Conspiracy Files on 7/7 London Bombings BBC2

[Pugwash]

Sorry to be pedantic..,
assuming both the exercises and the bombings would occur on a workday and only one bomb per station.

365 (261 busy weekdays) x 20-1/1 x 20-2/1 x 20-3/1 1,515,793

However a few more factors need be considered
The exercise was to be mock, then the time of the mock attack would be fairly irrelevant.
Even accepting the they really needed it to be at a busy period, it could have been either AM. or PM. 50/50 chance of getting the timing right.
1,515,793/0.5 = 3,031,586

The mock exercise is for bombs exploding. Up to then (by my recollection) the only attack on underground stations were by chemical release (Japan), and opening up a violin case and spraying passengers with bullets would seem just as likely, eg Mumbai. Not even considering hijacked planes or chemical trucks. Say we 1/3 chance of conventional bombs actually being used and also included in the scenario.

3,031,586/0.33 = 9,094,757

Consideration must also be given to the number of incidents, why 3. Surely more likely a lone bomber as an initial assumption? And if multiple why not 2 or 6 or 20? Without guidance I would say 50% single, 25% for two and 12.5% for 3;


9,094,757 /0.125 = 72,758,057

Why all underground stations, admitted they can be packed with commuters, but so can main line trains coming into London, the Madrid attack killed far more, indeed why a solitary bus, could they not all have been buses. shall we say a 40% chance that 3 of the 4 would have been tube stations.

72,758,057/0.40 = 181,895,143

So much for my guesstimate. Perhaps I've missed a few?

In addition, a couple of logical points, with so many variables, what was the point of doing a 'terrorist' exercise anyway. They would not know what to expect, would they? Further..

We are given that 1,000 plus were involved in this exercise...

[ian neal]

From Ian Henshall

BBC'S CONSPIRACY FILES A REBUTTAL

From Ian Henshall, author "911 The New Evidence"

2 July 2009

It's all too possible to use slick video tricks, crafty edits, a
plausible narrator, and a skewed set of questions to fool gullible
viewers into believing nonsense. This was the theme of the latest of
the BBC's "Conspiracy Files" as they deconstructed the internet movie
7/7: The Ripple Effect.

They were right. But how true too of The Conspiracy Files.

You could add quite a few more ugly propaganda techniques too. Choose
a soft target: a guy who thinks he is the Messiah. Base your position
on ad hominem logic and guilt by association: feature a 7/7
"researcher" who has never been to Germany but thinks the Holocaust
is a myth. These were the BBC's leading villains. They could not get
any footage of anyone normal: reputable 7/7 researchers either
refused to talk to the Beeb, after its earlier travesties of reality
in the Conspiracy Files series, or insisted that like any
establishment figure they should be given the final sign-off, no good
when your business is to lure useful idiots into convicting
themselves out of their own mouths.

Ignore or skate over the key issues, keep the graphics moving fast.
Use weird camera angles for the sceptics. Give soft interviews to the
key pro-establishment people, and portray them as victims of internet
hatemongers. Whip up hate against the hate mongers and then project
it onto anyone who disbelieves the BBC's version of reality, a world
where the government never lies, and where the police never frame
anyone and never fabricate or plant evidence.

Sinister and threatening? Internet bloggers or the BBC broadcasters'
advocacy of jailing them and blocking their internet sites?

Who sent the hate mail? We were not told. The main thrust of the
programme was not this hate mail, punishable already, this was just
an emotional hook for the broadcasters main thrust: bloggers are
inciting Muslims to carry out terror attacks. Yes, at the heart of
this pro-Bush, pro-Blair, pro-Likud rant was a glaring non sequitur.
The internet conspiracy theorists who blame the CIA and Mossad for
organising fake terror campaigns, who say that Al Qaeda is a CIA
front, are by doing this somehow inciting Muslims to join Al Qaeda.
As the legendary Private Eye editor might comment: shomething wrong
here, shurely?

Believe it or not this was the message from Washington, London and
Tel Aviv, oops, sorry the BBC, the sort of idiocy that only paid
propagandists living in a media bubble could come up with. Let's just
look at it again, it's mind bogglingly stupid. The bombers and
insurgents are not motivated by the bloody, illegal invasion of Iraq,
described as a "triumph" by venerable intellectual and BBC political
editor, Andrew Marr, and based on the weapons of mass destruction
that never existed, a whopper of a conspiracy theory, by the way,
that somehow has never made it onto the Conspiracy Files. Not by
Israel's atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. Not by the scenes from Abu
Ghraib too horrible to show in the land of the free and strangely
missed by the BBC's embedded reporters in Iraq. No, the terrorists
are motivated by internet bloggers who say Al Qaeda is run by the CIA.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, the saying goes,
and The Conspiracy Files certainly did not. Here are just some of the
vital questions about 7/7 the BBC abysmally failed to answer.

Why did the official story change from military grade explosives to
home made explosives in one news cycle on the say so of anonymous
security sources? Why did the suicide bombers buy return tickets? Why
did Haroon Aswat, named as ringleader and who reportedly received
calls from the MSK's mobile phone shortly before the attacks, vanish
from the story after US law enforcement sources said he was linked to
MI6? Why is the UK government supporting his extradition to the US on
lesser charges rather than pursuing him for 7/7? Did the bombs blow
up under the trains as the only named witness implies, or from within
the carriages as unnamed witnesses were reported to have said (and
the official story requires)? Why not release pictures of the damaged
trains and settle the issue?

Why did the Home Secretary at the time tell an outright falsehood,
that alleged ringleader Mohammed Siddique Khan was unknown, when MI5 had him on their list for years. If this man was a full-on terrorist
and not a double agent or patsy why (according to a recent official
report) was he not followed when other associates were? The BBC's
trump card was the confession videos, normally released by a dodgy
Western security company who charge fees to use "their" material. Did
none of the BBC experts let them know videos like this can be forged
nowadays? Or that double agents can be duped?

The programme explained apparent inconsistencies with a point that is
quietly whispered by security experts when faced with tricky issues.
It is allegedly a technique of Al Qaeda to leave clues to prove that
they were the culprits. Hence the confession videos, hence the
discovery of vital ID's from the 7/7 blasts. The personal documents
that proved the suspected suicide bombers were on the scene of the
explosions were not planted but dropped by the skilled terrorists a
distance from their bodies so they would be found intact. Al Qaeda,
if you believe the official story, thinks of everything. Others would
say this is the catch all logic typical of simple minded conspiracy theorists.

Oh yes, and after two years research, paid for by us, how did the BBC
team manage to make the elementary mistake of mixing up the photo of
Jarrah from Flight 93 on 9/11 (which incidentally does not look at
all like the real Ziad Jarrah) with Al Suqami from Flight 11? What
other mistakes did they make? The pictures were flashing past to fast to tell.

Behind these details lies a greater and more sinister flaw which was
made clear in the opening seconds of the programme. Were the 7/7
suspects suicide bombers or were they framed, asked the broadcasters.
Bertrand Russell, philosopher and peace campaigner, must be turning
in his grave and so should any sixth former conversant with
elementary logic. It's the fallacy of the excluded middle. The French
noticed it at once when George Bush said the world had to be either
for us or against us. It's the refrain of warmongers and idiots and
manipulative psychopaths throughout history: press the fear button,
close down the logic centre and bring out the animal in us. Video is
good for that.

Perhaps the 7/7 suspects were not simple suicide bombers and not
total innocents but something else. Apart from the more detailed
questions, here is a big one: who really controls Al Qaeda?
Throughout history wise people who wished to get to the bottom of
conspiracies have asked (and everyone agrees that 7/7 was a
conspiracy of one sort or another): who benefits? Ask the people of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza. If that's too emotive, then ask any
taxpayer who funds the bloated military budgets of US UK and Isreal -
and the propagandists at the BBC.

[scienceplease 2]

[TonyGosling]

This is actually a very important point which seems to have slipped by the wayside. Why blow yourself to bits when you don't have to?

I suppose that is to propogate the myth, or meme, that there are vast queues of 'Muslim fanatics' waiting to annihilate themselves.

Be afraid of them, not your 'own' military and intelligence machinery which has been hopelessly infiltraded by the Nazi Mafia.

[TonyGosling]

Allegations about suspected MI6 agent Haroon Rashid Aswat being the 7/7 mastermind were due to be on BBC Radio 4's 'Broadcasting House' this Sunday morning.
Doctor Naseem, Martin Summers and myself were all called and asked if we minded being interviewed for this Sunday's edition.

Then phoned back today to explain rather sheepishly that 'other things have moved up the agenda'.



Check this on the BBC if you haven't before.
http://blip.tv/file/2202180

[TonyGosling]

From about 40 minutes in here is a 15 minute report on the BBC programme.
Includes interview with new terror 'exercise' witness Paul Harrison.
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/34273
http://www.radio4all.net:8080/files/tony@tlio.org.uk/2149-1-2009070317 0001.mp3

[xmasdale]

[Pugwash]

Apologies for being less than clear, what I'm trying to say is.
The aims and objectives of the exercise could not be achieved without bombs going off or a simulation of bombs going off. As there was no simulation set-up which included the emergency services. THE EXERCISE MUST HAVE BEEN FORMULATED WITH THOSE WHO HAD FORE-KNOWLEDGE THAT ACTUAL BOMBS WOULD BE DETONATED.

[redkop]

[mr freedom]

The BBC program was very aggressive. As I think 7/7 was proabaly an inside job, I found the BBC program almost threatening, and I think it was supposed to be. To be fair, 7/7 ripple effect, is pretty awful too. Trying to calculate the odds of the Peter Power coincidence(s) is an embaressing waste of time. My best guess is that Rachel North is a useful idiot.

[Andrew.]

The way I see it with the odds in the 7/7 Ripple effect are this. (this part only)

We know it was a real event that really did happen. So using occam's razor on this part only.

It could have been A. an inside terrorist job, B. a none government terrorist job.
Or C a combination-s of A and B.

So someone calculated what the odds were at one hour intervals just to see. But of course it would have to be much closer in reality than one hour intervals for the answer to be C as it would have been so obvious.

To illustrate even at one hour intervals the number is well take a look. Not to forget how exponentially that number would be much larger if we calculated down to realistic time intervals so that six events would not have been detected.

Also people have said that they? Would of only had to choose about 20 stations. But how would a terrorist know for sure what stations ? And even so the odds would still be astronomical.


The probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is:
ONE chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Estimate of Grains of sand in the whole world: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000

If I go to a beach, or a desert, or under the sea and pick a single grain of sand. What chance is there of you going to the same part of the world, by chance, and picking up the same grain? You are trillions of times more likely to do this, than the London drill coinciding with this attack at that hour.
I wonder why the media aren't investigating the drill?? Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

Comment:
“This is absolutely mind-boggling. The chances for these two events taking place at the same time, let alone in the same locations, are astronomical (numbers so big we had to look up how to say them). And these estimates are within a very conservative five year mean. In other words, most statistical analysis that is designed to create the impression of a similarly incredible improbability is usually framed within a greater amount of time: 50 years since England began experiencing bombings, 130 years since the Tube first opened, etc. We don't need to frame these results in that way, because the chance is so low, that these events would ever occur simultaneously, without some sort of intervention, that one might go so far as to call it impossible.
Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding
London Underground Stations: 274”

RELATED:
Explosions In London
Probability of one attack by hour (5yr mean): One chance in 9,474,920
Open Hours per Day: 19
Probability of 3 station terror hit (5yr mean): One chance in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000
Open Days a Year: 364
Mean Sample frequent (yrs): 5.
Probability of one attack by hour (10yr mean): One chance in 18,949,840
Mean Sample frequent (yrs): 10.
Probability of 3 station terror hit (10yr mean): One chance in 6,804,820,007,255,360,000,000
Same Time 3
London Underground Stations: 274
Probability of drill on 1 stations per hour: One chance in 817,342
Open Hours per Day: 19
Probability of drill on 3 stations per hour: One chance in 546,023,643,432,766,000
Open Days a Year: 157
Same Time 3
PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE (10yr mean): One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Estimate of Grains of sand in the whole world: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000
( HYPERLINK "http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html" http://www.miamisci.org/tripod/whysand.html)
In context:
If I go to a beach, or a desert, or under the sea and pick a single grain of sand. What chance is there of you going to the same part of the world, by chance, and picking up the same grain? You are trillions of times more likely to do this, than the London drill coinciding with this attack at that hour.
I wonder why the media aren't investigating the drill?? Probability of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding

[mr freedom]

Andrew, I like they way you state these probabilities without calculation, as though it were obvious! Yet have to estimate the number of grains of sand. I think if you could do the former, then the latter would be childs play....

Anyway, as I think suggested by the BBC program, this drill could have involved many more stations than those featured in the bombing....

[Andrew.]

[kbo234]

It is obvious that the probability of the drills and the actual bombings occurring in the same three stations at the same time are extraordinarily low.

Any calculations I've seen tend to make the 'statistician' look a bit silly as the assumptions on which a (rigorous) calculation is based are bound to be highly dubious at best.

People who use numbers to argue the opposite (that it's not unlikely at all) look even more stupid.....I think it's best to let the obvious state itself.

[Andrew.]

Hi kbo234.

"It is obvious that the probability of the drills and the actual bombings occurring in the same three stations at the same time are extraordinarily low."

Oh i dont know some have it down to 3 million already rather than*. As you said, some have got confused over this.

"*without some sort of intervention, that one might go so far as to call it impossible."

[mr freedom]

[Andrew.]

[Andrew.]

It shows us that some within the drill organisers were the real bombers and conspirators to commit murder to a probability much greater than “N “ that one might go so far as to call it impossible for it not to be.

With Peter Power either a dupe or an accomplice. Get him to tell us the names of the individuals, follow them up for arrest , as it is about murder and being a traitor to the British people and visitors and you can prove! It and bring them to Justice. On this point alone.

"No offence to the calculators, I posted my own pointless effort here some time ago"

Not so bad on this point alone.

[Andrew.]

[mr freedom]

Andrew, I get the impression that you are addressing me (and perhaps others) with your last posts. I'm afraid I just can't understand what it is you are trying to say...

[Andrew.]

[Danny]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[Frank Freedom]

chek,you should watch Prince Charles propagating other myths you may want to promote yourself,as well as your usual AGW mantra.

As everyone on this board knows, what the mainstream media promote
are mostly stories (aka myths),why then is not a more likely scenario(also a story) not be promoted?

Everyone makes mistakes,but on the whole as truthers, we should recognise the more likely chain of events.

So you beg to differ,that's OK but what is your analysis on this?

[chek]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[kbo234]

I agree with Frank Freedom.

A powerful opposing myth (to the myth that is the 'official narrative') confronts the official narrative more effectively than than any number of legitimate and intelligent questions.

The time when these questions will have to be answered fully in the public domain will come, hopefully.......

......but for now, although I understand the criticisms of more restrained analysts and researchers, I am very glad that Muad 'Dib made his excellent film. It has done more to stir up the 7/7 issue than any other single initiative.

Now the fat is in the fire, The flames are rising and licking round the heels of parliamentarians. There seems to be a bit of a panick on with the Daily Mail writing articles like this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197419/Conspiracy-fever-As-rumours-s well-government-staged-7-7-victims-relatives-proper-inquiry.html


Meanwhile (from Rachel North's blogspot today http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/),

"MPs announced a formal inquiry into the London suicide bombings, which killed 52 innocent people, four years after the atrocity."

It will not be a proper independent public Inquiry. It will be an exercise in the usual....muddying the waters, plausible deniability etc.

However, it is encouraging that someone feels the need to instigate this damage limitation exercise.

However, this 'Inquiry' will not answer the tough questions and will, most probably, like last week's 'Conspiracy Files' merely serve to fuel the mistrust that so many millions of people already feel about the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks.......(not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

The story is also here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/577021 8/Anti-terror-police-facing-first-budget-cuts-since-July-7-attacks.htm l

[kbo234]

More NEW damning 7/7 evidence here:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2009/070809_bombing_photo .htm