Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject:
Nick Cooper wrote:
Well, there are lot of problems with building anything out of it, not least because Power did not say it was three bombs in his first interview on 7/7 (from which he's obviously thinking on his feet and a little hesitant/confused), while in his second interview that evening he categorically stated, "simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station."
I can think of a far better reason for him to change his story between these two interviews other than he was "confused/thinking on his feet" during the first interview.
Nick Cooper wrote:
The major problem is one of perception. Power's perception of the actual bombing is through the prism of his exercise, while for most people, their perception of Power's exercise is through the prism of the actual bombings. People are quick to assume when Power said in his first interview, "an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," he meant that the all of the stations "where" explosions took place appears in his exercise, as opposed to all of the station in his exercise being amongst those "where" explosions took place. The two might seem to be the same, but they're not. And we shouldn't forget that at the time of that first interview there was still a lot of confusions over exactly which stations the explosions had occurred at.
Very Mark Roberts. You must be the UK version of the Neocons friend 'gravy'.
Why would Peter Power use the word PRECISELY if he didn't mean PRECISELY? You really have to go some to squeeze ambiguity out of that one.....but that's your speciality Mr. Cooper.
Nick Cooper wrote:
If, for the the sake of argument, we assume that Power's exercise had bombs going off at King's Cross and Aldgate, what he said in his first interview is poor English, but still true, since precisely the stations in the exercise had appeared at that time to have been the location of some of the attacks.
Even the fact that Power's company was running thieir exercise on the day isn't particularly significant, and we should be clear about what they actually do:
You're quite the expert, aren't you? The modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks (sorry, you don't believe in them......but innocent types like yourself [giggle] should read "Low Intensity Operations" by SAS Major Frank Kitson where the thinking behind such government operations is laid out very clearly)...the modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks has involved running simultaneous 'drills' in parallel with the 'terrorist' attacks. The greatest known number of simultaneous military drills and war games ever held was on the morning of 9/11 in the USA.
An utterly meaningless coincidence, I know, Mr Cooper........but there you are.
Nick Cooper wrote:
People should ask themselves some basic question.....
Well, there are lot of problems with building anything out of it, not least because Power did not say it was three bombs in his first interview on 7/7 (from which he's obviously thinking on his feet and a little hesitant/confused), while in his second interview that evening he categorically stated, "simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station."
I can think of a far better reason for him to change his story between these two interviews other than he was "confused/thinking on his feet" during the first interview.
I'm sure you could, but then it would only be your opinion.
Quote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
The major problem is one of perception. Power's perception of the actual bombing is through the prism of his exercise, while for most people, their perception of Power's exercise is through the prism of the actual bombings. People are quick to assume when Power said in his first interview, "an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," he meant that the all of the stations "where" explosions took place appears in his exercise, as opposed to all of the station in his exercise being amongst those "where" explosions took place. The two might seem to be the same, but they're not. And we shouldn't forget that at the time of that first interview there was still a lot of confusions over exactly which stations the explosions had occurred at.
Very Mark Roberts. You must be the UK version of the Neocons friend 'gravy'.
Absolutely no idea who you're talking about, although I would strongly dispute being a "friend" of Neocons on any grounds.
Quote:
Why would Peter Power use the word PRECISELY if he didn't mean PRECISELY? You really have to go some to squeeze ambiguity out of that one.....but that's your speciality Mr. Cooper.
Because - as I have explain - it could still have been "precisely" from his herception, even if not from everyone elses. His words are, in fact, poorly chosen from either point of view, but unless anyone can up with any verifiable evidence to the contrary, his clarification stands.
Quote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
If, for the the sake of argument, we assume that Power's exercise had bombs going off at King's Cross and Aldgate, what he said in his first interview is poor English, but still true, since precisely the stations in the exercise had appeared at that time to have been the location of some of the attacks.
Even the fact that Power's company was running thieir exercise on the day isn't particularly significant, and we should be clear about what they actually do:
You're quite the expert, aren't you? The modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks (sorry, you don't believe in them......
Sorry, but where did I say that? Oh no, it's just another thing you made up, because that's your forte....
Quote:
but innocent types like yourself [giggle] should read "Low Intensity Operations" by SAS Major Frank Kitson where the thinking behind such government operations is laid out very clearly)...the modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks has involved running simultaneous 'drills' in parallel with the 'terrorist' attacks. The greatest known number of simultaneous military drills and war games ever held was on the morning of 9/11 in the USA.
Based on what evidence? Has someone turned up a list of all such exercises over the last twenty years that shows those on that date were of the pattern you suggest, or is it just that because people have been looking for things that happened on 9/11 that - shock revelation - they found things that happened?
Quote:
An utterly meaningless coincidence, I know, Mr Cooper........but there you are.
Well, you'd first have to prove that something is as unusual as is claimed. After leaving home at the time I did, taking a overground train, and underground train, and then another overground train on my way to work yesterday, the odds of me getting on the particular bus I did as the last leg of that journey must have been pretty high, but it doesn't make it "significant," even if something "unusual" had happened to the bus while I was on it.
Quote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
People should ask themselves some basic question.....
Ah, we agree at last.
Nice way to get out of actually addressing the point I subsequently made. People are so keen to claim that Power/Visor running an exercise for a client on 7/7 was some sort of massive coincidence, but first they have to show how frequently they do that sort of thing in the first place. Something isn't such a coincidence if they do it every day, or even once a week.
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject:
Nick Cooper wrote:
Well, there are lot of problems with building anything out of it, not least because Power did not say it was three bombs in his first interview on 7/7 (from which he's obviously thinking on his feet and a little hesitant/confused), while in his second interview that evening he categorically stated, "simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station."
I can think of a far better reason for him to change his story between these two interviews other than he was "confused/thinking on his feet" during the first interview.
Nick Cooper wrote:
The major problem is one of perception. Power's perception of the actual bombing is through the prism of his exercise, while for most people, their perception of Power's exercise is through the prism of the actual bombings. People are quick to assume when Power said in his first interview, "an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," he meant that the all of the stations "where" explosions took place appears in his exercise, as opposed to all of the station in his exercise being amongst those "where" explosions took place. The two might seem to be the same, but they're not. And we shouldn't forget that at the time of that first interview there was still a lot of confusions over exactly which stations the explosions had occurred at.
Very Mark Roberts. You must be the UK version of the Neocons friend 'gravy'.
Why would Peter Power use the word PRECISELY if he didn't mean PRECISELY? You really have to go some to squeeze ambiguity out of that one.....but that's your speciality Mr. Cooper.
Nick Cooper wrote:
If, for the the sake of argument, we assume that Power's exercise had bombs going off at King's Cross and Aldgate, what he said in his first interview is poor English, but still true, since precisely the stations in the exercise had appeared at that time to have been the location of some of the attacks.
Even the fact that Power's company was running thieir exercise on the day isn't particularly significant, and we should be clear about what they actually do:
You're quite the expert, aren't you? The modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks (sorry, you don't believe in them......but innocent types like yourself [giggle] should read "Low Intensity Operations" by SAS Major Frank Kitson where the thinking behind such government operations is laid out very clearly)...the modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks has involved running simultaneous 'drills' in parallel with the 'terrorist' attacks. The greatest known number of simultaneous military drills and war games ever held was on the morning of 9/11 in the USA.
An utterly meaningless coincidence, I know, Mr Cooper........but there you are.
Nick Cooper wrote:
People should ask themselves some basic question.....
Well, there are lot of problems with building anything out of it, not least because Power did not say it was three bombs in his first interview on 7/7 (from which he's obviously thinking on his feet and a little hesitant/confused), while in his second interview that evening he categorically stated, "simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station."
I can think of a far better reason for him to change his story between these two interviews other than he was "confused/thinking on his feet" during the first interview.
Nick Cooper wrote:
The major problem is one of perception. Power's perception of the actual bombing is through the prism of his exercise, while for most people, their perception of Power's exercise is through the prism of the actual bombings. People are quick to assume when Power said in his first interview, "an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," he meant that the all of the stations "where" explosions took place appears in his exercise, as opposed to all of the station in his exercise being amongst those "where" explosions took place. The two might seem to be the same, but they're not. And we shouldn't forget that at the time of that first interview there was still a lot of confusions over exactly which stations the explosions had occurred at.
Very Mark Roberts. You must be the UK version of the Neocons friend 'gravy'.
Why would Peter Power use the word PRECISELY if he didn't mean PRECISELY? You really have to go some to squeeze ambiguity out of that one.....but that's your speciality Mr. Cooper.
Nick Cooper wrote:
If, for the the sake of argument, we assume that Power's exercise had bombs going off at King's Cross and Aldgate, what he said in his first interview is poor English, but still true, since precisely the stations in the exercise had appeared at that time to have been the location of some of the attacks.
Even the fact that Power's company was running thieir exercise on the day isn't particularly significant, and we should be clear about what they actually do:
You're quite the expert, aren't you? The modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks (sorry, you don't believe in them......but innocent types like yourself [giggle] should read "Low Intensity Operations" by SAS Major Frank Kitson where the thinking behind such government operations is laid out very clearly)...the modus operandi for all recent false flag attacks has involved running simultaneous 'drills' in parallel with the 'terrorist' attacks. The greatest known number of simultaneous military drills and war games ever held was on the morning of 9/11 in the USA.
An utterly meaningless coincidence, I know, Mr Cooper........but there you are.
Nick Cooper wrote:
People should ask themselves some basic question.....
Ah, we agree at last.
So, you repeating your previous post constitutes a reply how, exactly?
The determination to endlessly fill space with drivel (pretending to be rational argument) doesn't win you anything but contempt.
It seems rather pathetic that after three years, nobody has been able to come up with any evidence that proves that the Power/Visor exercise was anything other than as he clarified in his second interview on 7/7, preferring instead to interpret his poor choice of words in the first intervirew and spinning them out of all proportion.
I'll take that as you conceding defeat, then. If you stick to "debating" only with people who largely agree with you, you won't get anywhere.
Does that mean you are going now, what with you having "won"? Go join a golf club and spend all day telling the members what a pile of nonsense golf is. Ask them to "debate" it with you and see how many of them will want to. Clown. _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
I'll take that as you conceding defeat, then. If you stick to "debating" only with people who largely agree with you, you won't get anywhere.
Does that mean you are going now, what with you having "won"? Go join a golf club and spend all day telling the members what a pile of nonsense golf is. Ask them to "debate" it with you and see how many of them will want to. Clown.
Not really (surprise, surprise) a valid comparison. Golf is a physical activity that there is plenty of clear evidence to prove that it exists, and how it "works." This is more like a golf club where the members are convinced that their games are being influenced by "outside forces," their equipment being tampered with, their ranks infiltrated by "the enemy," etc., etc.
Anyway, I'll leave you all to your favourite pastime of violently agreeing with each other. It's rather ironic that Adam Curtis highlighted (correctly, in my opinion) how the Politics of Fear relies on people buying into the biggest, most complicated, and most hidden "threats," without a scrap of evidence, yet that is precisely the way some people here operate. The bigger, more convoluted, and more wide-ranging the conspiracy, the more ready they are to believe it.
the Politics of Fear relies on people buying into the biggest, most complicated, and most hidden "threats," without a scrap of evidence,
Which presumably is why you "believe" (course you do!) in the ridiculous Islamic threat invented by the perpetrators of 9/11 and their fantasy story of what happened, based on "evidence" that wouldn't fool an infant.
Quote:
Anyway, I'll leave you
Bye bye.
7/7 Ripple Effect
Link _________________ "The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
the Politics of Fear relies on people buying into the biggest, most complicated, and most hidden "threats," without a scrap of evidence,
Which presumably is why you "believe" (course you do!) in the ridiculous Islamic threat invented by the perpetrators of 9/11 and their fantasy story of what happened, based on "evidence" that wouldn't fool an infant.
False premise. Try watching The Power of Nightmares again (if you haven't already). Repeat until you get "the point," although I somehow doubt you will. Projection and false assumptions seems to suit you more.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:43 am Post subject:
Nick Cooper wrote:
blackcat wrote:
Quote:
the Politics of Fear relies on people buying into the biggest, most complicated, and most hidden "threats," without a scrap of evidence,
Which presumably is why you "believe" (course you do!) in the ridiculous Islamic threat invented by the perpetrators of 9/11 and their fantasy story of what happened, based on "evidence" that wouldn't fool an infant.
False premise.
So you agree that the "War on Terror' is a load of lying b*llocks?
Joined: 08 Sep 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: im an ex intelligence source of UK police
certain UK police and govt had good information in 2002 that in the near future london iconic transportation systems would be targeted, namely the tube they were concentrating on which is why in real life in i think 2002 the UK police and council ran through similar bomb and gas drills.
they had good information to know bombs would be used but got paranoid and drilled for gas attacks too.
then two of the bombers were known to have viewed iraq war footage a couple of months before their attacks, footage of a helicopter gunship killing elders, women, children and men.
they werent religiously motivated terrorist attacks so please dont make that link, they were politicially and culturally motivated because it does not say in islam civilians have to die for the crimes of govts. 2 of the bombers were also known to have frequented brothels in the weeks leading upto the attacks, more proof they weren't religious or spiritual people. _________________ yeah check out my free to view online book, i claim to be the messiah, maitreya, chirst, MAHDI, The buddha, the new key to enlightenment for all atheists.
yes it was ppl in govt and 3masonry authority who organised the wtc attacks
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: im an ex intelligence source of UK police
I too viewed Iraq war footage... so what does that either prove or mean?
Can you source the apparently new brothel allegation?
magnus alexander rawstron wrote:
certain UK police and govt had good information in 2002 that in the near future london iconic transportation systems would be targeted, namely the tube they were concentrating on which is why in real life in i think 2002 the UK police and council ran through similar bomb and gas drills.
they had good information to know bombs would be used but got paranoid and drilled for gas attacks too.
then two of the bombers were known to have viewed iraq war footage a couple of months before their attacks, footage of a helicopter gunship killing elders, women, children and men.
they werent religiously motivated terrorist attacks so please dont make that link, they were politicially and culturally motivated because it does not say in islam civilians have to die for the crimes of govts. 2 of the bombers were also known to have frequented brothels in the weeks leading upto the attacks, more proof they weren't religious or spiritual people.
Joined: 08 Sep 2008 Posts: 4 Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:48 am Post subject:
the reason why i know the UK police had good information to know asian people would in the near future attack london iconic transport with bombs is because i informed the police of the same, im a shaman and have been helping the police in these ways for years.
when osama asked on a wed or thurs for a holy war i got involved and told the pentagon that he was just east of mazar e sharif, i told the pentagon that the following sunday. within 48 hours of my email USUKUN forces they concentrated on that area and others i gave them for high ranking osama officials, it then took less than 24 hours for the coalition to cause a mass taliban retreat all over afghainistan. i didnt want the coalition to invade but they would have carried on bombing innocent civilians if i hadnt told them where osama and his hierarchy was.
osama asked for a holy war, the taliban didnt, and the taliban know of me and dont want a holy war, and they dont want anything to do with osama anymore.
read my free to view book online if you think im full of it, http://agnusdeity.150m.comhttp://magnusalexa.tripod.com
within one week of osama asking for a holy war the taliban lost, now the taliban want to be on my side and have ditched osama, so if you havent got inside knowledge about news reports stf up with ya public statements of the same _________________ yeah check out my free to view online book, i claim to be the messiah, maitreya, chirst, MAHDI, The buddha, the new key to enlightenment for all atheists.
yes it was ppl in govt and 3masonry authority who organised the wtc attacks
The major problem is one of perception. Power's perception of the actual bombing is through the prism of his exercise, while for most people, their perception of Power's exercise is through the prism of the actual bombings. People are quick to assume when Power said in his first interview, "an exercise... based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning," he meant that the all of the stations "where" explosions took place appears in his exercise, as opposed to all of the station in his exercise being amongst those "where" explosions took place. The two might seem to be the same, but they're not. And we shouldn't forget that at the time of that first interview there was still a lot of confusions over exactly which stations the explosions had occurred at.
previous attempt....
Quote:
That was his first statement on the afternoon of 7/7, later clarified that evening to, "we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station." There is a lot of ambiguity in Power's statements, and despite what some people think, he does not make it clear exactly how many bombs his scenario involved; even the "clarification" can be taken to mean a single bomb at a combined Underground/mainline station, or one at an Underground station and one at a mainline station. If the latter, Power's initial statement, while (as elsewhere) poor use of English, is not inherently contradictory. Although we are dealing with three Underground explosions, six stations were affected, two of which are also mainline stations - King's Cross and Liverpool St, both "obvious" targets. In fact, Liverpool street featured in both the Panorama - London Under Attack documentary, as well as the Dirty War drama, both pre-dating 7/7. We have to remember that from our perspective, the Visor exercise is "secondary" to the real events - the exercise is something that happened during the real explosions - while from Power's the reverse is true - the real explosions "interupted" the exercise. From Power's perspective, his exercise with (probably) two bombs was mirrored by real events involving the same two stations, but also other locations. It's a bit like two people, one of whom has gone to all of a certain team's matches in a season, while another has gone to only half of them. The second person could say of the first, "You've been to all the matches I've been to," while the first can just as accurately say, "You haven't been to all the matches I've been to." These statements sound contradictory, but they are actually not.
Lol, you've got to admire this guy haven't you really?
Aren't you glad he's ironed out your problems with perception?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
