• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

7/7 academic woo?

You removed the important part:

If you have evidence that he retracted the claim, please provide it.

Are you really incapable of using t'internet? Good god, I had you down as being better than that. I have even given you clues

He retracted on Canadian TV. He has also retracted in a personal statement, written on a blog.

Do your own donkey work for a change.
 
Are you really incapable of using t'internet? Good god, I had you down as being better than that. I have even given you clues

He retracted on Canadian TV. He has also retracted in a personal statement, written on a blog.

Do your own donkey work for a change.


It's your claim - your burden of proof. If you have a direct quote and the source of that quote, please post it.
 
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 had postponed in 2008 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 in 2008 might have jeopardised an ongoing court case, so they had little choice about postponing it to 2009.

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 (8) 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


Posted by Peter Power | April 6, 2009, 9:28 am

Even you can surely google that?
 
Evan Solomon: We've heard something quite extraordinary - could be a coincidence or not - that your firm, on the very day that the bombs went off in London, were running an exercise simulating three bombs going off, in the very same tube stations that they went off. How did this happen? Coincidence, or were you acting on information that you knew?

Peter Power: I don't think you could say that we had some special insight into the terrorist network, otherwise I would be under arrest myself. The truth of it is -

Solomon: But it is a coincidence.

Power: It's a coincidence, and it's a spooky coincidence. Our scenario was very similar - it wasn't totally identical, but it was based on bombs going off, to the time, the locations, all this sort of stuff. But it wasn't an accident, in the sense that London has a history of bombs, and the reason why our emergency services did so well, and prepared probably better than any other city in the world, sadly they have to be. So it wasn't exactly rocket science or totally out of the pale to come up with that scenario unusual though it be to stop the exercise and go into real time, and it worked very well, although there was a few seconds when the audience didn't realise whether it was real or not.

from CBC News Sunday In Canada.
 
Funk de fino et al.

I was fully aware of this statement at the time of writing the paper and I thank you for repeating it here. In the middle of Peter Power's "retraction" is the following sentence:

"Of just eight (8) 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. "

In other words, he is confirming that the three stations at which the bombs went off are the same as he used in his exercise.

I repeat, Peter Power does not deny that the tube stations are the same. The location of the bus, however, is claimed to be different. I also repeat that given he claimed the stations were the same on the day of the attack, and that even in his retraction he is vague about what is different, it is not academically sensible to change the paper from the statements he has made.

You have to deal with what he is saying, not what your interpretation of what he is saying. To say "it is not exactly the same" (or words to that effect) does not change that his 'exercise' involved the same stations. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's directly involved. It just means that people - including other people - knew there was a planning exercise that day at these stations.

Let's also remember that nobody places the alleged terrorists at these stations with credible evidence. We do not know whether they got to them or not, only that the scenarios theorised by Muab Dib (regarding stations) is the same scenario that is described by Peter Power.

Is response to the claim that my 'central thesis' is based on Peter Power's claim is quite wrong. My central thesis is based on all the press reports, bulletin board contributions, and blogs about Canary Wharf. My paper is not about Peter Power, it is about the events at Canary Wharf.

People are seeking to undermine the whole paper by focussing on any claim within it that they think they can falsify. However, everyone following this thread can now see that I did not falsify Peter Powers claims so let's turn attention to the central theme of the paper.

What happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?

You can google that too.

Best wishes
Rory

P.S. For clarification - my subject area is Organisation Behaviour rather than HRM - although I do teach on HRM courses as well. In the past I've been a computer scientist so please be careful that you don't stereotype me.
 
You have to deal with what he is saying, not what your interpretation of what he is saying. To say "it is not exactly the same" (or words to that effect) does not change that his 'exercise' involved the same stations. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's directly involved. It just means that people - including other people - knew there was a planning exercise that day at these stations.

By excluding the possibility of a simple coincidence you are entering the realm of paranoia.
 
Funk de fino et al.

I was fully aware of this statement at the time of writing the paper and I thank you for repeating it here. In the middle of Peter Power's "retraction" is the following sentence:

"Of just eight (8) 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. "

In other words, he is confirming that the three stations at which the bombs went off are the same as he used in his exercise.

I repeat, Peter Power does not deny that the tube stations are the same. The location of the bus, however, is claimed to be different. I also repeat that given he claimed the stations were the same on the day of the attack, and that even in his retraction he is vague about what is different, it is not academically sensible to change the paper from the statements he has made.

You have to deal with what he is saying, not what your interpretation of what he is saying. To say "it is not exactly the same" (or words to that effect) does not change that his 'exercise' involved the same stations. This doesn't necessarily mean that he's directly involved. It just means that people - including other people - knew there was a planning exercise that day at these stations.

Let's also remember that nobody places the alleged terrorists at these stations with credible evidence. We do not know whether they got to them or not, only that the scenarios theorised by Muab Dib (regarding stations) is the same scenario that is described by Peter Power.

Is response to the claim that my 'central thesis' is based on Peter Power's claim is quite wrong. My central thesis is based on all the press reports, bulletin board contributions, and blogs about Canary Wharf. My paper is not about Peter Power, it is about the events at Canary Wharf.

People are seeking to undermine the whole paper by focussing on any claim within it that they think they can falsify. However, everyone following this thread can now see that I did not falsify Peter Powers claims so let's turn attention to the central theme of the paper.

What happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?

You can google that too.

Best wishes
Rory

P.S. For clarification - my subject area is Organisation Behaviour rather than HRM - although I do teach on HRM courses as well. In the past I've been a computer scientist so please be careful that you don't stereotype me.


I am not ignoring the earlier posts in the thread that show even the three claim to be incorrect. It seems you are. He retracted. He seems to think guys like you are nuts. He made a story seem more interesting by bragging and then it was latched onto by people who should know better.

You are no skeptic. That is not stereotyping, just a fact.
 
ronridleyduff said:
My central thesis is based on all the press reports, bulletin board contributions, and blogs about Canary Wharf. My paper is not about Peter Power, it is about the events at Canary Wharf.

Just a quick hint. It should be based on actual evidence not hearsay and nonsense.

Every 7/7 denier I come across has to resort to taking Pete Power statements from the day and ignoring the rest, and also then saying photos and other real evidence that stood up in court is fake.
 
I repeat, Peter Power does not deny that the tube stations are the same. The location of the bus, however, is claimed to be different. I also repeat that given he claimed the stations were the same on the day of the attack, and that even in his retraction he is vague about what is different, it is not academically sensible to change the paper from the statements he has made.

It is academically dishonest at best, academically fraudulent at worst, to base your thesis around Peter Power's original statement without also giving equal weighting and consideration to the fact that the statement was later retracted by Peter Power himself.

I fail to see how it would not be "academically sensible" to reconsider your thesis of the basis of this fact, isn't that how a academia works? If I was reviewing your paper then I would insist that you change this aspect.
 
By excluding the possibility of a simple coincidence you are entering the realm of paranoia.

It is not a "simple coincidence". It is a coincidence that is less likely that winning the UK Lottery at he first attempt. The "simple coincidence" would be that the four men were invited to participate in the mock exercise.

Best wishes
Rory
 
That stood up in court? There was no court case. The only time evidence from the 7/7 bombings was presented in court - in a case of 3 other people accused of conspiracy - the evidence was rejected by the jury and the three accused men were acquitted.

So where is the court case in which this evidence was accepted?

Best wishes
Rory
 
It is academically dishonest at best, academically fraudulent at worst, to base your thesis around Peter Power's original statement without also giving equal weighting and consideration to the fact that the statement was later retracted by Peter Power himself.

I fail to see how it would not be "academically sensible" to reconsider your thesis of the basis of this fact, isn't that how a academia works? If I was reviewing your paper then I would insist that you change this aspect.

Trojan,

He does not retract that part of his original claim that Muad Dib uses to support his argument.

He stated exactly the same regarding the tube stations in April 2009 (to coincide with the BBC documentary) as he stated on 7th July 2005. He confirmed that the tube stations were the same, but that the precise scenario "was not exactly the same". His original statement, and his "retraction" (regarding the number of people involved, not the tube stations) are noted in the original paper. So where is the attempt to falsify what Peter Power states?

Have you read the paper?

Best wishes
Rory
 
I am not ignoring the earlier posts in the thread that show even the three claim to be incorrect. It seems you are. He retracted. He seems to think guys like you are nuts. He made a story seem more interesting by bragging and then it was latched onto by people who should know better.

You are no skeptic. That is not stereotyping, just a fact.

I state both the original claim and the retraction in the paper. However, he did not retract his position on the tube stations - he only retracted claims about the size of the mock terrorism exercise. I'm not sure which "three claims" you are referring to - I can see no claim in my paper that is not fully validated by the reliable evidence that people have subsequently provided to this thread (i.e. Peter Power's own words).

a) Peter Power claimed the stations were the same in his exercise as the official version of the bombings. Peter Power himself confirms this.

b) Peter Power originally stated that the mock exercise involved a company of 1,000 people, and later stated that it involved only 6 people. This is the extent of his retraction - duly noted in the paper I wrote.

c) That Peter Power may be a dupe, not an accomplice .... this accepts that someone else may have used knowledge of his mock exercise to hide their own activities. This is duly noted in the paper as well.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the quote from the paper.

"7/7 Ripple Effect, by rejecting the thesis put forward in the BBC documentary that the men exploded bombs and died, has to account for what happened to the four men during the remainder of the day. It puts forward an argument that the men were recruited to an event organised by Peter Power, a former PR officer for the Metropolitan Police, who simulates terrorist attacks for clients to practice their crisis management skills. The information in the following paragraphs is drawn from the documentaries, and multiple sources collected together at http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#cbc (accessed 3rd October 2009).

Both documentaries show Peter Power appearing on several TV programmes on the morning of 7th July 2005 claiming to have been running a crisis management simulation for a ‘client’ based on a scenario of four bombs going off in London at precisely the same locations and times. 7/7 Ripple Effect includes video footage of Peter Power’s involvement in an earlier BBC Panorama programme made during 2004, in which public figures examine how the media should cover a terrorist attack involving three tube trains and a truck in central London. There is, therefore, no dispute between the two documentary makers that Power was running a mock terrorism exercise in London on the same day, or that he specialised in terrorist crisis management techniques. The theoretical dispute centres on whether the Muslim men were bone fide bombers, or patsies recruited to participate in Peter Power’s simulation exercise to take the blame for the real bombings.

Power has admitted that he recruits people to make videos, including people who role play different parts in the simulated crisis, so that the simulations he runs are as realistic as possible (J7, 2008). The 7/7 Ripple Effect claims that it is plausible that the four Muslim men were part of Peter Power’s simulation, but offers nothing more than circumstantial evidence to support this view. Power is interviewed in the BBC documentary and rejects a claim that a 1,000 people were involved in a simulation that day. Instead, he claims that the simulation was a ‘run through’ with only six people in a control room. This retraction is problematic in light of eye-witness evidence from Daniel Obachike who saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July (Jones, 2007). Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast, Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as he was taken away from the scene. The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports. This suggests that the coverage was planned in advance. So, even if Peter Power did not hire people to participate in his ‘real life’ simulations, an eye-witness account confirms that a terrorist simulation involving many more than six people took place in London on 7th July 2005 (Obachike, 2007)."

This accurately summarises the information that is in the public domain.

Best wishes
Rory
 
That stood up in court? There was no court case. The only time evidence from the 7/7 bombings was presented in court - in a case of 3 other people accused of conspiracy - the evidence was rejected by the jury and the three accused men were acquitted.

So where is the court case in which this evidence was accepted?

Best wishes
Rory


The evidence was not rejected. The jury found the gentlemen in question not guilty. If you do not know the difference then there is no hope for you. The evidence was not rejected as fake or false by the defence.
 
I state both the original claim and the retraction in the paper. However, he did not retract his position on the tube stations - he only retracted claims about the size of the mock terrorism exercise. I'm not sure which "three claims" you are referring to - I can see no claim in my paper that is not fully validated by the reliable evidence that people have subsequently provided to this thread (i.e. Peter Power's own words).

a) Peter Power claimed the stations were the same in his exercise as the official version of the bombings. Peter Power himself confirms this.

b) Peter Power originally stated that the mock exercise involved a company of 1,000 people, and later stated that it involved only 6 people. This is the extent of his retraction - duly noted in the paper I wrote.

c) That Peter Power may be a dupe, not an accomplice .... this accepts that someone else may have used knowledge of his mock exercise to hide their own activities. This is duly noted in the paper as well.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the quote from the paper.

"7/7 Ripple Effect, by rejecting the thesis put forward in the BBC documentary that the men exploded bombs and died, has to account for what happened to the four men during the remainder of the day. It puts forward an argument that the men were recruited to an event organised by Peter Power, a former PR officer for the Metropolitan Police, who simulates terrorist attacks for clients to practice their crisis management skills. The information in the following paragraphs is drawn from the documentaries, and multiple sources collected together at http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#cbc (accessed 3rd October 2009).

Both documentaries show Peter Power appearing on several TV programmes on the morning of 7th July 2005 claiming to have been running a crisis management simulation for a ‘client’ based on a scenario of four bombs going off in London at precisely the same locations and times. 7/7 Ripple Effect includes video footage of Peter Power’s involvement in an earlier BBC Panorama programme made during 2004, in which public figures examine how the media should cover a terrorist attack involving three tube trains and a truck in central London. There is, therefore, no dispute between the two documentary makers that Power was running a mock terrorism exercise in London on the same day, or that he specialised in terrorist crisis management techniques. The theoretical dispute centres on whether the Muslim men were bone fide bombers, or patsies recruited to participate in Peter Power’s simulation exercise to take the blame for the real bombings.

Power has admitted that he recruits people to make videos, including people who role play different parts in the simulated crisis, so that the simulations he runs are as realistic as possible (J7, 2008). The 7/7 Ripple Effect claims that it is plausible that the four Muslim men were part of Peter Power’s simulation, but offers nothing more than circumstantial evidence to support this view. Power is interviewed in the BBC documentary and rejects a claim that a 1,000 people were involved in a simulation that day. Instead, he claims that the simulation was a ‘run through’ with only six people in a control room. This retraction is problematic in light of eye-witness evidence from Daniel Obachike who saw people acting out their injuries and the provision of medical help near Tavistock Square after the bomb blast on 7th July (Jones, 2007). Within 15 seconds of the bomb blast, Obachike saw an actor covered with bandages, surrounded by cameras and helpers, being filmed as he was taken away from the scene. The person was filmed leaving before any ambulances or medical staff had arrived at Tavistock Square and images later appeared in press and TV reports. This suggests that the coverage was planned in advance. So, even if Peter Power did not hire people to participate in his ‘real life’ simulations, an eye-witness account confirms that a terrorist simulation involving many more than six people took place in London on 7th July 2005 (Obachike, 2007)."

This accurately summarises the information that is in the public domain.

Best wishes
Rory

There are posts in this thread which debunk the stations. You are studiously ignoring them.

The woo is strong in you. You need help.
 
And Rory is still ignoring the fact that there are no reports of any actual exercise on the underground that morning.

Along with hundreds of thousands of people were on the underground, and I travelled through Kings Cross and didn't see a thing.
 

Back
Top Bottom