WTC building 7. Let's revisit history.

[Howard Is]

Is this a joke? What simulated attacks? I don't recall anything about this. Nor do I recall anything preventing an appropriate response. I was working in central London that day.

Can you provide references?

I once had plenty of material, but I no longer have the files.

I did find this

Eleven Years Ago: The London 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks? - Global Research

I may find more, if I do I’ll post it.

 

[exchemist]

I once had plenty of material, but I no longer have the files.

I did find this

Eleven Years Ago: The London 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks? - Global Research

I may find more, if I do I’ll post it.

You'll need to do better than stuff taken second hand from "infowars".

 

[Howard Is]

Is this a joke?

And what are the odds of this going to air in the US in April 2001...

The plane departs from Boston, to attack the WTC.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Maybe God did it ?

 

[Howard Is]

You'll need to do better than stuff taken second hand from "infowars".

Did you make any attempt whatsoever to verify or eliminate ?

You must do your research very quickly.

Your knee-jerk response was based entirely on confirmation bias.

 

[exchemist]

Did you make any attempt whatsoever to verify or eliminate ?

You must do your research very quickly.

Your knee-jerk response was based entirely on confirmation bias.

No, the article actually says it is taken from infowars. Did you not see that?

But in any case, how does a single security consultant, running an exercise for one commercial company (an oil company, a bank, or something like that) somehow prevent the government's emergency and security services from responding appropriately to the London Bombs? The only people and resources involved in such exercises are the management and comms/IT system of the company!

It's bulls**t, isn't it?

 

[Howard Is]

No, the article actually says it is taken from infowars. Did you not see that?

But in any case, how does a single security consultant, running an exercise for one commercial company (an oil company, a bank, or something like that) somehow prevent the government's emergency and security services from responding appropriately to the London Bombs? The only people and resources involved in such exercises are the management and comms/IT system of the company!

It's bulls**t, isn't it?

I don’t keep an encyclopaedic collection of everything I have ever read on the web.
That was an article at the top of the search results. I remember reading various articles on the subject at the time.

If they aren’t there now... I’m not surprised. As I said, I’ll have a poke around and see what else I can find. But not right now. I’m cooking dinner.

 

[exchemist]

I don’t keep an encyclopaedic collection of everything I have ever read on the web.
That was an article at the top of the search results. I remember reading various articles on the subject at the time.

If they aren’t there now... I’m not surprised. As I said, I’ll have a poke around and see what else I can find. But not right now. I’m cooking dinner.

Fair enough.

But seriously, there was to my knowledge no effect on the emergency response that day in London from any simulation exercise. If there had been, believe me, it would have been a huge story. The only effect I recall was the phone lines went out for a while, due to overload, with the families of 8m Londoners wanting to check people were OK.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, but we know where they get those ideas from. I don't know where this whole "9/11 Truth" thing comes from. Did someone just make it up out of the blue and somehow it caught on? Is that how it works?

You haven't seen the pictures of Elvis or heard the stories of Tupac and Kurt Cobain? They all live on, and all faked their. I don't remember if Biggie faked his or not.
My favorite conspiracy that people talked of as if it were actually true are the "FEMA death camps" that exist throughout here, including one at Grissom AFRB in Indiana, which I used to live just a few miles from. A part of their evidence is you can see towers and barbed wire fences from the free way going along what is, in reality, a minimum/somewhat moderate risk prison on the base. But, there is even a housing edition and golf course on it, and the old building of an elementary school from when the base was active. But there is no changing there mind about the death camp thing.

 

[Stevicus]

I think some people just underestimate what other people can do. It's a bit like who shot JFK (how could it be a lone loonie?) or who killed Princess Diana (how could a driver just crash? - er, when he was drunk and on drugs, but never mind) or who built the pyramids (surely they couldn't have done that with unaided human strength?).

Or it is just the conspiracy mindset: suspicion of authority and the wish to be party to some sort of special and exclusive knowledge. (Sounds like quite a few Protestant sects actually )

I think a lot of the "conspiracy mindset" came about during the 60s. Prior to that, my sense is that the general public was far more trusting of the government and similar authorities (such as the Church). But perhaps due to the Cold War, Vietnam, the fight for civil rights, etc., suspicion and cynicism towards any form of authority started to grow. "Question authority" was the catchphrase which so few people utter nowadays.

But I also wonder about the opposite viewpoint. What motivates some people to step forward to challenge any criticism or theory alleging possible government wrongdoing? The government is certainly more than capable of defending itself, so there's no pressing need for any member of the general public to defend them or run interference against conspiracy theories as they often do. Some of them almost seem as obsessed as the conspiracy theorists themselves, as if their life depends on debunking this theory or that theory.

I realized this when I stated matter of factly that the JFK assassination was still a mystery, some people took me to task by essentially saying that "anyone who doesn't absolutely believe 100% that Oswald alone killed JFK is a paranoid conspiracy wingnut."

I will give conspiracy theorists some credit for at least allowing people to believe or not believe, but those who embrace the "official story" don't have the same level of tolerance, respect, or courtesy. Their general manner and attitude is that of ultra-orthodox believers who simply don't tolerate deviation or dissent.

 

[Stevicus]

You haven't seen the pictures of Elvis or heard the stories of Tupac and Kurt Cobain? They all live on, and all faked their. I don't remember if Biggie faked his or not.

I've heard the stories about Elvis being alive, but nothing about Tupac or Kurt Cobain. I've heard similar things about Jim Morrison of the Doors. There were even stories of Hitler still being alive decades after WW2.

My favorite conspiracy that people talked of as if it were actually true are the "FEMA death camps" that exist throughout here, including one at Grissom AFRB in Indiana, which I used to live just a few miles from. A part of their evidence is you can see towers and barbed wire fences from the free way going along what is, in reality, a minimum/somewhat moderate risk prison on the base. But, there is even a housing edition and golf course on it, and the old building of an elementary school from when the base was active. But there is no changing there mind about the death camp thing.

What I find interesting is that, if it's a conspiracy theory about the US government, everyone and his uncle comes out of the woodwork to lambaste it as a "paranoid delusion," yet the US government or media can spout off equally unevidenced, specious theories about foreign governments or leaders or dissident organizations - and most people would automatically believe it. The entire Cold War was based on our government's questionable conspiracy theories about the Soviets.

We had wars in Korea and Vietnam based on the belief that, if we didn't stop the communists in those places, they would immediately sail across the Pacific and storm the beaches of Santa Monica. This is the kind of stuff that our government believed once upon a time.

Because of this, I'm willing to cut the conspiracy theorists some slack.

 

[Stevicus]

Funny, because it's true. Only that it wasn't his father but his grandfather and it wasn't the Kennedy assassination but the Business Plot - Wikipedia.

This is what I was referring to:

 

[Stevicus]

I can tell you how I got suspicious. The first news I heard about 9/11 was when the first tower went down. At that time they already "knew" that Bin Laden was behind it. (Which turned out to be a canard but everyone acted as if that wasn't debunked.)
Another significant thing is "Fahrenheit 9/11". Michael Moore asks 12 Questions I haven't heard satisfying answers for up to now.

I had my suspicions as well, right from the outset. However, the argument about "controlled explosions" seemed to come quite a bit later.

 

[Heyo]

I had my suspicions as well, right from the outset. However, the argument about "controlled explosions" seemed to come quite a bit later.

Yes, and I dismissed it as too far fetched initially because of the logistics. There were also many other fake news, that there was no debris in the Pentagon attack or that a 747 wouldn't fit into the tiny hole. There was disinformation on all sides. I only effectively believe info that both sides agree upon. (And that some info is suspiciously missing.)
To me it looks more like the government was in on the attacks in some way but it may also be that they just want to hide how utterly incompetent they were.

 

[Heyo]

Did you notice what 9/11 and the London bombings of 2005 had in common ?

In both instances there was a simulated attack being run at the same time. Both simulations caused confusion preventing an appropriate response.

Seriously ? What are the odds ?

I didn't know (or forgot) that London also had a drill at the time of the attack. What are the odds? Could happen.
But an attack simulation in New York, all the response jets in Canada, a recently changed policy and a broken line to NORAD. That are a few coincidences too many.

 

[Howard Is]

To me it looks more like the government was in on the attacks in some way but it may also be that they just want to hide how utterly incompetent they were.

You may be right. Now consider this ...

The fifteen wealthiest men are worth roughly one trillion dollars.
Private enterprise is now a major player in space exploration.
Blackwater, the mercenary army that came to prominence in Iraq, is now owned by Monsanto.

Maybe they are trying to hide how irrelevant they have become.

Those fifteen men could build their own Space Force.
They could create a seriously high tech army.
Maybe Elon Musk is Iron Man.

Things have changed.

 

[Howard Is]

I didn't know (or forgot) that London also had a drill at the time of the attack

@exchemist

Put a hold on that information for now. I can’t find the information I read fifteen years ago, and my memory is not infallible. So I may have accidentally blown smoke.

I should stick with what I know. Or what I am free to say about what I know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think a lot of the "conspiracy mindset" came about during the 60s. Prior to that, my sense is that the general public was far more trusting of the government and similar authorities (such as the Church). But perhaps due to the Cold War, Vietnam, the fight for civil rights, etc., suspicion and cynicism towards any form of authority started to grow. "Question authority" was the catchphrase which so few people utter nowadays.

But I also wonder about the opposite viewpoint. What motivates some people to step forward to challenge any criticism or theory alleging possible government wrongdoing? The government is certainly more than capable of defending itself, so there's no pressing need for any member of the general public to defend them or run interference against conspiracy theories as they often do. Some of them almost seem as obsessed as the conspiracy theorists themselves, as if their life depends on debunking this theory or that theory.

I realized this when I stated matter of factly that the JFK assassination was still a mystery, some people took me to task by essentially saying that "anyone who doesn't absolutely believe 100% that Oswald alone killed JFK is a paranoid conspiracy wingnut."

I will give conspiracy theorists some credit for at least allowing people to believe or not believe, but those who embrace the "official story" don't have the same level of tolerance, respect, or courtesy. Their general manner and attitude is that of ultra-orthodox believers who simply don't tolerate deviation or dissent.

I think it's still reasonable for anyone to doubt the official version of the JFK killing, given all the circumstances surrounding it and the factualness or not of any evidence - apart from the numbers wanting him dead. Still one of the things I would like to know before I pass on, but I doubt anything of value will ever come out such that we could definitively disprove the official version.

 

[Howard Is]

I think it's still reasonable for anyone to doubt the official version of the JFK killing, given all the circumstances surrounding it and the factualness or not of any evidence - apart from the numbers wanting him dead. Still one of the things I would like to know before I pass on, but I doubt anything of value will ever come out such that we could definitively disprove the official version.

Even an unexpected discovery of film of a second shooter on the grassy knoll would not be conclusive, now that it could so easily be done with CGI.

Jesus, even DNA evidence could be manufactured. If not now, then certainly very soon. We have CRISPR, and that’s just the opening shot.

The art of lying is becoming very high tech.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even an unexpected discovery of film of a second shooter on the grassy knoll would not be conclusive, now that it could so easily be done with CGI.

Jesus, even DNA evidence could be manufactured. If not now, then certainly very soon.

The art of lying is becoming very high tech.

Quite. I believe there was talk of or actual evidence of frames missing from the Zapruda film. ??

 

[Howard Is]

Quite. I believe there was talk or actual evidence of frames missing from the Zapruda film. ??

I hadn’t heard that, but it seems that we now must believe half of what we see, and none of what we hear.