![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 November 6. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
These two links should be included here:
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/media/r5.live.peter.power.exercise.mp3
Can we remove the POV tag? I essentially rewrote the thing. CanadianCaesar 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Which quote are you referring to - if it's the Peter Power one you can listen to it via the link at the top of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.188 ( talk) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That drills were going on that day, at the VERY PRECISE time and location of the actual attacks, is a WELL ESTABLISHED FACT, not a rumour, and should therefore be covered in the main article itself! Same is true about the behavious of the alledged 'terrorists' which were not in any way behaving as terrorists. Facts are facts, not rumours or conspiracies! In fact it does not even need to be mentioned "conspiracy" but these are "complicity" theories, BASED on FACTS and for a large part PROVEN TRUE! It seems the people here know NOTHING about operations by secret intelligence agencies, such as was the case with Gladio - which also made it look like other people/groups had performed these terror acts - and that the more recent terrorist attacks (9/11, Bali 2002, Madrid and London 7/7) all show well established facts which lead to government foreknowledge and government complicity.
Heusdens 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should add a section about other logical complicity []
I think name of this article discourages readers from going on reading (and the one who renamed it did it with this purpose in mind). 81.201.48.25 ( talk) 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think some people here need some medical help. Just because a private consultancy ran an exercise on the same day, with the scenario in two of the same stations, does not make a government conspiracy. What does this consultacy consult on? Crisis and Risk managment so its not that unusual for them to actually do what they are paid to do. So your "fact" tells you nothing more "Consultancy firm does its job". Also, seeing as the IRA were quite fond of blowing up stations, its hardly without precedent.
Secondly, making a video about your forthcoming suicide attack and impending demise could be considered as behaviour consistant with terrorist attacks, unless the super-therorists believe this was a co-incidental piece of young lads messining around with a camcorder. By all means question the official line on these things, but keep it within the realms of reality and possiblity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 ( talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the likelyhood that they are running the exact same exercise that they aired on the BBC a year before saying "bombs on the trains on inevitable". Now you are saying that they were running that exact "training" exercise on the same day that the bombs actually went off. I'm no mathematics professor but the probability of that happening is somewhat low. Not to go into so much detail but the so-called "bombers" were not on the trains at all that exploded. You really need to watch 7/7: Ripple Effect [1] and stop believing exactly what they government tells you. 90.202.43.169 ( talk) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Have video (.wmv) and audio (mp3) of these interviews. They can't be that hard to come by, but if you want a copy, leave a message on my talk page and I will arrange to deliver these to you. TCMike 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Xiutwel has added a link to Daniel Obachike's blog. There seems to be little hard evidence that this person was actually on the bus at all, and therefore the veracity of his claims are in doubt. [2] The "evidence" on Obachike's website itself seems to be tenuous, to say the least. Nick Cooper 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just a collections of observations and facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.97.195 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 August 2007
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has attempted to remove one particular theory on the grounds that it is "unattributable". In actual fact, none of the theories here are, because it is the very nature of theses theories that they are rarely documented by what we would normally regard as reliable sources, but they do exist as theories. Generally, the only citations are to the "facts" that are usually used to construct the theories in the first place. For example, the sole cit for the "bombs under trains" concept is the news report that prompted the theory in the first place. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources are there so that Wikipedia doesn't become full of lists of 'stuff people write about in their blogs'. If there are things in this article that can't be sourced any other way, then maybe they don't belong in a serious enyclopedia? Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is pretty close to the situation here. The Drama Llama ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys want to pick up on this. I do quite a lot of crusade history and the Battle of Hattin is sometimes said to have been on July 7 1187. The battle was where Saladin destroyed the Christian army, allowing him to take back Jerusalem. It was their most famous defeat. Most think it was really on 4 July, but 7 July is still used in some sources. They could have been trying to make a point, even if they were slightly misinformed. Just an idea. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The surveillance camera videos showing the terrorists had wrong time stamps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.151.249 ( talk) 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue trader made large sums of money on the day of the 7/7 "attack"
"It was a day of carnage that left 56 people dead and a dark shadow for ever cast over the history of London. But for Jérôme Kerviel, the French rogue trader, 7/7 was the jackpot."
“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 ( talk) 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 November 6. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
These two links should be included here:
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/media/r5.live.peter.power.exercise.mp3
Can we remove the POV tag? I essentially rewrote the thing. CanadianCaesar 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Which quote are you referring to - if it's the Peter Power one you can listen to it via the link at the top of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.188 ( talk) 19:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That drills were going on that day, at the VERY PRECISE time and location of the actual attacks, is a WELL ESTABLISHED FACT, not a rumour, and should therefore be covered in the main article itself! Same is true about the behavious of the alledged 'terrorists' which were not in any way behaving as terrorists. Facts are facts, not rumours or conspiracies! In fact it does not even need to be mentioned "conspiracy" but these are "complicity" theories, BASED on FACTS and for a large part PROVEN TRUE! It seems the people here know NOTHING about operations by secret intelligence agencies, such as was the case with Gladio - which also made it look like other people/groups had performed these terror acts - and that the more recent terrorist attacks (9/11, Bali 2002, Madrid and London 7/7) all show well established facts which lead to government foreknowledge and government complicity.
Heusdens 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should add a section about other logical complicity []
I think name of this article discourages readers from going on reading (and the one who renamed it did it with this purpose in mind). 81.201.48.25 ( talk) 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think some people here need some medical help. Just because a private consultancy ran an exercise on the same day, with the scenario in two of the same stations, does not make a government conspiracy. What does this consultacy consult on? Crisis and Risk managment so its not that unusual for them to actually do what they are paid to do. So your "fact" tells you nothing more "Consultancy firm does its job". Also, seeing as the IRA were quite fond of blowing up stations, its hardly without precedent.
Secondly, making a video about your forthcoming suicide attack and impending demise could be considered as behaviour consistant with terrorist attacks, unless the super-therorists believe this was a co-incidental piece of young lads messining around with a camcorder. By all means question the official line on these things, but keep it within the realms of reality and possiblity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.224.216 ( talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the likelyhood that they are running the exact same exercise that they aired on the BBC a year before saying "bombs on the trains on inevitable". Now you are saying that they were running that exact "training" exercise on the same day that the bombs actually went off. I'm no mathematics professor but the probability of that happening is somewhat low. Not to go into so much detail but the so-called "bombers" were not on the trains at all that exploded. You really need to watch 7/7: Ripple Effect [1] and stop believing exactly what they government tells you. 90.202.43.169 ( talk) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Have video (.wmv) and audio (mp3) of these interviews. They can't be that hard to come by, but if you want a copy, leave a message on my talk page and I will arrange to deliver these to you. TCMike 05:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Xiutwel has added a link to Daniel Obachike's blog. There seems to be little hard evidence that this person was actually on the bus at all, and therefore the veracity of his claims are in doubt. [2] The "evidence" on Obachike's website itself seems to be tenuous, to say the least. Nick Cooper 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is just a collections of observations and facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.97.195 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 August 2007
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has attempted to remove one particular theory on the grounds that it is "unattributable". In actual fact, none of the theories here are, because it is the very nature of theses theories that they are rarely documented by what we would normally regard as reliable sources, but they do exist as theories. Generally, the only citations are to the "facts" that are usually used to construct the theories in the first place. For example, the sole cit for the "bombs under trains" concept is the news report that prompted the theory in the first place. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources are there so that Wikipedia doesn't become full of lists of 'stuff people write about in their blogs'. If there are things in this article that can't be sourced any other way, then maybe they don't belong in a serious enyclopedia? Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is pretty close to the situation here. The Drama Llama ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys want to pick up on this. I do quite a lot of crusade history and the Battle of Hattin is sometimes said to have been on July 7 1187. The battle was where Saladin destroyed the Christian army, allowing him to take back Jerusalem. It was their most famous defeat. Most think it was really on 4 July, but 7 July is still used in some sources. They could have been trying to make a point, even if they were slightly misinformed. Just an idea. -- Tefalstar ( talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The surveillance camera videos showing the terrorists had wrong time stamps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.151.249 ( talk) 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue trader made large sums of money on the day of the 7/7 "attack"
"It was a day of carnage that left 56 people dead and a dark shadow for ever cast over the history of London. But for Jérôme Kerviel, the French rogue trader, 7/7 was the jackpot."
“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 ( talk) 04:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)