To get back on topic of the movie...
Alex Jones is in the buisness of selling terror and the coming "police state". He has another movie where he takes cameras into places were they aren;t allowed, and when he's told he can;t film there it's "Police state! Police state!".
How dare the secret service block off the road to the president's house. That must mean the police state is here!
Alex Jones is in the buisness of selling terror and the coming "police state". He has another movie where he takes cameras into places were they aren;t allowed, and when he's told he can;t film there it's "Police state! Police state!".
How dare the secret service block off the road to the president's house. That must mean the police state is here!
It would take a while to explain the whole thing, but to just go over it quickly, what happened wasn't really the huge coincidence that they say it was. They had an exercise that predicted bombs in many places, not just the ones where bombs actually were. And what they count as an accurate prediction may not have been so accurate (like a "fake" bomb close to the actual location, but not actually there). Also, only 2 of the 4 "fake" bomb scenarios were viewed as being similar to what had actually happened (the bomb on the bus was totally missed). And there are only so many real targets to choose from as far as bombing stations in Central London (and of course the scenarios would want to try and predict which ones would actually be hit).
When you look at the whole picture, it's really not as much of a coincidence as they describe when they try to tell people that "the fake scenarios matched up exactly with the real ones!".
When you look at the whole picture, it's really not as much of a coincidence as they describe when they try to tell people that "the fake scenarios matched up exactly with the real ones!".
To add, here's a good exerpt from an article by channel 4 news, link is here, it's a good read.
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372¶sStartAt=1
As Power explained, the London bombing scenario was in fact one of three explored: another looked at the disruption that might be caused by unruly anti-globalisation demonstrators. In no case was there any real mobilisation of physical or human resources, which makes the case for 'planned' intelligence alibi look awfully flimsy, if not downright silly.
In the light of a brief interview with Power, the 'unbelievable' coincidence of events suddenly seems entirely comprehensible: the train stations targeted, after all, were all in central London -- any planner would pick these amongst a list of possible targets.
Indeed, in developing the London bombing scenario used in this exercise, Power's consultancy drew on the sort of scenario already explored in Osiris 2, a much-publicised major exercise initiated in the City of London to simulate a poison gas attack on the underground. Power further utilised his experience of taking part in Panorama's programme 'London Under Attack', another timely simulation.
And the date? That is indeed coincidence -- but an unbelievable one? 'Every week across the UK there are probably about hundred exercises, tests and simulations going on to get crisis teams familiar with their roles,' Power insists. 'We certainly do this regularly for many clients, the vast majority of them paper-based.'
Given this, the likelihood that one such simulation should fall on the day of an actual disaster is relatively high. Perhaps, who knows, that's the even case with oft-quoted simulations like the NRO's. 'When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras,' goes the often-quoted popularisation of Occam's Razor.
So not really a big coincidence, and the exercise itself was all "on paper".
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=372¶sStartAt=1
As Power explained, the London bombing scenario was in fact one of three explored: another looked at the disruption that might be caused by unruly anti-globalisation demonstrators. In no case was there any real mobilisation of physical or human resources, which makes the case for 'planned' intelligence alibi look awfully flimsy, if not downright silly.
In the light of a brief interview with Power, the 'unbelievable' coincidence of events suddenly seems entirely comprehensible: the train stations targeted, after all, were all in central London -- any planner would pick these amongst a list of possible targets.
Indeed, in developing the London bombing scenario used in this exercise, Power's consultancy drew on the sort of scenario already explored in Osiris 2, a much-publicised major exercise initiated in the City of London to simulate a poison gas attack on the underground. Power further utilised his experience of taking part in Panorama's programme 'London Under Attack', another timely simulation.
And the date? That is indeed coincidence -- but an unbelievable one? 'Every week across the UK there are probably about hundred exercises, tests and simulations going on to get crisis teams familiar with their roles,' Power insists. 'We certainly do this regularly for many clients, the vast majority of them paper-based.'
Given this, the likelihood that one such simulation should fall on the day of an actual disaster is relatively high. Perhaps, who knows, that's the even case with oft-quoted simulations like the NRO's. 'When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras,' goes the often-quoted popularisation of Occam's Razor.
So not really a big coincidence, and the exercise itself was all "on paper".
I have looked in to the 9/11 drills in the past. The 7/7 drills are new to me but i've researched the 9/11 drills. And the 9/11 drills are also in the context of loads of other evidence. Anyone who can't see that those buildings in New York, were demolished by controlled demolition has a serious case of denial.
Omni said:
Well, each of those topic, the 9/11 "hijack drills" and the idea that the WTC was a controlled demo would be multi page threads on their own probably.
But as regards to the 7/7 bombings, make sure and read that article I mentioned. The exercises were paper exercises, they considered multiple scenarios, possibilities, and targets, the 2 "hits" may not really have been hits, and the most important question of all...why do this? No one was actually mobilized for this, there is no reason whatsoever that I can think of that whoever the "powers that be" that would be behind all this would arrange to have bombings that somewhat conincide with a paper exercise going on at the same time. What possible point does this serve?
But as regards to the 7/7 bombings, make sure and read that article I mentioned. The exercises were paper exercises, they considered multiple scenarios, possibilities, and targets, the 2 "hits" may not really have been hits, and the most important question of all...why do this? No one was actually mobilized for this, there is no reason whatsoever that I can think of that whoever the "powers that be" that would be behind all this would arrange to have bombings that somewhat conincide with a paper exercise going on at the same time. What possible point does this serve?
In the case of 9/11, it could have helped to confuse those that would respond to the event.
In any event, it (the cia running a sim of a plane crashing into a building) seems to prove the idea that nobody couldve predicted anything like this would happen is a lie...not that we didn't know that already. Also, there was a sim of a plane crashing into the pentagon prior to 9/11 proves that to be a lie.
In any event, it (the cia running a sim of a plane crashing into a building) seems to prove the idea that nobody couldve predicted anything like this would happen is a lie...not that we didn't know that already. Also, there was a sim of a plane crashing into the pentagon prior to 9/11 proves that to be a lie.
Omni said:
Speaking of the London 7/7 attacks, I read this today and though you might find it interesting Nimue. Apparently there are full blown conspiracies being developed around these attacks too that go way beyond just the alleged coincidental exercises...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1806625,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1806625,00.html
Supposed Mastermind of 7/7 attacks worked for MI5?
Terror Expert: London Bomber Working for MI5
A terror expert has stated that the mastermind of the London bombing was probably an informant for the British MI5.
In case you missed it, one of the leading terrorism experts, a former prosecutor for the Justice Department, previously said that the London bombing "mastermind" was a British intelligence agent (or read the transcript here); see confirming story here.
Terror Expert: London Bomber Working for MI5
A terror expert has stated that the mastermind of the London bombing was probably an informant for the British MI5.
In case you missed it, one of the leading terrorism experts, a former prosecutor for the Justice Department, previously said that the London bombing "mastermind" was a British intelligence agent (or read the transcript here); see confirming story here.
