July 13, 2005
Dear friends,

Many strange facts from highly credible sources are coming in regarding the recent London bombings. The most astonishing is the following conversation which took place the afternoon of the London bombing on BBC radio. The BBC host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company. Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official.


A Coincidence?

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.

HOST: 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 that 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.

This audio clip is still available on the BBC website at:
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/drive_thu
To go directly to the above section, in the BBC Radio Player column on the left, click the >>15 min button at the top four times to fast forward to 17:04, where the statement is made. This clip will unfortunately be removed Thursday, July 14th, one week after the original broadcast.

Mr. Power repeats these statements on ITN television. The two-minute video clip is available at:
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/110705bombingexercises.htm

Below is another excerpt on this matter from the website of CBC, Canada's public broadcasting TV network:
 http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/#night

"CRISIS PLANNING: When there is an emergency like the London bombings, the public instinctively turns to professionals for help. We speak to two experts who are in Toronto today for the World Conference on Disaster Management. Adrian Gordon is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, and Peter Power is Managing Director of a London-based consulting firm that specializes in crisis management, Visor Consultants - which on the morning of July 7 was co-incidentally running a security exercise for a private firm, simulating multiple bomb explosions in the London Underground, at the same stations that were subsequently attacked in real life."

And here is a two-minute video clip on CBC of Power telling his story:
 http://www.cbc.ca/MRL/clips/rm-lo/charles_disasters050711.rm

Why didn't these astounding statements draw front-page coverage both in the UK and US? And why is Peter Power now backtracking on some of his earlier comments? This situation is strikingly similar to a situation on 9/11 which should have made front-page headlines that was reported in the Boston Globe:
 http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident. Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport." [So it was just a short hop for the NRO team to run over and secure the Pentagon. And by the way, the NRO has a budget estimated to be three times that of the US State Department]


London Bombs of Military Origin

Reuters news service reports below on the explosives used in the London bombing:
 http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-11T122706Z_01_N11466902_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BRITAIN-INTELLIGENCE-DC.XML

"'The explosives appear to be of military origin, which is very worrying,' said Christophe Chaboud, head of the French Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit and one of five top officials sent by Paris to London immediately after Thursday's attacks."

The London Times has an article confirming this:
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-20749-1690391-20749,00.html

"A SINGLE bombmaker using high-grade military explosives is believed to be responsible for building the four devices that killed more than 50 people last week, The Times can reveal. Similar components from the explosive devices have been found at all four murder sites, leading detectives to believe that each of the 10lb rucksack bombs was the work of one man. They also believe that the materials used were not home made but sophisticated military explosives, possibly smuggled into Britain from the Balkans."

Phony Al Qaeda Claims?

Then MSNBC informs us that the note posted on an alleged Al Qaeda-related website claiming responsibility for the bombings may be phony:
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8496293/

"MSNBC TV translator Jacob Keryakes, who said that a copy of the message was later posted on a secular Web site, noted that the claim of responsibility contained an error in one of the Quranic verses it cited. That suggests that the claim may be phony, he said. 'This is not something al-Qaida would do,' he said."

Blair Opposes Probe Into Bombings?

And the highly respected Financial Times has an article titled: "Blair rejects calls for probe into bombings"
 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8186face-f17a-11d9-9c3e-00000e2511c8.html

"Tony Blair will on Monday reject Conservative demands for a government inquiry into last week's London bomb attacks, insisting such a move would distract from the task of catching the perpetrators."

Does this make any sense? Why wouldn't an investigation help to prevent something like this from happening again? Blair's stance is strikingly similar to the early opposition by both President Bush and Vice President Cheney to the establishment of an independent commission to probe 9/11"
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
 http://www.wanttoknow.info/020204newsweek

"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11."

"Cheney was calling to pre-emptively protest public hearings by other committees. If the Democrats insisted, Bush administration officials might say they're too busy running the war on terrorism to show up. Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission."

This appeared in the website:
 http://www.wanttoknow.info/050713londonbombingcoverup