Thursday 14 July 2005

New Developments In London Underground Exercise Story

by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Due to the bombardment of e mails that Peter Power and Visor Consultants are receiving on the issue of the London Underground exercises, Power has been forced to issue a standard e mail response to all inquiries, which forms the basis of his only response to the 'exercise' firestorm that has gripped the Internet since this website first highlighted the matter on Saturday.

Here are Power's unedited comments in italics with our response below.

"Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows.

This website certainly never displayed hostility to Peter Power or Visor Consultants. In fact we made it very clear that we were not saying that Power or Visor were wittingly involved in the bombings. It was Power himself who told national radio and television shows that the hair on the back of his neck was standing up due to the 'coincidence' of the exercise and the actual attack. It is Peter Power who was the first person to make big deal out of the exercises.

Many British newspapers reported on drills weeks and months before the bomings, but none of them picked up on the biggest story of them all, a drill on the day of the attack. Why?

It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

Power has already started to back-peddle from his radio and television comments and attempt to minimize the scale of the exercises and their similarity to the real attacks. Recall what Power told the BBC.

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely.

So Power has backed off from all three locations being exact and is now saying only two were similar, with only one being very similar. Which Peter Power are we supposed to believe? He has changed his story in the space of less than a week.

Power also admits that the program was part of a "wider project," which again broadens the scope of this from being an insignificant drill for a small company with no affiliation to the government, to something potentially much bigger.

"However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences [??]. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

Again, at no point did we suggest that Visor were the only group linked with drills on the London Underground. It has been known to be a target for years. But we rightly pointed out the sheer impossibility of the exercise targeting the same stations on the same day at the same time. One individual has calculated that this is less likely than two people hunting for the same grain of sand across the whole world. At the very least it is bizarre. Power gave inerviews saying he was shocked by the 'coincidence' and yet now he tries to downplay it when the heat is on.

"In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.

As we have asked before, if the exercise was a mere coincidence and was not related to any government agency or command structure which was involved in managing the aftermath of the attacks, then why did the crisis managers respond to the real thing? If they were actively involved in the command structure that managed the crisis, then they must have been hired by a sector of government in the first place. Power himself has worked for Scotland Yard.

"Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).

It is precisely because no 'accredited' or mainstream journalists have asked serious questions about these exercises that we are having to do so. What does Power suggest a bona fide reason for asking is? It was Power himself who went out on radio and television to talk about the exercise, we simply drew attention to his public comments. And when the public show an interest in Power's comments, he suddenly becomes defensive and hides behind an auto-generated e mail. Meanwhile, Power contradicts his own initial comments made on the day of the attack.

Couple this with all the other suspicious evidence surrounding the bombings and doesn't that suggest to the reader that these questions are of importance? Doesn't that suggest that we deserve more of a response than one brief, aggressive and contradictory statement?

Who was involved in the larger exercise that Power makes mention of?

How did the "players respond very well"? What were they responding to?

Full story...