Kiosk
He Thinks He's People
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 349
Couldn't see a thread on this, an absolutely rotten new CT movie about the 2005 London bombings that's just gone up on Google.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7003925131815306453&hl=en
Incompetent is the word, really - not only are its theories preposterous, but the voiceover appears to have been scripted by a nine year old, and the guy reading it out sounds like he's doing a bad impression of "someone reading from a card" for comedy purposes. Still, it's big news with the twoofers. Here's what the Loose Change Forum has been saying about "7/7 Ripple Effect":
"mind-blowing... I was really just left speechless by this" - 8bitagent
"this is truly conclusive proof of a 7/7 inside job. absolute proof" - look-up
"I was really impressed with the thought process that went into this documentary" - STEALTH
"Ooh lovely, looking forward to watching this after work
" - alexvegas (yeah, a big smiley at the prospect of more hideous NWO action... especially when it's not your town or your neighbours who've been blown up... why not get some popcorn in, mate)
Anyway, I'm slightly drunk tonight so I can't post anything too pertinent. Luckily, I didn't need to be sober to see through the first section of "7/7 Ripple Effect". Here are my debunking notes, done on the fly (no sources):
*
1. This section looks at a "Panorama" programme made a year before the bombings. One of those tedious "what if" shows, where they mock-up news reports, and a bunch of cops, politicians etc. pretend it's real and jaw about what they'd do next. The scenario bore only a passing resemblance to 7/7. Bombs on the Underground is hardly a novel idea - the vulnerability of the Tube network has always worried the security services - and much of the focus of the show was actually on a subsequent chemical attack. Obvious response to the climate at the time, with dire warnings of terrorist attacks coming from the government almost every day. The narrator latches onto a comment from Michael Portillo about the government having reserve powers to take over the BBC in time of crisis, and asks "was that what they were actually in the process of planning, and precisely the reason for that programme?"
Yeah, mate. Every time the government plan a super-secret "inside job" terror attack, they get the BBC to make a programme telling everyone about it first. Just like that episode of the X-Files that warned everyone about 9/11. Why? Who knows. I guess the NWO likes to do stunts. Like those supervillains who don't just shoot Batman, they try their luck by tying him to a Heath Robinson killing machine and then leaving the room.
Narrator suggests the programme was actually made so that the government could study the media response to a terrorist attack "so it could be controlled and directed towards their own ends." Cue stuff about how the BBC, as a state broadcaster, is a "government propaganda machine" (which has a small kernel of truth, perhaps, but certainly not in the way this guy means). Just one problem with this theory. The BBC made the programme, not the government. If they're such a propaganda machine that the government can order them to produce the programme, why would the programme need to be made?
There are also three other major television news sources in Britain: ITN, Sky News and Channel 4 News (the latter sometimes taking an anti-government line so strong that Alistair Campbell once turned up in the studio while the show was going out, seeking an onscreen confrontation with anchorman Jon Snow). How they fit into the CT is a mystery.
Next: stuff about the many news stories on false alarms and hoax terror alerts in the months leading up to 7/7. Many would argue that it was politically convenient for the government to release details of these false alarms (which would once have gone unreported) while they were trying to push through tough and unpopular anti-terrorism laws. Ripple Effect takes a slightly different view: the stories were circulated "not only to cause panic and confusion, but also to lull everyone into a false sense of security" - wow - "and into thinking that the initial reports in London would also be false alarm hoaxes, so people would ignore them until it was too late." This stuff makes Killtown look like a hot-shot. How would one ignore the initial reports "until it was too late"? The bombs went off simultaneously, the "initial reports" were of a power surge on the Underground, not a terrorist attack - and by that point it was over. This is the best theory they could come up with?
Ominous fade to black. End of part one.
2. Almost impossible to follow the narration here, as it's so badly written. The subject is Peter Power, ex-copper and Managing Director of Visor Consulting, a company who work on, among other things, crisis management strategies. Power had apparently worked with the government at some point, and made regular TV appearances as an anti-terror "expert". Visor were running a "war game"-style anti-terrorism drill in London on 7th July 2005. A striking coincidence, apparently, that Power had chosen to simulate the same scenario as the Panorama programme mentioned earlier - although the coincidence is less startling when you bear in mind that Power actually appeared on the programme, and was supposed to be simulating exactly that kind of thing. Doesn't grab you? Well how about this for a coincidence - this drill focused on exactly the same stations targeted by the bombers!
This is a story Alex Jones has been pushing for years. The truth is that Visor's exercise was a very small scale affair which had nothing to do with the government or security services, but was being carried out on behalf of a small private company. Visor had been involved in these kind of corporate risk-management exercises for a long time - terrorism was something of a hot topic in the City - and there's nothing particularly surprising about the fact that they were involved in one such drill on the 7th of July. As for selecting the same stations as the bombers: well, yes they did, but there's another important fact to bear in mind. Visor's exercise focused on a larger number of stations, which just happened to include those bombed on that day. None of the stations chosen by the terrorists were obscure outposts on the network, they were all within the central zone of the Underground system. This is a coincidence in much the same way as thinking of a friend, then receiving a phone call from that same person. So what?
Furthermore, it's of no significance anyway. A full-scale drill involving the police, army or security services might just create cover to plant NWO bombs or what-not - the same can't be said of a corporate drill carried out privately on behalf of a small company. "To this day, Peter Power refuses to publicly identify the customer who chose the exact scenario. Why?" Because it would be a breach of professional ethics? My guess is that if this "private company" (which, Power mentioned in another interview, employed around 1000 people) was the NWO or whoever, he might not have chosen to appear on a thousand news reports on 7/7 telling everyone about the amazing coincidence that had just happened. More of that NWO stunt riding? If, on the other hand, the company was no one special but Power is as much of a self-publicising git as he seems, these events make perfect sense.
3. Verint Systems, the security firm who handles CCTV on the London Underground. OMG THEY'RE ISRAELI!!!1!!11! They've never released footage of "the four Muslims" boarding the tube trains, claiming the relevant cameras were out of service. "Why?" asks the narrator. "Because the four Muslims were not on the tube trains that blew up."
End of chapter. I think the word "Israeli" was the smoking gun here. As it happens, it has been alleged that Verint Systems are not the most reputable company in the world, but that's all financial derring-do, and even Ripple Effect can't tie that in with the London Tube bombings. Thankfully.
4. A title - "The Four Muslims: Actors Or Patsies?" Well, nice to see they're leaving all the options open. Again, pretty hard to follow the appalling narration. Begins like this: "We were also told that the training exercise involved 1000 people, and of course, amongst those 1000 people would have to be the four people who were recruited to play the parts of the mock terrorists."
Okay, stop right there. First of all, what training exercise? That sentence doesn't even follow on from anything he's just said. I'll assume he means Peter Power's corporate drill. Well, that didn't necessarily involve 1000 people: Power only said that the drill was carried out on behalf of a "small company" that employed 1000 people. Secondly, what's all this "of course"? We haven't even heard the theory yet, don't expect us to agree with it already. And - "mock" terrorists?
This is where the CT starts to take shape. Ripple Effect appears to think that Power's drill was a full-scale, 1000-strong role-play, to take place in the stations themselves - rather than a bunch of people sat around a desk pretending to make decisions. "Therefore" they'd have chosen four Muslims to carry backpacks full of "mock explosives", as part of this 1000-strong "training exercise". Mohammad Sidique Khan's suicide video was "therefore" a mock-up, made in character as part of the drill. Damn, that Peter Power likes to do things thoroughly. The narrator suggests that this could "possibly" have formed part of "a film to be made about" Power's crisis management drill. Wow. Just wow. The "second oldest" of the "mock" bombers (it actually looks like the RE guys don't know his name) also made a similar video - this was apparently a backup, in case Khan pulled out. Right, OK. I'll bet they were hoping those clips wouldn't fall into the wrong hands - could have looked pretty bad, a couple of young Muslim men with ties to radical Islam announcing on video their plans to suicide bomb London in retaliation for British foreign policy. Still waiting for the first piece of evidence.
Next charge: the actions of the (tiny) "7/7 Truth Movement", and their demands for an independent investigation, have "obviously" led the Police into bullying and intimidating Mohammad Sidique Khan's widow into publicly condemning her husband as a suicide bomber (I mean, why else would she have said that?). They kept her in custody for 6 days, after all (I mean, why would the Police want to talk to the wife of someone who'd just pulled off an enormous terrorist attack in Central London?) The narrator, obviously unfamiliar with the nature of a police investigation, wonders why it took two years for the police to show Khan's widow his will and suicide note, in which he tells her they would be reunited in paradise, yadda yadda. Two years, apparently is ample time to forge a signature - and presumably, a whole page of writing. "It cannot be trusted, and must be considered a forgery, along with any other new piece of so-called evidence that they might come up with." Whatever you say. Can we have some of your evidence now, please?
Nope. Instead, spiel about how the unpopularity of the Iraq adventure forced Tony Blair to come up with his own little false-flag in order to sway the public mood behind the war, lest he be forced to pull troops out. Problem: the bombings most certainly did not increase support for the war, and were anything but PR coups for the Blair government, and yet he kept the troops in anyway (as if it would have been possible to do anything else at that stage). Oh well.
More pointed remarks about Israeli security firms, this time the suggestion that their offices near Luton station are "suspected" to be where the bombers received their final instructions (well, stands to reason, doesn't it). Another stunning coincidence: amazingly, in London on that day were Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan - i.e. London - Police (I must confess to a LOL at this point), Rudy Giuliani, Binyamin Netanyahu ("who said 9/11 was good for Israel"), and Peter Power. Well, yes, we already knew that Peter Power was in London, he was running a crisis management drill for a small private company. Er...
*
That's pretty much where I gave up. The "evidence" begins at this point, but from what more I managed to watch before switching the thing off, it's the same old same old (doctored CCTV photo from Luton Station, anomalies in the train timetable), which have been debunked here and other places several times. I may watch the rest tomorrow, maybe the next day, or I may just not bother. It's not that I'm not interested in this stuff, it's just that having being bombarded with so much stupid in the first third, I need a break. But hey, maybe it does contain some amazing new evidence once you get past the first 20 minutes. Maybe they're saving the best till last.
If anyone else wants to stomp on the rest of this movie, please do.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7003925131815306453&hl=en
Incompetent is the word, really - not only are its theories preposterous, but the voiceover appears to have been scripted by a nine year old, and the guy reading it out sounds like he's doing a bad impression of "someone reading from a card" for comedy purposes. Still, it's big news with the twoofers. Here's what the Loose Change Forum has been saying about "7/7 Ripple Effect":
"mind-blowing... I was really just left speechless by this" - 8bitagent
"this is truly conclusive proof of a 7/7 inside job. absolute proof" - look-up
"I was really impressed with the thought process that went into this documentary" - STEALTH
"Ooh lovely, looking forward to watching this after work
" - alexvegas (yeah, a big smiley at the prospect of more hideous NWO action... especially when it's not your town or your neighbours who've been blown up... why not get some popcorn in, mate)Anyway, I'm slightly drunk tonight so I can't post anything too pertinent. Luckily, I didn't need to be sober to see through the first section of "7/7 Ripple Effect". Here are my debunking notes, done on the fly (no sources):
*
1. This section looks at a "Panorama" programme made a year before the bombings. One of those tedious "what if" shows, where they mock-up news reports, and a bunch of cops, politicians etc. pretend it's real and jaw about what they'd do next. The scenario bore only a passing resemblance to 7/7. Bombs on the Underground is hardly a novel idea - the vulnerability of the Tube network has always worried the security services - and much of the focus of the show was actually on a subsequent chemical attack. Obvious response to the climate at the time, with dire warnings of terrorist attacks coming from the government almost every day. The narrator latches onto a comment from Michael Portillo about the government having reserve powers to take over the BBC in time of crisis, and asks "was that what they were actually in the process of planning, and precisely the reason for that programme?"
Yeah, mate. Every time the government plan a super-secret "inside job" terror attack, they get the BBC to make a programme telling everyone about it first. Just like that episode of the X-Files that warned everyone about 9/11. Why? Who knows. I guess the NWO likes to do stunts. Like those supervillains who don't just shoot Batman, they try their luck by tying him to a Heath Robinson killing machine and then leaving the room.
Narrator suggests the programme was actually made so that the government could study the media response to a terrorist attack "so it could be controlled and directed towards their own ends." Cue stuff about how the BBC, as a state broadcaster, is a "government propaganda machine" (which has a small kernel of truth, perhaps, but certainly not in the way this guy means). Just one problem with this theory. The BBC made the programme, not the government. If they're such a propaganda machine that the government can order them to produce the programme, why would the programme need to be made?
There are also three other major television news sources in Britain: ITN, Sky News and Channel 4 News (the latter sometimes taking an anti-government line so strong that Alistair Campbell once turned up in the studio while the show was going out, seeking an onscreen confrontation with anchorman Jon Snow). How they fit into the CT is a mystery.
Next: stuff about the many news stories on false alarms and hoax terror alerts in the months leading up to 7/7. Many would argue that it was politically convenient for the government to release details of these false alarms (which would once have gone unreported) while they were trying to push through tough and unpopular anti-terrorism laws. Ripple Effect takes a slightly different view: the stories were circulated "not only to cause panic and confusion, but also to lull everyone into a false sense of security" - wow - "and into thinking that the initial reports in London would also be false alarm hoaxes, so people would ignore them until it was too late." This stuff makes Killtown look like a hot-shot. How would one ignore the initial reports "until it was too late"? The bombs went off simultaneously, the "initial reports" were of a power surge on the Underground, not a terrorist attack - and by that point it was over. This is the best theory they could come up with?
Ominous fade to black. End of part one.
2. Almost impossible to follow the narration here, as it's so badly written. The subject is Peter Power, ex-copper and Managing Director of Visor Consulting, a company who work on, among other things, crisis management strategies. Power had apparently worked with the government at some point, and made regular TV appearances as an anti-terror "expert". Visor were running a "war game"-style anti-terrorism drill in London on 7th July 2005. A striking coincidence, apparently, that Power had chosen to simulate the same scenario as the Panorama programme mentioned earlier - although the coincidence is less startling when you bear in mind that Power actually appeared on the programme, and was supposed to be simulating exactly that kind of thing. Doesn't grab you? Well how about this for a coincidence - this drill focused on exactly the same stations targeted by the bombers!
This is a story Alex Jones has been pushing for years. The truth is that Visor's exercise was a very small scale affair which had nothing to do with the government or security services, but was being carried out on behalf of a small private company. Visor had been involved in these kind of corporate risk-management exercises for a long time - terrorism was something of a hot topic in the City - and there's nothing particularly surprising about the fact that they were involved in one such drill on the 7th of July. As for selecting the same stations as the bombers: well, yes they did, but there's another important fact to bear in mind. Visor's exercise focused on a larger number of stations, which just happened to include those bombed on that day. None of the stations chosen by the terrorists were obscure outposts on the network, they were all within the central zone of the Underground system. This is a coincidence in much the same way as thinking of a friend, then receiving a phone call from that same person. So what?
Furthermore, it's of no significance anyway. A full-scale drill involving the police, army or security services might just create cover to plant NWO bombs or what-not - the same can't be said of a corporate drill carried out privately on behalf of a small company. "To this day, Peter Power refuses to publicly identify the customer who chose the exact scenario. Why?" Because it would be a breach of professional ethics? My guess is that if this "private company" (which, Power mentioned in another interview, employed around 1000 people) was the NWO or whoever, he might not have chosen to appear on a thousand news reports on 7/7 telling everyone about the amazing coincidence that had just happened. More of that NWO stunt riding? If, on the other hand, the company was no one special but Power is as much of a self-publicising git as he seems, these events make perfect sense.
3. Verint Systems, the security firm who handles CCTV on the London Underground. OMG THEY'RE ISRAELI!!!1!!11! They've never released footage of "the four Muslims" boarding the tube trains, claiming the relevant cameras were out of service. "Why?" asks the narrator. "Because the four Muslims were not on the tube trains that blew up."
End of chapter. I think the word "Israeli" was the smoking gun here. As it happens, it has been alleged that Verint Systems are not the most reputable company in the world, but that's all financial derring-do, and even Ripple Effect can't tie that in with the London Tube bombings. Thankfully.
4. A title - "The Four Muslims: Actors Or Patsies?" Well, nice to see they're leaving all the options open. Again, pretty hard to follow the appalling narration. Begins like this: "We were also told that the training exercise involved 1000 people, and of course, amongst those 1000 people would have to be the four people who were recruited to play the parts of the mock terrorists."
Okay, stop right there. First of all, what training exercise? That sentence doesn't even follow on from anything he's just said. I'll assume he means Peter Power's corporate drill. Well, that didn't necessarily involve 1000 people: Power only said that the drill was carried out on behalf of a "small company" that employed 1000 people. Secondly, what's all this "of course"? We haven't even heard the theory yet, don't expect us to agree with it already. And - "mock" terrorists?
This is where the CT starts to take shape. Ripple Effect appears to think that Power's drill was a full-scale, 1000-strong role-play, to take place in the stations themselves - rather than a bunch of people sat around a desk pretending to make decisions. "Therefore" they'd have chosen four Muslims to carry backpacks full of "mock explosives", as part of this 1000-strong "training exercise". Mohammad Sidique Khan's suicide video was "therefore" a mock-up, made in character as part of the drill. Damn, that Peter Power likes to do things thoroughly. The narrator suggests that this could "possibly" have formed part of "a film to be made about" Power's crisis management drill. Wow. Just wow. The "second oldest" of the "mock" bombers (it actually looks like the RE guys don't know his name) also made a similar video - this was apparently a backup, in case Khan pulled out. Right, OK. I'll bet they were hoping those clips wouldn't fall into the wrong hands - could have looked pretty bad, a couple of young Muslim men with ties to radical Islam announcing on video their plans to suicide bomb London in retaliation for British foreign policy. Still waiting for the first piece of evidence.
Next charge: the actions of the (tiny) "7/7 Truth Movement", and their demands for an independent investigation, have "obviously" led the Police into bullying and intimidating Mohammad Sidique Khan's widow into publicly condemning her husband as a suicide bomber (I mean, why else would she have said that?). They kept her in custody for 6 days, after all (I mean, why would the Police want to talk to the wife of someone who'd just pulled off an enormous terrorist attack in Central London?) The narrator, obviously unfamiliar with the nature of a police investigation, wonders why it took two years for the police to show Khan's widow his will and suicide note, in which he tells her they would be reunited in paradise, yadda yadda. Two years, apparently is ample time to forge a signature - and presumably, a whole page of writing. "It cannot be trusted, and must be considered a forgery, along with any other new piece of so-called evidence that they might come up with." Whatever you say. Can we have some of your evidence now, please?
Nope. Instead, spiel about how the unpopularity of the Iraq adventure forced Tony Blair to come up with his own little false-flag in order to sway the public mood behind the war, lest he be forced to pull troops out. Problem: the bombings most certainly did not increase support for the war, and were anything but PR coups for the Blair government, and yet he kept the troops in anyway (as if it would have been possible to do anything else at that stage). Oh well.
More pointed remarks about Israeli security firms, this time the suggestion that their offices near Luton station are "suspected" to be where the bombers received their final instructions (well, stands to reason, doesn't it). Another stunning coincidence: amazingly, in London on that day were Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan - i.e. London - Police (I must confess to a LOL at this point), Rudy Giuliani, Binyamin Netanyahu ("who said 9/11 was good for Israel"), and Peter Power. Well, yes, we already knew that Peter Power was in London, he was running a crisis management drill for a small private company. Er...
*
That's pretty much where I gave up. The "evidence" begins at this point, but from what more I managed to watch before switching the thing off, it's the same old same old (doctored CCTV photo from Luton Station, anomalies in the train timetable), which have been debunked here and other places several times. I may watch the rest tomorrow, maybe the next day, or I may just not bother. It's not that I'm not interested in this stuff, it's just that having being bombarded with so much stupid in the first third, I need a break. But hey, maybe it does contain some amazing new evidence once you get past the first 20 minutes. Maybe they're saving the best till last.
If anyone else wants to stomp on the rest of this movie, please do.
The evil bastards!!!!!