J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?

Discussion about the July 7th 2005 bombings on London's public transport network. Underground CCTV security contract awarded to crooked (Kobi Alexander chair of their parent company is on the run) Israeli firm Verint Systems & their boss, IDF trained explosives expert Daniel Bodner. Crookedness, incompetance, misfescence and corruption at MI5, Scotland Yard 'Untouchables' and other parts of the Metropolitan Police which allowed 7/7 to happen and have contributed to the London Bombings not being investigated.

Moderator: Moderators

scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1844
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: Currently Andover
Contact:

J7 disregarding Peter Power statement?

Post by scubadiver »

I was at Ian's conference and Tom and Brigitte had some time to speak about their campaign. They want to hold the Government to account over the official narrative which we would all agree with and they have learnt some valuable lessons of the 9/11 movement when it comes to "alternative theories", and there has been no infiltration or attempted debunking. In that respect they have done so much better.

They aren't interested in Powers' statement which I personally think is incorrect. There was also a trained lawyer at the conference who also said such important evidence should be disregarded.

Are J7 limited hangout or they just being too overly cautious?
Currently working on a new website
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

It may be that Peter Power is a Red Herring?
Designed from the start as a diversion.
If so that is evidence of an inside job though.

Certainly a strange one.
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

They aren't interested in Powers' statement which I personally think is incorrect. There was also a trained lawyer at the conference who also said such important evidence should be disregarded.
He is a key witness.
User avatar
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2569
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:06 am
Location: One breath from Glory

Post by fish5133 »

Well he is either a key witness or a suspect because if his company were carrying out the "exercise" at exactly the same stations then they must have seen things
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

fish5133 wrote:Well he is either a key witness or a suspect because if his company were carrying out the "exercise" at exactly the same stations then they must have seen things

Andrew wrote:
He is a key witness.
And that was just being too overly cautious.


They always said "at exactly the same stations" wasn't important. Trying to confuse people with comparing it to the Panorama programme or other events around the same time. When the comparison was the individual drill that “he said” was taking place that day that went live. That was the unbelievable odds.


You only have to look through these posts.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewto ... sc&start=0
ianrcrane
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Devon
Contact:

J7 - 'Controlled Opposition'?

Post by ianrcrane »

It has become apparent over the past few years that J7 are either wittingly or unwittingly 'Corralling' information. The behaviour and attitude of Bridget Dunne is becoming increasingly similar to that of Rachel North, in the anger and vitriol dished out to anyone who has the audacity to take any initiative which might serve to raise the profile of events and/or issues relating to the fateful day of 7th July 2005.

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube' and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend, are illustrative of the fact that something is 'not quite right' about the ongoing motivation of the J7 cabal.

Let's not forget that the seminal information of the train times between Luton & London on the morning of 7th July was due directly to the investigative work of Nick Kollestrom & James Stewart.

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

J7 (Bridget in particular) give the impression that they think they 'OWN' all research and information related to anything associated with the London Bombings. Although I was the first person in the UK to give a public presentation ('The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' recorded on the 22nd July 2005) highlighting some of the immediate anomolies surrounding the London Bombings, I have had very limited contact with the J7 movement as I have always found them to be rather insular and extremely protective of 'their information'.

So in summary, Bridget Dunne is providing an excellent example of 'Limited Hangout' at work ... the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?


Ian R Crane
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?
Both I would say, we're all responsible for our thoughts words and deeds. Problem is most think the ego doesn’t exist or is just a product of our genes and DNA. And some many go as far as saying that free will is not that important, its just genes and DNA. And the Ego will lead people in circles, to a harmonious end. (Non-existence, eventually.)
numeral
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: South London
Contact:

Re: J7 - 'Controlled Opposition'?

Post by numeral »

Ian

Please explain how a public website, blogs and a forum can corrall information.

Please recall how Nick Kollestrom gulped when he was ambushed by The Conspiracy Files over the CCTV. Please recall all the foolish things he has done.

Please indicate just how Tony Farrell will further 7/7 Truth.

Please justify your claim that that "no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of" J7's research . It seems to me that few inside said community are aware of it.

Limited Hangout, my fundament.
ianrcrane wrote:It has become apparent over the past few years that J7 are either wittingly or unwittingly 'Corralling' information. The behaviour and attitude of Bridget Dunne is becoming increasingly similar to that of Rachel North, in the anger and vitriol dished out to anyone who has the audacity to take any initiative which might serve to raise the profile of events and/or issues relating to the fateful day of 7th July 2005.

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube' and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend, are illustrative of the fact that something is 'not quite right' about the ongoing motivation of the J7 cabal.

Let's not forget that the seminal information of the train times between Luton & London on the morning of 7th July was due directly to the investigative work of Nick Kollestrom & James Stewart.

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

J7 (Bridget in particular) give the impression that they think they 'OWN' all research and information related to anything associated with the London Bombings. Although I was the first person in the UK to give a public presentation ('The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' recorded on the 22nd July 2005) highlighting some of the immediate anomolies surrounding the London Bombings, I have had very limited contact with the J7 movement as I have always found them to be rather insular and extremely protective of 'their information'.

So in summary, Bridget Dunne is providing an excellent example of 'Limited Hangout' at work ... the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?


Ian R Crane
Follow the numbers
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Re: J7 - 'Controlled Opposition'?

Post by Andrew. »

numeral wrote:Ian

Please explain how a public website, blogs and a forum can corrall information.

Please recall how Nick Kollestrom gulped when he was ambushed by The Conspiracy Files over the CCTV. Please recall all the foolish things he has done.

Please indicate just how Tony Farrell will further 7/7 Truth.

Please justify your claim that that "no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of" J7's research . It seems to me that few inside said community are aware of it.

Limited Hangout, my fundament.
ianrcrane wrote:It has become apparent over the past few years that J7 are either wittingly or unwittingly 'Corralling' information. The behaviour and attitude of Bridget Dunne is becoming increasingly similar to that of Rachel North, in the anger and vitriol dished out to anyone who has the audacity to take any initiative which might serve to raise the profile of events and/or issues relating to the fateful day of 7th July 2005.

Bridget's attack on Nick Kollestrom following the publication of his excellent book, 'Terror on the Tube' and her outrageous verbal assault on Tony Farrell at the weekend, are illustrative of the fact that something is 'not quite right' about the ongoing motivation of the J7 cabal.

Let's not forget that the seminal information of the train times between Luton & London on the morning of 7th July was due directly to the investigative work of Nick Kollestrom & James Stewart.

There is absolutely no doubt that the J7 website is a fantastic repository of research and information but after six and a half years, no one outside of the 'Truth' Community is aware of it!

J7 (Bridget in particular) give the impression that they think they 'OWN' all research and information related to anything associated with the London Bombings. Although I was the first person in the UK to give a public presentation ('The 9/11 - 7/7 Connection' recorded on the 22nd July 2005) highlighting some of the immediate anomolies surrounding the London Bombings, I have had very limited contact with the J7 movement as I have always found them to be rather insular and extremely protective of 'their information'.

So in summary, Bridget Dunne is providing an excellent example of 'Limited Hangout' at work ... the big question is whether or not this is deliberate or just an unfortunate Ego-attachment to what is undoubtedly a superb repository of information?


Ian R Crane
bump
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

Please consider Andrew that the J7 crew have travelled a different journey to you. In may ways it is healthy to have diverse approaches to the deconstruction of the 7/7 lies and so there is never ony 'one true interpretation' of events that day.
The diversity of approaches should be seen as a positive thing.
In fact a free society should guarantee that situation.
The real probem here is not the J7 campaign's priorities.

It is the as yet invisible criminal assassins who masterminded the attacks of July 7th 2005 and because you can not see them it is all too easy to criticise the J7 people - who you can see. They are in fact much, much closer to your view than the forces of darkness.
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

.



I have considerded it Tony, just keeping a record. And I'm just defending the attacks and criticism.
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 2279
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:28 pm

Post by conspiracy analyst »

The most extensive research on 7/7 is by the J7 group.

Creating the impression that Bridget Dunne is a new Rachel North could imply what?

That the 'stars' associated with truth in the UK so far haven't ridiculed the whole campaign regarding truth.

Truth isn't owned by anyone and personalising the issues gives the impression that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'....

The fact that the so-called inquests had to answer J7 questions is good enough for me alone. Let alone the research that connects British imperial history ie Ireland with the recent wave of anti-islamic witchunts.

No one has done that. Not on the Left. Not on the Right. Nowhere.
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

conspiracy analyst wrote:The most extensive research on 7/7 is by the J7 group.

Creating the impression that Bridget Dunne is a new Rachel North could imply what?

That the 'stars' associated with truth in the UK so far haven't ridiculed the whole campaign regarding truth.

Truth isn't owned by anyone and personalising the issues gives the impression that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'....

The fact that the so-called inquests had to answer J7 questions is good enough for me alone. Let alone the research that connects British imperial history ie Ireland with the recent wave of anti-islamic witchunts.

No one has done that. Not on the Left. Not on the Right. Nowhere.

Could you re word that please conspiracy analyst, I can't make out clearly what points you’re putting over.
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:26 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Post by Prole »

Some people want heroes, martyrs & messiahs - J7 simply want the truth.

I don't know why (yet) Tom's section isn't included here, but judge for yourselves:

http://vimeo.com/30707958
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

Prole wrote:Some people want heroes, martyrs & messiahs - J7 simply want the truth.

I don't know why (yet) Tom's section isn't included here, but judge for yourselves:

http://vimeo.com/30707958
Please Prole:

At exactly the same stations. Not comparing it to the Panorama programme or other events around the same time. Just the comparison of the individual drill that “he said” was taking place that day that went live. Or statements and articles made by Peter Power after, about other stations.

What is your view on that please? I and others know that people say why would he admit to that, but he could be saving face and also it's been the case with some that it wasn't important which covers up this very serious statement.
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 2279
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:28 pm

Post by conspiracy analyst »

There were training exercises during 9/11 and during 7/7. But were there any in the Madrid bombings or the bombings in Mumbai?

One event, training exercises, is one event, it isn't the whole picture or the most important. What emphasis people assign to it is their business and they can be criticised for it, but to assert that they are like Rachel North is a statement too far in my eyes due to her specific role which has been argued on here before.

The 'stars' of the truth movement have come and gone ie Shayler. Truth in itself is independent of its players or those with a 'name' who jump on a bandwagon and are 'promoted'.

Fake terrorism is fake not because I say so, but because it is.

One cannot believe in fairy tales unless one is sellilng something ie the 'war on terror' or in previous eras the 'war against the IRA' or the 'war on communism'.
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:26 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Post by Prole »

Andrew. wrote:
Prole wrote:Some people want heroes, martyrs & messiahs - J7 simply want the truth.

I don't know why (yet) Tom's section isn't included here, but judge for yourselves:

http://vimeo.com/30707958
Please Prole:

At exactly the same stations. Not comparing it to the Panorama programme or other events around the same time. Just the comparison of the individual drill that “he said” was taking place that day that went live. Or statements and articles made by Peter Power after, about other stations.

What is your view on that please? I and others know that people say why would he admit to that, but he could be saving face and also it's been the case with some that it wasn't important which covers up this very serious statement.
Sadly, but perhaps not unsurprisingly given the audience, Peter Power was virtually the only topic of questions after J7 spoke. Perhaps we should compare the title of this thread "J7 disregarding Peter Power statement" with the facts:

The 7/7 Terror Rehearsal Visor Consultants' 'simultaneous bombs' rehearsal on 7 July 2005

and

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign | Peter Power's Suspension from the Dorset Police

This J7 research is where the Muad'dibbians and 7/7 RE purloined their information from.

To imply from Power's statements that he must have recruited the 4 accused men for this exercise is pure conjecture but some people are very emotionally attached to this scenario and thus blinded to other possibilities.
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

To imply from Power's statements that he must have recruited the 4 accused men for this exercise is pure conjecture but some people are very emotionally attached to this scenario and thus blinded to other possibilities.
No he could have been a patsy couldn’t he? He wouldn’t necessarily have to have known about the recruited 4 would he? And whichever way you look at his statement in honesty, the odds are unbelievable. And as to him actually making such a statement, it could have been a part of the planning to ridicule this line of questioning after the event.


--------

Occam’s Razor:


What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?


What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s (or whom ever) mock terror exercise would travel to the four locations on the same day at, roughly the same time?


It is not just highly likely it is almost certain, Occam’s Razor applies.
Last edited by Andrew. on Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:26 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Post by Prole »

Andrew. wrote:
To imply from Power's statements that he must have recruited the 4 accused men for this exercise is pure conjecture but some people are very emotionally attached to this scenario and thus blinded to other possibilities.
No he could have been a patsy couldn’t he? He wouldn’t necessarily have to have known about the recruited 4 would he? And whichever way you look at his statement in honesty, the odds are unbelievable. And as to him actually making such a statement, it could have been a part of the planning to ridicule this line of questioning after the event.
So many coulds and maybes and buts - is there any other player than Power in your analysis? Could he have offered himself as a distraction or a crumb to throw a false trail? Anything is possible - which is why J7 keep focussed on the truth rather than waste time with pointless speculation.
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

Prole wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
To imply from Power's statements that he must have recruited the 4 accused men for this exercise is pure conjecture but some people are very emotionally attached to this scenario and thus blinded to other possibilities.
No he could have been a patsy couldn’t he? He wouldn’t necessarily have to have known about the recruited 4 would he? And whichever way you look at his statement in honesty, the odds are unbelievable. And as to him actually making such a statement, it could have been a part of the planning to ridicule this line of questioning after the event.
So many coulds and maybes and buts - is there any other player than Power in your analysis? Could he have offered himself as a distraction or a crumb to throw a false trail? Anything is possible - which is why J7 keep focussed on the truth rather than waste time with pointless speculation.

What about Occam’s Razor, please prole. Do you not see the unbelievable odds, for an inside job? And which is so important?


Occam’s Razor:


What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?


What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s (or whom ever) mock terror exercise would travel to the four locations on the same day at, roughly the same time?


It is not just highly likely it is almost certain, Occam’s Razor applies.
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:26 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Post by Prole »

Andrew. wrote:
Prole wrote:
Andrew. wrote: No he could have been a patsy couldn’t he? He wouldn’t necessarily have to have known about the recruited 4 would he? And whichever way you look at his statement in honesty, the odds are unbelievable. And as to him actually making such a statement, it could have been a part of the planning to ridicule this line of questioning after the event.
So many coulds and maybes and buts - is there any other player than Power in your analysis? Could he have offered himself as a distraction or a crumb to throw a false trail? Anything is possible - which is why J7 keep focussed on the truth rather than waste time with pointless speculation.

What about Occam’s Razor, please prole. Do you not see the unbelievable odds, for an inside job? And which is so important?


Occam’s Razor:


What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?


What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s (or whom ever) mock terror exercise would travel to the four locations on the same day at, roughly the same time?


It is not just highly likely it is almost certain, Occam’s Razor applies.
Why do you believe all of Power's statements except the one where he states it was a paper exercise?

edit: I suggest you sharpen the razor!
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

Why do you believe all of Power's statements except the one where he states it was a paper exercise?
Occam’s Razor

Because when viewed with all the other evidence,(and with respect to the above for an inside job) the odds for it to have been done by just backpack terrorists, is unbelievably low.

He may have been telling the truth about "it was a paper exercise?" too, as far as he was concerned (that day,) if pre planted explosives were used; which looks as though that was the case with unbelievable odds for such explosives.
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:26 am
Location: London UK
Contact:

Post by Prole »

Andrew. wrote:
Why do you believe all of Power's statements except the one where he states it was a paper exercise?
Occam’s Razor

Because when viewed with all the other evidence,(and with respect to the above for an inside job?) the odds for it to have been done by just backpack terrorists, is unbelievably low.

He may have been telling the truth about "it was a paper exercise?" too, as far as he was concerned (that day,) if pre planted explosives were used; which looks as though that was the case with unbelievable odds for such explosives.
So if Power were running a paper exercise why did he need to recruit the 4 men? Do all roads lead either through or to Power in your scenario? Are there roads that you are missing? Ever heard of a garden path or a dead end? Couldn't 7/7 still be a false flag without the need for Power's terror drill? Has Power become a fixation for many due to 7/7 RE?

Isn't it a fact that asking the right questions is more important than offering the wrong answers?
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

1
So if Power were running a paper exercise why did he need to recruit the 4 men?
Please see above post about (or whom ever) and with respect to other points in this thread.


2
Do all roads lead either through or to Power in your scenario?
No. But please see above: for an inside job and which is so important, with respect to other points in this thread.



3
Are there roads that you are missing?
In the points and posts in this thread, yes many.


4
Ever heard of a garden path or a dead end?
Yes.


5
Couldn't 7/7 still be a false flag without the need for Power's terror drill?
Please see above post about (or whom ever) and with respect to other points in this thread. And patsies, "some one to blame;" rather than just explosions with no contrived narrative,(false flag.)


6
Has Power become a fixation for many due to 7/7 RE?
No, but please see above post about (or whom ever) and with respect to other points in this thread.


7
Isn't it a fact that asking the right questions is more important than offering the wrong answers?
Please see above post about (or whom ever) and with respect to other points in this thread. And point 2
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 2279
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:28 pm

Post by conspiracy analyst »

Which part of the narrative is one expected to believe?
He jumped over the barriers.
He paused to pick up a paper.
He wore a jacket with wires hanging out.
He was wearing a tee shirt.

The role of someone looking for the truth isn't to arrive at an answer on their own, with no conclusive evidence, but to highlight the contradictions of the official narrative.

If one wants answers short of the secret files being revealed and even they can be doctored, then they aren't necessarily interested in the truth but arriving at a narrative then working backwards to justify it.

I dont for instance believe Orwell spied on people. But after his death files have been 'released' to show that, something like the Stasi files which every now an again take down a person....

I cant believe any of the official story regarding the De Menezes killing.
I personally dont believe it happened at the station, but that is my personal belief. I can't prove it. But if I am spun multiple versions of events, which ones am I expected to believe, the parts I choose, the parts which are sold to me, or the parts that create what I believe to be a logical narrative?
User avatar
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6347
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Disco_Destroyer »

somewhat of a marriage made in hell, but is it innocent?
Peter Power (remember him?) was on the bbc this morning talking about PAS200...google it and share!
http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-an ... ./PAS-200/

http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standards-an ... s/PAS-200/

http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/Navigate-by/PAS/PAS-200/

From Visor Consultants webpage
Guiding you in the preparation and delivery of Business Continuity Plans to meet UK Industry Specification BS25999


http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Assessment-a ... /BS-25999/
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

somewhat of a marriage made in hell, but is it innocent?
No imho, because if those working in those jobs take an agnostic (: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something) view and won't ask the right questions, then it's just Idolatry, jump of the cliff because X said so. Like soldiers I have spoken with, who say they have to be “A” political and let the politicians sort it out.
User avatar
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Posts: 6347
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:38 pm
Contact:

Post by Disco_Destroyer »

Andrew. wrote:
somewhat of a marriage made in hell, but is it innocent?
No imho, because if those working in those jobs take an agnostic (: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something) view and won't ask the right questions, then it's just Idolatry, jump of the cliff because X said so. Like soldiers I have spoken with, who say they have to be “A” political and let the politicians sort it out.
That was not directed at you Andrew but hoping for all to give thought, my personal view is if he is innocent wouldn't you think he'd want to distance himself from public scrutiny rather than continue on a path to aid the wealthy business owner and big government? Then I suppose many do fall for the ill gotten gain. Bit like AB Inbev's 9/11 TV Ad I guess :o
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
User avatar
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:26 am
Contact:

Post by Andrew. »

.

That’s ok DD it was really a reply to, about Prole and Tom Secker (above) and a recent radio interview where Tom takes the agnostic view and where they specifically at one point talk about the significance of the “disregarding Peter Power statement” and as shown above imho Tom's view on the unbelievable odds is deeply flawed. He makes some decent points, but just dosen't get! the significance of the odds and probabilities.


download:
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 8, 2011
Tom Secker & Nick Kollerstrom
The 7/7 London Subway Attack

To make it easier for Tom and others to see lets simplify this:

What is the likelihood of four men that would travel to London on the same day at roughly the same time to exact locations selected for a simulated terrorist exercise organised by Peter Power, (or whom ever) if they had not been invited to participate?


What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s (or whom ever) mock terror exercise would travel to the four locations on the same day at, roughly the same time?

It is not just highly likely it is almost certain, Occam’s Razor applies.

----

One man, Mr X, and one named station (I have a planned mock drill) Please give the day and time that Mr X is going to coincide with his backpack bomb (further reducing the odds in this model with unbelievable odds for pre-planted explosives) of this planned mock drill.

It is almost certain you will not guess the date and time, even in this much more simplified scenario.

If Mr X agreed to go to the one station of the planned mock drill at that day and time.

It is certain you will know (if you have been told or planned it) and almost certain that he Mr X other than any problems to delay will get there.
User avatar
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor
Posts: 18429
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by TonyGosling »

As I say it is entirely possible that the Peter Power statement is a red herring. That does fully implcate him tough.
Ie if that's the case who put Peter Power up to lying live on TV on 7/7 itself?
He's a key suspect to question whichever way you look at it.
Post Reply