British intelligence cleared by courts of failure to prevent London attacks

Yes that ripple effect is worth watching. Emergency servises were running an op that day. Once they were all in place the op was called off. What were they training for on that day?
Bombs going off at the same stations were 7/7 happened?
Its like 911 just another false flag. And they have been cleared by the courts? Same courts that let the murderer of ian Tomlinson walk free, no doubt.

The crux, the centre piece, the all (and most) important part of the whole scenario for me is the reported shootings of upto 3 suicide bombers on canary wharf.

Reports worldwide from New zealand, Canada and the USA stating police marksman shot dead suspects, but each story stating the shootings took place outside different buldings, the Credit Suisse first Boston Bank or the HSBC buliding.

So, is it mistaken identity with the building's, which are 467 yards apart, or did they shoot more than one man.

Personally i think the four blokes got wind of what was happening, run to the press but never got to tell their tale.
As was expected.
The papers didnt even start to refute the stories of the shootings until the nineth and tenth of july.

This coupled with the fact that the floors of the subway trains are blown UPWARDS, from underneath, with reports from the NYPD stating it was "very worring that terrorists could get their hands on military grade explosives..", Scotland Yard later told them to shut up.

reply to post by andy1972


Yes I saw that pic of the floor pushed upwards. Later on I couldnt find that shot again with a police man saying watch out theres a hole in the floor or some thing to that effect.
Thanks for the info about the shootings as I never heard anything about that part of it. But it sounds about right, they twigged on and then tried to get the info out. Of course they were shot before any thing was revealed. Also reminds me of that guy who was shot in the train. The south american guy who was followed into the train and shot 3 or 4 times in the head.

reply to post by illuminnaughty


Jean Charles de menzes...the poor guy was a spark, a contract electrictian, who recently had been working on the subway !! surprise surprise...!!

If we remember rightly, in the begining, before they said "bomb", they said "power surge"...an electrical fault.

Maybe this poor sod had been wiring up the necessary that activated the bombs when they passed without knowing it, or had seen something or someone while he was working down there..Maybe he saw that someone had been playing with the electrical system and started to mention it ?? A few new wires here, a few there..etc etc

Either way, he had to go..and he went.. Maybe as a warning to everyone else who he had told...a nice public execution to keep the nations whistleblowers inline.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Yes that ripple effect is worth watching. Emergency servises were running an op that day. Once they were all in place the op was called off. What were they training for on that day?

Okay I watched the documentary. Overall interesting, but...the documentary claims that Peter Power refuses to name the 'client'. I did a wee search and found this...

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 Panorama programme then, as with any walk through exercise, events unfolded solely on a screen as dictated by the facilitator without any external injects or actions beyond the exercise room. Also factored into the scenario was to be an above ground fictitious bomb exploding not far from the head office of the protected Jewish Chronicle magazine where for exercise purposes, our imagined terrorists would have been aware that commuters would now be walking to work (past a building already considered a target) as some tube stations would have been closed.

Of just eight nearby tube stations that fell within possible exercise scope, three were chosen that, by coincidence, were involved in the awful drama that actually took place on 7 July 2005. A level of scenario validation that on this occasion, we could have done without.

An exercise that turns into the real thing is not that unusual. For example, in January 2003, thirty people were injured when a tube train derailed and hit a wall at speed. At the same time, the City of London Police were running an exercise for their central casualty bureau where the team quickly abandoned their plans and swung into action to cope with the real thing.

For a surprising number of people such coincidents cannot be accepted as such. There just has to be a conspiracy behind them, despite the obvious point that painstaking research will always identify probable above possible scenarios. By the way, the only reason I was asked to speak on TV news that day, when there was still much confusion about the real tragedies, was to encourage more organisations to thoroughly plan their own exercises knowing the threat of terrorism is and remains, very real. One tragic consequence being Islam, a great Abrahamic, monotheistic faith (along with Judaism and Christianity), has undeservedly become vilified by some people.

Peter Power
Visor Consultants

www.therepublicansonline.com...

Now, the client being named here is Reed Elsevier and Power's version of events only differs slightly from that presented in the documentary...and makes better sense, although it doesn't explain everything, but what interests me, is that although Power claims to have given the BBC a copy of the exercise plan, this does not seem to have been made public yet. Clearly British Law dictates that the media cannot report on an on-going court case, but still, it is a little odd...and a verdict has been reached, so to speak, so no such restrictions should exist and the BBC could now release...

Another blog with comments by Peter Power...

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

On a side note, and because there is something a little bit odd about it, but Power was evidently involved as 'victim/survivor' of the King's Cross Fire...I'd be very interested in what you and others might think of Power's account.....

news.bbc.co.uk...

...is it just me or does that 'story' have a slight smell about it? Not saying he isn't a hero and didn't help save people, but I also think he was trying to hide something else...

Why not have a disaster scenario for Elseviers offices and not the tube..? Wouldnt a crisis plan for their own work place be more useful.?

And as for Deustche Bank doing the same the day before..well..in the U.S. Deutsche Bank Alex Brown in 2001 had a chairman named Buzz Konrad..a CIA man. Check him out, his name appears repeatedly in 9/11 scenarios.


Not to mention nearly all the 'put option' shares bought on the stock market in the days before 9/11 where purchased or processed through that bank.
And as for saying that theres been 18 terrorist attacks on the subway so it was logical to use it..theres only been18 attacks since 1885. Why would Elsevier, a publishing company, want to simulate a terrorist attack on the subway? A fire or a gas leak in the workplace i understand but a terrorist attack on three stations and a bus??

Originally posted by andy1972
Why not have a disaster scenario for Elseviers offices and not the tube..? Wouldnt a crisis plan for their own work place be more useful.?

Power's version of events is that the exercise was classroom based and delivered by MS Powerpoint. Reed Elsevier employ 1000 people and the exercise was attended by 6 of those employees. That exercise was based on a fictious scenario involving 3 or 4 (not sure which) Muslim bombers targeting the London Tube. Reading between the lines, Power is saying, apart from the bus, which wasn't in the exercise, all other details were pretty much the same. Except they were in a classroom. Which is presumably why he was so unabashed about it on the interviews and news, he hadn't, as far as he knew, got anything to hide. The bombers don't have to be the only patsies in this. I even wonder of Power didn't hand over the exercise to the police and there was some piss up and it was communicated as actual suspects...

I think that either way, until the exercise that Power handed over to the BBC is made public, or Power makes it public by some other means it remains up in the air and he remains under suspicion. He seems to have made a number of posts on blogs and forums defending his position and criticising 'conspiracy theorists', he seems to think he is blameless, but it is clear that even if he wasn't privy to the bomb plot, someone involved in the bombplot was privy to his exercise.

Originally posted by andy1972
And as for Deustche Bank doing the same the day before..well..in the U.S. Deutsche Bank Alex Brown in 2001 had a chairman named Buzz Konrad..a CIA man. Check him out, his name appears repeatedly in 9/11 scenarios.

This is what ex-intelligence and special forces personnel do when they retire, divided loyalties doesn't seem to be an issue, but then I suppose it wouldn't be, to reach such heights ones morals need to be pretty elastic. Bit like the mafia.

Originally posted by andy1972
Not to mention nearly all the 'put option' shares bought on the stock market in the days before 9/11 where purchased or processed through that bank.
And as for saying that theres been 18 terrorist attacks on the subway so it was logical to use it..theres only been18 attacks since 1885. Why would Elsevier, a publishing company, want to simulate a terrorist attack on the subway? A fire or a gas leak in the workplace i understand but a terrorist attack on three stations and a bus??

You should have a look at the CVs of some of their Board members, pretty high-falooting stuff! I am not entirely sure what it is that they do, even though I had a good browse through their site they seem very vague, I guess if you can't tell what it is that they're selling, you don't need it and you can't afford it...

I don't dispute that there is something wrong with these attacks and that they largely served to manufacture consent, but they also occured at a point when there was some fear in the City of an attack, so it is legitimate that companies would want to invest in that sort of preparation training, and also that companies like Visor would be actively exploiting that new niche...I don't think that is the issue here. We already know that the escalation of British aggression in the Middle East serves a number of powerful interests, but that is, on ATS a given.

Specifically in terms of the documentary and Powers though, what I personally see here is that either a classroom exercise was turned into reality by planning, ie someone 'stole' it, copied it and perpetrated on the same day as Power carried out the exercise, which would seem rather obvious for Power himself to do, or after the event, the 'facts' were made to fit the exercise due to # ups by the police and intelligence services in regard to the 'suspects'....which doesn't preclude the former option of course...it can also help deflect attention from real evidence. Make the 'officials' feel 'guilt' or 'responsible' by injecting a false flag, generate sufficient panic in the ranks so that they're trigger-happy, perhaps by communicating a 'tip off' of the details of actors used in the exercise as being the suspects in the 'actual' bombings, telling them there was a mix up and 'helping' them to cover it up. Or some such thing. One agency sets up another, but it seems as though they both share the guilt. A bit like they did with Kennedy.

I don't know, but if all the agencies concerned, MI and Police are agreeing on a particular scenario then I would venture that they have agreed to do so. They are not renowned for agreeing