"A message from Muad Dip".... wtf?

I'm quite confident that 7/7 was an inside job but this is a poor film in my opinion. And why have they taken the name "Ripple Effect", which is the title of that "Pods on planes" disinfo film?

For God's sake, Bloggers! Shayler did NOT narrate this film, and even if he had, it should be evaluated on its own merits. What is going on here?

I have watched the film twice, and it does raise several important points.

One of them is the official claim, held onto for a year, that the alleged bombers had used a cancelled train.

Another is that in May 2004 there was a BBC program that depicted a future terror attack in London, involving three simultaneous bombs in the underground and one bomb in a large street vehicle an hour later. A year later, Peter Power and Visor Consultants were running an antiterrorism exercise based on this precise scenario in London. At the same time, real attacks happened, modelled on the practice scenario (and the BBC program).

There are several other important issues, such as CCTV not functioning in any of the attack locations.

The film also manages to establish the possible motive much better than "Terrorstorm". People were demanding
withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and Blair was weak, having barely managed to maintain his position in the spring elections. Moreover,
the Dawning Street memo, showing that intelligence had been fixed to legitimate the war in Iraq, had been making headlines. Also, the
original G8 agenda could be conveniently forgotten in the wake of the attacks. Just to name a few possibilities.

Below is my discussion with the director of the documentary. See the end for some additional reflections and my conclusions.

* * * * *
Vesa:
Has the triple "coincidence" of the BBC Panorama program, the terror
drill and the simultaneous real attacks aroused discussion at all
among the British public?

Muad'Dib:
Not that I am aware of. Nothing in public at least. Whether some
people are saying it privately I have no way of knowing.

Vesa:
A British friend of mine has no knowledge about such discussion, which
I find quite strange. Many people must have seen the BBC program in
2004. Doesn't the fact that the very scenario presented in it was
realized a year later make people wonder?

Muad'Dib:
Apparently not. People have a very short attention-span. Part of the decades of
dumbing-down process.

Vesa:
When I told him about the terror drill, he asked if Peter Power is a
bit of a "fruitcake" and if the media aren't taking his terror drill
statement seriously for that reason. Has there been any other
confirmation of the terror drills?

Muad'Dib:
Peter Power is an ex-high ranking long-service policeman. He is, or
was, regularly consulted by the BBC for his opinion and expertise on
such things. [VesaEdit: And he was featured prominently in said BBC
documentary, of which there are excerpts in "Ripple Effect". See also
Power's "resume" on Visor's site:
http://www.visorconsultants.com/businesscontinuityteam.htm ]

Vesa:
A few other questions if you don't mind. :)
Was the bus that exploded one of several that were diverted from their
normal route, or the only one?

Muad'Dib:
Conflicting reports on this. Some say it was the only one, and others
say it was not.
[VesaEdit: Nevertheless, and this is important: Hasheeb Hussein took
the number 91 bus from King's Cross Thameslink station to Euston
station. There he boarded the number 30 bus, which would have run back
along Euston Road to King's Cross Thameslink station -- had it not
been diverted to Tavistock Square! Furthermore, the number 91 bus
*went* to Tavistock Square, so if Hussein had, for some reason, wanted
to explode his bomb precisely in front of the British Medical
Association, he could have simply stayed on that bus. It's difficult
for me to see why a real terrorist would have made such inane,
time-consuming detours. It seems much more likely that he was
instructed to catch the number 30 bus.]

Vesa:
It is clear that the alleged suicide bombers could not take the train
that was cancelled, and the later trains didn't arrive at King's Cross
in time for them to have been cctv:d there at 8:26 AM. But doesn't the
official narrative now, finally, state that they must therefore have
taken an earlier -- and the only other possible -- train, ie the 7.24
AM train? Could you tell me if there are problems with *that*
scenario?

Muad'Dib:
Yes. They were supposed to be carrying heavy quantities of highly
unstable explosives on their backs and could not have caught the
earlier train without running through the station, up and down stairs.
They would certainly not have done that. [VesaEdit: Of course not:
they would simply have boarded the next available train, without
risking anything.] The time taken to walk from the entrance, without
stopping to buy tickets, to the platform is 3 minutes and 35 seconds.*
They are shown at 07:21:54 outside the entrance to the station. So
they could not have caught the earlier train that left Luton at 07:25.

* A joint trial took 3 Minutes 35 Seconds to walk from the ground
floor entrance, up and over to the ticket office, and back down to the
London Platforms 1 & 3, without even including any time to purchase a
ticket. Source -
http://tinyurl.com/yskew6

* * * * *
To sum up, the only possible "salvation" for the official story is the
07:25 train: there is at least a theoretical possibility that the men
could have caught it (if they ran and didn't buy tickets). However,
the fact that the official story maintained for over a year that the
men had used the non-existent 07:40 train appears incomprehensible. It
cannot be explained away as an "investigative error". Moreover, there
should have been ample cctv footage of the men around the ticket
counter, in the platforms, and on the trains. And then cctv failed to
function on all four vehicles (the trains and the bus), which is
preposterous!

To me, all this shows that, according to the script, the four patsies
(perhaps unwitting participants in Visor Consultant's terror drill
gone "live") were to take the 07:40 train, but could not, as it was
cancelled. There is no evidence whatsoever that the three were on the
trains that exploded; by contrast, there is a lot of evidence that
suggests otherwise. (What the fate of the men may have been is
discussed in "Ripple Effect", based on a couple of news reports of up
to three terror suspects being shot to death by the police in the
Docklands area that morning.)

Finally, the fact that Peter Power's Visor Consultants was having a
terror rehearsal based on the scenario presented in the BBC Panorama
program and the idea that terrorists were doing the very same thing
simultaneously is just... fantastic.

My view is that, minimally, a new, independent, and completely
transparent investigation is needed, and badly. Alas, chances of that
may be slim, at least without pressure from educated public.