Were the London Attacks Really "Highly Coordinated"? I Don't Think So.

Yesterday we heard no end of how coordinated these attacks were, how strategic, how long they must have taken to plan and execute. This seems utterly preposterous to me.

Several bombs dropped in backpacks and left on a few trains does not seem like an operation that would require a great deal of planning. Now we're hearing that the bombs were likely homemade, with a crude timer, weighing less than ten pounds each. With four or five people the entire operation could have been conceived, planned, and executed in under two weeks, I think.

Quite frankly, if we were to find out that two teenagers of the Columbine variety pulled this thing off, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Compare 9/11: it required large budgets, careful coordination, practice runs on airlines, multiple groups leaving from different cities at different times, practice in flying aircraft, etc., etc. That is a highly coordinated terrorist attack (spare me the MIHOP conspiracy: I don't believe it and neither do reasonable people). This required about $100 dollars in material and maybe four like-minded people in the same city. They probably didn't even synchronize Swatches, as it were.

Moreover, any notion that this is some ingenious plan would be preposterous. Any half-witted schmuck can think up a train or bus attack (think Colin Ferguson, half-witted LIRR shooter, or the very kind of attack recently depicted in the film The Interpreter - bomb left on a bus in NYC). This doesn't seem like a highly coordinated or meticulously planned operation. I don't see it emanating from the same masterminds that brought us the Embasy bombings (a pretty solid operation), the USS Cole bombing (again, well-conceived and executed) or 9/11.

It gets even more comical when you hear the so-called experts claiming that it has been stamped with an al-Qaeda trademark. What do they say? Multiple attacks at around the same time with bombs aimed at financial infrastructure. That's a trademark? Really? It seems like any terrorist worth his or her salt would go for multiple attacks now, and they generally use bombs, and its generally aimed at some kind of infrastructure. You couldn't trademark that.

I'm really curious as to how this will pan out. I think we're in for some surpises re: perpetrators. Bookmark it.

if the surprise you suggest concerning perp's sees the light of day...

But we don't spend all day covering it, because it's only brown people.

When is the last time you remember seeing an Iraqi on TV crying about losing a loved one, or talking about the trauma of their narrow escape from a bombing?

Thanks, though. :-)

past attacks on US interests...

You don't want to hear about MIHOP but you're hinting at the fact that they might be hiding something and that we're in for some surprises about who are the perpetrators.

Oh yea, might be a el-Zarkawi instead of al-Zarqawi, I'd sure be surprised as hell. :D

I don't know. What is your guess? IRA?

So, imagine a line running from simplest to most complex, with an actual al-Qaeda attack being in the middle. MIHOP would require more complexity than an al-Qaeda attack. I'm thinking that this required a great deal LESS complexity, and could have been pulled off by a few deranged kids. Seriously. Zarqawi would require more complexity than al-Qaeda, first, because Zarqawi doesn't have the capacity to range so far from Iraq (supposing he is really behind all the bombings there, which strikes me as unlikely boogey-manning). But I'm thinking less complex.

you don't need sophisticated means to pull off 9/11, for example. They just needed FBI agents being pulled off the case and being imposed a W199I NSDD that prevented them from investigation after the deed.

by those theories, so I won't bother responding, other than to say that even that requires ONE MORE action than al-Qaeda acting alone, and is thus more complex, as I previously indicated.

and thanks for not flaming, but it's worth checking it out though :P

No flame. We've seen enough of flames for this week and many more, I'd wager.

Any common terrorist could prevent the military from using their surface to air missiles to stop the attacks in DC. Most terrorists groups have the authority to order drills that tie up critical resources at the exact time an attack occurs. Most terrorist then have the ability to stop law enforcement from investigating the attacks in the aftermath as well.

I'm not sure if it would have taken as many as you have suggested -- I'm wondering if it was 2 or even one person.

Just because you'd look like an obvious asshole walking around with 4 or 5 backpacks each weighing ten pounds. Two is possible. More likely three. You really don't need more than that, and you don't need a big payroll. If Osama bin Laden is alive, he's probably marvelling at the chaos that can be created with such little expense.

Full access to the subway where they planted the devices. I don't think they would have planted it in one shot. Too suspicious like you said.

You need two or three people with the same access as everybody else. You ride subways often? Here's the scenario: You get on the train with your backpack, take out your book and start reading, placing the backpack on the floor. This is not an uncommon occurence on a crowded rush hour train. You slide the backpack under a seat (I've been on the Underground a lot, but don't remember whether you can go under a seat...you couldn't in several 1970's era NYC trains, but you can on the newer NYC trains). At the stop before you're gonna blow the thing, you look up from your book like you forgot your stop, and rush off. Most likely, nobody will even notice your little present. After 9/11 I rode the trains, as always, to my job in Lower Manhattan. I was scared shitless that they were gonna blow the thing in the tunnel between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Shitless, and damn observant. But even then, not observant enough. I really don't think it's that complicated. It relies on a fairly well-entrenched urban posture for its success: people on subways don't want to look at other people on subways, especially not at 9:00 in the morning. You isolate yourself mentally in the crowd. It's a survival mechanism that has turned into a deadly defect.

That said, you'd be surprised how easy it is to get non-public access to subways. Most 17-year old graffiti writers in New York City know the tunnels and lay-ups of the subway system as well or better than many MTA workers (and I speak from experience on this question :evilgrin:)

But what were the explosives, were where they placed? Into the trains or in the tunnels? If so, where in the tunnels?

near the doors.

a franchise or the same people? But the big question is the pre-attack warning and state of preparedness AS it was when the noise died down after 911- and which was never resolved.

Home grown or visitors? These are important questions. Spain was not expecting it. Britain should have. Some internet noise or phoning I take it tipped off the Israelis- at the last minute? The terrorists apparently are not smart enough to stay off the communication systems OR they have contacts being watched instead of interdicted.

They caught someone in Spain, but they are trying to plead pre-911 helplessness- again.

This is a mess that I hope the British press, unlike ours, will follow through on. That will take some time.

Do we have a moment and a London coming? Our idiot media can't begin to reason anything out.

Investigations in Spain determined that they planned the bombing weeks ahead, scoping out stations, traveling the routes, leaving bags and packages on the train to see what would happen.

Although the ingredients for the bombings are minimal, an operation like this would require preparation, simply to avoid stupidities.

But I'll give up on the two week claim. Maybe a month, six weeks at most. But I will continue to argue that it's possible - though, as you've convinced me, unlikely - that this all could have been put together in a few weeks.

Why is terrorism rare? Because people don't really like too kill. Either you have to go nuts(and therefore stand out) or you have to get organized. With everyone probing who can you work with? This is a big stumbling block, but again, antagonizing an entire population group loses the "terror war" right at the start.

It might seem simple, but to the neophyte the entire path is fraught with land mines unless one falls in with capable, like-minded people with the right knowledge and training. The bunch of kooks no one takes seriously and fall between the cracks are rare. More common is a different flavor of terrorist breeding ground(McVeigh the Iraq war trained RW rageaholic).

But imagine a world where it does become easier and more common and unstoppable even than it is now, the chaos the "elite" above are trying to avoid with methods that are instead insuring.

The attacks were purposeful, and limited in both technique and desired target. They work because of the disaffection of populations, not only one against the other but the internal disaffection of ALL the common people against the masters of the game, our fearful freep leaders. We relieve our frustrations at never being allowed to focus on the REAL leaders by warring against each other like street gangs with nothing else to do to display a sham sense of honor, outrage and violence. The Arabs can't get rid of their US backed Kings and Shahs or get at the US leaders who sleep with them. But each captive population can kill the other loser captive population trying absurdly to shake things up.

And it works because it is ALL, from leaders to terrorists to distracted dupe populations, is an unstable crazy concoction that can degrade by the will to violence- something all the players agree on with the "blessings" of terrified and vengeful populations. True people of reason peace and social sanity are trapped in a crossfire like the Serbian people gunned down for refusing to kill their Muslim neighbors.

It has to get worse. Scum above, terrorists below. The deluded in between herded like stampeding cattle. In the end the difficult, emotionally unsatisfying work of compromise and responsible democracy as the peace activists have shown works to Avoid the mess in the first place- is the necessary endgame. Only, when it ends by exhaustion and necessity, it ends ugly, unresolved, perps unpunished, lies festering and obscene myths in place to mask the horror of truth or the stain of "defeat".

much on it, but I had heard the the bus bomb went off by "accident", it was suppose to go to the subways. They were not releasing the number of dead from the bus because they had a very active investigation going on there -- perhaps one of the perps was a victim, hence the "suicide bomber" talk of yesterday.

The coverage is just awful. It is nothing but fact-less speculation and regurgitation of what some "official" said. This is interspersed with some right wing idiot pushing any angle to show that liberals are unpatriotic, this is why we invaded Iraq or similar crap.

The amazed quality of their reporting is bizarre. Any even half-serious look at this attack would tell you that it wasn't near the fiendishly clever plot of previous al-Qaeda attacks. Listen, I was in Lower Manhattan on 9/11, and I'll probably end up dying of some cancer actuated by some micro-particle that entered my lungs that awful morning. Friends and colleagues were buried. So I hate these al-Qaeda motherfuckers. But I got to give it to them on originality points. The fuckers know how to get your attention with some flair. London? This is a two-bit Red Brigade retread from 1975. Seems suspicious on style points alone.

whichever city got the Olympic bid, which is why the bombs were put into backpacks. Easy to carry on and leave.

I think this b/c there were 10,000 people in London the day before. That was a perfect time to bomb.

so the 10,000 gathered in one place is insignificant. Having to rush between London and Paris (and you can forget about carrying explosives to any of the other candidates in 24 hours) would be a large risk of getting discovered.

And it's not as if the Olympics is really relevant - these kind of bombs would get the publicity with or without them. Do you suspect some anti-sport faction? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to expects that a country's politics has something to do with it instead? Or maybe the country of origin of the bombers - it's always going to be easier to bomb the city you live in.

They are just going for ratings and inflating the capability of the terrorists.Like its been said.It doesnt take a great deal of sophistication to kill alot of innocent people.

Killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq requires alot more planning.

and coordination. Obviously, if more than one event happens at the same time, there is some coordination.

huge. Who do those ramifications serve best? That is what I find odd about the whole thing.

It is certainly not always valid. The Columbine attacks increased the power of school principals and police, but that doesn't mean that principals and police were behind them. The same deal here. It's not always easy to run a qui bono line on events, and sometimes it's downright wrong.

for? I can see many Political agendas, on a global scale, served by the attacks yesterday. Look at the big picture.

But that's precisely begging the question.

in your opinion which agenda was served best by the attacks?

al Qaeda's agenda was well-served, the agenda of the uber-security fascists in Western governments was well served, the agenda of the London transit workers was well served, the agenda of London taxi drivers was well served. Which was served best? Hard to tell. And not necessarily relevant.

list the choices and fade into sarcasim.

Pretty clearly, I might add. Which variety of shit would you like to eat? Uh, none, sir. Get it?

The only thing that is obvious is that you desperately want to pick one, and you know which one in advance. The whole procedure is determined in advance, and hence of very little value. You already know who you think did it; now you're fixing your facts around policy, as it were.

issue to framed and spun for me so that I can agree with everyone else.

Believe what you deeply desire to believe, and do your own spinning. Keep on doing what you're doing, in other words.

You make some good points but I wonder what you'll say if and when the UK officially blames the attack on a big, international operation with a trail leading back to the UK/US target of choice?

Knowing or suspecting what you do, how will you react if the UK/US present a conspiracy theory like, "Zarqawi, from safe harbor in Syria, ordered the attacks, communicating by way of Iranian agents..." and then go off for a new war?

You are right in thinking a correlation of benefit is not proof of causation.

But it does indicate possibilities. Acts requiring more than one person (as you have it) are almost never carried out by people who do not imagine a concrete benefit of some kind. Cui bono gives you a list of suspects.

It's silly to eliminate suspects a priori just because they're the government.

Are you trying to tell us that simplicity and ease of the attack automatically indicate lone simpletons as perps?

It's not like the UK hadn't infiltrated the IRA years ago and knew about various attacks in advance (thanks to "Steakknife").

It's not like the UK doesn't have its "Qaeda" connections, as when in the early 1990s with the contract on Gaddafi's life (Shayler).

It's not like false-flag state-sponsored attacks aren't common and don't play a disproportionate role in history.

Red Brigades, by the way... you need to brush up on that one. Everyone in Italy now knows and acknowledges that the most prominent outrages of that time were false-flag attacks by fascists with CIA connections.

Nor am I buying anyone's argument that we should eliminate any possibilities, including the possibility that this was pulled off by a very limited number of unconnected true believers. Do you have any reason we should eliminate that possibility?

Predicting is dangerous work, but I'm predicting that we'll all be surprised by the perpetrators, primarily because they will be so banal and unconnected that the grand theories will look overblown in retrospect. Can I know this? No. But that's my prediction. Bookmark the thread.

you'll have a damn good clue of who did it if interesting, plausible leads are left to go cold. I don't know if you live in the UK, but if in 4 years you still haven't got good answers on lynchpin questions on the grounds of "national security" then, please don't give in saying "oh well, it's the Qeada anyways...".

I'm saying precisely the opposite, in fact.

are in any way Muslim, it will be blown up into full-scale hysteria around an international power. No matter how small-fry they may actually be.

Congrats.

are in any way Muslim, it will be blown up into full-scale hysteria around an international phantom power a.k.a. "al-Qaeda." No matter how small-fry they may actually be.

Serious question...the lovely media keeps focusing on these "small crude bombs" so how did a small crude bomb manage to make the whole area of King's Crown, or whatever so unstable?

Does that seem reasonable?

Furthermore if they cannot get in there to get the rest of the bodies then how the hell do they know what sized bomb went off in that particular car?

This media is a joke--they make up whatever they feel like spewing as they go along IMO

Could have come from Iraq.

An exerpt:



http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6376212/

377 tons small part
of absent Iraq explosives
Missing prewar stockpiles
may total 250,000

In insurgents’ hands?
The debate is sharpened by the possibility that whatever munitions unsecured may since have fallen into the hands of Iraqi insurgents leading a bloody campaign of bombings and attacks on U.S. forces since the fall of Saddam Hussein.



The IAEA, which informed the U.N. Security Council about the missing explosives last week, says Al-Qaqaa is important because it was the main storage site for HMX, which can be used in plastic explosives but also in ignitors for a nuclear weapon.

Al-Qaqaa also contained large stores of RDX and PETN, but the U.N. nuclear agency’s main concern was the HMX. Although the IAEA said Saddam’s nuclear program was in disarray before the war and there was no evidence that Iraq had revived efforts to build atomic weaponry, the agency placed the material under seal as a precaution.

Doesn't exactly sound like a crude device if the above is the case.

The media should keep it's big wazoo shut until they actually have some factual info to report.

Last night Anderson Cooper (who I thought was not as bad as many of the CNN drones) was actually mentioning "lots of vermin around that were attracted to the bodies"

I am sure the families of the victims needed to hear crap like that...I was very disgusted with him.

in that part of the underground where they are still trying to get the bodies out of one carriage. Nowhere for the blast to dissipate.

Not necessarily strongly religious, and certainly not so religious as to be able to quote the Quran accurately. Not to say he's right, but here's his argument:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/08/blowback/print.html

July 8, 2005 | Credit for the horrific bombings of the London Underground and a double-decker bus on Thursday morning was immediately taken on a radical Muslim Web site by a "secret group" of Qaida al-Jihad in Europe. By Thursday afternoon, as the casualty toll rose above 40 dead and 700 wounded, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw was saying, "It has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-related attack." Although U.S. President George W. Bush maintains that al-Qaida strikes out at the industrialized democracies because of hatred for Western values, the statement said nothing of the sort. The attack, the terrorists proclaimed, was an act of sacred revenge for British "massacres" in "Afghanistan and Iraq," and a punishment of the United Kingdom for its "Zionism" (i.e., support of Israel). If they really are responsible, who is this group and what do they want?

The phrase "Qaida al-Jihad" refers to the 2001 decision made by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of the Egyptian terrorist group al-Jihad al-Islami, to merge his organization into bin Laden's al-Qaida ("the Base"). The joint organization was thus renamed Qaida al-Jihad, the "Base for Holy War." (Zawahiri and bin Laden had allied in 1998.) The group claiming responsibility for the London bombings represents itself as a secret, organized grouping or cell of "Qaida al-Jihad in Europe." It is significant that they identify themselves as "in Europe," suggesting that they are based on the continent and have struck from there into London. This conclusion is bolstered by their description of the attack as a "blessed raid." One raids a neighboring territory, not one's own. Whether this group carried out the attack or not, the sentiments they express do exist among the radical fringe and form a continued danger. Jihadi internet bulletin boards expressed skepticism about the group, and pointed to an inaccuracy in the quotation from the Quran. But al-Qaida wannabes are often engineers without good Arabic or Islamics training.

Most probably, then, this group consists of a small (and previously obscure) expatriate Muslim network somewhere in continental Europe, which has decided to announce its allegiance to Qaida al-Jihad. It is highly unlikely that al-Qaida itself retains enough command and control to plan or order such operations. They could have found many cues in al-Qaida literature, however, that London should be attacked.

First let me say that I have a great deal of respect for the man's knowledge and insight.

However, his claim is based on the assumption that the declaration of responsibility is in fact from the bombers. He has some good reasons for this, I suppose, but I'm not really convinced at this point. He is almost certainly right, however, that these attacks were not planned or coordinated by hard core al-Qaeda cadre asociated with bin Laden or Zawahiri. This is a small splinter or freelance al-Qaeda wannabe group at most, and set of deranged kids at worst.

It's why the "war on terror" can't work as an old-fashioned occupational style war, why the idiot Rovites are dead wrong when they make fun of the idea of criminally investigating these attacks rather than finding some militarily weak Islamic country to scapegoat. That may work brilliantly from the standpoint of a big fat moron in the Bush WH who can only think in terms of keeping red-meaters on board, but if you actually want to eradicate terror, it's a miserable failure.

World War II was the last of the modern wars, the last major wars for which territory meant anything (OK, maybe Korea, but you get my drift). And yet we try to emulate it again and again - in Vietnam, and in the ridiculous charge to Baghdad, a demented replay of the rush to Berlin, with only one party cooperating in the passion play. al Qaeda knows no terriroty, and needs none. It is a postmodern entity, as is the global system of finance capital (it's no mystery that al Qaeda was intricately connected with global finance, and no surprise...it is like a predator that emulates the qualities of its prey). al Qaeda is completely deterritorialized, and we're still fighting territorial wars to defeat it - an utterly stupid mistake.

There is a real sense in which the Iraq war is a false selection of the historical memory for a given case, like an amnesiac using a fork to eat soup. We first misconstrued 9/11 as a Pearl Harbor type event, then tried to refight World War II in response. But 9/11 was nothing like Pearl Harbor, and there is no Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan to force into unconditional surrender. The war in Iraq is for the purposes of American fantasy, then, since it serves no real purpose against the enemy that exists, and only serves to mollify the historical sensibility of a now deranged American public. The United States is suffering from a weird trauma psychosis at the collective level - and we keep trying to eat our soup with a fork, misremembering the specifics of the soup eating situation - while the soup, like al Qaeda itself, slips from our grasp time and again. And we wonder why, and read about the Greatest Generation, and pull out our battle maps like we're second lieutenants in Norman farmhouses. And big thing go boom.

What's this, a competition for best essay in Government?

Who is "we"? And is this we really "fighting territorial wars to defeat (al Qaeda) - an utterly stupid mistake"?

Iraq has nothing to do with leftover traumas from WW2 or anywhere else. The war there also has nothing to do with "al Qaeda." The Bush regime used 9/11 as an excuse to launch the invasion its principals had been planning already years before they stole the 2000 election.

They want a new enemy image to justify American hegemony and a larger military industrial complex; control over the most strategic resource (oil) as a means of geostrategic advantage over potential competitors; and a new map of the Middle East. They've being saying these things for many, many years.

Now why do you need the fancy psychosocial babble to explain the oldest moves in Machiavelli's book? Even if you believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11, is it really so hard to understand?

But that does nothing to explain the way these actions have been accepted, or how the motive takes shape as a concrete action. This has nothing to do with "psychobabble." People do indeed gauge future actions based on past actions - unless you consider that babble? And people do indeed draw on bad models from the past that do not correspond with the concrete situation they have to face. Also not babble. I understand your points perfectly, and find them insufficient. Sorry for being unclear on my points.

referring to Mihop, does anyone realize what it means that bushinc stole the 2000 election? does anyone think that event wasn't planned in intricate detail, by a relatively large number of people, at virtually no risk to themselves? 911 was a STAGED MEDIA EVENT....nothing remarkable about it! david copperfield made the goddam statue of liberty DISAPPEAR, in front of millions of tv watchers, then restored it to its place! the mediawhores have taken a 'smoking gun' (the downing street minutes, which prove blairbush are war criminal mass murdering pigs) and have effectively made it less remarkable then one of ann coulter's once every 2 weekly bowel movements (as reported by faux 'news')...every single one of you can cite 18181 examples of the gopigs fukking tricks...bill clinton was president of the USA when rush limbah-humbug was calling him the 'gangsta of pennsylvania ave'....then clinton, who should have been able to make soylent green outta gopigs like limbah-humbug in the whitehouse basement, had he so desired (being the most powerful guy on earth, with 1/2 the entire planet's military budget at his command) yet...clinton was tied in knots for years because of some girl named monica!...oj simpson was found not guilty by a jury which was subject to almost constant media harassment and circus atmosphere (a mainly non white jury) then he was found guilty by an all white jury deliberating in the peaceful quiet of simi valley, and no one even noticed! The US is getting screwed by conmen, who know how to use their victims' prejudices etc to con them...does any resonable person deny that?

That's your thing, baby, and I ain't gonna get in the way of your crazy train.

...that Alcibiades was framed in the matter of the Herm attacks? Do you really think that all these Athenian citizens would pin the desecration on their own general, if he were not actually responsible? What kind of conspiracy theorist are you, anyway?

;-)

He was certainly getting high on claviceps purpurea while profaning the Mysteries, in any case. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll leave this discussion for the basement. Have fun.

People who believe MIHOP wholeheartedly are exactly as reasonable as people who reject it out of hand. It is certainly possible, yet it remains to be shown.

... had already stated the need for "another Pearl Harbor" in their PNAC document entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". No better way could have been found to allow the NeoCons to get their wish.

L. Fletcher Prouty stated in his book, "The Secret Team", that sometimes that was the very best option when a certain result was desired.

Due to the bombs damage and portability, they were most likely between 5-10Kg. This would mean Semtex or some other modern, synthetic explosive that one doesn't simply either (a) pick up at the local 'Bombs-R-Us' or (b) use by reading directions that come with it. This automatically creates problems with easy acquisition and implementation, although 'crude' is accurate, since simple timers and wires can be used with most similar substances.

Look at it this way. You want to conceive, plan and execute the same type of terrorist hit somewhere of your own choosing. Quick: where do you get the explosives?

Quite frankly, if we were to find out that two teenagers of the Columbine variety pulled this thing off, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Then you don't remember Columbine. The explosive devices they created were ineffectual and MacGyver-style crapola. Exactly the opposite of what happened in LDN.

1) Agreed on the explosives. That's the trickiest part of my theory, and the one I feel to be weakest. Thanks for the feedback there.

2) Columbine was an approximate expression, and not meant as a direct analogy. Sorry for being unclear. My point is that even two wackos, with enough fortitude and determination, could have pulled this off. Obviously, the issue will rest on the quality and availability of the explosives, and I'm fully admitting that you have me there (see 1) above).

cheers

The bombs were probably made from simple, relatively easy-to-obtain plastic explosives, not the higher-grade military plastics like Semtex that would have killed far more people, said Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert who consults for Jane's Information Group.

However, Roland Jacquard, who heads the Paris-based International Terrorism Observatory, said that bomb experts from Spain sent to London to help assess the explosive devices used in the attacks were of a different opinion.

"For the moment, from what I know, it's a military-type explosive, extremely hard and powerful, difficult to maneuver," Jacquard told the AP, based on conversations with people investigating the blast.

Investigators didn't immediately comment on his remarks, which were first reported by French media.

http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/4702686/detail.html

Can we say "Experts disagree"? The question about the nature and characteristics of the explosives seems far from settled, in any case.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've considered the evidence of conspiracy on 9/11 and read through a good deal of the material. I still believe that the attack was planned and executed by a group of terrorists, including Mohammed Atta and his band of thugs. What's funny is that you assume I haven't examined those theories simply because I don't believe them, as if anyone who examines them would automatically believe. Sorry for ruining your expectation. Perhaps we should start a new thread to replay that saga for the four hundredth time this month?

We're addressing the qui bono question above. My contention is that the answer to qui bono doesn't necesaarily lead you to a perpetrator, especially in cases (as in 9/11 and the London attack) where several competing parties may all draw benefits from the same event. Seems logical enough.

It's not just on 9/11 that the U.S. was, ahem, coincidentally rehearsing air defense scenarios against hijackings (known so far: Vigilant Guardian) and kamikaze bombings (known so far: NRO exercise).

Yesterday, NYC was rehearsing a subway bombing scenario.

Amazin'. (Go ahead and call it coincidental, they probably do do that a couple of times a year.)

"Let's keep doing publically announced rehearsals of events on the same day that we execute the events. It'll get all the folks on the internet buzzing, for sure!"

I suppose I'm no Black Ops conspiro-genius, because this strikes me as a particularly dumb way to cover something up...

Did you see any danger that the corporate media would cover or the public at large would become aware of the 9/11 wargames? In that case, these would have been prerequisite to a successful inside job (the wargames provide the cover and confusion for engineering the rest of the attack; and the reason for everyone to keep it quiet).

These were not public announced, except for Northern Vigilance (the response to the Soviet wargames in the north).

But where do you see any danger that the media will associate these wargames (or the 7/7 terror drills in New York) with the real attacks?

Please explain in more detail...preferably without getting nasty or indignant:

In that case, these would have been prerequisite to a successful inside job (the wargames provide the cover and confusion for engineering the rest of the attack; and the reason for everyone to keep it quiet).

Okay, I'll do you the favor and hope others will also read this:

First of all, with regard to London, we may all be in for a major shock soon.

The following is from the often unreliable "Prison Planet" BUT it sources a live interview on BBC 5. If genuine, we discover that Peter Power, the head of a security-oriented London P.R. firm, was directing an exercise on 7/7 to help design response to terror bombings of the very same train stations that WERE bombed at the very same time as specified in the simulation!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

If this pans out as true, and Peter Power is real, and he was interviewed on BBC 5, and said his company really was doing all this on the morning of 7/7: What are you going to say? Coincidence?

---

As for the crimes of September 2001:

In the year after 9/11, researchers speculated that one way to pull off an airforce "standdown" and other elements necessary for an inside job without needing to get many people in on it would be to plan a set of wargames on the same day that eat up resources and create confusion.

Starting one year later, information about wargames held on 9/11 started coming out. First, I should mention that in Oct. 2000 the Pentagon had done a large-scale "mass casualty" emergency response rehearsal for the scenario of an airliner crashing into the building!

On 9/11 the CIA had planned to start an 8:30 a.m. attack drill on the scenario of an "errant plane" crashing into the NRO near Washington (main satellite control center for all U.S. intel). Mock that as a fire drill if you will, it's quite the whopper to swallow as yet another coincidence.

NORAD was holding a set of at least four wargames with interlocking names. While many warplanes were tied up in Canada for "Northern Vigilance," an anti-Russian exercise, "Vigilant Guardian" apparently involved activity in the Northeast. Multiple reports of NORAD personnel learning about the real hijackings have them saying, "is this real, or exercise"?

In April 2004, NORAD admitted it had considered simulating a hijacking/kamikaze scenario in April 2001, for example:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4740329/

This was delayed this "until later." When might that have been?

Richard Clarke in his book mentions a "Vigilant Warrior," in a passage in which the rest was redacted. "Warrior" and "Guardian" suggest red and blue teams in an exercise. NORAD spokesperson Oscar Arias confirmed to Ruppert that "Warrior" designates a live-fly (real plane) exercise.

The hypothesis is that the wargames created multiple unknown targets for potential interceptors, some in the form of real planes flown by the military, others in the form of false projected radar blips known as "injects." This explains the talk about FAA thinking 11-22 different hijackings were underway, and also explains the bizarre story of "Phantom 11" mentioned at length by the 9/11 Commission itself as a reason that interceptors were scrambled to a false location.

The 9/11 report tries to fob the wargames off in a footnote as something that only took 30 seconds to clear and actually enhanced response (kind of ridiculous). They don't say when it was "cleared," however.

For the best summary of the air defense issue including wargames as a logical, coherent argument, here:
http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php


For more raw wargames research, go here:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

For Ruppert's case see Crossing the Rubicon or the speech to the Commonwealth Club, here:
http://empirewatch.org/pages/911/03-post_911/2004.09.05-Ruppert_address/

or this:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

on ALL points.

kept referring to these attacks, 9-11 and Spain, as taking years. He said he believed that, in time, the London attack would be found to also have been carefully planned, possibly years in advance.
I find this curious, also.
When people have wondered why the U.S. hasn't been attacked after 9-11, some experts have speculated that these attacks are planned meticulously over a lengthy period of time. And that terrorists are patient.
We don't have many details. And I have very little knowledge of explosives. Or terrorism.
But the impression I have so far of these London attacks is that they were not particularly complex.
Children in Iraq are now being utilized to install car bombs. For the equivalent of $20. The resistance to the invasion in Iraq is producing a culture of budding terrorists. And they're sharing their craft.
The theories are going to have to be adjusted. We know our past intelligence on terrorists was faulty.
We'll probably find that there are all types of terrorists. Highly organized factions like those who attacked on 9-11. And who attacked Spain. And more impulsive factions, who act more quickly and more simplistically.
The Bush administration has tried to convince us that there is a finite number of terrorists. And once they're tracked down, we're finished.
Sadly, I think what we're up against is more insidious. We're facing generations of people steeped in a philosophy which believes mass murder is justified.
And Americans will not be served by leaders who attempt to soothe us with "smoke'em out" tough talk and invasions of countries which deflect our focus from those who are seeking to destroy us.
We can't be lied to anymore. We're adults. We elect our leaders. They have to tell us the truth.

You write:

"Sadly, I think what we're up against is more insidious. We're facing generations of people steeped in a philosophy which believes mass murder is justified."

Yeah, I can think of such a philosophy. It's cliches include: "My country right or wrong"? "We fight for democracy"? "We must police the world." "We must protect our vital interests." "Support the troops - don't question the policy"?

And generations of people in this country have grown up with the majority supporting mass murder in Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Central America, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine.

You're correct...although I generally refuse to acknowledge this about Americans. I still can't believe that four of my very Christian co-workers have expressed, on separate occasions, the sentiment that "it doens't matter how many Iraqis we kill". I've been horrified to hear people I like, people I've known for years, wish others humans exterminated.
I'm still in denial that Americans really support carpet bombing. Killing children.
I feel so hopeless.

How "highly coordinated" can this be???? :shrug:

How quick they were to blame swarthy Arabs? Until it turned out to be a homegrown anti-government, white supremcist whacko.

What about the IRA? The bombings have many of their "trademarks" too.

IRA hasn't done a large scale unannounced bombing in London for years, and would gain very little traction from doing that now. They're still smarting from the assassination of the reporter. No IRA person would sign off on something this asinine at this time.

I'm thinking either local Muslim extremists trying to get on the map with the big boys or - at even one more remove - something politically unconnected: deranged idiots out to wreak havoc.

...until recently they've been in discussions with the UK and with the Irish government. Those talks recently ended with no progress.

What is the likelihood this was a slap in the face to global expansion or some environmental extremists group?

knew that huge numbers of police would be diverted from London to
Scotland, leaving London's security fairly light.

Edit: typo

I never thought about the police being diverted as key. Very good point.

It seems to me an attack like this would have required a good deal of casing and dry-run time.

First, because the bombs were on timers, which suggests at least that they were left unattended for a while. People in London are pretty well conditioned to be leery of unattended packages and knap-sacks and the like. Some close observation and practice, it seems to me, would have been required to determine places to put them where they would not draw much notice, or at the very least to demonstrate to the satisfaction of planners that the things would not be noticed, and alarm given, in the interval between placement and detonation.

Second, if as seems likely the bombs went off at selected points on the lines, some experiment would have been adviseable to determine the when the proper time for detonation was. Public transport schedules are a bit variable, in actual practice. A good deal of thought would have to go into determining when to place the things, and where to board and exit the trains to achieve the desired effect. Some experimentation would be required to confirm the design would work.

It seems likely, too, that the number of people participating would be larger than the number of people actually involved in placing the bombs. Given the video survelliance of the targets, and the possibility, that no sensible conspirator could ignore, of closer police survelliance on persons involved in such a plan, it would be adviseable for the necessary reconnaisance to be carried out by persons different from the persons who actually placed the bombs, and indeed, adviseable for several different persons to carry out the reconnaisance of any particular point, as this would minimize the chance of any pattern being noticed by the watchers during the process.

All of this suggests to me an operation involving at least a dozen people, and extending for at least six months of preparation. My own inclination, if planning such a thing, would be for an even longer period of preparation....

"Second, if as seems likely the bombs went off at selected points on the lines, some experiment would have been adviseable to determine the when the proper time for detonation was. Public transport schedules are a bit variable, in actual practice. A good deal of thought would have to go into determining when to place the things, and where to board and exit the trains to achieve the desired effect. Some experimentation would be required to confirm the design would work."

Not necessarily... pretty much anywhere in the underground part of the subway system would have killed many people. Also, the subway trains at that time of day do not run to any hard and fast schedule (at least not a published one), since the trains are running in most cases only 3-4 minutes apart from each other.

-P

According to CBS News last night, the bombs were deposited as follows: A person got on each train with a knapsack or bag of some sort. That person deposited the bag very close to the door, and stepped off as the doors were about the close. The bombs went off 150-200 yards down track. Let's reflect on the purpose and preparation required for such a method. The purpose seems to be to eliminate detection time. That is, even if the action were immediately detected, it would be difficult to stop and unload the train in the 25-30 seconds or so that it took the bombs to go off. Preparation? One could very well see the bomber setting the timer for 2 minutes as the train approaches, stepping in, depositing it, then stepping out. This would of course, as you suggest, require more planning than a couple of kids could do in two weeks, but not the extensive casing that you suggest, precisely because it eliminates the problems that the casing and reconnaisance are meant to reduce. Given this method, and the reduction of extensive reconnaisance that it would imply, one can then fairly quickly dispense with the multiple participants in your second point, since the need for these participants is premised on the reconnaisance requirements.

That would alter my view somewhat, certainly.

A bit of thought, a bit of observation, and a little practice, but something that could be put together in a pretty short time, at least a pretty short time after the method occured to someone.

My instinct here is to believe in significant preparation, reconnaissance, and payroll. That's what my gut says that it takes to develop an attack like this. In this sense, I want to go ahead and agree with you, since you're doing a great job of articulating what my gut is telling me. But my gut keeps bouncing up against this fact pattern which seems to imply a fairly cheap and simple plan, and that gnaws at me. I'm guessing that your version may be correct, but I'm predicting a surprise as to culprits and planning. Cheers.

... my thoughts exactly.

1) The bombs were made of relatively low-grade explosives that (apparently) were easily attainable on the black market.

2) The explosive charges were relatively small.

3) It looks like the bombers were not committed to the extent that would cost them their lives (although one may have accidentally died).

4) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that virtually anywhere in the underground portion of an extensive subway system is going to be an effective place for a bomb.


In other words, a small handful of people could have easily pulled this off with little planning and at very low cost.


-P

Imagine what any teenage boy would do, if he saw his project described as "strategic" etc - looking over the shoulder, perhaps, at the newspaper someone else from his community is reading - testosterone and adolescent narcissism might overwhelm his discretion and make him say, "I did that".

I hope so, anyway.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298105.ece

Police and intelligence agents areinvestigating the theory that a gang of white "mercenary terrorists" was hired by al-Qa'ida to carry out last week's devastating attacks on London.

The Independent on Sunday can reveal today that investigations into the bombings of three Tube trains and a bus, which left at least 49 people dead, are focusing on the possibility that criminal gangs were paid to mount the worst atrocities in British history.

---snip---

Was I wrong about the sophistication of the devices, but right about the surprise? Time will tell.

they rarely understand synchronize, but all the old movies used to have that scene in it..

Not exactly high-tech..