Peter Power responds, so does The Antagonist

Update: For detailed and in depth analysis of the events that occurred in London on 7th July 2005, please see the web site of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. Please also sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition which calls on the British government to release the evidence that will conclusively prove or disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, the official story of what happened on 7/7.

For a full analysis of the simultaneous anti-terror rehearsal drill referred to in this post, the drill that was being conducted by Peter Power and Visor Consultants on 7/7 please see here.

"there could have been had [sic] a power surge which could have had quite catastrophic casualty levels.
We have always been aware of that on the Underground."

Source: Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone
March 1st 2006 [PDF source]

---

Peter Power of Visor Consultants has responded to a large number of emails asking questions that have arisen as a result of his announcement that he was conducting an anti-terror exercise of over 1,000 people in Central London at the time of the Underground disaster.

All text quoted below is taken, verbatim and in published order, from Peter Power's response to enquiries about the events of that day. Analysis is that of The Antagonist:

"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:"

The Antagonist has no idea if any of those comments regarding analysis of strange coincidences on July 7 relates to The Antagonist's own humble musings on the subject but, either way, rather than naive / ignorant / hostile, The Antagonist counters with curious / questioning / seeking some semblance of explanation for the bizarre turn of events that day, which included a diverted bus that happened to go bang outside the offices of the organisation who allegedly organised the covert training scenario with Peter Power. [Note the use of the word, 'allegedly'. Never let it be said that The Antagonist carelessly bandies about unsubstantiated accusations like the rest of the world's media.]

The Antagonist doesn't believe this curiosity is entirely unreasonable in light of all the events that occurred on that day.

Furthermore, The Antagonist is not of the belief that Peter Power, or his organisation, were somehow involved in a conspiracy, or that any degree of prescience was revealed by his announcement of the exercise. Quite the contrary in fact.

The Antagonist is of the opinion that Peter Power's exercise only became intertwined in the story of the Underground disaster after Underground staff and management had the opportunity to witness first-hand the carnage caused by the power surge which MetroNet reported to passengers as causing the tube delays of that morning.

"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."

This raises more questions than it answers.

That phrase, 'at the same time'. Like it's being hammered home. 'Precisely' [Radio 5 interview], 'at the same time'. What are we to learn from this?

What were the 'walk through' scenarios' and how do they relate to what actually happened on the day?

Did the walkthroughs happen to include a demonstration of a bus exploding in front of the offices of Fortress GB, the people who allegedly (that word again) organised the training exercise with Visor Consultants?

This mention of the word 'confidentiality' has to be a nonsense given the events of the day and that those events are now the subject of a rather serious anti-terrorist enquiry that is now international in nature. Information can be revealed about what occurred without necessarily breaching the confidentiality of any parties involved. The latter in no way precludes the former.

The Antagonist also doesn't quite see how anything about what occurred on that day could be considered to be confidential, especially if it somehow involved 'over a 1,000 people' [original interview quote], and 'walkthroughs... 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."

Perhaps a 'hijacked' or otherwise 'diverted' bus demonstration where the bus explodes in front of the offices of the company that allegedly hired Visor Consultants to organise the exercise, and which, in keeping with the nature of a training exercise, left a large number of people standing on the top deck, looking otherwise unharmed by the effects of a traditional bomb?

"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 response:

(a) Everyone knows these rehearsals occur. As Power states they are even reported with some regularity. This tells us nothing new. Why bother mentioning it?

(b) Disconcerting, definitely. For one and all. Hence all the questions, Mr Power. See?

"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.

OK, so now the numbers have changed from the rather boastful 'over 1,000' to 'just a few managers'. This bears something of an equivalence to MetroNet's story change from a power surge to 'Osama and his boys did it!"

'Players' is an interesting term, in context.

"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).

Peter Power"

No matter, perhaps The Times will continue with their rather brilliant line of 'Ten questions that need answering' about the day where The Antagonist has it on good authority that they cleverly included a few very pertinent questions inside a list of ten. Namely:

1. Why did MetroNet claim a power surge and then change their story so drastically?

2.Why did the timings on the day change so dramatically?

There are plenty of others. Feel free to add your own.