J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
I rarely respond to allegations that there was a direct connection between an exercise my company was running on 7 July 2005 and the real events that happened that day, but having just seen on You Tube a highly misleading video following a childish stunt against me on 12/12/07 I feel I have little choice but to make three important points:
First, I chose to meet 2 people that day who requested an interview with me while I was attending a conference in a London hotel. Having shaken their hands and asked where they were from I noticed I was being covertly filmed by one of them who denied it, although it was obvious. As it is not possible to have a civilised conversation when deceit from one side was apparent from the outset, I apologised that I could not help in such circumstances and suggested another time perhaps? I then walked back to the conference – suddenly pursued by 2 or 3 shouting people trying to make it appear I was fleeing?
Second, it’s worth reminding some people that the London underground system has so far been the subject of terrorist bombings on 21 occasions, going back to 1885. Also, on the same day as our exercise, a major law firm in the City of London was running an exercise that involved bombs on the underground. A few days before so did a major German bank in London and even the Metropolitan Police. We were not alone.
Third, our table top exercise was to involve a very small group of crisis managers under test, from a company employing c1000 people. No one was on the streets at all. Just one part of the scenario was similar to IRA incendiary bombs planted on the underground in 1992 to start fires on three underground trains, albeit the locations were by sheer coincidence, more 2005 that 1992. That’s not so surprising when we had a limited number of underground lines to choose from, given the location of our client in the centre of London.
There will be no convincing some very odd people who think actors were on the bus that was actually bombed and the UK Government staged the whole thing on 7/7, the World Trade Centre was pre-wired with explosives on 9/11 and even that tragedy was a US Government setup.
At a time when this country is under a sustained terrorist threat it makes sense to base any exercise scenario on realism and historical events and in so doing hopefully increase our overall resilience to this threat. Had the odd people I met on 12.12.07 bothered to have a proper conversation with me I would have explained all this to them but fantasists will, no matter what I say, always prefer sensationalism to sense and conspiracy to coincidence.
Peter Power. Visor Consultants Limited. 15 December 2007
The behaviour of the 'we are change' so called reporters was unforgivable and counterproductive.
There is no reason to conclude that visor consultants were directly connected to the London bombings.
Here even Mr. Power does not rule out an indirect connection. I am aware that thee may have been a limited number of stations practicl for the rehearsal.
This does not rule out the potential for outside inluence upon Visor consultants on the choice of these stations.
Mr. Powers does not state the exact proceedure taken in choosing the stations o which company he was working for but simply states other rehearsals going on.
If 7/7 was in act an act of false flag terrorism a simulation would act as highly valueable distraction within the signal interception network and hide the money trail for planning such crimes.
The documentary for Panorama that Mr Powers was an advisor on was in itself a crash course for secret services on how to conduct a false flag terrorist incident.
Mr. Powers does not need to rule himself and his business out of the line of fire but instead embrace his role as a citizen and honestly discuss what influences and pressure [both push and pull] brought about the 'coincidental' decisions.
He should be doing this because there is a philisophical responsibility not to assume that our own nations government is absolved form foul play and embrace the tragic reality that the UK government benefited from the 'new normal'
There has been much nonsense written about why my company ran an exercise on 7 July 2005 that had very close parallels to the real thing that day. Since then I have made several attempts to add my own comments to numerous sites that seem to get increasingly excited about their own conspiracy theories and in the process exclude any rational debate. It seems those who occupy the world of finding conspiracy theories to replace just about any coincidence, do not want to have any dialogue with those offering a different view, but I have not yet given up hope. I am therefore hoping, perhaps naively, that someone might like to read an honest and factual account about a particular exercise my company ran in London three years ago.
Unfortunately, the BBC have just postponed a programme in their ‘conspiracy files’ series that would have done this. Our client three years ago agreed to be named in the BBC programme since the attitude of the producer and his team was very balanced (several conspiracy theorists were also invited to take part). We even allowed our complete exercise material to be made available to the BBC. Regrettably broadcasting it now might jeopardise an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to next year.
Early in 2005 Reed Elsevier, an organisation specialising in information and publishing that employs 1,000 people in and around London, asked us to help them prepare an effective crisis management plan and rehearse it before sign-off. Several draft scenarios were drawn up and the crisis team themselves set the exercise date and time: 9.00am on 7 July.
The test was planned as a table-top walk through for about six people (the CM team) in a lecture room with all injects simulated. Everything was on MS PowerPoint. The location of their Central London office near to Chancery Lane was chosen as one test site. With many staff travelling to work via the London underground system, the chosen exercise simulated incendiary devices on three trains, very similar to a real IRA attack in 1992, as well as other events.
As there had been eighteen terrorist bomb attacks on tube trains prior to 2005, choosing the London Underground was logical rather than just prescient. With this in mind it was hardly surprising that Deutsche Bank had run a similar exercise a few days before and, prior to that, a multi-agency (and much publicised) exercise code-named Osiris II had simulated a terrorist attack at Bank tube station. Moreover, I had also taken part in a BBC Panorama programme in 2004 as a panellist alongside Michael Portillo MP et al, in an unscripted debate (we had no idea at all what the scenario was to be?) on how London might once again, deal with terrorist attacks, only this time it was fictional (created entirely by the BBC).
In short, some of the research for our exercise had already been done. The scenario developed for our client even started by using fictitious news items from the
Mr. Power gives the appearance of a reasonable man. Yet, his outright rejection of the concept of an "inside job" belies his good faith. This is particularly obvious with relation to 9/11, which by now is overwhelmingly shown to have been an "inside job". Now, if 9/11 was an "inside job", it can be plausibly presumed that other terrorist acts in Western capitals, such as London, were equally "inside jobs", unless it can be proven - beyond reasonable doubt - that they were "genuine terrorism".
If Mr. Power is acting in good faith, he should ally himself with those who are raising questions about 7/7 and 9/11 and contribute to the truth. Part of that would be to have those who participated in the desktop simulated exercises on 7/7 come out of the closet and testify in public, and answer questions. He should also produce documents proving his own verbal statements. He cannot simply accept to be believed on his word in a case of mass murder.
Commenting by HaloScan
