6 years since the London Bombings

[beorhthelm]

From my research it looked like this......

are you aware you didnt actually answer the question? Blair remained unpopular, public still didnt really want troops abroad much, oil deals, bases, infrastructure contracts for the west were all ready in play through the middle east. what would be achived directly by this event?

5 managers / cost consultants (remember the ammount of black money the CIA get from cocaine etc).
10 demolitions team
10 super weapons team (drone planes, super weapon,
10 high officials in the know covering
9 CIA / FBI top brass
1 super hot P/A

i can do better than that, you could do it with 4 people...

why the CIA/FBI, why does there need to be US involvement, dont we have our own people?

and who were the 1000 people involved in the Power's drill? thats alot of witnesses to something being untoward, and its not explained why you even need that number to conidinate a responce, or indeed what responce they were cordinating. the video of his news interview that morning is slightly ambigous, he could mean the organisation he was working for had 1000s while he was only working with the "crisis team". i say this because i reminded that in another interview he says there were 6 people involved in the exercise (and the client was Reed Elsevier, to answer that other outstanding question). maybe thats all just revision of his story to cover, but its answers all the same and better than speculation.

oh and well done for invoking Godwin.

 

[brunswick]

i really do believe a large super weapon (military super tech is always 20 years ahead of what we see) can be launched with very few people knowing.

the impact it has in the world is irrelevant to the ammount of people needing to be in the know. e.g 10 deaths or 10,000 deaths.

These events manifested as big events, but this does not mean the "project" needed thousands or needed to be a "big project."

The core elite at this level is small in number, and in many places in our world we see groups of thousands holding secrets.

e.g. mystical orders, secret societies, CIA, FBI, MI5, Mossad......in each of these only the top of the pyramids know the full picture. Like in old time war - a few battalions are sent to their doom but only the generals know they are fodder to create a diversion.

To goto London and plant a few bombs is not a big project, the ammount of people needed to be in the know is small and tight.
I do not see how this needs to have thousands knowing about it?

comments like "this is horsehit" i really should not bother to replying to....it adds little to the debate, and horseshit is great manure and most useful in the springtime.

 

[brunswick]

Blair remained unpopular, public still didnt really want troops abroad much, oil deals, bases, infrastructure contracts for the west were all ready in play through the middle east. what would be achived directly by this event?

Partly true, but he gained much more backing to invade by a large majority of conservative england, there was fear and anger towards Muslims everywhere.
The oil deals, bases, and infrastructure contracts increased massively during the invasion. Look now, the west control the Iraq government and police force and have lots of bases there. Libya is going the same way. This is a massive achievement in the world of control and power.

and who were the 1000 people involved in the Power's drill? thats alot of witnesses to something being untoward

These people (i am not sure of the exact number but in the PP interview that morning he admitted to over 1000 people) were good caring helping people from the emergency services. When a bomb goes off these people do what they were trained to do - help. They would not "see" anything untoward as a bomb site is a bomb site - the scullduggery is done before the manifestation of the event.

 

[beorhthelm]

Partly true, but he gained much more backing to invade by a large majority of conservative england, there was fear and anger towards Muslims everywhere.
The oil deals, bases, and infrastructure contracts increased massively during the invasion. Look now, the west control the Iraq government and police force and have lots of bases there.

im not sure if you noticed, before 2005 there was plenty of fear and anger towars Muslims and the west control Iraq. where did we invade post 2005? what deals did the UK gain post 2005 in Iraq, Afganistan or neighbouring countries?

These people (i am not sure of the exact number but in the PP interview that morning he admitted to over 1000 people) were good caring helping people from the emergency services. When a bomb goes off these people do what they were trained to do - help. They would not "see" anything untoward as a bomb site is a bomb site - the scullduggery is done before the manifestation of the event.

so you believe the exercise involved emergency services? when the interview said it was private company and later he says its a small crisis team? you wouldnt need 1000's to control responce to such an incident (you've highlighted above how few people need to be involved). on the ground for a full live drill, yes, but thats not what Powers was doing and there is no evidence that he or his operation were involved in that.

 

[dingodan]

I'm not sure that you understand it either. The point of Occam's Razor is that there is a tradeoff between complexity and explanatory power; the Razor states that, assuming the same level of explanatory power between two competing theories, the simpler explanation is more likely.

Both of the theories (one put forward by you, one by DTES) 'explain the reasoning' behind the 7/7 bombings. If you assume that both are equally valid as hypotheses (there are problems with both arguments, but for the sake of argument lets assume that there are equal numbers of problems in both), then the simpler explanation is more likely to be true.

I would say (and others would agree by the looks of it) that there are more problems and unsolved parts to your argument than the one presented by DTES, but that's obviously a subject of debate. However, Occam's Razor places the burden of proof more heavily on your theory that DTES's, simply because it is more complex.

One problem using Occams Razor in this way is that it is not able to account for the potential for deciet. It depends on "all things being equal", which they are not.

Occams Razor is totally inappropriate for asking these kind of questions. Take ONE problem, or ONE question and you can maybe apply it. But you cannot apply it to a broad question like "is there a conspiracy?". That should be obvious.

You said "my theory" was more complex. What makes it more complex? It is not more complex.

 

[dingodan]

Good grief, what a ill thought out statement to make. So you really believe a destabilised Pakistan government would be in our ( or more specifically our governments ) interest ?? Yes, of course, destabising the Pakistan government and running the risk of extremists taking over and gaining control of a nuclear arsenal is absolutely in the our interests. Of course in your paranoid mind you'll probably think that our government WANTS a nuclear attack against us to give it the green light to attack anyone and anywhere it likes in reprisal.

It wants to expand the wars in the middle east. It wants to attack targets in pakistan, but that is a total violation of international law. It is getting away with drone attacks which are killing civillians (increasing the threat of terrorism). And it is getting away with this for one simple reason. The perception is that there is violence and instability in Pakistan. This perception is a result of the attacks taking place in Pakistan.

 

[sten_super]

One problem using Occams Razor in this way is that it is not able to account for the potential for deciet. It depends on "all things being equal", which they are not.

That is completely untrue. If a deceit is the most straightforward answer, then it perfectly allows for it. What it does is place a heavy burden of proof upon extremely convoluted deceit stories.

I can even give an example (because I'm bored).
1) Santa Claus is made up by parents as an excuse to give children presents at Christmas.
2) Santa Claus is real; he has a pack of 12 reindeer who are able to travel at a speed significantly greater than the speed of light, and is himself capable of movement at absurd speed. His cells don't break down when he does this because he has a shield made from technology we are not yet aware of. He is thus able to get around the houses of every child in the globe over a 24 hour period and drop off presents.

Occam's Razor suggests that option 1 is more likely, as it is more straightforward (while offering no less a compelling case than option 2), yet it involves deception.

Occams Razor is totally inappropriate for asking these kind of questions. Take ONE problem, or ONE question and you can maybe apply it. But you cannot apply it to a broad question like "is there a conspiracy?". That should be obvious.

We started talking about Occam's Razor because that 'Ripple Effect' film attempts to use it to justify it's narrative. The entire point that I've been trying to make is that the film, as you do here, uses it inconsistently. To say that you can't apply it to one question (because you don't like the implication) but can to others is complete nonsense. Do not invoke Occam's Razor if you don't like the results.

You said "my theory" was more complex. What makes it more complex? It is not more complex.

I think (hope) that you know that this is nonsense. There is CCTV footage of 4 young Muslims. There is evidence that these people knew each other, and there is evidence which places them at the sites of the bombings, and there is evidence that they were carrying large packages.

"My" theory is that these four men blew up the trains/buses they were on.
"Your" theory is that they were set up by a small number of people in power, that evidence has been falsified, that there's a large conspiracy to keep this knowledge from being public, completely contrary to the 'accepted' story.
Do you really not think there is a difference in the level of complexity between the two theories?

 

[dingodan]

I may well frustrate you, but I'm sure it isn't as frustrating as it is to find you avoiding the questions - again. We invaded Iraq in 2003, 2 years before 7/7, against public opinion. How do you tally the government taking such a step - irrespective of public opinion - with your claim that the government needed to convince the public?! Be patronising if you wish, but go on - spell it out!

And needing to convince the international community?! Again, you're aware the international community were against it (again, 2 years before this even happened) and we (and the US) went in anyway. Irresepective of international opinion. Do I need to point out that the contradiction is the same, again?

Every single one of your arguments comes down to "if you think that you're wrong", "believe what you want". Or even "A&B, that cannot both be true, are both true - and you're blind if you can't see that". Grow up. As above - it doesn't even need "research" or "evidence" - your claims contradict themselves, so you explain how that works.



These are some nice little lines. I've read them a few times though, and I still can't spot the evidence that we were behind any suicide bombings, in London or abroad.



Um, no. Giving the genuine analogy: By that logic, if you find that someone has had a car crash because they were drunk, then the simplest explanation for any other car crashing with a drunk driver behind the wheel, is that the car crashed because that driver was drunk. Not proof, but the simplest explanation. You (or your side) invoked Occam's Razor.

Also, any word on the point about you two having different conspiracy theories?

FFS. We banged on about terrorism because of 9/11. Blair said "people will ask if we did enough when it happens to us" etc. But we were loosing currency in the debate. An attack was politically beneficial to the policy of war in Iraq.

The ISI was to demonstrate that the intelligence community is not fragmented into nations but is transnational.

Um, no. Giving the genuine analogy: By that logic, if you find that someone has had a car crash because they were drunk, then the simplest explanation for any other car crashing with a drunk driver behind the wheel, is that the car crashed because that driver was drunk. Not proof, but the simplest explanation. You (or your side) invoked Occam's Razor.

Rubbish. And based in this if you apply Occams Razor (which you invoked in our conversation first, not me) then according to the Razor we should select the hypothesis (when faced with a car crash) that it was alcohol that was the cause. That is rubbish.

But mostly I just want to tell you that you have come to this with preconceptions and prejudices about "conspiracy theories". Everyone "knows" that "conspiracy theories" are rubbish, so you cant loose the argument, right?

History and contempory politics is not how the mainstream media, and think tanks, and foundations, and Chatham House would have you believe.

Read some books or something.

 

[brunswick]

im not sure if you noticed, before 2005 there was plenty of fear and anger towars Muslims and the west control Iraq. where did we invade post 2005? what deals did the UK gain post 2005 in Iraq, Afganistan or neighbouring countries?

In 2005 i actually personally saw lots of Bechtel contracts for rebuilding much of Iraq - multi million pound contracts where for the sub contractors (again, large UK or American PLCs). I am sure there are many, many more. Dingodan has posted much about the Afghan Gas pipeline etc.

so you believe the exercise involved emergency services? when the interview said it was private company and later he says its a small crisis team? you wouldnt need 1000's to control responce to such an incident (you've highlighted above how few people need to be involved). on the ground for a full live drill, yes, but thats not what Powers was doing and there is no evidence that he or his operation were involved in that.

PP's company who had the contract for the crisis drills obviously employed and directed many people, including the emergency services. Akin to many military units performing an exercise under the leadership and co-ordination of a small group.

You miss my point, i mean that to pull it off only a few at the top of the project pyramid would have to be in ITK, but the lower tiers of the pyramid (thousand or so in this case) would be "involved" but not ITK.

e.g Top Elite know it is an inside job and prepare it. The members of the drill, the media news reader and actual reporters involved but not in ITK.

It's like in Oz, only a few know the wizard is a sham but they pull it off as no-one asks questions.....until tin man decides he wants a brain, and the lion wanted some courage.

 

[brunswick]

But mostly I just want to tell you that you have come to this with preconceptions and prejudices about "conspiracy theories". Everyone "knows" that "conspiracy theories" are rubbish, so you cant loose the argument, right?

History and contempory politics is not how the mainstream media, and think tanks, and foundations, and Chatham House would have you believe.

Read some books or something.

Ditto.......but most won't even know what Chatam House is, or the CFR.

I lay the blame with mainstream media, they only care for money and are fronts to keep their overriding parent mega-corps agenda (in this i include banks) progressing.

Read "No-logo" by Neomi Klein and learn how the TV is used to drive subliminal missiles into your subconscious mind, especially through mainstream News programmes.

 

[Titanic]

...Read "No-logo" by Neomi Klein and learn how the TV is used to drive subliminal missiles into your subconscious mind, especially through mainstream News programmes.

just like Hitler and the Nazis.

How could we all be so stupid and gullible?

 

[brunswick]

just like Hitler and the Nazis.

How could we all be so stupid and gullible?

the Reigstad, pearl harbor, 9/11, and 7/7 all bear the hallmarks of problem, reaction, solution. There are many parallels.

Plus, in england now there is CCTV everywhere, freedom of speech is quashed, bins are checked, all emails and texts saved, body scanners, number plate recognition, another payment to international bankers under the guise of council tax, and even fines for not filling in a census - all hallmarks of fascism. If you think that is freedom then you go with it

 

[dingodan]

the Reigstad, pearl harbor, 9/11, and 7/7 all bear the hallmarks of problem, reaction, solution. There are many parallels.

Plus, in england now there is CCTV everywhere, freedom of speech is quashed, bins are checked, all emails and texts saved, body scanners, number plate recognition, another payment to international bankers under the guise of council tax, and even fines for not filling in a census - all hallmarks of fascism. If you think that is freedom then you go with it

Indeed. Not all fascism looks like Adolf Hitler.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

the Reigstad, pearl harbor, 9/11, and 7/7 all bear the hallmarks of problem, reaction, solution. There are many parallels.

Plus, in england now there is CCTV everywhere, freedom of speech is quashed, bins are checked, all emails and texts saved, body scanners, number plate recognition, another payment to international bankers under the guise of council tax, and even fines for not filling in a census - all hallmarks of fascism. If you think that is freedom then you go with it

What a deluded, sorry little world you have built for yourself. I feel quite sorry for you if you actually believe this crap. Question things by all means, but don't throw all intelligence away.

 

[brunswick]

What a deluded, sorry little world you have built for yourself. I feel quite sorry for you if you actually believe this crap. Question things by all means, but don't throw all intelligence away.

elaborate.......and living in Shoreham i find "sorry little world" just a little strong.

 

[dingodan]

What a deluded, sorry little world you have built for yourself. I feel quite sorry for you if you actually believe this crap. Question things by all means, but don't throw all intelligence away.

Wow. There is nothing in his post that is even remotely speculative or disputed.

CCTV everywhere, freedom of speech is quashed, bins are checked, all emails and texts saved, body scanners, number plate recognition, another payment to international bankers under the guise of council tax, and even fines for not filling in a census

It is a question of perception i guess. But really you only need to see what is infront of your eyes.

 

[brunswick]

people obviously deem it that i am unhappy or harbor hatred seeing things this way...i am not,. I have never been happier or ever at more peace.....but i see things how they are...objectively

oh, must be a crazy anarchist, smelly, lalalala......all group think archetypes....delivered by.....drumroll.....dancing girls....mainstream media.

 

[dingodan]

people obviously deem it that i am unhappy or harbor hatred seeing things this way...i am not, never been happier or ever at more peace.....but i see things how they are...objectively.

Amen brother.

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality..." - Che Guevara

 

[Lady Whistledown]

chances of a conspiracy organised by some of the worlds best resourced intelligence agencies being sussed out by someone surrounded by piles of dirty plates underpants and empty pot noodle tubs in a darkened bedroom on the 17th floor of a tower block - 8 000 000 000 0000 000 0000 0000 0000 0000/1

I realise I've arrived into this conversation somewhat late in the day, but IMHO this is by FAR the definitive post on the subject so far

 

[Southwick_Seagull]