about their involvement.

Edit:
Here's the video of the admission -

edit on 4-7-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

You can have a smoking gun, witnesses and admissions of guilt but the majority wont believe it cause it causes them to become uncomfortable with their belief system! This is a truely unfortunate fact but none the less it will never cause the kind of reaction necessary to bring down the real terrorist perpetuating these acts!

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by chemistry

I think we can safely say that the anomalies mentioned in the video point directly to an inside job.

Only if they are correct (and we know at least one - the co-called 'exercise' - is a deliberate (or ignorant?) misinterpretation of the facts) and if no other possible explanation exists

I'm not saying one way or the other, but don't believe something just because you want to believe it.

And anyway, what was the point of it of it was an inside job? Unless maybe the likes of Peter Power orchestrated it to boost trade? Makes more sense than a lot of conspiracy theories I've seen! (not that I am suggesting in any way he, or anyone else involved in the lucrative field of crises management, was behind it!)

Who the hell would want to believe that their own government is behind a terrorist attack? It seems more likely that someone would be less inclined to believe to maintain their belief system! What the hell is "peter power to boost trade"? Why do you think that these terrorist acts have no reason behind them? Cause I think it's pretty obvious what those reasons are even if you don't! just like the fact of who is really behind these heinus acts!

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think a lot of this can be ignored, the one important aspect to focus on and spread is the admission by Mr. Powers live on TV that day stating that his "group" were conducting a drill that is impossibly similar to the actual events unfolding.

This is the smoking gun.

It's the smoking gun that shows people don't bother to do their research

Crises management exercises take place at a desk. And take place most days of the year for one company or another (or, at least used to - they became very popular after the IRA bomb attacks on the City).

You're wrong.
I worked in security for ten years for large blue-chip companies, I spent the last five years in a senior security position working alongside the local government in a large city just outside of London. In those five years the local authority had one drill relating to a chemical spill. When I (providing security management services) began a genuine escalation of a security threat the response was pathetic and broke down immediately.

If you'd bothered to look at the story, the company involved has refused to name the company employing them to run the drill. They also admit that the scenario involved the same locations, at the same time, and that the company even went to the lengths of having mock TV news reports.

That is not a traditional desktop drill. If you think it is, you need to look into how security and emergency management works.

You also have to consider why a company employing a business like Visor to run this drill would need to focus on transport over the city of London. I can understand a corporation needing to test their staff in their offices, but this is extreme even for a large bank or corporation.

The only institutions that would be justified in having such a widespread drill would be the Corporation of London, Transport for London, the emergency services or government itself. If we can rule those out (which we presumably can because they would have had to state this at some time in response to the questions) who is left, and why did they need to run a terrorist drill across such a wide area affecting so many locations?

No private business in London would need to have a drill this extensive, covering all of those locations. Their offices, yes, maybe even their street. But across the city? That just doesn't add up no matter how you spin it.

Even if your assumption were right and there are drills every day - you're wrong, there isn't - the chances of having a drill focused on the same act, in the same locations, on the same day, at the same time, is ridiculous beyond belief.

If you believe the official lie you have no concept of probability.

I want to add here that we on ATS did alot of analysis of the pics they gave us on the suspects and realized that the images were Photoshopped..

They ATS members were doing this as news and things were coming in so it may be wise to try and research for the threads about the london bombings for ATS.. I cant search right now cause i am off to work soon..

But you guys will have alot of info from here.

reply to post by OutonaLimb


The photos you add are not conclusive and prove nothing. Those images only capture a moment in time.

There are witnesses to the event. A woman on the bus who survived, a man in a car directly behind the bus who saw it explode, a security officer working nearby, the medical professionals in the BMA building... there most definitely was a bomb, it most definitely did explode, to deny that this happened only discredits genuine investigation and scrutiny by others.

Using common sense, it's clear to me that this was orchestrated by a powerful group, a corporation or another government. They would not need to risk creating a "fake" blast scene like this, it would be discovered by someone. All they would need is the drill to cover it all and delay responses/confuse the emergency teams, and a few gullible people to carry it out, or the perception that they had people to carry it out.

There has been a lot of talk about the blast originating from beneath the trains. This could have been done by anyone (there are regular breaches of security on the underground and "urban explorers" are always scurrying around in the underground system).
The government and police would be desperate to pin it on someone. They would implicate anyone they could if it explained the events and placated the public.

IMO, a state did this. They either used these men as tools to do it, or those men were genuinely innocent and framed for what happened. This would be pretty easy to do, as most in the Police and government would not like to accept that a "friendly" state would do this.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Good points raised here. I think we cannot dispute that there were actually real bombs involved here. However, I think it goes without saying that the bombs were planted beforehand, and the vehicles were prepared for maximum carnage afterwards.

Quite a show! But I bet the NWO are very surpised at how quickly people have woken up to this - far quicker than 9/11

Originally posted by micpsi
As much as I accept much of his analysis exposing discrepancies in the official story, the weakness of my old Cambridge friend Nick Kollerstrom's thesis on what really happened on 7/7 is that he still thinks the four bombers somehow agreed to cooperating with MI5 (or some level of the British security establishment) by posing as terrorists in an exercise. This notion that they were involved in an anti-terrorist exercise that suddenly went real has always been ludicrous, given what we know about their anti-British attitudes. It is the only reason Nick can come up with for why they travelled to London both that day and nine days earlier in an apparent dry run. Unfortunately, it is utterly unbelievable that they were just a bunch of young Muslim men who were assisting the police. This will continue to be the Achilles heel in his scenario unless he can offer a more plausible reason for both their rail trips.

Thanks sounds like shill talk.

Provide proof that these men had anti-british attitudes. And don't link some half-hearted Daily mail crap.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by micpsi
As much as I accept much of his analysis exposing discrepancies in the official story, the weakness of my old Cambridge friend Nick Kollerstrom's thesis on what really happened on 7/7 is that he still thinks the four bombers somehow agreed to cooperating with MI5 (or some level of the British security establishment) by posing as terrorists in an exercise. This notion that they were involved in an anti-terrorist exercise that suddenly went real has always been ludicrous, given what we know about their anti-British attitudes. It is the only reason Nick can come up with for why they travelled to London both that day and nine days earlier in an apparent dry run. Unfortunately, it is utterly unbelievable that they were just a bunch of young Muslim men who were assisting the police. This will continue to be the Achilles heel in his scenario unless he can offer a more plausible reason for both their rail trips.

Thanks sounds like shill talk.

Provide proof that these men had anti-british attitudes. And don't link some half-hearted Daily mail crap.

Interesting point

reply to post by detachedindividual


I worked for a large insurance broker (no names, but what's the tallest building in Chicago?) during the IRA bombings and after that we - along with most other companies in the City - instigated crisis management plans so that in the event of another terrorist attack that resulted in loss of data and/or key personel being injured or unable to get to work, the company could continue to operate efficiently. I think we did our exercises in house, but many companies employed the likes or Peter Power's firm (and many more like it) to conduct exercises for them to ensure that their proceedures would work. In order to test the procedures, a scenario is invisaged - such as terrorists attacking tube stations. What would happen then if several key members of staff were killed in those attacks? How would you communicate to staff unable to get to work? etc

Peter Power's company continues to do this today.

www.visorconsultants.com...

That is what the 'exercise' he referred to was. A 'fire drill'. Nothing more.

reply to post by chemistry


Thanks for sharing, will watch after work.

Peace

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by micpsi
As much as I accept much of his analysis exposing discrepancies in the official story, the weakness of my old Cambridge friend Nick Kollerstrom's thesis on what really happened on 7/7 is that he still thinks the four bombers somehow agreed to cooperating with MI5 (or some level of the British security establishment) by posing as terrorists in an exercise. This notion that they were involved in an anti-terrorist exercise that suddenly went real has always been ludicrous, given what we know about their anti-British attitudes. It is the only reason Nick can come up with for why they travelled to London both that day and nine days earlier in an apparent dry run. Unfortunately, it is utterly unbelievable that they were just a bunch of young Muslim men who were assisting the police. This will continue to be the Achilles heel in his scenario unless he can offer a more plausible reason for both their rail trips.

Thanks sounds like shill talk.

Provide proof that these men had anti-british attitudes. And don't link some half-hearted Daily mail crap.

It has to be "shill talk" whenever you disagree with a comment!? That's just typical of those who refuse to think for themselves and just uncritically accept the views of others with whom they want to agree, at the same time having the arrogance to think that they have every detail right.

The leader of the group, Mohammad Sidique Khan, was known to the MI5, but officers assigned to investigate him were diverted to another operation. Following the attacks a video message recorded by Khan emerged in which he said he was a "soldier" at "war". The video makes self-evident his hostility at the British government's involvement in the war in Afghanistan. There is other evidence indicating that the group were far more than the innocent dupes that Nick Kollerstrom wants you to believe. This evidence may have been manufactured or it may be real. But it cannot be disregarded simply because it is inconvemient to the silly explanation Kolloerstrom has for why the four men went to London twice in nine days.

I wonder why the London Underground was bombed. It was as if the Terrorists wanted to make sure only the Riff Raff gets hit. Your Dukes and Lords sure dont use the Underground. Same with the WTC, the captain of industries usually show up at a later hour than the Riff Raff. Why do those terrorists target only the common folks, going to great lenghts to avoid injury to the wealthy? Its as if they hate poor people.

reply to post by Cassius666


Because it's the easist way to cause maximum disruption - same reason the IRA targeted railways stations, albeit in most cases with hoax bombs.

And for this reason, it's also an obvious scenario to run when doing a crisis management exercise

reply to post by Cassius666


9/11 was the excuse to start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 7/7 was to get the British on-side to fight the wars and likewise the Australians with the Bali bombing. Also the Spanish train bombs because they were anti the wars and about to have an election and it was hoped the bombings would make them vote right wing. However, they were so mad about it all they voted left wing the opposiite of what Bush wanted.

Yes they hit the little people because we're expendable and we need persuading that their rotten wars are 'right' because we're the gun fodder.

reply to post by paddymelon


Actually it would make much more sense if the tube bombings were intended to turn the British public against our already committed involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, by raising a fear that we could be targeted with further retaliations

Though were that the case, the perpetrators forgot that we were well used to being attacked by cowards, such as those previously funded by America and who had murdered hundreds of women and children in towns and cities across Britain over the past couple of decades.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think a lot of this can be ignored, the one important aspect to focus on and spread is the admission by Mr. Powers live on TV that day stating that his "group" were conducting a drill that is impossibly similar to the actual events unfolding.

This is the smoking gun.

It's the smoking gun that shows people don't bother to do their research

Crises management exercises take place at a desk. And take place most days of the year for one company or another (or, at least used to - they became very popular after the IRA bomb attacks on the City).

Cease this barbaric shill nonsense...

Educate yourself. It wasn't JUST a desk exercise.

July 7th Drills

Originally posted by ZeroRisk
Educate yourself. It wasn't JUST a desk exercise.

Yes it was. How many such exercises have you been involved with?



But I guess when facts don't fit the conspiracy it's easiest to deny the facts.