Peter Power Visor ex-Dorset police fraudster spotted

[Rachel]

What could my agenda be in actually spending time talking to men inside and outside Belmarsh? Have you ever bothered to do anything like that, Prole? Did you bother to attend court in Kingston, to see the CCTV you've been crying out to see for years shown in a court of law? Nope.


Why am I not remotely surprised that you have selectively quoted and misunderstood completely the whole point of the article?
(as usual)


You accuse me of an agenda. Projection, my dear Prole. Look to yourself. Look at his answer to my direct question.

[zennon]

[Rachel]

Oh, and I've just read all the attacks and misrepresentations about me on your site Prole from your two fellow site-runners and two other contributors. Nice. You might want to point out to some of your contributors that I have been campaigning for an inquiry with some of the survivors and families for 2 years now, that we've launched legal action for one, that I have been active in speaking out for civil liberties, that I have given evidence against detention of Muslims for 42 days to the Home Affairs Committee, that I am lobbying for th eCommittee to amend the terrorism law to remove this monstrous piece of legislation, that I have been involved in the peace movement for many years and that I marched against the Iraq war on at least 8 occasions, the 6th being the million march.

Will you mention this? No way! And you wonder why I say you have an agenda to misrepresent and ignore evidence that doesn't fit your theories.


It's so obvious. Keep going with the attacks - it certainly shows J7 in its real light. As for the angry comment of mine 'Ant' ( who is fond of attacking people anonymously but never dares to put his face to his opinions) - it was up there for all of 20 minutes, before I decided to not bother and delete it.

Like I said - keep going if you want to. Attacking me whilst feeding off every report I wrote and using my blog for info, selectively quoting and misrepresenting, launching personal attacks whilst relying on me to report back from Kingston.

Clever.

Same goes for all these ridiculous libellous attacks about Peter Power. Got any evidence for these theories of yours? After nearly 3 years, isn't it time to put up or shut up?

[numeral]

[Rachel]

Questions to people on the board, a yes/no one.


Do you honestly believe that MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsey did not suicide-bomb London on 7th July 2005?

Yes/No.


It would be a lot easier to talk if people like Prole, 'The Antagonist', Kier, Numeral, and J7 posters and members of the '9/11 Truth Movement' would answer these questions honestly.

Yes, or no?

No woffling, no changing the subject, no 'we have the right to ask questions', no 'I don;t have any beliefs - I'm still deciding. I've read all that already. Yes, or no. What is your honest belief at this time - did they do it - yes or no? ( You can always change your mind later)

Now I'm pretty sure that Prole and her friends will point blank refuse to give me a yes or a no.

You see, I'm pretty sure that Prole and many people here have an emotional investment in the 'bombers are innocent' theory, and no matter what evidence is presented, from whatever source, they will refuse to change their opinion.

It looks to me as if any theory -such as the theory that a risk management consultant is a murderous criminal - which is libelous - will be aired here if it fits with the big theory that the bombers were innocent and 7/7 was a false flag State operation.

Now, say what you like, but that is not the behaviour of someone seeking to know the truth is it? It's someone with a massive agenda and a position to defend.



But any suggestion that the 7/7 bombings were perpetrated by MSK and friends will be aggressively attacked, and the person who dares to suggest it - no matter what evidence is given - will be attacked as well.

Anyway - will Prole, or her fellow-posters answer the question honestly?

We shall see, but I doubt it.

Yes, or no - what do you think? What do you believe?

And if you say you have no belief, no idea what you think, then I will note that- and say, sorry, but I find that almost impossible to believe, given what you have been doing for the last 2 years.

[numeral]

Nafeez Ahmed:

[Prole]

Rachel, J7 have campaigned for over 2 years for the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the 4 accused are guilty. We have always maintained that the 4 are innocent until proven guilty. You on the other hand have never questioned nor doubted their guilt and have always believed you know the 'truth':

[Rachel]

As I predicted - no yes or no answer.

Your own confirmation bias is showing, Prole. Your confirmation bias that makes you look for any shred to prop up your conspiracy theory that the bombers were innocent, and wilfully ignore anything that clashes with it.


I know you think the 7/7 bombers were innocent.

I also know you will never admit this.

You'll just keep on asking questions on the internet and ignoring any answers that don't fit your theory.

Like that will ever change anything or do any good at all.

[ian neal]

[Rachel]

There will never be 'evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt' to satisfy you, Prole, will there?

Never, ever, ever.

That's the whole point of it, isn't it, for you? 'J7 Truth' is just a way for you to shore up your world view. I expect 9/11 is another one of your interests. You're always actively looking for conspiracies and lies because that is how you intuitively think/feel the world really is. When you look for it, you will find it, or think you have found it. Evidence suggesting otherwise will be ignored - or presented as part of the conspiracy.

Any kind of evidence about 7/7 can be presented, more and more and more evidence can be shown - and it you can just ignore it or misrepresent it. Nothing will ever satisfy you. What is 'unreasonable doubt' for most people is always 'reasonable doubt' to you: because your whole world view is about doubting everything that you label as State-sanctioned or official or from the media.

The bar of your suspicion is raised so very, very high, that nothing will ever convince you. CCTV will always be 'faked'. The media will always 'lie'. The State is always trying to 'suppress the truth'. That's your own confirmation bias. That's who you are.As far as I can tell from having read what you say and seen what you do, how many hours you put in to this project of yours, 'J7 Truth'

I've watched it for two years, and it saddens me. I can see now that what is normal to most people is abnormal to you. You see the world through a murky lens, a place of dark shadows and wicked plots where everything is a lie.

If that's how you choose to see in the world, I can't stop you but I'm sorry, because it is a pretty miserable, closed-minded and suspicious way to live.

Everything you say about me bounces off now, because I know why you say it. I used to get angry because I couldn't understand why people would come up with such rubbish as Antagonist's infamous 'actors and stuntmen and pyrotechnics on the bus' rubbish.

Now I understand why people think in this way, it's easier to forgive

[Rachel]

[zennon]

[numeral]

[ian neal]

The reason I find it difficult to answer yes or no to your question is simple.

For many reasons both specific to July 7 and because of historical precedent, I believe that the British state (or rogue elements of) was involved in July 7. Do you? Yes or no.

Because I believe this I am not willing to take at face value the evidence that the state has provided which does indeed suggest the 4 are guilty.

This is what happens when your government lies to you with intent time after time in order to justify an illegal war. If they are capable of this (which they undoubtedly are) then framing 4 men or knowing of the 4 men's plans and doing nothing to prevent it, becomes entirely believable.

[Prole]

[Rachel]

[Lee]

Sorry for butting in but here's a few yes/no questions.

Do you believe that when a political leader gets elected into No10 and makes the victory walk along Downing Street, shaking hands and waving to the jubilant crowds, do you believe that when he enters the infamous residence and closes the door he rolls up his sleeves and says...

"Right! Better get on with single-handedly running the country then!!!"?

Here's another...

Would you believe that the Panorama show aired 13 months before 7/7, which featured 3 bombs going off on the London Underground and one on a road vehicle, all mirroring almost exactly the actual events which transpired 13 months later, is simply coincidence given the fact that one man, Peter Power was involved in hypothetical drills on both the Panorama show and the day itself?

Do you agree that many countries, including Israel have engaged and will continue to engage in State Sponsored, False Flag Terrorism?

My answers...

1)No

2)No

3)Yes

Feel free anyone to answer if you will.

[Rachel]

1. No ( the country is not run single handedly and never has been. No country is.)
2. Yes ( an attack on the Underground has been expected for years - and prepared for for years, as it was an obvious target. Here's the Panorama script you refer to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcript s/londonunderattack.txt

3. No. ( Some countries have engaged in state-sponsored terrorism. 'Many' is misleading. A book I strongly recommend is 'What Terrrorists Want, by Louise Richardson)

Nobody has answered mine ( unsurprisingly)

1. Do you believe that MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsey suicide-bombed London on 7/705 - yes or no?

[blackbear]

Hello Rachel...

Do you believe that Zionist Criminals are innocent for the 3000 deaths on 9/11.?

[Rachel]

No - I can't answer it as the question makes no sense

19 criminals hi-jacked 4 aircraft on 9/11. The Bush administration could probably have done more to stop it happening. Their reaction afterwards made it much worse.

Do you believe that MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsey suicide-bombed London on 7/705?

[ian neal]

Is Elvis dead? Yes IMO

Would you like to answer my previous question

[blackcat]

[Rachel]

[blackbear]

Hello Rachel..

"19 criminals hi-jacked 4 aircraft on 9/11.".......Evidence please....

I ask again...

Do you believe that Zionist Criminals are innocent for the 3000 deaths on 9/11.?

I have plenty of evidence for the above statement...

Cui Bono...!

"Do you believe that MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsey suicide-bombed London on 7/705?"........

No

[Lee]

[ian neal]

[Sinclair]

[Pikey]

[TonyGosling]

LONDON – JULY 7, 2005
At the exact time of the terror bombings of the London Underground and a bus at Tavistock Square, a man named Peter Power was, with his crisis management company, Visor Consultants Ltd., conducting a terrorism drill for a mysterious un-named client. The Visor exercise was precisely identical to the bombings that occurred. Just how likely is such a coincidence?

Peter Power had previously worked at Scotland Yard, the Anti Terrorist Branch, and as a police superintendent in West Dorset, England. In 1993, Power was himself the subject of a criminal investigation which, in April 1993, led to his suspension and retirement from the police.

Superintendent Power was suspended following an internal police inquiry, which resulted in a file being submitted to the Director of Public Prosecution. Oddly, the details of the Power investigation have been kept classified. After a five-month investigation, Power retired from the police force in September 1993, at the age of 42, "on health grounds."

PETER POWER - The July Seventh Truth Campaign in Britain has revealed Power's troubled past and his links with previous terror incidents in Britain. But the details of the criminal investigation into Peter Power have been kept secret since 1993. What did he do in Dorset and who was the mysterious un-named company with whom he planned and conducted the terror exercise on July 7?

"THIS IS THE REAL ONE"

Just hours after the London bombings, Power explained the incredible coincidences with the drill his company was conducting in a radio interview with Peter Allen on BBC 5:

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.

Peter Allen: 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, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers, for the first time they'd met, and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, "this is the real one" and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

WHO CHOSE A SCENARIO

Later on July 7, Power appeared in a television interview on ITV News in which he revealed more about the nature of the operation:

Power: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time.

ITV Host: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

Power: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 o'clock this morning, because it's our job, my own company Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....

One would think that such astounding revelations of a British terrorism expert about how the terror bombings were "almost precisely" like the exercise he had been conducting for a mysterious company would be of great interest to the media. That has, however, not been the case.

There has been virtually no discussion in the "mainstream" media that the London bombings, or other terror atrocities and disasters like 9-11 and the sinking of Estonia, occurred within the context of security drills that were very similar to what actually happened. Why has this crucial background information been censored? Astonishing first-hand accounts, like Peter Power's, from people engaged in these exercises were reported shortly after the events occurred, yet these important stories were confined to local news outlets and not reported in the major national and international news outlets, in newspapers like the New York Times, for example, whose motto is: "All the news that's fit to print."

Power's comments about the amazing coincidences with his security drill were censored by the BBC in the same way as the eyewitness report of Stephen Evans, their reporter who was at the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Evans was on the ground floor of the South Tower when planes struck the complex. When he appeared on BBC World television shortly after the collapse of the twin towers, Evans repeatedly described a "series of explosions" he had seen and felt at the base of the tower before it was demolished.

Stephen EvansSTEPHEN EVANS - The BBC reporter and eyewitness to the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9-11. When Evans went on BBC television shortly after the collapses all he talked about was the "series of explosions" he had witnessed. The producers in London were clearly not interested in discussing that subject. How did the BBC editors know that explosions were something that should not be discussed? Why did they censor Evans' eyewitness account?

From the first minute Evans spoke, however, it was quite obvious that his eyewitness report was being censored by the higher powers at the BBC. When the BBC revisited the events of 9-11 with Evans, there was absolutely no mention of the "series of explosions" he had witnessed on the morning of the attacks. How can that be? Such blatant and intentional omissions are properly defined as censorship.

Evans' astonishing eyewitness account from 9-11 was evidently dropped into the "memory hole" at the BBC. Peter Power's revealing comments about the London bombings met the same fate. For independent journalists to question the controlled-media's version of events, from which such significant first-hand accounts have been censored, is to risk being branded a "conspiracy theorist."

The public is now told that eyewitness accounts can not be trusted – at least when they differ from the official version. Eyewitness reports from people who were in the disaster or who saw it with their own eyes can not be considered as reliable testimony, we are told. How very odd.

http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thre ad/1cc08c54147a1b98

[Thermate911]

Appears Power has recently named Reed Elsevier as his client on 7/7:-

http://uncensored.co.nz/2009/04/04/peter-power-some-companies-used-g-2 0-protests-as-%E2%80%9Ctraining-for-flu-pandemic%E2%80%9D/