Irregularities During London Bombings

[derF]

I read this article (as perphaps some of you already have) some time ago, and i have been considering it since. I have seen nothing related on the news but i what i want to do is try to ask if you guys know anything more on this or your opinion.

In essence, at the time of the London bombings, there were training exercises being executed at the exact locations. These exercises were being carried out by ~1000 personnel from Visor Consultants which is a crisis management advice company. How do we know this? Well, the managing director of this company did a BBC Radio 5 interview on the night of the bombings and said so:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/09...rcise_clip.mp3

The following link is the article itself:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gexercises.htm

I am not entirely convinced yet that any of this is true, let alone that it may have any desired hidden effect. One thing is for sure, the event itself is not hidden and therefore we must come to scrutinise it.

A further note, apparanely this is what happened on 9/11 too:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gamescover.htm


Related links.

Visor Consultants

9/11 Exercises

[Mikeus Caesar]

Erm...shouldn't this be in the BackRoom? It's a bit too depressing for the happy frontroom.

[derF]

Oh, sorry.

[Beirut]

Moved to Backroom.

[PanzerJaeger]

So whats the main point of all this?

It seems to me that these people think Bush/Blair created the war on terror to invade Iraq or something.

Maybe you could explain it a little better, because I dont get it.

[derF]

Im not trying to make a point. I was just asking to see if anyone had any more information.

[bmolsson]

Conspiracy !!!!

*puts tinfoil hat on*

[PanzerJaeger]

1. Bush and Blair both undeniably reaped political capital towards their agendas for both events.

What? Bush fought a tough election and Blair only won because he was the best alternative. What have they gained?

2. Bush's cabinet is decidedly corrupt, and American Politicians have done some.. unsavory things in the past.

Baseless rhetoric.

3. Al-Qaeda seems too convenient. When there's an attack, they're always there to take the blame. We always seem to know "Who's in charge" and "Who the bad guy is" but we never seem to know anything else. I don't think it's inconcieveably that Al-Qaeda is either being funded by some part of the US government, or is almost entirely a fabrication of some part of the US Government (I say almost entirely because there was and still is an organization calling itself Al-Qaeda, and has been since the Soviet-Afghan war).

If they did the attack, theres no reason why they wouldnt be there to take the blame. Their strategy includes taking responsibility, not being anonymous, as i understand it.

On the other hand, the idea that a leader would kill 3000 of his own people for political capital is apalling, and not something that I, or most Americans, can easily wrap their heads around. So I choose not to put much stock in the theory, however obvious it is that Bush has only beneffited from this.

The biggest criticism during the presidential campaign was Bushes foreign policy and handling of the war. I dont know what he has gained..

[Papewaio]

That whole website seems just a tad + -

[English assassin]

Has it ever occured that it is possible BOTH that Bush and Blair reap political capital from the bombings and terrorism AND that AQ exists and carries out the attacks?

IMHO it is obvious that America in particular persues policies that make terrorism more likely. (Anyone who would deny that would have to explain why Iraq, a country previously untroubled by terrorist attacks, is now experiencing daily suicide bombings). Furthermore the fact of terrorism is obviously very handy to those who want to remove American (and British) freedoms, increase the military budget and so on.

But to argue that America deliberately chooses to pursue those policies because her leaders see it as a way to reduce the Amercian people to serfs is quite a leap. They might be quite happy about the serfdom but i don't think they are actively and deliberately causing the terrorism as a way to achieve it. 9 times in ten its stupidity, not conspiracy, in my experience.

Incidentally pursusing policies that make terrorism more likely is not invariably a bad thing. In 1939 the UK pursued a policy that made a full scale attack by the nazi war machine more likely, but that didn't make it the wrong thing to do. The Islamofascists strike me as not much nicer than the nazi regime.

[lancelot]

Has it ever occured that it is possible BOTH that Bush and Blair reap political capital from the bombings and terrorism AND that AQ exists and carries out the attacks?

IMHO it is obvious that America in particular persues policies that make terrorism more likely. (Anyone who would deny that would have to explain why Iraq, a country previously untroubled by terrorist attacks, is now experiencing daily suicide bombings). Furthermore the fact of terrorism is obviously very handy to those who want to remove American (and British) freedoms, increase the military budget and so on.

But to argue that America deliberately chooses to pursue those policies because her leaders see it as a way to reduce the Amercian people to serfs is quite a leap. They might be quite happy about the serfdom but i don't think they are actively and deliberately causing the terrorism as a way to achieve it. 9 times in ten its stupidity, not conspiracy, in my experience.

Incidentally pursusing policies that make terrorism more likely is not invariably a bad thing. In 1939 the UK pursued a policy that made a full scale attack by the nazi war machine more likely, but that didn't make it the wrong thing to do. The Islamofascists strike me as not much nicer than the nazi regime.

I would imagine there is truth to the 'bit of both' argument. There have been a multitude of books on 'unanswered questions' regarding 9/11. Way too many to just dismiss as coincidental or un-connected events etc.

as for the islamofascists (great word BTW ), I would say they are worse than nazi's in some respect. At least they fought on a battlefield with some sense of honour...these bombers are just misguided, easily manipulated cowards.

[derF]

That whole website seems just a tad + -

Do you question the credibility of the source?

[Al Khalifah]

Furthermore the fact of terrorism is obviously very handy to those who want to remove American (and British) freedoms, increase the military budget and so on.

Blair wants to decrease the British military spending and his been steadily doing so throughout his premiership. While he will renew the nuclear deterant, his other actions suggest that he believes Britain does not need a strong national defence.
If anything the war on terror has come as an inconvenience, because Britain has been shown to be short of available troops and equipment, which will create opposition to further defence cuts.

[Idaho]

Do you question the credibility of the source?

If that site told me it was sunny outside, I'd get my umbrella. They are a bunch of loonspud conspiratoid nutters.

The things they make up about us lizard rulers of the world are just crazy. I mean at no point have we been in league with the saucer people or the reverse vampires, and yet they continue to claim otherwise. In fact we are getting so fed up with them that at the next sitting of the Bilderberg group we are planning to have the authors entombed in our secret room under the pyramids.

[Redleg]

Didn't you know? That is the modern-day republican's greatest weapon, the ability to say "Hey, but that's LIBERAL! It can't POSSIBLY be CREDIBLE!" And many millions of people will, for some odd reason, go along with it.

You might want to check older statements by the individual that stated that. He is often critical of the United States and United Kingdom's actions.

And by the way Papewaio is definetly not a Republican since he is not even from the United States.

Statements like yours above show that you are even quicker on the trigger to label someone - more so then most Republicans that I know.

BTW - I not Republican - but conservative - and the websites title sends warning bells about baised reporting, baised information, and the like.

[Redleg]

Do you question the credibility of the source?

I question wether the source reporting is non-baised or skewed toward their desired ends.

For Instance little tidbit - smacks of conspiracy thoery without any substance.

The exercise fulfils several different goals. It acts as a cover for the small compartamentalized government terrorists to carry out their operation without the larger security services becoming aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, if they get caught during the attack or after with any incriminating evidence they can just claim that they were just taking part in the exercise.

This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001. The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning.

Do you really believe that someone that works for the government of the United Kingdom - on purpose planned the operation, developled the scenerio, gathered the resources, put together the team, planned a simulatous civilian operation to serve as cover, - and prevent a leak of the operation before hand. Followed by a individual with intergity not blowing the wistle on the whole operation.

And right the CIA flew the plans into the WTC.


What is more likely is that the operation by the British government got leaked by some unkown and stupid governmental employee and if the operation mention does indeed exist the "terrorist" bombers happen to decide to use Englands Civil Defense against them.

See two can play the alternative scenerio situation. Its really not hard. Take a few facts, spin a few what if's, play into peoples distrust of the government, or distrust of whatever. And bingo you have a viable conspricacy theory with little to no effort.

[Redleg]

Has it ever occured that it is possible BOTH that Bush and Blair reap political capital from the bombings and terrorism AND that AQ exists and carries out the attacks?

Extremely possible and is most likely the truth. But it never stops the conspiracy wacko from thinking otherwise.

IMHO it is obvious that America in particular persues policies that make terrorism more likely. (Anyone who would deny that would have to explain why Iraq, a country previously untroubled by terrorist attacks, is now experiencing daily suicide bombings). Furthermore the fact of terrorism is obviously very handy to those who want to remove American (and British) freedoms, increase the military budget and so on.

Given that Saddam practiced terror everyday on his citizens through the use of his governmental thugs - he most likely kept everyone in extreme fear and unable to conduct such actions. Or that not all of these attacks are not terrorist attacks - but insurgents striking at legimate political and military targets. With a small precentage of the attacks actual suicidial terror bombings. One only has to look at the data to draw their own conclusions. Some attacks are most definetly terror attacks from certain terrorist group.

But to argue that America deliberately chooses to pursue those policies because her leaders see it as a way to reduce the Amercian people to serfs is quite a leap. They might be quite happy about the serfdom but i don't think they are actively and deliberately causing the terrorism as a way to achieve it. 9 times in ten its stupidity, not conspiracy, in my experience.

Don't agree with the wording - but I will agree with your sentiment.

Incidentally pursusing policies that make terrorism more likely is not invariably a bad thing. In 1939 the UK pursued a policy that made a full scale attack by the nazi war machine more likely, but that didn't make it the wrong thing to do. The Islamofascists strike me as not much nicer than the nazi regime.

No they are not - in fact in a lot of ways they are worse.

[Redleg]

I'm not labelling anyone, just taking the opportunity to mouth my distaste for the current administration. I'm not a Democrat, either.

And by doing so - you now need to take the foot out of your mouth.

[Redleg]

Not sure what you mean by that, but i'll assume it was some attempt at being victoriously witty? My foot is happily on the ground, thank you very much. I don't think anyone is going to argue that the Republicans don't go to great lengths to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Nor that the left is guilty of doing the exact same thing.

And the foot out of mouth means your statement was not called for in the context of the statement made by Papewaio and the question asked by derF and that it was an attempt by you to be a caustic attempt at wit. Which often leaves one with their foot in their mouth.

[Redleg]

I'll admit it was a bit out of context, but I think you're overeacting a bit. I never said the Dems don't do the same thing--the whole goddamned Political world does it now, and it's sickening. It's more noticeable with the Republicans right now because they are the ones in power, and the ones who can actually get things done by it.

Not over-reacting at all - just pointing out the fact that you put your foot in your mouth with your statement.

[Redleg]

Must be one magic foot, I don't recall any taste of toenail.

That or a well groomed one - had a pedicure lately?

[Redleg]

I do keep my nails properly trimmed. Perhaps someone drugged me and speedily inserted a foot into my mouth when I was not awake, and then hastily covered all evidence that it was related to them? Who would benefit from such a thing?

I blame the Republicans. It's a conspiracy.

I have some tinfoil and some duct tape you can borrow.

[Redleg]

You're with the Republicans, aren't you?

Nope - I am from the United Space Federation - doing my part to drive everyone crazy so that the earth can implode and my scientific genius can show itself to the universe with my thesis on if you drive people crazy enough their heads will implode which will set off a chain reaction causing the whole world to implode.

Just you wait, I shall gather my army of Alein Slugs from the planet of Kalooga-IV, and we'll put an end to your machinations!

Actually you better call my allies the Alein birdmen from Alratz - they have already had their fill of your army.

[derF]

Thanks for your opinion Redleg.

I will pursue the matter a bit further to see if anything knocks it off the "bullshit source" trophy.

[Redleg]

Thanks for your opinion Redleg.

I will pursue the matter a bit further to see if anything knocks it off the "bullshit source" trophy.

Not a problem - one must always question the government - but I have a major BS radar when groups begin blamming unknown government agencies for the situation, so when dealing with the media that attempts to soley blame the government in such a manner - the story and the allegations must also be questioned.