There were no tube bombs. There were no suicide bombers.
frank | 24.11.2005 22:49
Please consider this scenario -
Peter Power is on record saying he was surprised that his fantasy events coincided with real events. Did the fantasy events cause the real events?
These exercises try to be as realistic as possible - even the emergency services are not told. Use of some sort of fire-cracker - maybe a detenator - could have been used to mimic the sound of a bomb.
There is a lot of dry, sooty dust in the London tubes which could have ignited after being disturbed. The dust is oily and sooty probably containing grease which has fallen from the tube carriages and engines. I have looked at some dust explosion stuff - most of it is to do with food processes e.g. corn dust. What is certain is that there was certainly a souce of ignition in addition to any original dispersal of the dust. A broken bearing or any spark is enough to detonate a dust explosion and there are plenty of sparks and ample evidence that the tubes are not maintained properly e.g. emergency braking system on the Northern line.
There are limits to the conditions needed for a dust explosion but they seem very loose. It seems to me that the conditions on the tube would / could have been ideal - the forward movement of the train would disperse the dust further once it had been dispersed by a 'firecracker'.
It seems that all this scenario would need is a little carelessness or ignorance on the part of the person who planned the exercise. All it takes is failing to clear the 'firecrackers' with a knowledgable fireman or safety consultant. I can certainly imagine that level of ignorance or carelessness from them.
So the terrorist exercise ends up killing people. The poiticians would want to cover that up ...
This explanation would seem to satisfy many of the discrepancies with the official tale -
Peter Power's comments about the strange coincidences between his exercises and real events.
The trouble the police have experienced in identifying the explosive used. There was no explosive residue because it was simply dust.
The incident of the floor being blown upwards into carriage body.
The problem that the alleged bombers could not have arrived at Kings Cross at the tiime claimed ...
It seems to match the witness accounts as well -- hot, dusty, oily smoke.
XXXX
Additional source
There was a report in the London 'Evening Standard' newspaper after the events. A tube driver said that amoung the passengers he escorted to safety were two that were wearing gasmasks. That suggests that they were expecting something - perhaps a lot of dispersed dust?
The article does not seem to be online any longer.
XXXX The bus bombing
The bus boming is different -
on a bus instead of a tube i.e. obvious
it was dramatic (think Hollywood)
it was about an hour later.
The bus bombing 'confirmed' all the exposions as 'suicide bombings' ...
XXXX
I finally came to these ideas after considering the personalities involved - what the different actors would do. The G8 conference was on.
frank
Peter Power is on record saying he was surprised that his fantasy events coincided with real events. Did the fantasy events cause the real events?
These exercises try to be as realistic as possible - even the emergency services are not told. Use of some sort of fire-cracker - maybe a detenator - could have been used to mimic the sound of a bomb.
There is a lot of dry, sooty dust in the London tubes which could have ignited after being disturbed. The dust is oily and sooty probably containing grease which has fallen from the tube carriages and engines. I have looked at some dust explosion stuff - most of it is to do with food processes e.g. corn dust. What is certain is that there was certainly a souce of ignition in addition to any original dispersal of the dust. A broken bearing or any spark is enough to detonate a dust explosion and there are plenty of sparks and ample evidence that the tubes are not maintained properly e.g. emergency braking system on the Northern line.
There are limits to the conditions needed for a dust explosion but they seem very loose. It seems to me that the conditions on the tube would / could have been ideal - the forward movement of the train would disperse the dust further once it had been dispersed by a 'firecracker'.
It seems that all this scenario would need is a little carelessness or ignorance on the part of the person who planned the exercise. All it takes is failing to clear the 'firecrackers' with a knowledgable fireman or safety consultant. I can certainly imagine that level of ignorance or carelessness from them.
So the terrorist exercise ends up killing people. The poiticians would want to cover that up ...
This explanation would seem to satisfy many of the discrepancies with the official tale -
Peter Power's comments about the strange coincidences between his exercises and real events.
The trouble the police have experienced in identifying the explosive used. There was no explosive residue because it was simply dust.
The incident of the floor being blown upwards into carriage body.
The problem that the alleged bombers could not have arrived at Kings Cross at the tiime claimed ...
It seems to match the witness accounts as well -- hot, dusty, oily smoke.
XXXX
Additional source
There was a report in the London 'Evening Standard' newspaper after the events. A tube driver said that amoung the passengers he escorted to safety were two that were wearing gasmasks. That suggests that they were expecting something - perhaps a lot of dispersed dust?
The article does not seem to be online any longer.
XXXX The bus bombing
The bus boming is different -
on a bus instead of a tube i.e. obvious
it was dramatic (think Hollywood)
it was about an hour later.
The bus bombing 'confirmed' all the exposions as 'suicide bombings' ...
XXXX
I finally came to these ideas after considering the personalities involved - what the different actors would do. The G8 conference was on.
frank
frank
Comments
Display the following 9 comments