London Underground Exercises: Peter Power Responds
Jon Rappoport | July 13 2005
In an email, Power responds to inquiries concerning the bombshell he dropped about the drills his company was conducting, stating:
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.
How very interesting, this confidential "wider project." In his initial interviews following the bombings, Power implied the drills were undertaken for just one client (to remain nameless but which our sources indicate is the Underground authority itself) but this statement suggests the involvement of additional parties.
The rest of the statement continues very defensively:
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.
According to Power, now trying to quickly cover for his gaffe, absolutely EVERYONE knows that such drills are being conducted all the time in the Tube. And despite the statistical analysis proving otherwise, Power suggests that given the frequency of these drills, its possible one would occur at the exact same time as a real terrorist event.
And while he is "disconcert[ed]" by the presumed coincidence of the drills matching completely to the actual terrorist attack that went on around them, he greatly plays down the frightful reaction he had in his initial interviews ("the hair standing up on the back of his neck") by insinuating that the public is crazy for caring about this. We are just investigating this to get to the truth.
We have seen this pattern before: Drills playing out simultaneously with attacks to serve as operations cover. It happened precisely this way on September 11th with Norad standing down.
So after this response, which Peter Power are we supposed to believe? The Peter Power interviewed on radio and TV following the bombings that told reporters that the drills were sponsored by one group or the one that’s now telling us its two? Are we to believe the Peter Power that said that it was six bombs exploding in the same stations that his exercises were being conducted in or are we to believe the Peter Power of this email response that now claims it was just a couple of similar explosions?
We challenge Power to reveal the true scope of the drills that his company was conducting that fateful day and to stop evading the question of who his company was hired by to carry out the drills.
A couple of days ago, I reprinted an excerpt from an article written by Alex Jones and Paul Watson, and posted at prisonplanet.com.
This article highlighted and analyzed an interview (July7) on BBC Radio 5, the Drive show.
The man interviewed, Peter Power, is a consultant for a firm, Visor Consultants. Visor does much security work on contract. Power stated that his, yes, mock terror drills were taking place at several of the sames times and places as the actual bombings, and his people suddenly realized it as they were doing their mock work on the morning of the bombings.
The implications of Power's statements were dazzling, to say the least, and since then I have received queries about whether this radio interview really took place. I can understand people's shock and doubt, because the import of Power's remarks opens up a whole new direction in the research of the bombing attack.
As Jones and Watson pointed out in their article, the mock-drill- versus-real-event mirrored what happened in the US on 9/11, when mock air attacks were being conducted as the real thing took place.
First, I want to print an answer to my query I just received from BBC Radio Five:
"We do not provide transcripts but if you wish to listen back to the
Drive programme on Thursday 7th July at 17.06 where Peter Power from Visor consultants talks to our presenter Peter Allen - please click on the link below. [Jones/Watson also offered audio links on prisonplanet.com]
"The entire Five Live schedule is available for a seven day period for
you to listen again to as audio on demand (excluding live sports
So, in case there were any lingering doubts left in truly boggled minds, yes, the interview did of course take place. Jones/Watson picked up on it and reported it. Their piece has now been reprinted on a number of sites.
I decided to try to contact Peter Power. I sent an email to Visor consultants, and I received an answer. It comes from Mr. Power, although, as you'll see, it is a standard message that is being sent out by him to all the people who are flooding his email box with questions.
"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: 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.
"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.
"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.
"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).
If you go back and read what Power said to host Allen in his BBC interview, Power was a lot more shocked himself at the time.
Obviously, Power, in his email, is trying to downplay the significance of the mock-versus-real events.
It's clear that the simultaneous staging of mock drills and the emergence of real events in the same times and places could confuse law enforcement, delay response, and also, as Jones/Watson point out, create a possible cover story for persons in the midst of planting real bombs ("I'm part of an exercise.").
I have received and seen several reports from people who were in and about in London as the bombings were taking place. One person, unnamed, states that he saw underground stations along one line shut down by many police BEFORE the bombings occurred. Another observer notes that additional bombs were reported by the press, early on, as DIFFUSED before they went off. And as I've written, the story of how many bombs there were and when they went off was changed several times in press reports---7-8 explosions were reduced to 4.
Bombs diffused before the explosions began (unless these were mock bombs---see how a cover story could work?)) implies foreknowledge of some kind on the part of law enforcement, and of course we have several press stories that indicate the Israeli embassy in London (but no one else?) was actually warned before the first explosion.
Visor consultants has probably received emails accusing them of being in on a bomb plot. Whereas, it would be easy for the ops managers of the real thing to USE the Visor mock drills as a distraction/cover for a short time that morning.
In any case, it will take a great deal more digging to sort out who was using whom.
Note that most of what is in this article has received NO follow-up from the mainstream press. If you were a reporter in London, wouldn't you, for example, jump in with both feet and talk to Peter Power in depth and find out exactly how his drills interacted with the real thing?
From Power's statements so far, it is not entirely clear to me whether he is denying that any of Visor's people were actually at bomb scenes on 7/7. He claims that the mock drills were largely a paper exercise. But the specifics are blurry. And then there is the question of whether we should believe him if he does clarify his points.