7/7 academic woo? [Archive]

roryridleyduff

23rd October 2009, 04:49 PM

Dear JREF,

The paper highlighted above was written for students on a philosophy course and was uploaded, together with other papers and course materials, to the Scribd document repository. A PDF version was supplied to three people who provided information to produce a balanced article:

Mike Rudin, the series producer of The Conspiracy Files at the BBC
Bridget Dunne, a research at J7
John Hill, the author of 7/7 Ripple Effect

As author, I have no control over who links this public domain article to their forum or website. Several people have already added links the original document on the Scribd site. They did this within a few days of it being uploaded.

The reason the article is not listed on my university web page is that it has been written for teaching purposes, and not for journal publication. It has been published on my personal website (over which I have direct control), but not my university web-page where there is only a small selection of my articles (many others are not listed there). Links on my university web-page are selected to showcase my primary research interests of social enterprise, governance and gender relations. My personal web-site has a wider range of material.

The sources on which the article is based are much broader than is suggested in the first post to this thread. In additional to academic references on philosophy, they include public domain information and comments supplied by:

Euromed
BBC
CNN
Ceroc Scotland Forum
Europhobia
Evening Standard
Sunday Telegraph
Real Deal (Jim Fetzer)
Hill, John (Muad'Dib)
Globe and Mail
House of Commons (Official Report)
Vancouver Sun
J7 (campaign for a public inquiry into 7/7)
Alex Jones Roadshow
New Zealand Herald
Huntsville Times
Obachike, Daniel
Mail Online
Rudin, Mike (BBC)
Shayler, David
South London News
Ottawa Citizen
Sky News
The Independent
Wikipedia

There are some references to 7/7 websites (e.g. J7), which is to be expected given how few people are undertaking any serious research into events. A search was done for sites that attempt to debunk 7/7. Only one was found, and this contained virtually no information. It is worth nothing that there are far more references to sources that have no vested interest in 7/7 conspiracy theories.

The idea that the shooting at Canary Wharf was an 'urban myth' is itself an invention of Mark Sellman at the Times Online who admits ignoring reports about it (i.e. not investigating them). Had he done so, he would have found numerous consistent reports from many different journalists / eye-witnesses to many different papers in the US, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. These were retrieved using Nexis UK, a database of news articles available to university researchers in the UK. I can provide all information retrieved from this database to anyone who wishes to see my source material.

The only way for anyone with scholarly integrity to comment properly on this article is to read it in its entirely first.

Best wishes
Rory Ridley-Duff (Dr)
Sheffield Business School
Sheffield Hallam University

JFM

23rd October 2009, 08:04 PM

I've just read it.

This is me now :hb:

dropzone

23rd October 2009, 09:01 PM

...
Real Deal (Jim Fetzer)...
Alex Jones Roadshow....Bro, by using them as references you have thrown your PhD out the window and declared yourself far and wide as a nutcase who should not be given tenure. They have poisoned your well that thoroughly. They are crackpots and liars who defame good people to make a few bucks off the immature and the insane.

Really.

JFM

23rd October 2009, 09:22 PM

Bro, by using them as references you have thrown your PhD out the window and declared yourself far and wide as a nutcase who should not be given tenure. They have poisoned your well that thoroughly. They are crackpots and liars who defame good people to make a few bucks off the immature and the insane.

Really.

True. But there is also much wrong with the whole thing.

I think we're being patronised, just a little, too.

Information Analyst

24th October 2009, 05:27 AM

Rory, thank you for your comments. What troubles me the most is that - as JFM has said - you have relied on sources that are inherently unreliable. To take a different example, the only corroboration you gave that for the claim that Peter Power's "terror exercise" was wider that just the office/desk-bound one he says it was, was the claims of Daniel Obachike. Have you actually read Obachike's book? Are you are aware that - in the heaviest of ironies - the train journey he describes himself as taking on 7 July which supposedly eventually led to him being on the bus in Tavistock Square is not only impossible to achieve in the timeframe he claimed, but does not even make sense in the context of where he says he was living and working at the time? That the, "actor covered with bandages," that Obachike identifies in footage shot at the time has been actually confirmed by Russell Square survivors as a fellow victim of that explosion?

Also, why do you maintain throughout the paper that Power's exercise involved, "four bombs going off in London at precisely the same locations and times," as those in real life, when in the BBC programme he clearly explains that his scenario had bombs going off at Liverpool Street, Kings-Cross, and Russell Square stations? The first two are obvious high-profile targets (Liverpool Street was even chosen as the target of a terrorist attack in the BBC's 2002 drama-documentary Dirty War), and his scenario had them attacked separately, not the real single explosion between them. Elsewhere Power has clarified that the "above-ground" bomb in his exercise was near to the offices of the Jewish Chronicle, close to Channcery Lane station and therefore nowhere near Tavistock Square. To express this graphically, the green circles show Power's location, and the red circles the actual ones (dotted circles are above-ground explosions):

http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/050707/images/power.jpg

Although there are obvious and unfortunate similarities, in no way can this be described as, "precisely the same locations," as in real life.

These are not by any means the only factual errors and mis-assumptions in your paper, which sadly will only encourage the conspiracy theory fringe from which most of them seem to originate. I would also echo JFM's suggestion that you are being patronising, especially in your comment that people should read the paper. I did read it, and the numerous flaws apparent in it were why I brought it to attention here, naturally with a link so that others could read it themselves.

8den

24th October 2009, 09:38 AM

Interesting points IA, I'd really like to hear more about Obachike's journey.

Brainster

24th October 2009, 01:00 PM

Information Analyst

24th October 2009, 03:13 PM

Interesting points IA, I'd really like to hear more about Obachike's journey.

OK, here goes....

In his book, Obachike implies that his usual route to work that week involved walking from his home to Enfield Town railway station, catching the 08:27 train to Liverpool Street station, then changing to the London Underground to complete the journey to his office at Old Street. Logically this would mean taking a Circle/Metropolitan/Hammersmith & City line train to Moorgate station, then changing to the northbound Northern line to go one stop to Old Street station. Obachike says that this would get him to his desk before, "the petulant manager came a-hovering minutes after 9" (p. 5).

On 7 July, however, he missed the 08:27 train, and so had to get the next one, but en route he changed to the Victoria line at Seven Sisters station (six stops after Enfield Town, and eight before Liverpool Street) for no adequately explained reason. The logical alternative route would have been him taking the Victoria line all the way to King's Cross station, before changing to the southbound Northern Line two stops to Old Street station. He says, "a glance at his watch told him it was almost 9 o'clock" (p. 10) as they approached King's Cross/St Pancras, but it was announced that the station was closed, so the train passed through without stopping. Once at Euston, he states that the train doors remained open for "minutes," then "another 5 minutes later passenger's frustrations began to tell," before most progressively began to leave, himself included, their exit slowed due to the power to the escalators to the mainline surface station being off. From personal familiarity with the station layout at Euston, it is hard to accept that someone could reached the surface in less than ten minutes under these circumstances. At the very least, then, it would have at least 18 minutes between the arrival of the train and Obachike reaching the surface, which he claims he actually did by 09:06. He then spent a further 25 minutes milling around with other displaced communters, before eventually boarding the No. 30 bus and departing at 09:31.

There are a number of problems with both his claimed usual route, and the one he says he actually took on the day. In the first instance, in July 2005 the 08:27 from Enfield Town was not timetabled to arrive at Liverpool Street until 09:04, so with another ten minutes to get to Old Street by Underground, it's hard to see how Obachike could have been at his desk by 09:20, let alone "minutes after 9."

As he actually missed the 08:27, the next train was not until 08:49, arriving at Liverpool Street at 09:26. It would have arrived at Seven Sisters 1-to-3 minutes before it was timetabled to leave there at 09:03, but then taken him around four minutes to change to the Underground, and another 10 minutes to get from there to King's Cross, so he could not have been approaching that station at "almost 9 o'clock." Even with trains non-stopping at King's Cross, he could not have reached Euston until around 09:16-09:18, assuming that he got straight onto an immediately departing Victoria line train at Seven Sisters, meaning he could not have been on the Euston mainline concourse until 09:34-09:36, after the No. 30 had departed, never mind allowing his 25 minutes elapsing before that happened.

This all assumes that Obachike took the route he says he did. As noted, he claims he walked from his home to Enfield Town station, which is a distance of about 460 metres, to take a 37 minute train to Liverpool Street, followed by a further Underground journey with an additional change to Old Street. In the oppose direction, 880 metres away from Obachike's home, is Enfield Chase station, from which he could take a 24 minute train on a different line direct to Old Street. In July 2005 the timetabled departures and arrivals at Enfield Chase and Old Street were respectively:

08:17 - 08:45
08:27 - 08:52
08:34 - 08:58
08:39 - 09:04
08:58 - 09:24
09:02 - 09:28

The only Enfield Town to Liverpool Street services in the same timeframe were:

08:12 - 08:47
08:27 - 09:04
08:49 - 09:26
09:04 - 09:38

All the issues of whether Obachike's described route could actually get him to Euston in time to be on the No. 30 bus aside, it does not seem credible that that for the sake of not walking an additional 420 metres, he would make a more complex journey (i.e. three changes rather than none) that would take at least 22 minutes longer every single day, let alone one on which he was already running late. Ironically, elsewhere in his book Obachike actually makes the point that savvy commuters, "naturally opt for (the) quickest and most straightforward journey" (p.123).

Historic timetables:

Enfield CHase to Old Street (http://web.archive.org/web/20051028041316/www.wagn.co.uk/wlive/docs/6095-GN-inner.pdf)

Enfield Town to Liverpool Street (http://web.archive.org/web/20051030003541/http://www.onerailway.com/timetable/timetables/downloads/june_12_2005/West+Anglia+Comp+Booklet.pdf)

JFM

24th October 2009, 07:05 PM

I apologise in advance in case this makes no sense but I've been out with some buddies drinking mucho beer

I think the problem with Dr Ridley-Duff and 'Theorising Truth' isn't that; "This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings..."

Nor is it that; "The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth."

No, it is that he says; "...that it has been written for teaching purposes," WTF?

Whether intentional or not, any student reading the paper will conclude the good Dr thinks the events of 7/7, as understood by most, to be a lie, not simply wrong somehow, but a lie. Worse they will have any doubt about the events reinforced by the shoddy research.

Not all academics are good at research. Not all academics are good at teh interwebs.

Really, I despair at the state of education here in the UK. It would be easy to blame the government of the day but it is the individual colleges/schools/uni's employing these jokers, not Gordon Brown.

I also think he was doing that thing we've all done, Googling his own name:bigclap

dropzone

24th October 2009, 08:42 PM

Really, I despair at the state of education here in the UK. It would be easy to blame the government of the day but it is the individual colleges/schools/uni's employing these jokers, not Gordon Brown.To be honest, as a Yank who for years has had to endure the trashing of our university system, as if it were not simply inferior to the British system but, because it is more inclusive, I am REALLY enjoying the smackdown of a product of the British system. :D

dropzone, graduate of a Land-Grant University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university) that had been, previously, a Teachers College. The ratio of men to women had suffered before I entered but was still roughly 50:50, better than better schools.

JFM

24th October 2009, 09:15 PM

To be honest, as a Yank who for years has had to endure the trashing of our university system, as if it were not simply inferior to the British system but, because it is more inclusive, I am REALLY enjoying the smackdown of a product of the British system. :D

dropzone, graduate of a Land-Grant University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-grant_university) that had been, previously, a Teachers College. The ratio of men to women had suffered before I entered but was still roughly 50:50, better than better schools.

Although I spent several years working in the US and a few more commuting to NY every month, I had little contact with academia, so, my opinions are based on colleagues and friends. I didn't notice anything lacking in their education. I will admit to expecting them to be less sophisticated but again, this wasn't the case.

A degree here used to mean you knew your onions, I'm not so sure any more. Recently I was talking to a buddy, his daughter was about to graduate, I asked, "in what?" I think the reply was "French, Chinese and Computer Programming" - ? How on earth can anyone have learned anything meaningful or of any practical use about Chinese, French and Computer Programming in three years? I expect a graduate to know their subject, that is the point...

I can't go on I'll just end up typing some drunken rant I'll regret when the booze wears off.

So no, I think any European snobbery about US uni's is very ignorant.

dropzone

24th October 2009, 09:55 PM

Thanks, because my uni is currently most famous for a campus shooting. :( At the time I expressed to a friend, who had been a professor there, that the SECOND (or third) worst part was that it reduced our Anthro department to a footnote when we had worked our way up to being Pretty Damned Good.

http://www.niu.edu/memorial/ :(

dropzone

24th October 2009, 09:56 PM

I can't go on I'll just end up typing some drunken rant I'll regret when the booze wears off. Bro, takes a lot of the fun out of it. That's why we post anonymously, right?

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 01:22 AM

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any longer with the stupid things that apparently highly-educated people believe. After all, I've read papers by Steven Jones and David L. Griscom, and books by David Ray Griffin.

But it still stuns me to see such buffoonish work by someone possessing a doctorate. When confronted with the fact that Peter Power did indeed claim to have a simulation going on that morning involving bombs going off in precisely those locations, which seems more plausible?

A. That Peter Power was exaggerating his precision.

or

B. That Peter Power was in fact the mastermind behind the attacks, and confessing his involvement in yet another Merry Pason moment.

I am definitely saddened to hear that you handed this paper out to your students; I certainly hope they got a chuckle out of it and dropped your course, posthaste.
I've long thought the most sympathetic interpretation for Power's intial statements is down to his perspective. His scenario involved explosions at three specific stations (at least one of which actually being the surface/mainline part, rather than the Underground element); real life had three explosions between six stations. Power's three stations were a sub-set of real life, but in terms of three explosions, not two. From his perspective, through the prism of the scenario he had obviously been working on for some time, all the stations in his scenario were affected in real life, but seen through the prism of actual events, not all the stations actually affected were in his exercise.

This is really like a situation in which six films are playing at a multiplex. Person A has seen all six films, whilst Person B had seen half of them. Person B can say to person A, "You have seen all the films I have," but Person A would say to Person B, "You haven't seen all the films I have." Both statements appear contradictory, but from the perspective of those making them, they are true.

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 01:45 AM

A degree here used to mean you knew your onions, I'm not so sure any more. Recently I was talking to a buddy, his daughter was about to graduate, I asked, "in what?" I think the reply was "French, Chinese and Computer Programming" - ? How on earth can anyone have learned anything meaningful or of any practical use about Chinese, French and Computer Programming in three years? I expect a graduate to know their subject, that is the point...
And, of course, some of us are of that vintage that doing a degree was something only a small minority did. :cool: I actually had offers to do English at a couple of polytechnics, but messed up my A-levels, couldn't afford to re-take them (single parent family), so had to get a job. Twenty-three years on, the government has this obsession about getting the majority of kids to go to university, which logically can't do anything other than devalue having that level of education. Having over the years steadily worked up to to a fairly senior level in my job, it's a bit despressing to see that the job descriptions for grades well below mine have a degree as a absolute necessity for recruitment.

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 01:46 AM

Bro, takes a lot of the fun out of it. That's why we post anonymously, right?
I still feel uncomfortable about some very old postings lying around in Usenet archive with my real name on them....

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 04:19 AM

I think the problem with Dr Ridley-Duff and 'Theorising Truth' isn't that; "This paper uses three different theories of truth to consider claims broadcast in two documentaries about the London bombings..."

Nor is it that; "The findings are assessed using three different theories of truth."

No, it is that he says; "...that it has been written for teaching purposes," WTF?

Whether intentional or not, any student reading the paper will conclude the good Dr thinks the events of 7/7, as understood by most, to be a lie, not simply wrong somehow, but a lie. Worse they will have any doubt about the events reinforced by the shoddy research.

Not all academics are good at research. Not all academics are good at teh interwebs.

Thank you for all these responses. It will help to improve the paper under discussion.

The focus in the paper is clearly on the evidence of events at Canary Wharf, and two points of differece on train times and what happened to the four men after the tube trains exploded. Daniel Obachike is not the focus of the paper and is introduced only to provide evidence that Peter Power's account is contested (more below). In any attempt at advancing knowledge, it will be the case that points are challenged and clarifications will be achieved through dialogue with other people so I'm grateful to people for reading the paper and identifying new arguments that can be considered in producing a new version next year.

As to the question of what I believe - I have no firm view yet other than that the official account does not make sense. The fact that men may have been attacked or shot at Canary Wharf does not mean that these are the four men who were blamed for the tube explosions (nor does the paper claim this). It does point out, however, that John Hill's theory is better able to account for something that no other theory of 7th July is able to explain. This being the case, due consideration should be given to this alternative theory. The paper advances the debate by providing all the newspaper / blog / discussion forum references to the shootings that it was possible to find with the resources available to me. These references do not support the official government account. That's not a controversial statement, in my view. As a result, a different account of the day is required.

As for Daniel Obachike, reference to his interview with Alex Jones and his book are provided only to show that Peter Power's account is contested. I make no claim beyond this. Given that it has been raised, it is worth discussing the interview with Alex Jones. In this interview, Obachike provides detailed and specific information on the person he alleges was 'faking' injury. Alex Jones himself says that he and his staff (however controversial or problematic this may be) checked out the story themselves and verified with people involved with the bus that it was singled out on the day for diversion. Daniel Obachike's account is contested - I can point this out in revisions - so there is a question that needs to be answered by all here.

Why do people believe those who attack Daniel Obachike's account rather than Daniel Obachike's account? Why do people believe Peter Power (who has a career advantage in manipulating the media) over other witnesses (who have no experience of manipulating the media). These are pertinent questions.

Is this a case of believing who you want to believe to avoid the dissonance created by a controversial account or theory? Researchers are aware of the impact of 'cognitive dissonance' (indeed, I discuss the effects of cognitive dissonance with new researchers). It is the psychological process by which all people (including researchers) reduce their distress by accepting false accounts. It enables them to avoid examining controversial or contradictory evidence.

I've not read Obachike's book, but I have read discussions of his book by those who have read it. Daniel Obachike's book is a publication that captures the material in his internet blog. However imperfect that may be, others who have read the book state clearly that it documents the treatment he received by the police/anti-terrorist authorities after he was found on / near the Tavistock Square bus. He didn't cash in by writing a book straightaway. He started a blog documenting his treatment. After 7 months there were 440,000 people reading his blog (creating the market for a book). This being the case, the book is based on the blog (and retains spelling mistakes etc.). This does not appear to me to be the work of someone who set out to write a book about the 7/7 bombing - it was an accident of history that people were sufficiently interested in what was happening to him to make a book possible.

I don't expect - if it is a blog - for it to be an accurate detailed history. It does, however, provide clear evidence that there is a challenge to the official account of the fourth bomb. Nor is this the only evidence. The J7 web-site details another woman who refused to confirm there was only one bomb. She maintained there were two. (She was later found dead, allegedly committed 'suicide'). There is sufficient evidence, from more than one source, to question the official account of what occured at Tavistock Square, nor is Daniel Obachike the only person claiming that planted 'witnesses' were talking to the media. Further examples are available at J7 (based on YouTube video footage) of people talking about events, and their injuries, before people from the tube network had time to reach the surface.

I am open to revising the paper for next year's classes based on the conversations we have here, providing the information provided can checks out (in the same way that John Hill's account was not presented in a paper until it too had checked out against the sources used).

A note on sources. The idea that some sources are 'credible' and some are not is the argument of a partisan person who is not interested in the truth. Whatever account is given, there is a reason for it. A good social scientist, particularly one writing from a critical perspective, does not dismiss a person's account without evidence, and does not dismiss a person's account if part of it turns out to be untrue. The BBC documentary can be seen in the same light. Even though it contains statements that are problematic - it was made to serve a purpose and contains some useful information not available elsewhere. It was produced for a reason, in a particular political context (i.e. the sending of 7/7 Ripple Effect to a judge in a court case about 7/7). The political/social reasons for producing misleading accounts can be as interesting as the reasons for providing a 'truthful' one.

Those in this thread, therefore, who are not interested in false statements are not social scientists. They are using natural science logic which should be rejected when dealing with issues of social science. Natural science logic is not helpful in seeking to understand accounts of events that serve various social or political purposes. These purposes are discussed in the paper and the 'bias' (if this is the term you prefer) of both documentaries is assessed and drawn to the attention of the reader.

To clear up another criticism, I do Google the titles of my academic papers to check where they are being read/distributed. It is not unreasonable to take an interest in the impact of my own work. Once every seven years, I have to provide an account for the RAE on the impact of my work so I do track its impact.

Best wishes
Rory

gtc

25th October 2009, 04:54 AM

A note on sources. The idea that some sources are 'credible' and some are not is the argument of a partisan person who is not interested in the truth.

Rubbish. Sources are credible if their statements accord with the evidence. Sources are not credible if their statements do not accord with reality.

They are using natural science logic which should be rejected when dealing with issues of social science.

Again this is rubbish. Evidence has been provided to show that at least some of the claims entertained in your article are physically impossible.

No amount of handwaving about the nature of truth can alter the fact that the events (irrespective of whether they occured according to the accepted narrative) of that day happened in the physical world .

Natural science logic is not helpful in seeking to understand accounts of events that serve various social or political purposes.

It is, if those statements can be shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 05:40 AM

Thank you for all these responses. It will help to improve the paper under discussion.

The focus in the paper is clearly on the evidence of events at Canary Wharf, and two points of differece on train times and what happened to the four men after the tube trains exploded. Daniel Obachike is not the focus of the paper and is introduced only to provide evidence that Peter Power's account is contested (more below). In any attempt at advancing knowledge, it will be the case that points are challenged and clarifications will be achieved through dialogue with other people so I'm grateful to people for reading the paper and identifying new arguments that can be considered in producing a new version next year.

You advanced the theory that the four bombers were part of Power's "exercise," but the only corroboration you offered that it was not desk/office-based was Obachike's claims. You therefore have no corroboration. This is quite apart from the fact that if it did involve people on the ground, why is there no other witness or documentary evidence to back that up?

As to the question of what I believe - I have no firm view yet other than that the official account does not make sense. The fact that men may have been attacked or shot at Canary Wharf does not mean that these are the four men who were blamed for the tube explosions (nor does the paper claim this). It does point out, however, that John Hill's theory is better able to account for something that no other theory of 7th July is able to explain. This being the case, due consideration should be given to this alternative theory. The paper advances the debate by providing all the newspaper / blog / discussion forum references to the shootings that it was possible to find with the resources available to me. These references do not support the official government account. That's not a controversial statement, in my view. As a result, a different account of the day is required.

Nobody is disputing that the newspaper, blog, etc. reports exist; what is disputed is that they are true, rather than merely wild rumour. Thousands of people work at Canary Wharf, yet no-one has subsequently come forward as an eye-witness. There has been no leak from within the security services. If the men supposedly shot were the bombers, that would mean that the pathologists who carried out the post-mortems on their bodies are lying, along with all the other forensic experts who placed them at the bombing sites. What is more credible? A vast and seemingly water-tight conspiracy, or people just repeating rumours in the heat of the moment, some of which found their way into predominently foreign media in the least position to confirm their veracity?

As for Daniel Obachike, reference to his interview with Alex Jones and his book are provided only to show that Peter Power's account is contested. I make no claim beyond this. Given that it has been raised, it is worth discussing the interview with Alex Jones. In this interview, Obachike provides detailed and specific information on the person he alleges was 'faking' injury. Alex Jones himself says that he and his staff (however controversial or problematic this may be) checked out the story themselves and verified with people involved with the bus that it was singled out on the day for diversion. Daniel Obachike's account is contested - I can point this out in revisions - so there is a question that needs to be answered by all here.

You are just digging yourself deeper. The No. 30 was not the only bus that was diverted; the diversion was a perfectly natural one, given that the No. 30 route would have taken it past the front of Kings Cross station, which at the time had become congested with emergency service vehicles attending it as an access point to the Piccadilly line train. The route the bus took to and through Tavistock Square is a major thoroughfare, with plenty of pedestrian traffic at that time of the morning, not some sleepy side-street. There would have been scores of potential euewitnesses, yet not have reported seeing anything along the lines of Obachike's claims. Alex Jones has an agenda that makes anything he claims effectively worthless.

Why do people believe those who attack Daniel Obachike's account rather than Daniel Obachike's account? Why do people believe Peter Power (who has a career advantage in manipulating the media) over other witnesses (who have no experience of manipulating the media). These are pertinent questions.

Is this a case of believing who you want to believe to avoid the dissonance created by a controversial account or theory? Researchers are aware of the impact of 'cognitive dissonance' (indeed, I discuss the effects of cognitive dissonance with new researchers). It is the psychological process by which all people (including researchers) reduce their distress by accepting false accounts. It enables them to avoid examining controversial or contradictory evidence.
You might also wish to aquaint yourself with the concept of "lying". Obachike not only could not have made the journey he claims that would have resulted in him being on the No. 30 bus, but the very fact that he would chose to take that route makes no sense in relation to where he was living.

I've not read Obachike's book, but I have read discussions of his book by those who have read it. Daniel Obachike's book is a publication that captures the material in his internet blog. However imperfect that may be, others who have read the book state clearly that it documents the treatment he received by the police/anti-terrorist authorities after he was found on / near the Tavistock Square bus. He didn't cash in by writing a book straightaway. He started a blog documenting his treatment. After 7 months there were 440,000 people reading his blog (creating the market for a book). This being the case, the book is based on the blog (and retains spelling mistakes etc.). This does not appear to me to be the work of someone who set out to write a book about the 7/7 bombing - it was an accident of history that people were sufficiently interested in what was happening to him to make a book possible.

I don't expect - if it is a blog - for it to be an accurate detailed history. It does, however, provide clear evidence that there is a challenge to the official account of the fourth bomb. Nor is this the only evidence. The J7 web-site details another woman who refused to confirm there was only one bomb. She maintained there were two. (She was later found dead, allegedly committed 'suicide'). There is sufficient evidence, from more than one source, to question the official account of what occured at Tavistock Square, nor is Daniel Obachike the only person claiming that planted 'witnesses' were talking to the media. Further examples are available at J7 (based on YouTube video footage) of people talking about events, and their injuries, before people from the tube network had time to reach the surface.

I would suggest that you actually read Obachike's book before you continue to defend his claims. That fact that he IDed an actual Russell Square victim as his Tavistock Square "actor" does not make it true. Obachike has also presented what he claims is CCTV footage of himself in Tavistock Square to "prove" that he was there minutes after the explosion, even though close examination of that footage shows that it was shot at least an hour after he says he left the area.

I presume that the woman you are referring to is Richmal Oates-Whitehead, the New Zealand-born fantasist who fabricated medical qualifications to get a job with the BMA, and died of a natural cause a few weeks after 7/7:

New Zealand Herald: The colourful life and sad death of a fabulist (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/julie-middleton/news/article.cfm?a_id=100&objectid=10342653#)
The Guardian: The fantasy life and lonely death of woman hailed as heroine of July 7 bombing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/29/world.july7)

Clearly not the most credible of witnesses.

I am open to revising the paper for next year's classes based on the conversations we have here, providing the information provided can checks out (in the same way that John Hill's account was not presented in a paper until it too had checked out against the sources used).

A note on sources. The idea that some sources are 'credible' and some are not is the argument of a partisan person who is not interested in the truth. Whatever account is given, there is a reason for it. A good social scientist, particularly one writing from a critical perspective, does not dismiss a person's account without evidence, and does not dismiss a person's account if part of it turns out to be untrue. The BBC documentary can be seen in the same light. Even though it contains statements that are problematic - it was made to serve a purpose and contains some useful information not available elsewhere. It was produced for a reason, in a particular political context (i.e. the sending of 7/7 Ripple Effect to a judge in a court case about 7/7). The political/social reasons for producing misleading accounts can be as interesting as the reasons for providing a 'truthful' one.

Those in this thread, therefore, who are not interested in false statements are not social scientists. They are using natural science logic which should be rejected when dealing with issues of social science. Natural science logic is not helpful in seeking to understand accounts of events that serve various social or political purposes. These purposes are discussed in the paper and the 'bias' (if this is the term you prefer) of both documentaries is assessed and drawn to the attention of the reader.

Why some people chose to lie is, of course, interesting, but that does not mean that their claims should be treated with anything other than the contempt they deserve. A witness may be mistake by confusion, what they actually saw, etc., but if they make multiple claims of events and actions that are literally impossible, what credibility can be placed on the things they claim that can't be verified or disproved?

RHolmes

25th October 2009, 06:08 AM

A note on sources. The idea that some sources are 'credible' and some are not is the argument of a partisan person who is not interested in the truth.

Those in this thread, therefore, who are not interested in false statements are not social scientists. They are using natural science logic which should be rejected when dealing with issues of social science.

Really? Law is a social science and I'm fairly certain I know what response you'd get if you tried running these arguments in a courtroom.

IA:

Why some people chose to lie is, of course, interesting, but that does not mean that their claims should be treated with anything other than the contempt they deserve. A witness may be mistake by confusion, what they actually saw, etc., but if they make multiple claims of events and actions that are literally impossible, what credibility can be placed on the things they claim that can't be verified or disproved?

Exactly.

8den

25th October 2009, 08:03 AM

8den

25th October 2009, 08:09 AM

It does point out, however, that John Hill's theory is better able to account for something that no other theory of 7th July is able to explain.

This would be the same Mr Hill who claims he is the true king of the UK and Israeli, John Hill

On 13/June/1988, in fulfillment of prophecy, Muad’Dib (http://mtrial.org/muaddib) served a High Court Writ upon the British Parliament, at court in the City of Sheffield, demanding that He be acknowledged by Parliament as the Rightful British-Israel King. As soon as He takes power, He will immediately repeal all man-made “laws” which are all illegal according to God’s Law, and which enable the rich to “legally” steal from everyone else. He will also re-institute the "Year of Release", which is the forgiveness of debt every seven years, and the REAL "Jubilee" and begin to redistribute their share of the wealth that has been stolen from them back to the poor, and ban usury. The ban on private gun ownership will be repealed. All will have exactly the same powers to arrest persons committing real crimes.

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 10:36 AM

I used to live in Seven Sisters. That is an utterly ass backwards way of traveling to Old Street. The sane way is to get off at Seven Sisters andn take the 243 bus, which goes directly to Old Street.

He's essentially saying his regular route to work would overshoot his destination, and then get two trains to compensate to get back to where he wanted to go.
Yes, but then that was trying to make sense of his stated instention of taking the Victoria line all the way into King's Cross. A more logical option would have been to only take it to Highbury & Islington and switch to the WAGN line into Old Street in 5-8 minutes, which is obviously a quick cross-platform interchange there. That, of course, immediately begs the question of why someone who lived in Enfield wouldn't get one of the same trains direct from Enfield Chase in the first place. I said in Obachike's case the difference was an extra 420 metres walk, but obviously he could have hopped on a bus if one was passing, as well.

uk_dave

25th October 2009, 11:36 AM

Me like this thread, many. :D

8den

25th October 2009, 11:56 AM

Yes, but then that was trying to make sense of his stated instention of taking the Victoria line all the way into King's Cross. A more logical option would have been to only take it to Highbury & Islington and switch to the WAGN line into Old Street in 5-8 minutes, which is obviously a quick cross-platform interchange there. That, of course, immediately begs the question of why someone who lived in Enfield wouldn't get one of the same trains direct from Enfield Chase in the first place. I said in Obachike's case the difference was an extra 420 metres walk, but obviously he could have hopped on a bus if one was passing, as well.

Agreed I used to close to Seven Sisters, and later Bruce Grove. In fact I moved to Seven Sisters several weeks before the bombing. I've traveled the Edmonton Line in both directions many times, taking my dogs up to Cheshunt, and travelling into Liverpool St, and Soho, I cannot fault your logic.

I find it hilarious that one of the man arguments about the 7/7 bombers is the "impossible" journey from Leeds, yet heres the guy used constantly to prove the Bus bomb was "staged" coming up with this absolutely bat guano commute for himself, that doesn't make sense on a normal day to day basis never mind the strange journey he "took" that day.

McHrozni

25th October 2009, 11:57 AM

Although there are obvious and unfortunate similarities, in no way can this be described as, "precisely the same locations," as in real life.

Unfortunate? I'd say this is only evidence that the ones who designed the exercise were doing their job properly. It's their job to determine where terrorist attacks are most likely to occur, after all.

McHrozni

8den

25th October 2009, 12:05 PM

Unfortunate? I'd say this is only evidence that the ones who designed the exercise were doing their job properly. It's their job to determine where terrorist attacks are most likely to occur, after all.

McHrozni

Not to mention that Kings Cross is an excellent choice for the exercise. There was an extensive fire there in the 80s, and the report into that detailed how the station was evacuated.

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 03:24 PM

Rubbish. Sources are credible if their statements accord with the evidence. Sources are not credible if their statements do not accord with reality.

Again this is rubbish. Evidence has been provided to show that at least some of the claims entertained in your article are physically impossible.

No amount of handwaving about the nature of truth can alter the fact that the events (irrespective of whether they occured according to the accepted narrative) of that day happened in the physical world .

It is, if those statements can be shown to be inconsistent with reality.

You are forgetting that you are making assumptions about reality based on your own theory of what that reality is. There is no escape from your own perception and cognition. On what is this perception and cognition based? It is based on your theory of what happened that day.

Virtually every philosopher of note would accept that even if there is an objective reality 'out there', no human can access it except through their own perception of it. So all this talk of being 'consistent with reality' shows your lack of knowledge of both philosophy and research. Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality. We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

I would urge you to move beyond seeing everything from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth. The paper can help you with that.

Rory

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 03:35 PM

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 04:06 PM

You say:

"I would suggest that you actually read Obachike's book before you continue to defend his claims."

I don't defend his claims. I set out what the claims are, and how they are different from the claims of Peter Power. The only point made in the paper is that Peter Power's statements are contested. This is self-evidently true.

If we're getting into the question of how reliable witnesses are, then we can ask why Peter Power was moved to another police force rather than face a police inquiry. His honesty is also under serious doubt. He too is 'not a reliable witness'. Why are you not drawing attention to this? (I could have done, but chose not to).

In any case, as far as 7/7 Ripple Effect goes, Peter Power is not accused of lying - he is theorised as either a dupe or an accomplice. In a subsequent interview, John Hill discusses at length the evidence for Peter Power being a dupe, rather than an accomplice. He does raise the question - entirely reasonable in my view - of why he was not questioned by police about 7th July 2005.

So let's put Daniel Obachike to bed. There are, at most, two sentences in a 10,000 word paper that refer to one interview he gave (and one reference to his book to support a claim that Peter Power's account is contested). That Peter Power's statements are contested is a fact, even if you do not believe the person who is contesting Peter Power's account.

Why not turn attention to the substance of the paper? Why not turn attention to the substantial amount of evidence presented about Canary Wharf (this is the title of the paper, after all)?

There are eye-witness accounts even though people continue to claim there are not. Why is this?

Best wishes
Rory

funk de fino

25th October 2009, 04:14 PM

Sorry mate, this is embarassing. You should not be teaching anyone anything. Especially after giving a list of sources including the kings of woo.

7/7 CT's are junk.

Bring your best Canary Wharf stuff here.

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 04:40 PM

You say:

"You advanced the theory that the four bombers were part of Power's "exercise," but the only corroboration you offered that it was not desk/office-based was Obachike's claims. You therefore have no corroboration. This is quite apart from the fact that if it did involve people on the ground, why is there no other witness or documentary evidence to back that up?"

You've clearly not read the paper.
Now you really are being patronising. I've read it several times. If you want, I can give you a point-by-point breakdown of all the errors, misassumptions, and untruths that you have fallen for.
I don't advance this theory. John Hill advances this theory. I set out both the BBC/Government theory and John Hill's theory and then evaluate them. I don't put forward a theory of my own.
No, you inherently advance it by treating it as credible, based on "evidence" that does not bear close examination. Conspiracists are adept at cherry-picking the "evidence" that fits their theories, whilst ignoring anything that contradicts them. Your mistake has been in only looking at what the conspiracists have said, which naturally will not include anything so obviously contradictory.
In evaluating these theories using a coherence theory of truth, the paper offers additional evidence based on the statistical probability of the official and alternative theory being true. So, you have a choice of believing something that is less likely that winning the lottery at the first attempt (the 'official' theory) or something that is almost 100% likely (the 'alternative' theory). We're talking here about the likelihood of four men choosing the same day, same number and location of targets at roughly the same time as Peter Power. If they were not invited to participate by Peter Power, the chances of this are less likely than winning the lottery at the first attempt. If they were invited, the likelihood is almost 100% certain.
I find it rather incredible that you are continuing to repeat the myth about Power's locations being "the same" as those in real life, since it is clear from the map that I posted that they were not. At best, one explosion in real life was on a train moving away from one of Power's locations (Liverpool Street), whilst another (the Picadilly line train) was between two of his (King's Cross & Russell Square). His fourth location (Chancery Lane) was nowhere near either of the other two actual explosions (Edgware Road & Tavistock Square). The real explosions were on trains in transit; Power's scenario was bombs in stations, one of which being the mainline and not Underground part of it. Similar, but self-evidently not "the same".

As to the idea of four bombers choosing to target three trains in transit and one surface vehicle, that was exactly the scenario of Panorama: London Under Attack in May 2004. What's more likely, three patsies in Leeds being duped by sinister dark forces in London, or three would-be terrorists taking a cue from a TV programme 14 months earlier? It's not rocket science.
As for 'other' evidence of witness, there are other examples on the J7 web site (as mentioned in another post). I used one well known example to illustrate the contested nature of Peter Power's statements.
Well, as far as I can see, the only witnesses you've identified or alluded to are the thoroughly discredited Daniel Obachike, and rather sad fantasist Richmal Oates-Whitehead. Anyone else you want to offer up for this shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise?

Information Analyst

25th October 2009, 04:50 PM

Why not turn attention to the substance of the paper? Why not turn attention to the substantial amount of evidence presented about Canary Wharf (this is the title of the paper, after all)?
Did you bother geograpically mapping the claims in the various reports? Have you assertained how many people would have been at Canary Wharf at the time? Are you aware that Canary Wharf is designated by the police as a high-profile target for terrorist attack, so deployment of a large number of officers there is planned for?

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 04:51 PM

Although there are obvious and unfortunate similarities, in no way can this be described as, "precisely the same locations," as in real life.

These are not by any means the only factual errors and mis-assumptions in your paper, which sadly will only encourage the conspiracy theory fringe from which most of them seem to originate. I would also echo JFM's suggestion that you are being patronising, especially in your comment that people should read the paper. I did read it, and the numerous flaws apparent in it were why I brought it to attention here, naturally with a link so that others could read it themselves.

I thank you for sharing this information - I'll check it out for next year's course. At the same time, it is reasonable to point out that both the BBC and 7/7 Ripple Effect documentaries show video footage of Peter Power himself saying that explosions are at almost precisely the same locations as the bombs. If Peter Power says this, it is surely reasonable to express it in these terms in the paper?

Your comment regarding the "conspiracy theory fringe" is interesting - it gives away your attitude somewhat. I'd never questioned 7/7 until 6th September 2009 when I was preparing for a philosophy course. In the past, I'd used 9/11 material and the Madeleine McCann story to illustrate the variability of press reports. I was looking for something new to generate debate about 'truth' (the assignment topic for the course).

I came across the BBC Conspiracy File programme and felt it was a much poorer piece of journalism that I would typically expect from the BBC. It motivated me to watch the 7/7 Ripple Effect documentary to see what the fuss was about. After checking out the sources underpinning the 7/7 Ripple Effect claims about Canary Wharf, and finding they existed and had not been distorted, I did a full search of news databases, blogs and discussion archives. This is the substance of the paper and I would interested if you can find 'numerous flaws' in these press reports. I was extremely careful regarding the discussion of train times. Did you find any 'flaws' here?

You need to remember that I'm putting forward John Hill's and the BBC's theories, not my own. Are you quite sure you are not attributing to me errors that are made by the BBC or John Hill? If you are doing so, then you are clearly seeking to misrepresent both me and the paper.

Best wishes
Rory

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 05:14 PM

Your mistake has been in only looking at what the conspiracists have said, which naturally will not include anything so obviously contradictory.

I did a search for every press report from Canary Wharf about a shooting between 7th July and 30th July. I am not, therefore, cherry-picking evidence but presenting the fullest account that anyone has presented on this particular aspect of 7/7. Nor have I ever contributed a paper about 9/11 or 7/7 before to any forum, journal or newspaper. I did so on this occasion because I felt, after watching both documentaries, that the BBC documentary was seriously misleading viewers.

The paper clearly considers the views expressed by journalists at the Times Online, Daily Mail, Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC and other reputable sources (e.g. Reuters). Are you saying that all these people are conspiracy theorists? Or are you attempting to priviledge some sources over others with which you do not agree?

I took the time and trouble to write to Michael Rudin who produced the BBC series. Are you claiming he is a conspiracy theorist? I quote his response at two different points in the paper to give credence to those claiming press reports are 'hearsay'. The paper draws attention to evidence that contradicts claims in 7/7 Ripple Effect. I made extensive efforts to draw attention to contradictions from the perspective of both documentary makers, and make explicit the political bias of both documentary makers.

I say again - you have either not read the paper properly, with an open mind, or are seeking to deliberately misrepresent both it and me to people in this forum. You clearly have a political reason for doing so that you are not sharing with people here.

As for selectivity, all writing uses evidence selectively. Nobody can include a discussion of everything. And all accounts are socially constructed (including my own): there is no escape from that.

This academic paper is already longer than is normal. Typically, they would be about 6,000 - 8,000 words. I allowed it to grow to 10,000 words in an attempt to do justice to the complexity of the issues under discussion.

Best wishes
Rory

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 05:21 PM

Did you bother geograpically mapping the claims in the various reports? Have you assertained how many people would have been at Canary Wharf at the time? Are you aware that Canary Wharf is designated by the police as a high-profile target for terrorist attack, so deployment of a large number of officers there is planned for?

Why are you asking these questions? I CLEARLY address the issue of Canary Wharf being a high profile target in the discussions contained in the paper.

I note the countries in which the reports appear. People can read for themselves which reports are based on eye-witness accounts, and which are not.

By asking these questions you are seeking to imply that they are not obvious to the reader, or have been obscured. They have not been.

I say again. You've either not read the paper, or are deliberately seeking to misrepresent it.

Rory

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 05:31 PM

What's more likely, three patsies in Leeds being duped by sinister dark forces in London, or three would-be terrorists taking a cue from a TV programme 14 months earlier? It's not rocket science.

There is no evidence that any of the alleged terrorist watched the Panorama programme. Please provide this evidence if you have it.

So others reading this discussion understand what was actually stated in the latest iteration of the academic paper, I quote it below. As you can see, I ask exactly the same question that you pose:

"The switch to a coherence theory of truth presents an immediate problem for the BBC / Government theory. Concern over the ‘coincidence’ of four bombers attacking London at the precise moment Peter Power was running a mock terrorism exercise led the BBC to record an interview with him in its rebuttal of 7/7 Ripple Effect. Peter Power explains the coincidence as a product of good intelligence from previous attacks by the IRA.

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets. Put simply:

- What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible. The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

- What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism exercise would travel to the same 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."

It would be sensible to change 'exact locations' to 'almost the same locations', but I stress that the language used in the questions above is the same as the language used by Peter Power himself and TV journalists on 7th July.

Hope this clears up any doubt for those following this thread.

Rory

roryridleyduff

25th October 2009, 05:48 PM

You say:

"Well, as far as I can see, the only witnesses you've identified or alluded to are the thoroughly discredited Daniel Obachike, and rather sad fantasist Richmal Oates-Whitehead. Anyone else you want to offer up for this shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise?"

Here are a list of the "witnesses" named in the paper:

Peter Power
Daniel Obachike
Pammy (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
Gus (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
DavidB (at Ceroc Scotland Forum)
Brendan Spinks (a Canadian "investment banker at HSBC")
Lucy Hyslop (Senior Editor, Daily Telegraph)
James Starnes
Felicity Lawlor

As the paper says:

"The BBC response is helpful, but not entirely persuasive. Globe and Mail name Canadian Brendan Spinks as an eye-witness account of extensive police activity. Lucy Hyslop, who filed a report with the Vancouver Sun, describes the situation that day, as well as the lock down that occurred at Canary Wharf where she works. As a “senior editor” at the Daily Telegraph, she is an accessible media source, and her story includes a claim that a friend called her regarding the shootings. James Starnes, a citizen reporter, is his own ‘eye-witness’ to a radio station that was carrying a story about a shooting. All these people could be traced to clarify what they witnessed first hand, and establish how the story broke. While the BBC response correctly states that no reporter, blogger or forum contributor claims to be an eye witness to the shootings, the blogs and discussion forum contributions are verbatim first hand reports, carrying more credibility than second-hand BBC reports. Their credibility does not depend on endorsement or confirmation by a government or state authority."

Are you going to let this go yet?

Rory

funk de fino

25th October 2009, 06:17 PM

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets. Put simply:

- What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible. The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

Stop repeating this nonsense. It's like the NORAD excercise on 911 crap.

Matthew Best

25th October 2009, 07:00 PM

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible.

Did 7/7 Ripple Effect show their calculations? Or did they just obtain the odds by rectal extraction?

8den

25th October 2009, 07:56 PM

Rory, Are you really

I set out both the BBC/Government theory and John Hill's theory and then evaluate them.

Equating some lunatic who thinks he's the king of England and Israeli with some credible BBC journalists?

Brainster

25th October 2009, 08:25 PM

What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

You are ignoring post #7 which clearly shows that the terrorists did not travel to the exact locations selected by Peter Power.

I'd flip the question around: What is the likelihood that Peter Power would go on TV and effectively confess his involvement in the 7/7 bombings?

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 01:09 AM

Agreed I used to close to Seven Sisters, and later Bruce Grove. In fact I moved to Seven Sisters several weeks before the bombing. I've traveled the Edmonton Line in both directions many times, taking my dogs up to Cheshunt, and travelling into Liverpool St, and Soho, I cannot fault your logic.

I find it hilarious that one of the man arguments about the 7/7 bombers is the "impossible" journey from Leeds, yet heres the guy used constantly to prove the Bus bomb was "staged" coming up with this absolutely bat guano commute for himself, that doesn't make sense on a normal day to day basis never mind the strange journey he "took" that day.
Of course, one final anomaly is that having failed to change to the Northern line at King's Cross, Obachike stayed on the Victoria line train for 7+ minutes whilst it stopped there, rather than him immediately changing to the southbound Northern line there. Had thne Victoria line train moved with him on it, it would have taken him even further away from where he was supposed to be going. Plus, it was only in the process of actually leaving the train that he claims that it was announced over the PA system that the station was being evacuated due to a security alert, which resulted in him being on the mainline concourse at 09:06. The problem there is that the Code Amber alert to evacuate the Underground system wasn't declared until 09:20, and there is no evidence that Euston was cleared earlier than that.

RHolmes

26th October 2009, 01:25 AM

Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality.

If, by saying that I am/other posters are talking about inconsistency with my/their theory of reality, you are ascribing a motive for finding some sources less credible than others, then quit it. You're not a mind-reader.

Yes, our perception is a map, not the reality. But I really hope - for the sake of your students - that you'll agree that this (http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/physical_world_map_1600px.jpg) is a more accurate map than this (http://courses.essex.ac.uk/LT/LT361/images/world%20maps/hereford_mappamundi_02.jpg). No, we don't have perfect access to reality, but our perception is not random and we do have ways of limiting distortion.

Incidentally, from a strict philosophical standpoint, I agree with you about law. But I doubt you're willing to take that view to the conclusion you hint at with the word "conceit": that we can have no faith that the findings of a court have any basis in reality. For all practical purposes, the approach of law courts is a decent way of finding out what happened. And we can use a similar approach in assessing the competing accounts of 7/7.

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 01:26 AM

I thank you for sharing this information - I'll check it out for next year's course. At the same time, it is reasonable to point out that both the BBC and 7/7 Ripple Effect documentaries show video footage of Peter Power himself saying that explosions are at almost precisely the same locations as the bombs. If Peter Power says this, it is surely reasonable to express it in these terms in the paper?
It is reasonable to point out it out, but highly irresponsible of you to have not also pointed out that Power's locations were clearly not exactly the same as the ones in real life. I've suggested above that from Power's perspective - i.e. as someone who had presumably been working on his scenario for some time (and no doubt it was an adaptation of "stock variation" used previously for other clients) - what he said was not wholely unreasonable, bout for anyone "outside" the similarities are less obvious.
Your comment regarding the "conspiracy theory fringe" is interesting - it gives away your attitude somewhat.
I'm a plain-speaking Yorkshireman - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'll call it a duck.
I'd never questioned 7/7 until 6th September 2009 when I was preparing for a philosophy course. In the past, I'd used 9/11 material and the Madeleine McCann story to illustrate the variability of press reports. I was looking for something new to generate debate about 'truth' (the assignment topic for the course).

I came across the BBC Conspiracy File programme and felt it was a much poorer piece of journalism that I would typically expect from the BBC. It motivated me to watch the 7/7 Ripple Effect documentary to see what the fuss was about. After checking out the sources underpinning the 7/7 Ripple Effect claims about Canary Wharf, and finding they existed and had not been distorted, I did a full search of news databases, blogs and discussion archives. This is the substance of the paper and I would interested if you can find 'numerous flaws' in these press reports. I was extremely careful regarding the discussion of train times. Did you find any 'flaws' here?
The flaws lie in your selective use of sources, but also how you present and describe some of your "evidence." As an example, I would suggest that you look again at your Figure 2 and reconsider your description of what you say it shows.
You need to remember that I'm putting forward John Hill's and the BBC's theories, not my own. Are you quite sure you are not attributing to me errors that are made by the BBC or John Hill? If you are doing so, then you are clearly seeking to misrepresent both me and the paper.
No, I think that there is plenty that you are misrepresenting yourself, both in your interpretation of both of them, but also the selective nature of the other "evidence" you presented.

McHrozni

26th October 2009, 02:55 AM

Did 7/7 Ripple Effect show their calculations? Or did they just obtain the odds by rectal extraction?

I think they made something like this:
- assume all stations in greater London area are picked completely at random by terrorists
- assume all stations in greater London area are picked completely at random by the ones making the extercise
- assume terrorist pick an hour for the attack at random, with all hours of the day being equally likely
- assume the people making the exercise also work at a completely random hour of the day
- assume only one exercise takes place in a 10 year period
- assume terrorists pick a day at random, with all days being equally likely
- make a few other such assumptions

Rectal extraction is a close approximation.

McHrozni

gtc

26th October 2009, 03:45 AM

You are forgetting that you are making assumptions about reality based on your own theory of what that reality is.

This statement makes little sense in and of itself. As a response to what I wrote it, your statement makes no sense.

There is no escape from your own perception and cognition.

Alcohol, drugs, suicide. They all provide an escape.

On what is this perception and cognition based?

On my knowledge of the laws of physics and my knowledge of transportation.

It is based on your theory of what happened that day.

See above.

Virtually every philosopher of note would accept that even if there is an objective reality 'out there', no human can access it except through their own perception of it.

And virtually every philosopher and scientist would accept that your accounts of the events of 7/7 is crap.

So all this talk of being 'consistent with reality' shows your lack of knowledge of both philosophy and research.

Get off your high horse, you have no idea what my knowledge of philosophy and research is.

Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality.

Yes. I believe that reality is such that the journey as described above was near impossible. I believe that claims of extra judicial killings require evidence to be believed.

We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

Non sequitur. However, you seem to have no desire for discussion.

I would urge you to move beyond seeing everything from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth. The paper can help you with that.

Rory

I would urge you to think before you accept bogus conspiracy theories.

gtc

26th October 2009, 03:49 AM

If Peter Power says this, it is surely reasonable to express it in these terms in the paper?

A first year undergraduate would know that this is false. Just because a source claims something does not mean that the source is reliable.

I'd used 9/11 material and the Madeleine McCann story to illustrate the variability of press reports.

Out of interest, what are your views on 9/11?

The paper clearly considers the views expressed by journalists at the Times Online, Daily Mail, Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC and other reputable sources (e.g. Reuters). Are you saying that all these people are conspiracy theorists?

False dichotomy. They could simply have been wrongly repeating a claim made by others.

You clearly have a political reason for doing so that you are not sharing with people here.

Don't be coy. Tell us what political reason you think he has.

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible.

Why do you accept what 7/7 Ripple Effect 'calculates' without question?

The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

That is another false dichotomy. All the evidence indicates that it was a coincidence. Given the number of anti-terrorism exercises being run in London, it is a near certainty that there would be similarities in time and space between any actual attack and at least one exercise. You also haven't addressed how he might have recruited four Muslim men, let alone whether there is any evidence that he did do so.

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

- What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism exercise would travel to the same 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."

If A implies B that does not mean that B implies A.

It would be sensible to change 'exact locations' to 'almost the same locations', but I stress that the language used in the questions above is the same as the language used by Peter Power himself and TV journalists on 7th July.

And almost the correct lottery numbers and a pound buys you a 99.

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 04:00 AM

I did a search for every press report from Canary Wharf about a shooting between 7th July and 30th July. I am not, therefore, cherry-picking evidence but presenting the fullest account that anyone has presented on this particular aspect of 7/7. Nor have I ever contributed a paper about 9/11 or 7/7 before to any forum, journal or newspaper. I did so on this occasion because I felt, after watching both documentaries, that the BBC documentary was seriously misleading viewers.
I would put it to you that you "felt" that only because you were unaware of the serious flaws in Hill's "documentary" and accepted his false claims that contradicted the official account and - by extension - Conpiracy Files.

The paper clearly considers the views expressed by journalists at the Times Online, Daily Mail, Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the BBC and other reputable sources (e.g. Reuters). Are you saying that all these people are conspiracy theorists? Or are you attempting to priviledge some sources over others with which you do not agree?

I took the time and trouble to write to Michael Rudin who produced the BBC series. Are you claiming he is a conspiracy theorist? I quote his response at two different points in the paper to give credence to those claiming press reports are 'hearsay'. The paper draws attention to evidence that contradicts claims in 7/7 Ripple Effect. I made extensive efforts to draw attention to contradictions from the perspective of both documentary makers, and make explicit the political bias of both documentary makers.

I say again - you have either not read the paper properly, with an open mind, or are seeking to deliberately misrepresent both it and me to people in this forum. You clearly have a political reason for doing so that you are not sharing with people here.
No, Rory, I have no political agenda, only a rationalist agenda. If you want to know where exactly I'm coming from, then you can read my blog post on the issue of 7/7 conspiracy theories here (http://theinformationanalyst.blogspot.com/). It it worth noting, of course, that once I'd got that out of my system three months ago, I did not get round to any subsequent posts, but that was for lack of time to do so, rather than things to write about (even my main blog (http://nickcooper625.blogspot.com/) suffers from the same thing).

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 04:58 AM

Why are you asking these questions? I CLEARLY address the issue of Canary Wharf being a high profile target in the discussions contained in the paper.

I note the countries in which the reports appear. People can read for themselves which reports are based on eye-witness accounts, and which are not.

By asking these questions you are seeking to imply that they are not obvious to the reader, or have been obscured. They have not been.

I say again. You've either not read the paper, or are deliberately seeking to misrepresent it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. By geographic mapping, I was referring to locations claimed for witnesses, the shootings, etc., not where the reports appeared. The distinction between "Canary Wharf" as the general area, and the building popularly referred to as "Canary Wharf" is highly likely to have been lost on most people, whether in the UK or outside of it. It is possible that someone referring to the area may have been misinterpreted as referring to the specific building, or vice versa.

The various reports have either one or two people being shot outside either the HSBC Tower or the Canary Wharf building itself - properly One Canada Square - and/or one outside the Credit-Suisse building. The HSBC and Credit-Suisse buildings are about 450 metres apart, on the north side of the same road, with Credit-Suisse to the west and HSBC to the east. On the south side of the same road, one third of the way between HSBC and Credit-Suisse, is One Canada Square. The Reuters building lies to the south-west of One Canada Square, and to south-east of Credit-Suisse, the latter across a wide open plaza. One shooting site would be highly visible enough, considering the large spaces between the various buildings, but the potential witness for two so widely separated would be enormous. I think you may find Google Earth useful in realising the nature of the geographical layout of the area in question.

Of course, the most sensible question to ask would be why anyone would need to be dealt with in this way in the first place? If they weren't "genuine" terrorists, why weren't they just bundled into black Transits and spirited away? If they were shot, why would it be necessary - even if it were actually possible - to cover it up, whether they were genuine or not? Why would it require keeping people away from windows for "six hours"? If Canary Wharf as an area was "locked-down," how did the men who were supposedly shot infiltrate it, bearing in mind the limited numbers of access points across the histroic docks, even assuming they had the local knowledge to be familiar with them?

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 05:21 AM

There is no evidence that any of the alleged terrorist watched the Panorama programme. Please provide this evidence if you have it.

Oh, come now. One would-be terrorist missing a widely-publicised drama documentary about terrorist attacks on London 14 months before they carried one out themselves might just be plausible, but four of them?

So others reading this discussion understand what was actually stated in the latest iteration of the academic paper, I quote it below. As you can see, I ask exactly the same question that you pose:

"The switch to a coherence theory of truth presents an immediate problem for the BBC / Government theory. Concern over the ‘coincidence’ of four bombers attacking London at the precise moment Peter Power was running a mock terrorism exercise led the BBC to record an interview with him in its rebuttal of 7/7 Ripple Effect. Peter Power explains the coincidence as a product of good intelligence from previous attacks by the IRA.

While this may explain the issue of which locations were chosen, it does not explain why the four Muslim men and Peter Power would both choose the same targets. Put simply:

- What is the likelihood that four men living in Leeds would travel to London on the same day, at roughly the same time, to the exact locations selected for a simulated terrorism exercise organised by Peter Power, if they had not been invited to participate?

7/7 Ripple Effect calculates the odds of this occurring by chance as less likely than a person playing the UK National Lottery once in their lifetime and winning the jackpot. This being the case, the BBC / Government theory becomes incoherent and implausible. The key issue is whether it is more likely that four terrorists could infiltrate the organisation of a person who makes his living from providing counter-terrorism training, or that a person making his living from counter terrorism expertise could recruit four Muslim men to make his training materials appear as real as possible?

The issue is crystalised when we reverse the question and ask it from the theoretical perspective of 7/7 Ripple Effect:

- What is the likelihood that four men agreeing to participate in Peter Power’s mock terrorism exercise would travel to the same 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."

It would be sensible to change 'exact locations' to 'almost the same locations', but I stress that the language used in the questions above is the same as the language used by Peter Power himself and TV journalists on 7th July.

Hope this clears up any doubt for those following this thread.
You fail to factor in that it - I'm sure you'll agree - it can't have been the only such exercise Visor ran that year, and no doubt many of them will be broadly similar, with suitable specific changes to suit their clients. Go to Visor's website and it is clear the type of work they do, what they offer their clients (including the nature and regularity of such exercises), and indeed a partial list of the clients they have. I wouldn't expect Visor to disclose full details of their business, but it seems very foolish to claim outlandish levels of coincidence when they would clearly not be doing just one such exercise in a whole year. That is, of course, quite apart from the fact that many other companies offer similar services, and there are hundreds of potential clients in Lodnon alone. As I have said before, personally I would have found it more strange if someone could have proved that nobody was doing something along the lines of Visor's exercise that day.

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 05:31 AM

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 05:44 AM

Equating some lunatic who thinks he's the king of England and Israeli with some credible BBC journalists?
Hill's claims of royalty, of course, being notably absent from Dr Ridley-Duff's paper. The BBC's subservience to governmental control, meanwhile, is claimed on pages 13, 14, and 15.

Graham2001

26th October 2009, 06:19 AM

8den

26th October 2009, 06:37 AM

While not having read the article in question it is pretty clear what kind of academic the author is.

The typical post-modernist who accepts all sources as truth, unless of course they are official ones in which case they can be dismissed without consideration... and the sort of person who would, after the death of the last veteran publish a paper arguing that World War One never happened because there are no direct witnesses.

roryridleyduff[/B]]Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality. We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

I must try and use this as a defence in a murder trial.

"You see m'Lord while dozens of witnesses put me at the scene of the crime, the CCTV puts me at the crime, the forensics all point towards me, but I respectively suggest that in my perception of reality none of the above happened."

Roryridelyduff you can stuff your semantics and pretentious waffling, people died, people are living with crippling injuries, and you're posting the delusional ravings of nutters opinion about this doesn't effect the "reality" of this.

Alferd_Packer

26th October 2009, 06:55 AM

OK, here goes....

In his book, Obachike implies that his usual route to work that week involved walking from his home to Enfield Town railway station, catching the 08:27 train to Liverpool Street station, then changing to the London Underground to complete the journey to his office at Old Street. Logically this would mean taking a Circle/Metropolitan/Hammersmith & City line train to Moorgate station, then changing to the northbound Northern line to go one stop to Old Street station. Obachike says that this would get him to his desk before, "the petulant manager came a-hovering minutes after 9" (p. 5).

On 7 July, however, he missed the 08:27 train, and so had to get the next one, but en route he changed to the Victoria line at Seven Sisters station (six stops after Enfield Town, and eight before Liverpool Street) for no adequately explained reason. The logical alternative route would have been him taking the Victoria line all the way to King's Cross station, before changing to the southbound Northern Line two stops to Old Street station. He says, "a glance at his watch told him it was almost 9 o'clock" (p. 10) as they approached King's Cross/St Pancras, but it was announced that the station was closed, so the train passed through without stopping. Once at Euston, he states that the train doors remained open for "minutes," then "another 5 minutes later passenger's frustrations began to tell," before most progressively began to leave, himself included, their exit slowed due to the power to the escalators to the mainline surface station being off. From personal familiarity with the station layout at Euston, it is hard to accept that someone could reached the surface in less than ten minutes under these circumstances. At the very least, then, it would have at least 18 minutes between the arrival of the train and Obachike reaching the surface, which he claims he actually did by 09:06. He then spent a further 25 minutes milling around with other displaced communters, before eventually boarding the No. 30 bus and departing at 09:31.

There are a number of problems with both his claimed usual route, and the one he says he actually took on the day. In the first instance, in July 2005 the 08:27 from Enfield Town was not timetabled to arrive at Liverpool Street until 09:04, so with another ten minutes to get to Old Street by Underground, it's hard to see how Obachike could have been at his desk by 09:20, let alone "minutes after 9."

As he actually missed the 08:27, the next train was not until 08:49, arriving at Liverpool Street at 09:26. It would have arrived at Seven Sisters 1-to-3 minutes before it was timetabled to leave there at 09:03, but then taken him around four minutes to change to the Underground, and another 10 minutes to get from there to King's Cross, so he could not have been approaching that station at "almost 9 o'clock." Even with trains non-stopping at King's Cross, he could not have reached Euston until around 09:16-09:18, assuming that he got straight onto an immediately departing Victoria line train at Seven Sisters, meaning he could not have been on the Euston mainline concourse until 09:34-09:36, after the No. 30 had departed, never mind allowing his 25 minutes elapsing before that happened.

This all assumes that Obachike took the route he says he did. As noted, he claims he walked from his home to Enfield Town station, which is a distance of about 460 metres, to take a 37 minute train to Liverpool Street, followed by a further Underground journey with an additional change to Old Street. In the oppose direction, 880 metres away from Obachike's home, is Enfield Chase station, from which he could take a 24 minute train on a different line direct to Old Street. In July 2005 the timetabled departures and arrivals at Enfield Chase and Old Street were respectively:

08:17 - 08:45
08:27 - 08:52
08:34 - 08:58
08:39 - 09:04
08:58 - 09:24
09:02 - 09:28

The only Enfield Town to Liverpool Street services in the same timeframe were:

08:12 - 08:47
08:27 - 09:04
08:49 - 09:26
09:04 - 09:38

All the issues of whether Obachike's described route could actually get him to Euston in time to be on the No. 30 bus aside, it does not seem credible that that for the sake of not walking an additional 420 metres, he would make a more complex journey (i.e. three changes rather than none) that would take at least 22 minutes longer every single day, let alone one on which he was already running late. Ironically, elsewhere in his book Obachike actually makes the point that savvy commuters, "naturally opt for (the) quickest and most straightforward journey" (p.123).

Historic timetables:

Enfield CHase to Old Street (http://web.archive.org/web/20051028041316/www.wagn.co.uk/wlive/docs/6095-GN-inner.pdf)

Enfield Town to Liverpool Street (http://web.archive.org/web/20051030003541/http://www.onerailway.com/timetable/timetables/downloads/june_12_2005/West+Anglia+Comp+Booklet.pdf)

Good show, Miss Marple. ;)

8den

26th October 2009, 07:02 AM

Good show, Miss Marple. ;)

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

Professor Yaffle

26th October 2009, 07:06 AM

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

English? Taggart????

Alferd_Packer

26th October 2009, 07:13 AM

Sorry, I just finished reading the Agatha Christie book, 4.50 from Paddington, the other day, and that is what struck me.

Train timetables appear to be a staple device in English murder mysteries.

8den

26th October 2009, 07:27 AM

English? Taggart????

In my defence I also included Bergerac and he's from Jersey.

Thanks for the heads up though, it'll give me a chance to get a head start from all the irate scotsmen*

*could the most redundant use of the word "irate."

sleahead

26th October 2009, 10:36 AM

In order to move the action to Canary Wharf, Hill tries to explain away the obvious action someone placed in his scenario would take: telephone family, friends or anyone trustworthy and explain how they had been 'set up'.

The phones are all not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by the authorities, so they cannot phone anyone to tell them what has happened. What can they do to prevent themselves from being wrongly blamed for the explosions? What would you do in that situation?

He does not provide a shred of evidence for the jammed phone network and neither does Mr Ridley-Duff. It is true that the moblie network suffered overload, but that did not really kick in until around 10:00am. There are accounts of survivors being evacuated from the tube 50 minutes after the bombs went off and then placing mobile calls to their partners, relatives or workplace to tell them that they were OK. There would have been ample time for the four to have contacted somebody. It is true that City of London Police restricted access to one network, 02, but that did not happen until noon. And then there are the landlines. Is the claim that they were all down too?

One more problem with the bombers as Peter Power's dupes. Did they tell anybody that they were to take part in a terrorist simulation in London? It's not an everyday occurence for three Yorkshire muslims and worthy of some gossip, I would expect. When two of them were tricked into making martyrdom videos, did either of them say to anyone "guess what I did today - I made a martyrdom video for a terrorist simulation I'm going to be invoved with". No, I don't think they did.

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 12:47 PM

In order to move the action to Canary Wharf, Hill tries to explain away the obvious action someone placed in his scenario would take: telephone family, friends or anyone trustworthy and explain how they had been 'set up'.

He does not provide a shred of evidence for the jammed phone network and neither does Mr Ridley-Duff. It is true that the moblie network suffered overload, but that did not really kick in until around 10:00am. There are accounts of survivors being evacuated from the tube 50 minutes after the bombs went off and then placing mobile calls to their partners, relatives or workplace to tell them that they were OK. There would have been ample time for the four to have contacted somebody. It is true that City of London Police restricted access to one network, 02, but that did not happen until noon. And then there are the landlines. Is the claim that they were all down too?

Indeed. Perhaps Hill has come convincement that people are so wedded to their mobile that they wouldn't dream of using a payphone? As per my previously mentioned blog, I was getting telephone calls and texts in north london, but crucially some of them were from the mobiles of friends who had made it into central london, including one working near Warren Sreet and another near Paddington. The network restriction requested by City of London police was, of course, only for a one mile radius around Aldgate.

One more problem with the bombers as Peter Power's dupes. Did they tell anybody that they were to take part in a terrorist simulation in London? It's not an everyday occurence for three Yorkshire muslims and worthy of some gossip, I would expect. When two of them were tricked into making martyrdom videos, did either of them say to anyone "guess what I did today - I made a martyrdom video for a terrorist simulation I'm going to be invoved with". No, I don't think they did.
And, of course, if Power was in the habit of sure hiring for his work, you'd think that at least one person previously employed would have said something by now.

dudalb

26th October 2009, 02:13 PM

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

How DARE you leave out Peter Whimsy?

GlennB

26th October 2009, 02:31 PM

How DARE you leave out Peter Whimsy?

And Shoestring

Rolfe

26th October 2009, 02:33 PM

Five Red Herrings?

Dammit, I spotted something about a high-profile murder in Brookman's Park in the 1980s that hinged on the railway timetables, and the fact that the victim didn't have a copy of the new autumn timetable when she left on her journey into London. I didn't call Crimewatch because I couldn't believe the investigators hadn't spotted it themselves. If I'd called, they'd have found the body weeks before it actually came to light. I don't think they ever realised what had probably happened - that the victim decided to walk from the preceding station because she caught a non-stopping train, and was murdered on the line path.

Rolfe.

gtc

26th October 2009, 03:28 PM

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

DI Monkfish.

Information Analyst

26th October 2009, 03:42 PM

Oh thats a poor show. You couldn't have picked a better English detective for the poor man?

The Sweeney? Sherlock Holmes? Taggart? Gene Hunt? Christ even Bergerac...

Well, in light of my avatar, I would have to say...

http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/050707/images/potato_s.jpg

The Amazing Detective Potato!

dropzone

26th October 2009, 03:46 PM

I didn't call Crimewatch because I couldn't believe the investigators hadn't spotted it themselves.Yeah, I was going through the files of The Doe Network http://www.doenetwork.org/ and saw a couple that should've been easy IDs but I couldn't believe the investigators hadn't made the same obvious connections. I assume they did and still came up snake eyes.

dudalb

26th October 2009, 03:58 PM

Law - of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived. But what you are talking - in effect - is about consistency or inconsistency with your theory of reality. We have different theories (at the moment), so there is room for discussion.

And here folks is why I despise "Post Modernism" and "Decontructionism" so much. It's simply an attempt to throw reality out the window for ideological reasons.

akama1

26th October 2009, 07:52 PM

No, Rory, I have no political agenda, only a rationalist agenda. If you want to know where exactly I'm coming from, then you can read my blog post on the issue of 7/7 conspiracy theories here (http://theinformationanalyst.blogspot.com/).

Well written piece. I enjoyed reading that

RHolmes

27th October 2009, 12:54 AM

And here folks is why I despise "Post Modernism" and "Decontructionism" so much. It's simply an attempt to throw reality out the window for ideological reasons.

Damn straight.

8den

27th October 2009, 12:30 PM

Well written piece. I enjoyed reading that

I'd like to echo the above.

I moved to London two weeks before the bombing, Into a flat just around the corner from Seven Sisters Station. Just before moving to London I had made a contact with sky news, and my first call for work was with them. I started working as a freelance video editor for Sky three days before the bombing, I had worked the night before, came home about the hour before the bombs went off, got woken up by frantic friends a few hours later, and spent about 100 quid, and 5 hours getting from Tottenham to Isleworth for my shift that night. Where because I hadn't been issued with a freelancer pass yet, I was refused entry for half an hour. I spent the night reviewing and editing the footage for the morning news. Before stumbling onto the underground as one of the first passengers on the network and heading home.

I only say this because I was a freelancer, with hours of experience and yet I was one of six people able to freely access all the material on Sky News' server.

I really liked your piece IA, it was human personal and educational and brought the event back in very vivid terms. I'd recommend (if you've not read it) http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/ Rachel was on the Picadilly Line, injured in the bombing, and has become a leading member of the victims demanding an independent inquiry. On the back of her work with the victims, combined with her scathing contempt for the conspiraloonies she's been stalked, faced false accusations of being a Zionist agent, she's had people track her home address, her family.

Going back to your blog I see to Daniels talk at the Indian YMCA. That was back in Autumn 2007 yes? In fact the talk occured during one of the mass tube strikes that year. Daniel had the audacity to proclaim that the entire transport strike was designed to thwart his YMCA meeting. His megalomania and paranoia is breathtaking. Hundreds of millions damaged, tens of millions of people massively inconvenienced all to stop a few hundred people tops turning up at a talk at a YMCA.

I only heard about the talk that night I was working on Charlotte street parallel to the YMCA, I'd have love to have gone.

It's an excellent essay IA. Citizen Journalism at it's best.

8den

27th October 2009, 12:38 PM

Damn straight.

I just dug out my copy of "how mumbo jumbo conquered the world"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Mumbo-jumbo-Conquered-World-Delusions/dp/0007140975

Its an excellent and short analysis of where post modern ******** has messed us up.

brodski

27th October 2009, 12:48 PM

English? Taggart????

Your complaint that Taggart cannot be classified as a portrayal of an English detective- of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived.

Apparently.

8den

27th October 2009, 01:55 PM

Your complaint that Taggart cannot be classified as a portrayal of an English detective- of course - operates on the conceit that an objective reality can be both accessed and perceived.

Apparently.

Try this argument in a Glasgow pub. I'll be outside ringing up your ambulance.

Myron Proudfoot

28th October 2009, 07:21 AM

And here folks is why I despise "Post Modernism" and "Decontructionism" so much. It's simply an attempt to throw reality out the window for ideological reasons.

A couple years back I helped a colleague in the UK with a journal article. After a few go-rounds he chuckled and noted that I was "a typical American historian." I WTF'd and he explained that American historians, in general, are far less concerned with theory and pay more attention to "what really happened" while European historians are more interested in the theories of why something occurred. It's an over-simplification, but I think he's generally correct. I've read a few histories by European scholars and wondered just whatthehell they were going on about.

As for out tinfoiled friend from the UK, I don't take seriously the opinion of anyone who takes John Hill seriously (not to mention Alex Jones).

Alferd_Packer

28th October 2009, 11:09 AM

Try this argument in a Glasgow pub. I'll be outside ringing up your ambulance.

Why? Would the patrons of a Glasgow pub even understand what he was talking about?

brodski

28th October 2009, 11:15 AM

Why? Would the patrons of a Glasgow pub even understand what he was talking about?

Doesn't matter, I'm sure that if I said it with the wrong accent in the wrong tone of voice someone would try to forcibly deconstruct my meta-narrative.

dropzone

30th October 2009, 09:06 PM

RHolmes

31st October 2009, 12:38 AM

It is unbecoming that I wanted to forward his tome to his department head, but few people deserve to be unemployed in this job market.

True, but he is using it with his students, so it's not like you'd be dobbing him in for extra-curricular activities. His Dean/departmental head may or may not consider the paper to be an appropriate teaching tool.

catsmate1

2nd November 2009, 06:42 AM

Sorry, I just finished reading the Agatha Christie book, 4.50 from Paddington, the other day, and that is what struck me.

Train timetables appear to be a staple device in English murder mysteries.

I suggest you try Freeman Wills Crofts..... There was an author obsessed with railway timetables

roryridleyduff

5th December 2009, 02:43 PM

Where did our young author go? Greener pastures where his woo was accepted at face value? Near as I can tell, he didn't even present woo, but just a load of, "But what if this happened--how could you explain IT?"

It is unbecoming that I wanted to forward his tome to his department head, but few people deserve to be unemployed in this job market.

I'm not 'young' - unless 47 is young these days.

You can forward the paper to my head of department if you like. He already has a copy because he's a student on my philosophy course at this very moment in time.

Best wishes
Rory

roryridleyduff

5th December 2009, 02:49 PM

True, but he is using it with his students, so it's not like you'd be dobbing him in for extra-curricular activities. His Dean/departmental head may or may not consider the paper to be an appropriate teaching tool.

Dear all,

I have had further time to check some of the comments made earlier in this blog. The paper is not fabricating Peter Power's views. The transcript of the relevant extract of his radio interview with the BBC on 7th July 2005 is reproduced below. If anyone wants to hear the audio clip on which this is based, it is available at multiple locations on the internet. I can e-mail the clip to anyone who cannot find it themselves.

BBC Interview - 7th July 2005

"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... etc."

So, for all those people who claim that the locations in Peter Power's exercise are not the same as the actual bombings, you have to answer why he changed his story from "bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning" to something else later on.

I've now studied the map in the early part of the blog provided by Info Analyst. Based on that - and I haven't been able to find the source of the information for the 'precise' alternative locations - it must be noted that the differences claimed by 'Information Analyst' and the actual locations and so small as to make no difference in two of the four cases (barely 30 - 60 seconds travelling time), but they are notably different in the two other cases. However, without credible information on where Peter Power makes these alternative claims, there is insufficient reason to change the paper from the claim Peter Power made on the day of the attacks. Even if other sources are located, it creates a problems for Peter Power's account - why does it change after the event? In the original radio interview, Peter Power puts considerable emphasis on the word 'precisely'. The question, for me and you, is "how would he know this at the time"? And if he could not know this, why would he claim it?

My paper, therefore, is not distorting what Peter Power claimed on the day of the attack. It is not unreasonable to state that the locations were the same as this is precisely the claim made by Peter Power himself, even if he subsequently retracted the claim.

Best wishes
Rory

funk de fino

7th December 2009, 12:44 PM

My paper, therefore, is not distorting what Peter Power claimed on the day of the attack. It is not unreasonable to state that the locations were the same as this is precisely the claim made by Peter Power himself, even if he subsequently retracted the claim.

I have bolded the part you should be concentrating on. Your 7/7 stuff is poppycock and you have been worked over good and proppa.

dropzone

7th December 2009, 07:13 PM

I'm not 'young' - unless 47 is young these days.One needn't be young to be callow. As for your department head, HR is a discipline that needs more discipline and less dependence on feel-good woo and the latest BS bestseller. If, on the off chance it happens (I'm a Yank in the US and don't work in HR so the odds are against it), someone asks me if Sheffield Hallam University has a good HR program I'd be forced to say no, several of its faculty lack the critical skills God gave mice, and that will not make you a person able to discern fact from fiction when employees try to explain why they missed the last few days of work without calling in.

Trojan_Jockey

8th December 2009, 02:58 AM

My paper, therefore, is not distorting what Peter Power claimed on the day of the attack. It is not unreasonable to state that the locations were the same as this is precisely the claim made by Peter Power himself, even if he subsequently retracted the claim.

You are basing the whole premise of your story on a retracted claim. In other words, the primary source of the story does not claim what your say he claims. Doesn't that worry you in the slightest?

deep

8th December 2009, 03:48 AM

You are basing the whole premise of your story on a retracted claim. In other words, the primary source of the story does not claim what your say he claims. Doesn't that worry you in the slightest?

When was the claim retracted? Please provide details.

dafydd

8th December 2009, 04:19 AM

You are basing the whole premise of your story on a retracted claim. In other words, the primary source of the story does not claim what your say he claims. Doesn't that worry you in the slightest?

This kind of thing never seems to worry 9/11 CT buffs,so why should it worry him?

funk de fino

8th December 2009, 10:45 AM

When was the claim retracted? Please provide details.

April 2009, google is your friend.

deep

8th December 2009, 11:17 AM

April 2009, google is your friend.

Thanks, but I'm looking for evidence of the retraction - a direct quote & the source of that quote.

funk de fino

10th December 2009, 11:46 PM

Thanks, but I'm looking for evidence of the retraction - a direct quote & the source of that quote.

I found it, so I am sure a super investigator like you can. It's not like he has a common name eh?

Trojan_Jockey

11th December 2009, 04:04 AM

When was the claim retracted? Please provide details.

The author of the paper does not dispute that Peter Power retracted his claim. He states that himself in his previous post.

The point is that he appears to be happy to build his entire premise around a retracted claim.

deep

11th December 2009, 01:24 PM

The author of the paper does not dispute that Peter Power retracted his claim. He states that himself in his previous post.

No, he doesn't state that.

Do you have evidence that the claim was retracted, or not? Looking for a direct quote, and the source of that quote.

quixotecoyote

11th December 2009, 01:44 PM

Looking for a direct quote, and the source of that quote.

You know, I really don't believe that you are.

funk de fino

11th December 2009, 01:48 PM

No, he doesn't state that.

Do you have evidence that the claim was retracted, or not? Looking for a direct quote, and the source of that quote.

Pete Power is ths source. Google it.

funk de fino

11th December 2009, 01:51 PM

No, he doesn't state that.

Incorrect.

So, for all those people who claim that the locations in Peter Power's exercise are not the same as the actual bombings, you have to answer why he changed his story from "bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning" to something else later on.

My paper, therefore, is not distorting what Peter Power claimed on the day of the attack. It is not unreasonable to state that the locations were the same as this is precisely the claim made by Peter Power himself, even if he subsequently retracted the claim.

deep

11th December 2009, 02:33 PM

Incorrect.

You removed the important part:

However, without credible information on where Peter Power makes these alternative claims, there is insufficient reason to change the paper from the claim Peter Power made on the day of the attacks.

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

Trojan_Jockey

11th December 2009, 06:18 PM

You removed the important part:

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

BBC interviewed Peter Power for "The Conspiracy Files". He is pretty clear in the interview about what really happened on the training course.

Watch from about 7:25 onwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2v06s0ZDvk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pohSMDqvAQ&feature=related

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 02:42 AM

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.

deep

12th December 2009, 12:44 PM

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.

Trojan_Jockey

12th December 2009, 01:22 PM

It's your claim - your burden of proof. If you have a direct quote and the source of that quote, please post it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705powerresponds.htm

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 02:54 PM

It's your claim - your burden of proof. If you have a direct quote and the source of that quote, please post it.

Not very good at this are you?

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 02:58 PM

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?

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 03:06 PM

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.

roryridleyduff

16th December 2009, 12:12 AM

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.

gtc

16th December 2009, 12:38 AM

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

16th December 2009, 05:55 AM

funk de fino

16th December 2009, 05:59 AM

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.

Trojan_Jockey

16th December 2009, 12:08 PM

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.

roryridleyduff

17th December 2009, 12:05 AM

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

roryridleyduff

17th December 2009, 12:08 AM

roryridleyduff

17th December 2009, 12:12 AM

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

roryridleyduff

17th December 2009, 12:27 AM

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

funk de fino

17th December 2009, 04:19 AM

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.

funk de fino

17th December 2009, 04:21 AM

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.