by dbeach » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:17 pm
hmmmmm.. peter piper oops peter powers picked a patch of politcal pts primarily for purpose of a govt cover<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705newdevelopments.htm">prisonplanet.com/articles...pments.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"New Developments In London Underground Exercise Story <br>Will the real Peter Power please stand up?<br><br>Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet | July 13 2005<br><br>Due to the bombardment of e mails that Peter Power and Visor Consultants are receiving on the issue of the London Underground exercises, Power has been forced to issue a standard e mail response to all inquiries, which forms the basis of his only response to the 'exercise' firestorm that has gripped the Internet since this website first highlighted the matter on Saturday.<br><br>Here are Power's unedited comments in italics with our response below.<br><br>"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.<br><br>This website certainly never displayed hostility to Peter Power or Visor Consultants. In fact we made it very clear that we were not saying that Power or Visor were wittingly involved in the bombings. It was Power himself who told national radio and television shows that the hair on the back of his neck was standing up due to the 'coincidence' of the exercise and the actual attack. It is Peter Power who was the first person to make big deal out of the exercises.<br><br>Many British newspapers reported on drills weeks and months before the bomings, but none of them picked up on the biggest story of them all, a drill on the day of the attack. Why?<br><br>It is precisely because no 'accredited' or mainstream journalists have asked serious questions about these exercises that we are having to do so. What does Power suggest a bona fide reason for asking is? It was Power himself who went out on radio and television to talk about the exercise, we simply drew attention to his public comments. And when the public show an interest in Power's comments, he suddenly becomes defensive and hides behind an auto-generated e mail. Meanwhile, Power contradicts his own initial comments made on the day of the attack.<br><br>Couple this with all the other suspicious evidence surrounding the bombings and doesn't that suggest to the reader that these questions are of importance? Doesn't that suggest that we deserve more of a response than one brief, aggressive and contradictory statement?<br><br>Who was involved in the larger exercise that Power makes mention of?<br><br>How did the "players respond very well"? What were they responding to?<br><br>We invite Mr. Power to appear on The Alex Jones Show and answer these questions."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
