9/11 Misdirection

 

You Tube

Friday, January 12, 2007

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaVV-NgnB7c&eurl=

 

 

The Monkey bit is odd but otherwise I think the way it made light of the fact that if everyone wasn't shown the video of the plane going into the building over and over again before the buildings collapsed - there would have been a higher pentcentage of people who would have thought about way they fell like that.

But, in relation to 9/11, that's an impossible mindset to achieve now.

It would have been easier for more people to trust their natural instinct - that the buildings certainly wouldn't have fell so amazingly fast, straight and with every floor so far below turning to dust so evenly.

It's possible people would have been looking for what happened to make them fall alot more at the beginning.

 

 

Claim: Bin Laden Told Hamza Al-Qaeda Not Behind 9/11

Statement dovetails with Osama's previous attempts to distance himself from attack responsibility

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Thursday, January 18, 2007

 

A claim attributed to a friend of one of the six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's underground tube system on July 21 2005, suggests that Osama bin Laden personally told hook handed cleric Abu Hamza that Al-Qaeda was not behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.

 

The London Independent today reports that Steven Bentley, a school friend of accused would-be suicide bomber Yassin Omar, was told by Omar that he did not think Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Omar based his conclusion on what he was told by extremist London cleric Abu Hamza, currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, who had personally met Bin Laden.

 

Bin Laden's apparent attempt to distance himself from involvement in 9/11 dovetails with statements made shortly after the event in which he told a Pakistani newspaper that he was not involved in the attacks.

 

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States," Bin Laden told Ummat, "As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

 

The supposed Osama "confession video" in which the terrorist leader discusses how the attacks were carried out has been widely debunked as a hoax. On closer analysis, the individual in the tape is clearly not Bin Laden and he makes statements completely inconsistent with Bin Laden's previous public comments. Other so-called Al-Qaeda tapes have been directly traced back to the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Though the information provided by Bentley is third or fourth hand, it makes interesting reading nonetheless when compared with previous statements from individuals with close ties to Bin Laden

 

The White House regularly intones that critics of President Bush are in some way aiding the enemy but it was not until recently that the media picked up on a similar tack in trying to smear anyone who questions the official version of 9/11 as being sympathetic with Al-Qaeda or even a recruiting aid for terrorists.

 

One day after the alleged liquid bomb plot to simultaneously blow up ten transatlantic airliners, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour blamed alternative documentaries about 9/11 for radicalizing many Muslims in England and around the world, and leading them to 'succumb to conspiracy theories.'

WTC steel found at Ground Zero

 

AMY WESTFELDT

AP

Friday, February 2, 2007

 

Large steel columns from the fallen twin towers have been found beneath a service road that is being dug up at ground zero in the search for long-buried Sept. 11 remains, officials said Wednesday. The surprising discovery of World Trade Center steel in the past week raises more questions about what was left at ground zero in the cleanup after the 2001 attacks and how the service road was created in the first place.

 

The steel, found during an ongoing dig for human remains that has yielded nearly 300 bones in the past three months, includes two heavy beams that were stacked horizontally in the landfill, as if moved and placed there, a person with direct knowledge of the discovery told The Associated Press. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss the findings and insisted on anonymity.

 

The discovery was confirmed by officials for the city and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the trade center.

 

The columns were about 18 feet long and perhaps 60 tons each. Officials believe the steel columns, located a week ago just 2 to 3 feet below the surface of the road, were deliberately set there at some point during the cleanup, perhaps to stabilize heavy machinery in use at the time.

 

Digging was halted in the immediate area surrounding the steel columns until the Port Authority removes the steel. The columns will be put it into storage at a hangar at Kennedy International Airpot, agency spokesman Steve Coleman said Wednesday. The hangar stores all sorts of artifacts from the trade center, including what was believed to be the last column removed from the site in May 2002.

 

The person with knowledge of the discovery told the AP that three connected steel columns that once formed the facade of the trade center were also found below the road. Another column was found on the other end of the trade center site, where the Port Authority is building a retaining wall for three planned office towers, the person said. Unlike the stacked columns, this steel appeared to be burned at one end.

 

Officials involved in the initial cleanup have said that some steel pierced the ground as it fell, and later was cut off above street level to speed up parts of the cleanup.

 

Coleman said the two heavy columns were the only steel found in the service road in the 3-month-old search for remains. City officials confirmed that other steel had been found beyond the two heavy columns.

 

Throughout the renewed remains search, crews had been finding smaller bits of debris from the towers as they dug into the material under the service road, called the haul road because it brought in construction trucks removing debris from the site, and then trucks bringing material in to rebuild.

 

In December, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler expanded the search in that area because of the discoveries of small scraps of steel, electrical wires, computer parts and office carpeting _ but nothing that came close to the major pieces of trade center steel.

 

More here:

http://www.amny.com/news/politics/am-wtc0201,0,4767941.story?coll=am-topheadlines

 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing these steel columns that are "Burned" on the ends myself...

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"

 

New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician asked "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?" before towers collapsed, support columns had been blown out

Paul Joseph Watson

 

Prison Planet

Thursday, February 8, 2007

 

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

 

In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct.

 

The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."

 

Having been in his profession for six years, the individual states that he was at ground zero before, during and after the collapse. He was forced to flee from the falling towers and take cover under a bus shelter as debris rained down all around him, leaving his lungs poisoned today with the toxic dust that 9/11 heroes were exposed to as a result of a cover-up on behalf of Condoleezza Rice and the EPA that assured workers ground zero air was safe to breathe.

 

The EMT made the decision to make his claims public after becoming aggrieved at how 9/11 debunkers were viciously attacking the creators of Loose Change for questioning the events of 9/11 in their film, which has now aired on numerous international television stations and has been seen by millions on the Internet.

 

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse.

 

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

 

He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"

 

 

"We stood outside listening to the explosions," states Mike, "One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes."

 

The rescue worker concludes emphatically, "The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

 

Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

 

 

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

 

Questions about Building 7 came to the fore in January 2004 when footage of WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein telling a September 2002 PBS documentary that after consultation with the FDNY the decision was made to "pull" the building surfaced on the Internet.

 

These issues were subsequently explored in Alex Jones'

Martial Law and Terror Storm documentary films.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q&eurl=

 

Since then,

debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition.

 

In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

 

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

 

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

 

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

 

The EMT worker agrees, stating, "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!"

 

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

 

Due to the many unanswered questions surrounding Building 7, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to include in its probe into Building 7 the theory of, "Whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

 

 

Following the attacks, Mike made a sustained effort to inform the relevant authorities of what he saw, including the FDNY, the NYPD, newspapers and television networks. In every case he was told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good."

 

Initially praised as heroes, when Mike and his colleague tried to to alert their EMT Coordinator In Charge of what they had witnessed, they were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for damaged uniforms and equipment they had used on 9/11. Two other colleagues who witnessed the same events now refuse to even acknowledge they were at ground zero for fear of reprisals.

 

The astounding testimony of this brave EMT only adds further credence to the already overwhelming case for controlled demolition of both the twin towers and Building 7. We implore this individual to go public with his full name in the interests of his own safety. It is far more secure to blow the whistle out in the light than to remain in the shadows and become another victim of those who wish to see 9/11 truth buried.

NIST Engineer, John Gross, Denies Reports About Molten Steel at the WTC

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

 

John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings.

John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson fund ( Link to their website,

http://www.utexas.edu/research/fsel/people/index.html

).

UT student organization, A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask and film his response to the questions. please get in contact with this department at UT and tell them you want a public debate of these issues with a Project for the New American Citizen. We need to put as much pressure on these people as we can. Our website is PNACitizens.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks for your help

http://pnacitizens.org/

 

 

 

Molten Steel

..Is the most devastating proof of an inside job along with free fall speed of collapse. You can't break the laws of physics.

1. There is lots of testimony of

molten steel by eye-witnesses

2. It was analyzed in the

FEMA report

!! Therefore it exists!

3. NIST completely ignored it and called it "irrelevant to their investigation" as if the structural support of a building is somehow "irrelevant".

4. Normal fires (i.e. jet fuel) fires are incapable of creating the melted steel that was found

5. ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11. Explosives can also melt steel.

6. Steven Jones found thermate.

7. Dust Samples independently analyzed confirm the explosives hypothesis.

Building designer Les Robertson claimed to have seen the molten steel 21 days after the buildings fell to the ground

. Later in an interview with Steven Jones he claimed he didn’t know of anyone who saw molten steel! Guess what—he supports the NIST report and also claims that they didn’t consider jet fuel (a lie) and that they also didn’t consider planes moving faster than 180 mph (another lie).

These people are lying and we know it

.

We can hold them accountable for their lies.

The only question is: Given this devastating evidence that we can use to force another 9/11 investigation, why are certain individuals focusing on un-testable theories. Why are they downplaying thermate when it PROVES an inside job."

Molten Steel..Is the most devastating proof of an inside job along with free fall speed of collapse. You can't break the laws of physics.

 

1. There is lots of testimony of molten steel by eye-witnesses

 

2. It was analyzed in the FEMA report!! Therefore it exists!

 

3. NIST completely ignored it and called it "irrelevant to their investigation" as if the structural support of a building is somehow "irrelevant".

 

4. Normal fires (i.e. jet fuel) fires are incapable of creating the melted steel that was found

 

5. ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11. Explosives can also melt steel.

 

6. Steven Jones found thermate.

 

7. Dust Samples independently analyzed confirm the explosives hypothesis.

Building designer Les Robertson claimed to have seen the molten steel 21 days after the buildings fell to the ground. Later in an interview with Steven Jones he claimed he didn’t know of anyone who saw molten steel! Guess what—he supports the NIST report and also claims that they didn’t consider jet fuel (a lie) and that they also didn’t consider planes moving faster than 180 mph (another lie). These people are lying and we know it. We can hold them accountable for their lies.

 

The only question is: Given this devastating evidence that we can use to force another 9/11 investigation, why are certain individuals focusing on un-testable theories. Why are they downplaying thermate when it PROVES an inside job."

Everyone ready for the new BBC 2 9/11 programme on Sunday (18th) at 9:00pm in the UK? [it's on in the US the week after I think]

 

From talking to people who are actually IN the programme and from parts I have seen so far it's going to very misleading and pass by lots of key points. I might actually explode in anger while watching it.

I hadn't heard anything about it!!! I'll have to check my local listings here in the US.

 

thanks for the heads up.

BBC 9/11 Documentary Likely Hit Piece

Obsessive focus on strawman theories say individuals interviewed for upcoming show

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Thursday, February 15, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

This weekend's highly anticipated BBC documentary on the 9/11 truth movement is likely to be a sophisticated hit piece, according to those who were interviewed for the program and others wary of the motives behind the creators of the show.

 

 

 

The BBC are extensively promoting the show via commercials during peak time viewing and yesterday featured a

reasonably balanced summary of the 9/11 truth movement on their website. A preview clip and an extended clip showing Alex Jones and Jim Marrs at Dealy Plaza were also released yesterday. Seemingly fair promotional material shouldn't suck anyone in to believing anything else than the fact that this is most probably going to be a severe attack on 9/11 truth.

 

 

The first program in the series that aired in December of last year focused on the questions surrounding the death of Princess Diana, an event that the overwhelming majority of the British public now believe was an assassination. According to many disgruntled viewers, the show was mostly a whitewash and toed the official line.

Other programs in the series feature investigations into the Oklahoma City Bombing and the death of Dr. David Kelly.

 

 

 

 

 

Many posters to the 9/11 Blogger site were skeptical of the show's balance and fear it could be one of the most sophisticated attacks on the 9/11 truth movement to date, using nebulous strawman tactics that elevate unproven theories about hologram planes, exotic weaponry and Jewish conspirators above hardcore evidence.

"Judging from my experience with (producer) Guy Smith, this will be a hit piece," stated one.

 

Another respondent said that Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who heard bombs bring down Building 7 as he ran from it, was interviewed for the show and came away with the distinct impression that its intention was to dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory, including the fact that a government cover-up was now known to have been effect in the very hours after the attack, when EPA officials told ground zero workers the toxic air was safe to breathe.

 

Bartmer told the BBC he thought their treatment of the subject was an insult to himself and the rest of the victims, but it's likely that the BBC will play the "insulting to the victims" card themselves, ignoring the fact that 20% of the ground zero rescue heroes are now dying as a result of an admitted government cover-up, and not due to any actions on behalf of "conspiracy theorists."

 

Another tactic is likely to be constant reference to NIST and the 9/11 Commission in an attempt to debunk every question raised by "conspiracy theorists," yet both have been proven to betray wild conflicts of interest along with a penchant for simply ignoring or burying information that contradicts the official story, such as the Norman Minetta testimony, 9/11 wargames and Building 7.

 

 

Alex Jones, director of Terror Storm, features heavily in show after the BBC followed him around for a week of taping.

 

Commenting on his radio broadcast yesterday, Jones said "They're pulling out all the stops on this one, they're going to try to mix in anti-Semitism," adding that the producer Guy Smith wouldn't allow him to talk about hardcore proven evidence on camera such as Operation Northwoods.

 

"They always wanted to bring up the most tenuous evidence, they always wanted to argue about that," said Jones.

 

Jones said that upon conclusion of filming, the producer started laughing and proclaiming his disbelief at everything Jones had stated.

 

"It's going to be one mega hit piece," he concluded.

 

Despite the BBC's best efforts to skew the investigation process into areas that can't be proven and simply discredit the 9/11 truth movement, the organs of establishment media remain oblivious to the fact that 9/11 truth has reached critical mass and the tipping point has already passed.

 

The only ramifications of this broadcast will be to reassure the myopic sheeple that their government couldn't possibly lie to them, while provoking enough interest in those who still have the capacity to think for themselves to do their own research and find out the truth.

 

The Conspiracy Files airs on BBC 2 Sunday February 18 at 9pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC Implies 9/11 Truth Movement a Cult of Mythology

Believing that a mass murdering psychopathic state controls the world makes us feel comfortable, according to the "experts"

 

Thursday, February 15, 2007

 

 

The BBC's promotional material for its upcoming documentary on the 9/11 truth movement, widely expected to be a sophisticated hit piece, attempts to dismiss serious questions about 9/11 by implying that anyone who distrusts the official version has a borderline psychological illness and is a member of a mythological cult.

 

An article and anaccompanying multiple choice test by a University of London psychologist tries to diminish any wavering from the official version of events behind world history and imply that such beliefs are a method of psychological escapism. The test clearly implies that anyone who holds skepticism towards the benevolence of government institutions is some kind of disenfranchised social pariah with unhealthy personal relationships.

 

It is important to keep in mind that the definition of a "conspiracy theory" being used is any substantive skepticism of the "official version of events" as proclaimed by the state.

 

The fact that people lie on a day to day basis is accepted and yet the concept that government, which itself consists of people, would lie about major events is somehow presented as an inconceivable concept. This is achieved merely by setting it against the buzz term "conspiracy theory," which has negative connotations attached to it due to decades of media stereotyping.

 

Skepticism and "conspiracy theories" are not the same thing yet simply by throwing them all in the same basket, a healthy distrust of authority is castigated as some form of mental illness.

 

The BBC interviewed X-Files producer Frank Spotnitz and is carrying the video which you can watch below on their website as part of the promotion drive for the Conspiracy Files series.

 

X-Files producer Frank Spotnitz Talking

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/video/78000/bb/78537_16x9_bb.asx

 

In the interview, Spotnitz characterizes conspiracy theories as a "secular mythology" that require emotional religious "faith" to uphold and that they act as a "security blanket to comfort yourself."

 

Fox News guest and syndicated columnist Betsy Hart was one of the original progenitors of this nonsense, claiming that fear of a worldwide Muslim extremist terrorist plot (itself a conspiracy theory) led many to believe the "more manageable" explanation that the government was complicit in 9/11. Quite how a group of rag-tag fundamentalists was a scarier prospect that the leviathan menace of an all powerful genocidal state in control of a standing army was never explained. Hart's screed was subject to change after she falsely accused Alex Jones of sending her threatening e mails, a claim that led to a retraction being added to the article.

 

Spotnitz also fails to clarify exactly how the belief that a warmongering elite that is prepared to launch mass casualty terror attacks in the pursuit of a haunting agenda to brutalize the world into accepting their domination acts as a "security blanket" to "comfort" us.

 

Another blatant contradiction in terms is revealed when Spotnitz tries to explain the allure of "conspiracy theories" as a means to membership of an "elite club" that is smarter than the rest of the general population. An elite club by its very definition is a kind of secret society that is hostile to outside scrutiny and an easy means to gain membership. We as truthseekers spend every ounce of our time and energy trying to wake up the general public to a wider view of reality than their trusted establishment kingpins would have them believe, thus our very raison d'etre is the exact opposite of what an "elite club" would try to do which is to keep their knowledge secret.

 

Our goal is to spread information not to constrain it within some inner circle.

 

 

Because the architects of these attack pieces can't meet us on a level playing field and are unable to provide any logical answers to the questions we are raising, they have to shift the frame of the debate to nebulous ruminations on the psychology behind our "beliefs," claiming that "conspiracy theorists" dream up vast plots to make themselves feel more comfortable about tragedies and to give the world some sense of order, or as the University of London's Patrick Leman describes it, "We want "closure" in our thinking and to believe that we live in a stable and predictable world."

 

The fact is that inventing some catch-all indistinct theory in an attempt to neutralize legitimate unanswered questions and a healthy skepticism of anything the state or their media organs proclaim is a crass attempt to debunk the 9/11 truth movement, being that it appeals to the general public's laziness and convenience of not having to stop and think for themselves about world events.

 

This process of illogical mental gymnastics has been cited before on countless occasions and is turning into somewhat of a prepared script for the debunkers.

 

Though the BBC tries to portray truthseekers as closeted loners with mental instabilities, the fact is that "conspiracy theories" and guarded skepticism are far healthier than a blind obedience and acceptance of what government tells us is truth and this is historically proven. Four words alone, "weapons of mass destruction" illustrate that perfectly.

 

The ground zero rescue workers who bravely dug through the rubble of the twin towers paid a heavy price for believing what their government told them about 9/11, that the toxic air was safe to breathe, and 20% are now dying as a result of it. The population in general would be loathe to repeat such a mistake.

 

------------------------------------------------------

GET ACTIVE: Populate the BBC's Conspiracy Files blog and set the record straight on the outlook and goals of the 9/11 truth movement in the face of this bias attack. Click here and leave your comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC LEAK! Battle over Sunday's 9/11 documentary

 

BBC LEAK! Battle over Sunday's 9/11 documentary

 

Thanks to a dedicated poster and campaigner on this forum (whose name is associated with the initials SG), I put this together and sent it round my e-mail list.

 

=============================

 

We have discovered from a source inside the BBC that there are 2 versions or "edits" of the upcoming conspiracies documentary - one of which is a "whitewash" version. Our source tells us the guy pushing for the Whitewash Version to be broadcast is GARTH ANCIER:

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2013028,00.html

He was in the Guardian YESTERDAY. Coincidence?

Action:

 

e-mail the addresses below, and any others you may be aware with a message like the one below. Let them know we know the gist of the game. We know from our source there are people in the BBC pushing for the truth to come out - so let's hear it for them. Well, what are you waiting for?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

 

You can also call Television Centre on 0208 743 8000 to find out more and lobby those who decide these things.

To whom it may concern:

 

incl:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

Two versions of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files?

 

Word is reaching us that the BBC is in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air on Sunday evening. The dilemma is apparently due to there being two version of Mike Rodin & Guy Smith’s documentary. One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.

 

It appears that the dilemma is a direct result of the phenomenal reaction to the recent flurry of 9/11 related items appearing in the National Media. The debate kicked off with the publication of George Monbiot’s ill-researched hit-piece on Loose Change, the most downloaded video in the history of Google Video. Any casual observer perusing the responses posted on the Guardian website, could not fail to notice that the remarkable difference in style between those who leapt to the defence of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) and those were seeking answers to the glaring anomalies between the OCT and the physical evidence. The vapid vitriol from the defenders of orthodoxy was no match for the measured curiosity of the Truth seekers.

 

Last Saturday (Feb 10) the public awareness of the case for 9/11 Truth was raised further by a reasonably balanced article authored by Sue Reid and published in the Daily Mail. On Tuesday (Feb 13) Tim Sparke, Executive Producer of Loose Change: Final Cut, responded to Monbiot’s assertion that Loose Change was responsible for triggering a ‘Conspiracy Virus’!

 

In a blatant attempt to publicise BBC2’s 9/11: The Conspiracy Files, Jeremy Vine employed New Statesman contributor Brendan O’Neill in an attempt to attack David Shayler and marginalise the 9/11 Truth Movement as a bunch of eccentrics; an objective which seriously missed the mark. Shayler handled himself admirably, he continually offered evidence upon evidence against O’Neill’s argumentum ad hominem. The discerning listener coming away with the clear perspective that there are some aspects of 9/11 that are not quite right!

 

So what’s up with the Beeb? Well, word reaches us that new kid on the block, Gareth Ancier is the point man in trying to persuade BBC2 to run the hit-piece. Despite the fact that his appointment to the position of Head Honcho in the US (see link below) was only announced in Wednesday’s edition of The Guardian, he is apparently already flexing his muscles. How would the producers Guy Rodin & Mike Smith feel about this outside influence? Well, they’ve been paid so what do they care! Journalistic integrity is not in the vocabulary of the major broadcasters and certainly not in the vocabulary of one Ancier’s previous employers, FOX.

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2013028,00.html

 

Newly responsible for the marketing of BBC productions in the US, Ancier is no doubt claiming that he will not be able to maximize revenues if the BBC is seen to be running programmes, however balanced, intimating that 9/11 might have been an inside job. From personal experience of operating within the US industrial complex, it is not beyond the realms of probability that Ancier is waving mega$ incentives if the Beeb agrees to run the hit-piece. As Princeton graduate and an initiate of the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity, serious pressure will be being put on Ancier to get the Beeb to ‘play ball’.

 

Ancier will be familiar with the acquisitions strategy adopted by FOX in the aftermath of the OKC bombing, where local TV stations were broadcasting facts which questioned the ‘Lone Gunman’ theory that the devastation of the Alfred P. Murrah building was the result of a single Ryder truck loaded with fertilizer based explosives.

 

Local News is a thing of the past in the USA; all local TV stations being required to broadcast the sanitized news prepared by FOX or one of the other 'approved' centralised news organisations. As a friend of mine from Texas commented recently, “Our news media treats us like mushrooms; we’re fed sh*t & kept in the dark.”

 

Are the good citizens of the UK about to be subjected to the same mind-numbing BS disseminated on the unsuspecting American public by Garth Ancier's previous employers?

 

There will undoubtedly be individuals within the British Government who will also be angling for the hit-piece to be broadcast. When the truth about the events of 9/11 is eventually realised, there are players who are either going to have to face charges of complicity or endeavour to explain their apparent ignorance, despite the ever-mounting availability of evidence which is anomalous to the OCT. They will also have to explain why they ignored the 9/11 Fact Sheets & Loose Change DVD’s that was sent to every MP, Member of the Lords, & every MEP in April of 2005!

 

9pm on Sunday evening may turn out to be a defining moment for the BBC.

 

Ian R. Crane

Chair - 9/11 Truth Campaign (UK & Ireland)

BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

 

BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

 

Crane claims two different versions exist, former Fox exec demanding attack dogs released to prevent harm to American market

 

Friday, February 16, 2007

 

 

The BBC has produced two versions of its documentary on 9/11, one being a balanced example of investigative journalism and the other a sophisticated hit piece. According to a leading UK 9/11 truth activist, recently appointed US chief Garth Ancier is pressuring the corporation to air the version that portrays the 9/11 truth movement as a fringe cult of mythology in a bid to protect BBC's American market.

 

 

Yesterday we reported on the allegations of those interviewed for the show that the documentary was set to be a debunking effort, with the intention of relegating important questions in favor of nebulous and damaging theories. This story garnered massive readership after being featured on the front page of Digg, a user generated content phenomenon that gets more traffic than the Drudge Report.

 

In a follow up story, we highlighted how the BBC was using promotional material, including a psychological conspiracy test and an interview with X Files producer Frank Spotnitz, to imply that 9/11 truthers were borderline cult members with psychological problems.

 

In a new development, Ian R. Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claims a source told him that producers Mike Rodin and Guy Smith have edited two different versions of the show and are in a quandary as to whether to air the balanced piece or the hit piece.

 

Crane's claims are printed in full at the Cremation of Care website.

 

It appears that the dilemma is a direct result of the phenomenal reaction to the recent flurry of 9/11 related items appearing in the National Media," writes Crane. "The debate kicked off with the publication of George Monbiot’s ill-researched hit-piece on Loose Change, the most downloaded video in the history of Google Video. Any casual observer perusing the responses posted on the Guardian website, could not fail to notice that the remarkable difference in style between those who leapt to the defence of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) and those were seeking answers to the glaring anomalies between the OCT and the physical evidence. The vapid vitriol from the defenders of orthodoxy was no match for the measured curiosity of the Truth seekers."

 

In addition, Crane cites the UK Daily Mail article as another example of a fair hearing for 9/11 truth and one that angered those with a stake in maintaining the official myth. Yet another large British newspaper, Scotland's Herald, also today featured a positive write up of the 9/11 truth movement.

 

 

Crane claims that the new head of the BBC's commercial operations in the US, former Fox senior executive Garth Ancier (pictured above), is the point man in persuading program directors to air the hit piece, fearing that a more balanced appraisal would anger corporate partners and sales across the Atlantic.

 

"Newly responsible for the marketing of BBC productions in the US, Ancier is no doubt claiming that he will not be able to maximize revenues if the BBC is seen to be running programmes, however balanced, intimating that 9/11 might have been an inside job. From personal experience of operating within the US industrial complex, it is not beyond the realms of probability that Ancier is waving mega$ incentives if the Beeb agrees to run the hit-piece. As Princeton graduate and an initiate of the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity, serious pressure will be being put on Ancier to get the Beeb to ‘play ball’," writes Crane.

 

If past examples are anything to go by, it's likely that the hit piece will be chosen because the previous installment in the series, an investigation into questions surrounding the death of Princess Diana, was widely acknowledged as a whitewash that toed the official line.

 

Besides the X Files interview and the psychological test, BBC's promotional material for the show has been both extensive and reasonably balanced. A summary article of the 9/11 truth movement lent implicit credibility to 9/11 skeptics, and an online unedited clip of Alex Jones and Jim Marrs at Dealy Plaza was absent the usual condemnation and ridicule seen in mainstream coverage many times before.

 

The fact that the promotional trailers do not prominently feature any debunkers (besides a poorly spoken woman who is presumably used to rubbish the Jewish conspiracy angle), suggests that the show will either be a fair representation or the more likely scenario, that the BBC will employ the familiar tactic of using a sneering female narrator to arrogantly attack the carefully edited words of the skeptics and obsessively focus on tenuous issues while ignoring the hardcore evidence.

 

:angry: GET ACTIVE: Populate the BBC's Conspiracy Files blog and encourage the BBC to represent real investigative journalism and air the balanced version. Click here and leave your comments.:angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

 

77 FLIGHT DATA DECODING SHOWS 911 TRUTH IS UNYEILDING!

Offical Flight Data Offers Amazing Proof of.....well, Proof that there's somthing very wrong.

 

 

Gareth Williams

February 17th, 2007

 

 

After several weeks of tireless efforts by pilotsfor911truth.org there has been a startling and very important discovery involving Flight 77.

The painstaking task processing official data has resulted in a full "decode" of what the NTSB (US National Transportation Safety Board) claim to be the complete raw data output from the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77.

 

Pilotsfor911truth have managed to achieve something that only some airlines, the military and one of the very few specialists in crash investigation in the world could normally carry out.

 

The ‘raw data file’ given out under FOIA request is more or less useless unless you have access to very specialist software costing upwards of $100,000 USD.

 

Normally, the chances of a member of the public being able to ever get this type of file decoded are about 10000/1.

But these aren’t normal circumstances and obviously they weren’t counting on the `1` this time…..were they.

 

This data however has again produced more questions than answers, for example the data recording STOPS over a mile and a half from the Pentagon.

 

Raw data has confirmed the accuracy of the NTSB animation that was acquired by a truth group member under a FOIA request from the NTSB last August. This information is incredibly useful as it categorically shows that the plane was no-where near the 5 light poles that were reportedly damaged by Flight 77 – a claim that appears in the Official 9/11 Commission Report.

 

Another astonishing discovery is that the data also confirms that the last figure of altitude given was 273 feet above ground level. (The pentagon is 71 feet tall). This is from radio altitude so it’s accurate to within just several feet.

 

The VOR (A data entry figure that is used to determine the distance from an object, in this case a transmitter at the Airport near the Pentagon) gives a last distance of 1.5 miles from F77 to the transmitter. Combine this information with the last figure of given altitude and also with speed of the plane (530 mph) and quite simply something just doesn’t add up.

 

At the speed the plane was moving this puts Flight 77 2 seconds away from the face of the Pentagon. At that point the height was such that the plane could NOT have nosedived fast enough to have hit the face of the building where that hole was seen: the gravity forces at the acceleration required would buckle and simply cause an airframe to break up.

 

Analysis is ongoing (the spreadsheet of data is about 4 million cells of data long) but it does confirm that the flight path does NOT match up to the damage leading up to the Pentagon.

 

Interestingly the path DOES match up to eyewitness testimony, some of whom saw two planes and cemetery workers have reported that they saw a jet fly over the Pentagon at the time of the blast.

 

(Eyewitness interviews are to be released in a film called the PentaCON)

 

NTSB’s Jim Ritter - who signed off the Flight 77 study – was contacted by pilotsfor911truth.org but he refuses to make any comment.

 

An FBI team named ‘PentBOM’ (who commandeered jurisdiction of the F77 issue from the NTSB) were also contacted. However, they too cannot make comment as the PentBOM team has since been disbanded. How convenient.

(All the audio from these conversations was recorded)

 

Another piece of truly hard evidence makes its way into the public domain and with gritty efforts like this we really can show that 911 Truth is in this for the long haul – until a new full and independant investigation is forced.

IMPORTANT TO KNOW!

 

BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins

Winter Patriot

Sunday, February 18, 2007

LOOKOUT BELOW!

 

Here comes a load of manure from the the BBC:

 

 

We're all conspiracy theorists at heart

Why are conspiracy theories so popular? We may not always believe what we're told, but we still can't resist listening to them. Guy Smith, producer of

9/11: The Conspiracy Files

, suggests the answer may lie deep within us all.

Did you catch that? It's deep within us all; i.e. it has nothing to do with whether the official stories purporting to explain these great national tragedies bear any relation to the physical evidence allegedly supporting those stories. Really. I'm sure that's all it is. And if you don't believe me, read Guy Smith:

I admit it. If I'm being really honest, I can't deny that I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps we all are.

 

 

It's easy to dismiss all conspiracy theories as "bunkum", but remember just occasionally they do turn out to be true. Remember Watergate? Iran-contra? Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland?

 

 

As Jim Fetzer, one of the leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists, says: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

Now watch this! It's the old fake-em-over-here and then run-over-there play. A counter-trap, in American football terms. He makes an opening nod to Fetzer, and claims to be a "conspiracy theorist" (whatever that means) and then goes in the other direction.

I've just spent the best part of nine months investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September, 2001.

 

...

 

The deeper you dig in the dark world of conspiracies, the more you realise that different theories share much in common. The conspiracy theorist seizes on any apparent inconsistency and from that germ of truth the story is built up.

Ahem. From that germ of truth an investigation is started.

What happened to the white car apparently involved in Diana's accident? Was there a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll? And why did it take so long to scramble US fighters on 9/11?

All good questions, no?

And we can't help but be fascinated by them.

But why? Here's the place where Mr. Smith diverges from reality:

Perhaps it's because deep down, we're all story tellers. It's one of the things that makes us who we are. Since the dawn of time, we've been creating heroes and monsters as a way of trying to make sense of the world. In the beginning, we told those tales round camp fires. Now, it's through internet chat rooms or on mobile phones. But it's still basically the same process - weaving stories out of real life.

That's the mis-direction. I'm a conspiracy theorist, Iran Contra, blah blah blah, we're weaving stories out of real life. As a matter of fact, we are mostly asking questions about stories we were told by known serial liars which allegedly explain national and global tragedies but which in fact have virtually no relation to the physical evidence which allegedly supports these stories. And speaking of Iran-Contra, forgive me but aren't these the same guys?

 

If Mr. Smith had spent nine months investigating the attacks of 9/11 with an open mind then he might have learned something truly useful, but as you can see from his introduction, he spent nine months investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September, 2001 -- in other words he started out with the official conspiracy story in his head and spent the next nine months fleshing it out, in order to make a documentary for BBC which is going to amount to nothing more nor less than Popular Mechanics on skates.

 

 

In this column, Guy Smith lays the groundwork for his work of massive fraud. He's about to become an accessory-after-the-fact in a case of mass murder on an unimaginable scale, which means he's obliged to descend into the world of absolute falsehood. He goes gently and elegantly, and he precedes his descent with admirable deception, but into the world of absolute falsehood he certainly does go.

When something awful, inexplicable or just plain evil rocks our world, we have an instinctive need to construct elaborate explanations to try and make sense of our anxiety and fear.

We have an instinctive need for an explanation that makes sense, but there's no need for the explanation to be elaborate. In fact, the simpler the explanation, the better.

 

In the JFK assassination, for instance, we were told on the very evening that the case had been solved: it was a communist, acting alone, who had done the deed, he'd been caught, no problem, and nothing to worry about. So the nation relaxed -- into an ocean of grief.

 

It was easy to believe the one-lone-nut tale of Lee Harvey Oswald, because it was so simple. And it was only later that we started to find out that the official story was not only dubious but actually contradicted by the physical evidence.

 

After that whenever something really bad happened, it got harder and harder to get the evidence.

 

When Princess Diana was killed, we were told it was simply an auto accident -- well, who could do anything about that? Except grieve. And we did.

 

And it was comforting to know there was a simple explanation. The world is complex enough, daily life is sufficiently taxing, people tend to buy the simplest possible explanation for virtually anything.

 

Except when it doesn't make sense. And when it turned out that the car in which she died was sealed away and there was no public examination of any evidence to support the official story of that horrible event, it was natural for people to wonder whether what really happened and what we were told happened were one and the same. And the more they dug, the more they doubted.

 

This didn't happen because people tend to gravitate toward awful and complex explanations when simple and comforting tales are available. It happened because -- again -- the simple and comforting tale was found wanting. And no matter how badly people wished to believe it, they couldn't.

 

When 9/11 happened, it was the same thing all over again only bigger. Awesome waves of grief swept the world, and the story came out fast and simple. Nineteen hijackers armed with box cutters had hijacked four commercial airliners simultaneously and they all crashed. Two of them smashed into gigantic office towers and a third hit the most heavily fortified building on the planet.

 

Neither the national capital nor the the business capital of the world had any appreciable air cover that day, and the two office buildings which were hit by planes burned for a little while and then disintegrated -- didn't fall apart but turned to powder!

 

How much more absurd could it get? Even before a third building -- which was not hit by any plane -- turned to powder later in the day, the story we were being fed sounded impossible to anyone who had their wits about them at the time.

 

But most people didn't have their wits about them; they were shocked and horrified and utterly distraught. Some had no capacity for rational thought whatsoever. At that point, we were most vulnerable to being fed a line of bull, and

that's exactly what happened. People found it easier to believe the relatively simple official conspiracy theory than to ask hard questions about what they had just seen and heard, and to accept the even harder answers that would inevitably follow.

 

As an aside, but a crucial one, let us never forget that the official story of 9/11 involves a most unlikely conspiracy. We're all "conspiracy theorists" on 9/11, unless anyone of us can imagine a scenario in which the 19 hijackers were working independently!

 

Now, more than five years later, with the American people beginning to regain their wits, the official conspiracy theory sounds even more implausible, the failings of the so-called investigation are even more obvious, and quite a number of people who used to think I was crazy are not so sure.

 

 

Time to roll out more lies!

Many eye-witnesses to 9/11 thought, "This terrible event can't just be something as simple as 19 young hijackers armed with pocket knives. There must be more to it than that - because the alternative is just too horrific to contemplate."

No, sorry. Close, but no cigar! We thought: "This terrible event can't just be something as simple as 19 young hijackers armed with pocket knives. There must be more to it than that - because if this is it, if this is the whole story, they never could have done it."

 

It's the alternative -- by which I mean any plausible alternative to the official story of 9/11 -- which is in fact far too horrific for many people to contemplate, and therein lies a great deal of the official story's power.

 

The official story of 9/11 is comforting because it's simple, and because all the villains are foreign, but it's difficult to believe because it doesn't make very much sense.

 

Alternative stories, on the other hand, are difficult to believe because their implications are so painful, but they are comforting because they make more sense, not because their explanations are always especially convincing, but because they at least try to answer questions that the official story simply ignores. And the best of the alternative stories are very convincing indeed.

 

So it's disgusting but not surprising to see this BBC producer claiming to be a conspiracy theorist and saying exactly the opposite, just prior to the airing of the so-called documentary he has made. But such is life in the twenty-first century, I suppose.

 

Welcome To The global propaganda Machine.

 

 

BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Continues

Winter Patriot

Sunday, February 18, 2007

LOOKOUT AGAIN!

 

Here comes another load of manure from the BBC!

 

We wondered what kind of documentary the BBC was making about 9/11, and it's becoming clearer by the day. Guy Smith, producer of the upcoming BBC "Conspiracy Files" episode on 9/11, laid the groundwork in a piece called "

We're all conspiracy theorists at heart" which was published by the BBC on Friday. In that piece, Smith claims conspiracy theories persist because people are natural story-tellers who instinctively look for elaborate tales to describe events beyond their control. Your nearly frozen correspondent replied with "BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins". I urge you to read both pieces if you have any doubts about our respective positions, or motivations.

 

On Saturday the BBC laid the next layer of infrastructure for its coming propaganda barrage, under the curiously misleading headline:

Q&A: What really happened

 

In

BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins, I half-jokingly claimed the upcoming documentary would be "nothing more nor less than Popular Mechanics on skates". Imagine my surprise, then, to see the current BBC offering taking the same approach used by PM.

 

The BBC purports to explain the events of 9/11 by asking and answering 10 questions, and I will deal with each of them, briefly or otherwise, below. But first let's talk about why this approach -- the attempted "debunking" of selected "conspiracy theories" -- is an unsatisfactory approach to the problem.

The Madness In The Method

 

The common approach taken by both BBC and Popular Mechanics consists of a series of vignettes. In each one, they pick out an anomaly between the official story and the available evidence of what really happened, they detail one possible explanation for that anomaly (which both BBC and Popular Mechanics helpfully refer to as a "conspiracy theory"), and then they allegedly debunk the "conspiracy theory" using one means or another.

 

It's a three-step process and it's vulnerable to corruption at every step. We'll talk about this more below. But here I want to mention a very important limitation on the method. Even if this approach were carried out with rigorous logic, even if no corruption were allowed at any stage of the process, it would still prove unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

 

[1] There's a vast difference between proving that a so-called "conspiracy theorist" is wrong on a given point and proving that the official story is right on that point.

 

Here's a concrete example: I happen to disagree with Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery on key points and yet I still do not believe the official story. So nobody -- not Guy Smith, not anybody else -- is going to make me believe the official story by pointing out places where Alex or Jim or Dylan has allegedly gone astray. In other words, even if all these so-called "conspiracy theorists" are "wrong", and even if BBC demolishes all of them, that still doesn't prove that the official story is correct.

 

And for that matter, even the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is overloaded with spin, because the official story -- the story that Guy Smith is trying to protect -- talks of at least 20 people -- Osama bin Laden and 19 hijackers. Anyone who believes that those 20 people conspired to pull off this enormous crime is also, by definition, a "conspiracy theorist". And anyone who believes they did it without conspiring -- that they just happened to work together without any prior planning or communication -- is flat-out crazy.

 

To be blunt about it, anyone who thinks the attacks of 9/11 could have been done without a conspiracy is crazier than anything Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery and Guy Smith have ever said all combined.

 

[2] Even if the BBC's answers to all 10 questions were sound and solid, their sum total would barely begin to explain the differences between the attacks of 9/11 and the official version of same, because the number of unanswered questions about 9/11 runs into the hundreds.

 

Therefore the selection of 10 key questions in effect amounts to a ruling that all the hundreds of others are beyond the pale, and this is the necessary first step in the ongoing propaganda campaign to get you to believe lies about what really happened.

 

First they get you thinking it all boils down to 10 easy questions, and then they lie to you about the questions -- and then they lie to you about the answers, and kaboom! ... or should I say "Zzzzz" ... you're sound asleep! 1: Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks?

 

This is certainly a good question and answering it in the "politically correct" manner requires serious obfuscation, so it's surprising to see it first. However, if the BBC is going to lie to you through all 10 questions, it doesn't really matter which comes first, so they may as well dive in the deep end.

 

 

 

 

Well, let's go with them:

To sceptics of the official account of 9/11, the idea of 19 fundamentalists hijacking commercial airliners and outsmarting the world's most advanced air defence system seems simply incredible.

Some 9/11 conspiracy theories argue that the US Air Force should have succeeded in intercepting at least some of the hijacked planes, and that someone, therefore, must have prevented them from doing so.

The official version -

9-11 Commission Report

- holds that on the morning of 11 September, 2001 a major defence training exercise was taking place.

What an understatement! What was taking place was the most heavily concentrated set of training exercises ever scheduled!

 

The BBC can roll out any number of explanations as to why these exercises were sufficient to derail the air defense in the Northeastern US that day, but they don't dare approach the next logical question: Who scheduled those wargames?

 

Did Osama bin Laden send key components of the US Air Force to places like Alaska and Greenland that day? And if not, who did?

 

 

 

 

BBC quotes Popular Mechanics reporter David Coburn pushing the "incompetence" theory, which simply doesn't wash in the face of so much deliberately sown confusion, and then deals with an issue that's been hanging over the "official investigation" for quite some time:

Following the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report it emerged that the Commissioners were concerned they might have been deliberately misled by the military about the timeline of their response to events on the day.

Suspicions of a cover up by the military were recently addressed by a

report from the Pentagon Inspector General

.

The report found that there had been no deliberate attempt to mislead the 9/11 Commission, and that the discrepancies in their testimony to the Commission were the result of "a lack of capabilities and thoroughness" within the military.

The next logical question should be: Why is the Pentagon investigating whether the US military colluded in the coverup of 9/11?

 

But instead the BBC allows the suspects the final word on this issue. It's a ploy we'll see again and again.

 

Did anybody at the BBC notice that their link to the 9/11 Commission report is broken? (I've fixed it in the quoted passage.) 2: Were the Twin Towers deliberately demolished by explosives?

 

Of course they were. Anybody watching on TV knew that right away. But the official story doesn't account for Osama bin Laden getting access to the WTC in order to plant explosives there, so now we have to have all these transparent lies.

 

Was it a "pancake collapse" or a "progressive collapse" or in fact what kind of collapse was it? The official story has changed, but not the official wording.

 

All the talk about "why the towers collapsed" is absurd because the clear and visible fact -- perhaps the most notable fact of the day -- is that the towers didn't collapse at all; they disintegrated!

 

 

 

 

BBC prefers to obfuscate these very inconvenient facts in the following manner:

After 9/11, investigations by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

determined that the collapse of the Twin Towers was due to the impact of the planes and the large quantities of exploding jet fuel released into the buildings.

Those questioning this account point to the lateral puffs of smoke that emerged from the towers just ahead of their collapse. Could these be explosive devices planted as part of a conspiracy?

They also argue that jet fuel, which has a far lower burning temperature than the melting point of steel, is unlikely to have weakened the steel supporting framework sufficient to prompt the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees Celsius whereas temperatures must reach 1,500 degrees Celsius for steel to melt.

Those questioning this account raise a lot of other questions as well, such as why so many firemen and emergency workers testified to hearing bombs going off all around them just before the towers fell, or why the steel beams appear to have been cut rather than having buckled, and why there was molten steel in the basements of the towers so long after the "collapse". But the BBC is not prepared to admit these questions, much less deal with them. Instead, we get a rehash of the official line (which still makes no sense!)

The explanation for the puffs of smoke offered by the authors of the Popular Mechanics study is that as the floors crashed down of top of one another, a pressure wave forced dust and smoke out of the windows.

As for the fuel temperature - the official explanation holds that whilst steel does indeed melt at 1,500 degrees Celsius, it loses half its strength at a much lower temperature of 650 degrees Celsius.

The fuel might not have melted the steel columns, but it weakened the structure, and especially the trusses that supported each floor, to the point that they could no longer support the weight on the building.

So BBC supports the "truss failure" theory. The supports couldn't hold up the floors.

 

The main problems for this "explanation" is that it is hugely at variance with the evidence.

 

If trusses had failed the floors may have come tumbling down but the steel exterior walls and the central steel columns would have been left standing, or at worst would have fallen over, or bucked and fallen partway over, or at any rate the result would have been very different than what we saw that day. The NIST report says the steel buckled but doesn't provide any photos of buckled steel. In some photos of WTC damage the steel appears to be cut. And then there's the issue of molten steel in the basements, or the reports of "rescue workers" working at Ground Zero having to change their boots all the time, because the soles were melting. How could a truss collapse generate that much heat? And why do we have eyewitness reports of underground explosions in the towers before the planes hit?

 

The BBC doesn't go near any of these questions either. They just pick one detail they like (the puffs of smoke coming from the buildings) and they work that detail into the official story in one way or another (i.e. the puffs of smoke were compressed dust and smoke being squeezed out of the buildings by the collapse) and they move on to the next narrowly framed question, as if the entire issue were settled.

 

It's a ploy we'll see again and again. But in the meantime ...

 

Here's a good way for you to evaluate the "steel weakened and buckled" theory at your own convenience: Go out and start your car. Watch what happens when burning fuel heats the steel around it -- in this case the steel is your engine block. Let it run for a while and you'll find that your engine block actually buckles -- because the heat from the burning fuel is so intense that, even though it's not hot enough to melt the steel, it's hot enough to weaken the steel, and this combined with the intense pressures in your engine, make the steel of the engine block lose its strength and buckle. And that's why you can't drive your car for long distances, because the heat from the burning fuel weakens the steel and your engine sags and the next thing you know it loses its compression.

 

You see this happening to other people all the time, don't you? Cars and trucks broken down by the side of the highway, no longer able to move because their engine blocks are so deformed from the heat of the burning fuel... You see them every day, do you not?

 

No? Well ... Maybe I'd better go back and check my facts, then! 3: Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?

 

Well, yes, it appears it was. In the last week we've had an emergency worker speak out and say yes, bombs were going off, yes, we had a twenty-minute warning to evacuate, and yes, it was what it looked like -- a controlled demolition.

 

 

 

 

He was using an alias and saying he'd lost his job because he spoke the truth and within a few days other emergency workers started talking and saying "yes, he's right, that's what happened" ... So what does the BBC have?

In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.

The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.

That's another understatement. And it's something skeptics find a bit sinister!

WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.

Sceptics of the official account, including those at

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.

Some even argue that the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania was intended to crash into Building 7.

The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their

interim report

found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.

This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.

With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.

Say again?? "This hypothesis had a low probability" and yet it's being offered as an official explanation? Or is it?

In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate.

This is supposed to explain anything? This is supposed to make those questions go away?

 

The two propaganda techniques we see at play here are [1] pretending that the questions which have drawn replies have been answered, and [2] pretending that the questions that haven't been answered don't exist. Sneaky debating tricks. Underhanded but not evil.

 

This is a pattern which you may see change very soon.

 

Note the links in this passage. The BBC link to the FEMA interim report leads to "page not found". How convenient. Or how sloppy. Either way, BBC looks ... well, I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to say it. But I have fixed the link in the quoted passage. 4: Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?

 

 

 

 

The headline alone gives me hives. We'll talk about that in a minute. But first, here's the BBC's take on this aspect of the story:

Shortly after the attacks a rumour started in the Middle East and spread around the world which claimed that 4,000 Jewish employees at the World Trade Centre had not turned up for work on 11 September. Were they warned to stay away?

One conspiracy theory suggests that 9/11 was an Israeli plot to discredit the Arab world; another that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, found out about the attacks beforehand and warned the Jewish community in New York.

The rumour started after

the Jerusalem Post

reported that roughly 4,000 Israelis were believed to be living or working in New York and Washington.

Crucially it did not say they were dead or missing - just people in the immediate areas of the attacks who might have been affected.

This report was picked up by Arabic media outlets, including

Al Manar

, the Beirut satellite TV station linked to the Islamic militant group Hezbollah.

Al Manar TV added a spin to the story. It reported that 4,000 Israelis working at the World Trade Centre had not shown up for work on 9/11. As the anti-Semitic rumour spread, the details became embellished - like in a game of Chinese whispers.

According to official figures, of the 2,749 victims of the World Trade Centre attacks, 2,071 were occupants of the buildings.

Research by The Conspiracy Files shows that of these 2,071 victims, 119 were confirmed Jewish and a further 72 were believed to be Jewish.

This would make a total of 191 - or 9.2% of victims. This figure is broadly in line with the 9.7% of New York's commuting population which is believed to be Jewish.

This is a straw-man attack of the highest order, and it requires delicate surgery to take it apart.

 

First of all there may have been a report in the Jerusalem Post saying Jews had been forewarned of the attacks; if so it would clearly be to everyone's benefit to hide that report as quickly as possible. You will notice the BBC has linked to the Jerusalem Post website and the Al Manar website rather than to the two reports in question. Why?

 

If I wanted to refer you to a particular news report, I would point you to the article I wanted you to read, rather than the publisher's website. Unless I didn't really have anything...

 

But that's a minor point. Everything we've just read from the BBC about this story could be perfectly true. And yet...

 

Yesterday Guy Smith wrote that he has spent nine months researching, and today we find out that he doesn't have a link to the Jerusalem Post report he claims started the whole story. If I had spent nine months researching I think I would have come back with a link.

 

And the use of this one anecdote to dismiss all claims about foreknowledge is not very convincing. In fact, of all the stories I heard shortly after 9/11, this one wasn't even among them. The stories I heard had to do with Israelis, not Jews, and I know there's a lot of overlap, but the two groups are not identical by any means.

 

The most dramatic story circulating shortly after 9/11 said that employees of the Israeli company Odigo had received text messages early on the morning of 9/11, warning them of the impending attacks. The BBC has done nothing to ease my mind about this story.

 

But even more chilling are the stories about alleged Israeli foreknowledge that weren't circulating shortly after 9/11. And the BBC hasn't even tried to deal with them!

 

By speaking of "Jews" rather than "Israelis", the BBC follows in the Popular Mechanics tradition and muddies the waters considerably.

 

After framing it as a story involving "the Jews", supporters of the official story often move on to play the "anti-Semitism" card, and pretty soon after that the "Holocaust-denial" card, and even though these cards are quite irrelevant, they do derail an awful lot of discussions. The last time I checked, there was nothing anti-Semitic about wanting to know who attacked your country, and there was no hint of Holocaust-denial in asking whether certain highly-placed Israelis knew about the attacks before they happened.

 

The Odigo story is only one example. Far more serious, in my view, is the story from NYC about the three Israelis who were seen celebrating the attacks by exchanging high-fives, holding up their lighters as if at a rock concert, frolicking for their cameras against the backdrop of the burning towers. These men were later arrested along with two other Israelis; the five were held for 71 days during which they repeatedly failed lie detector tests. Eventually they were released and whisked home, but not before it was established that two of the five were agents of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.

 

Why would Mossad agents be cheering the burning towers?

 

 

 

 

According to Christopher Ketcham:

After the first plane hit, no one really thought that this was a terrorist attack. I mean, most people thought -- and I was there, you know, on the Brooklyn waterfront watching this whole thing. Everyone thought it was an accident. These guys, when they were interrogated by FBI, told them that -- essentially said that they immediately knew it was a terrorist attack. And they actually told the FBI that the reason they were celebrating was because the attacks would be beneficial to Israel, that it was, quote, “a good thing for Israel” -- that's according to the FBI spokesman who spoke on the record about this -- and that it would bring sympathy for Israel's political agenda in the Middle East.

And there you have it in a nutshell. Israel's political agenda in the Middle East, is, of course, a euphemism, but we can't fault Christopher Ketcham, who has brought so much of this story into the light.

 

9/11 works to enable Israel's military agenda in the Middle East, and that's what this is about -- not the Jewish people of New York City, who comprise nine point something percent of the population and suffered nine point something percent of the deaths. This is not about them at all, nor is it about anti-Semitism nor Holocaust denial, nor any of the other charges that get thrown at 9/11 skeptics with nauseating regularity.

 

In fact -- come along with me here for a moment and let's think like a conspirator, shall we? -- if 9/11 was an Israeli black op, a warning to the Jewish workers of NYC would have defeated the purpose. If the plotters hoped to generate sympathy for Israel, and planned to do it by killing a huge number of people, surely they would have realized that if there were no Jewish victims, this might reflect badly on Israel and could cause a backlash rather than an increase in sympathy. So they wouldn't have done it that way. If they did it at all. 5: Did a commercial airline hit the Pentagon?

 

What difference does it make? Some people think a commercial airliner did hit the Pentagon, but they still don't believe the official story. Some think that whatever hit the Pentagon couldn't have been a commercial airliner, and of course none of them believe the official story.

 

Some people on each side of the argument think the entire issue has been inflamed by disinformation that's been deliberately injected in order to split the 9/11 truth movement into hostile bickering camps. Whether or not that was the intention, the existence of this split is used by some official conspiracy apologists to discredit all who ask questions about 9/11.

 

 

 

 

For its part, the BBC says:

At 09:37 on 11 September, the Pentagon, headquarters of the American military, was rocked by a huge explosion.

According to the official account American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the building, killing all passengers on board and 125 military personnel and civilians on the ground.

But some people argue that AA 77 could not have hit the building, as there is little visible wreckage, and the hole in the wall caused by the impact is too small to have been inflicted by a Boeing 757 airliner.

The first photographs taken before the front wall of the Pentagon collapsed show the hole appears to be some 18-20 feet across at its narrowest point.

Conspiracy theories argue that a remote controlled drone or missile struck the Pentagon.

The official explanation is that the fuselage - which is 12 feet wide - punctured the building, but the two engines and the wings largely broke up on impact.

US Defense Department photographs

taken shortly after the attack show fragments of aircraft wreckage, some with the distinctive American Airlines livery.

The black box recorders and engine parts were found amongst the wreckage, and many eyewitnesses described seeing the plane hit the building.

Engineers and computer scientists at the Rosen Centre for Advanced computing at Purdue University, Indiana have built a computer model to recreate the crash.

Their research suggests that it was the exploding jet fuel which caused the worst damage inside the Pentagon.

None of this proves anything to me; most telling of all in my estimation is that the BBC chose to link to the US military multimedia site -- rather than to any specific photographs -- on the phrase "US Defense Department photographs". It's as if they're saying:

 

Photographs proving our point exist -- find them if you can! 6: Can CCTV footage prove what happened at the Pentagon?

 

 

 

 

BBC says:

Conspiracy theorists argue that the Pentagon, America's military headquarters, was not hit by a commercial airplane.

They say the initial hole in the outer wall is too small and there is no evidence of visible wreckage. Instead they believe the Pentagon was hit by something smaller, such as an unmanned drone or a cruise missile.

For Professor Jim Fetzer, of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the evidence is clear-cut. "Whatever hit the building was not a Boeing 757," he told The Conspiracy Files. "Anyone that tells you a Boeing 757 hit the building is saying something that is probably false, that cannot possibly be true."

The Pentagon and the FBI have released some footage taken from CCTV cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon.

Judicial Watch

.

Some of that footage - from the nearby CITGO petrol station and the Doubletree Hotel - does not shed any light on what hit the building.

Frames taken from two cameras at a car park in front of the Pentagon appear to show the silver nose cone and tail fin of a Boeing 757 moments before the explosion, but the footage is of very poor quality and not conclusive.

The FBI will not confirm whether or not it holds other security camera footage of the attack. Its lack of openness has fuelled further conspiracy theories.

There are many reports that security cameras at the nearby Sheraton Hotel captured images of the attack, but the hotel manager told The Conspiracy Files that none of their cameras were pointing in the direction of the Pentagon and no such footage exists.

The Conspiracy Files interviewed rescue workers who said they clearly identified wreckage from a passenger jet in and around the building. And photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the explosion and shown in the documentary, identify parts of a Boeing 757 including a piece of fuselage with the distinctive livery of American Airlines.

And what difference does this make? No matter what hit the Pentagon, the official story is still patently false.

 

A better question might be: Why did the FBI confiscate all the videotapes from all the area cameras that might have been able to show us what happened? You'd think if they were really interested in catching the terrorists they'd have better things to do than intimidating employees at the local gas stations.

 

And if you stop to see what they have at Judicial Watch you may find yourself shaking your head in astonishment that anything so vague could be considered evidence of anything. 7: Did a military transport plane control the attack on the Pentagon?

 

Again it doesn't matter -- and that makes three questions in a row here of the wedge-driver variety.

 

 

 

 

According to the BBC:

As the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 approached Washington DC, a military transport C-130 aircraft took off from Andrews Air Force Base, en route to Minnesota.

Conspiracy theories suggest that the C-130 may have been controlling the attack that morning as part of a secret government plot, or even fired a missile which downed the Boeing.

The C-130's pilot, Lt Colonel Steve O'Brien, tells a different story. He told The Conspiracy Files that he and his crew were alerted by Air Traffic control to the presence of an unidentified jet approaching the capital.

O'Brien describes seeing a Boeing passenger jet with the distinctive silver and red colours of American Airlines crossing their flight path in an unusually steep bank.

His first reaction was that the aircraft was in trouble and trying to make an emergency landing at the nearby Reagan National Airport. Moments later the Boeing crashed into the Pentagon.

Lt Colonel O'Brien points out the C-130 is not capable of carrying missiles.

This is a wild tale and makes no difference to anything. It amounts to an allegation by the BBC that some unnamed conspiracy theorists are wrong on this point. But so what? I knew 9/11 was a black op long before I heard this story about a C-130.

 

On the other hand, if you were trying to think of 10 relatively safe questions to ask and answer, the question about the C-130 would be far more appealing than questions about foreknowledge or obstruction of justice, to name but two sorely neglected areas of great concern. 8: Was United 93 shot down?

 

Here's another question that really doesn't matter.

 

I was watching the events unfold on television and I knew it was a false flag attack while flight 93 was still in the air. Whatever happened with that flight was not going to make the official story -- as told so far -- any more believable.

 

 

 

 

Quoth the BBC:

United Airlines 93 was the fourth plane hijacked on 9/11, and the only one not to reach its target.

The official account of the day, as told in the

9/11 Commission Report

holds that Flight 93 crashed into open ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, apparently as passengers tried to seize back the controls from the hijackers. But 9/11 conspiracy theorists are suspicious of this account.

Some argue that substantial wreckage from the aircraft was found at Indian Lake, a reported 6 miles from the crash site in Shanksville. If this would true, it would lend weight to the theory that the aircraft disintegrated in mid-air after being hit by a missile.

Leading conspiracy theorist and broadcaster Alex Jones of

infowars.com

argues that planes generally leave a small debris field when they crash, and that this is not compatible with reports of wreckage found further afield from Shanksville.

The reports of wreckage at Indian Lake were accurate in so far as small, light fragments of insulation material and paper from United 93 were found by residents at the lake, having blown there from the crash site on the prevailing wind.

However, the distance between the two locations was misreported in some accounts. In fact, in a straight line, Indian Lake is just over a mile from the crash site. The road between the two locations takes a roundabout route of 6.9 miles - accounting for the erroneous reports.

Also, the fragments of debris which were found at Indian Lake were downwind of the crash site and east of the plane's flight path. Had United 93 started to disintegrate in mid-air, wreckage would have fallen below the flight path - to the west of Shanksville.

Wally Miller, the local coroner at Somerset, Pennsylvania is at the centre of another debate about the crash of United 93. In his film Loose Change, Dylan Avery quotes Miller as saying: "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there."

However, interviewed for The Conspiracy Files, Wally Miller says he was misquoted.

"I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the manner of death was going to be.

"It was a plane crash, but yet it was a homicide because terrorists had hijacked the plane and killed the passengers."

He says it is technically correct that there were no complete bodies at the crash site, but the recovery operation found many body parts and DNA to identify all the passengers and crew on board.

So here the BBC's claim amounts to saying that Alex Jones was wrong about how far-scattered the debris from Flight 93 was, and Dylan Avery used a quote from Wally Miller who later said he was misquoted. And these two claims of the BBC may very well be true. But even if they are true, so what?

 

The "crash site" still doesn't look like a crash site, the stories of cellphone calls being made from high altitude didn't make any sense, and we have all sorts of reasons to believe the official story is full of holes (if not full of lies, or something even more aromatic!) on this point, even if Alex and Dylan are both wrong!

 

And that's not to say that they are wrong. I don't know. It's possible Wally Miller was misquoted. It's also possible Wally Miller changed his tune after speaking a bit too freely. If that's what happened, it wouldn't be the first time a key witness in a key story had changed his tune. Perhaps a shady character drew up alongside Wally Miller one day and alerted him to the fact that he had spoken too freely. It wouldn't be the first time for that, either.

 

The BBC's link to infowars.com doesn't work, but I've fixed it for you. ;-)

9: Did United 93 crash?

 

Here's another side of the previous question. But this time it's framed in such a way as to discredit Loose Change specifically. Loose Change has become increasingly popular lately, especially in Britain, and as the defenders of the official story see it, Loose Change needs all the discrediting it can get.

 

 

 

 

Here the BBC says:

Photographs taken at the crash site near Shanksville show a small crater and fragments of clearly identifiable aircraft wreckage along with personal possessions from some of those on board.

But the size of the crater and the absence of large pieces of wreckage have led some to question whether UA93 actually crashed there at all. This question is examined at the following website:

Killtown: Hunt the Boeing II

Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change, argues that Flight 93 landed elsewhere, with the passengers abducted as part of an elaborate government plot.

Loose Change

Avery's film quotes reports from a local TV station in Ohio saying that two planes had landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of a bomb threat. Avery suggests that one of these was Flight 93.

In fact, there was one plane diverted to Cleveland that morning, with a suspected bomb on board.

But this was a different flight: Delta Airlines Flight 89, which had been proceeding along the same westward air corridor as United 93. In the chaos of that morning, Air Traffic Control had confused the two flights and ordered the Delta to land.

Local TV stations covered a press conference by the local mayor in which he referred to the Delta flight landing because of a suspect bomb, but later amended their stories when it became clear that Delta 89 had not been hijacked.

So what do we have here? A "crash scene" that doesn't look much like a crash scene, and BBC not even attempting to deny it.

 

Instead they point to an assertion in Loose Change that's been denied. And what can that mean? First, of course, just because something's been denied that doesn't make it false. Look: Two plus Two isn't Four! Do you believe me?

 

Secondly, even if Dylan Avery is completely wrong on this one, the "crash scene" still doesn't look like a crash scene, and the BBC still doesn't deny it. Click that Killtown link if you don't believe me.

 

Really. Check out that Killtown link and tell me a commercial airliner crashed in that field. And watch Loose Change sometime if you haven't done so already. It's not perfect but it asks a lot of good questions.

 

Thanks to BBC for two good links here. ;-) 10: Could the attacks have been prevented?

 

 

 

 

Here we have an example of a very broad question being addressed as if it were very narrow. The BBC says:

Were there chances to stop the attacks prior to 9/11? If so, was this failure deliberate?

The CIA knew that two al-Qaeda terrorists had entered the United States as early as January 2000. But the CIA never passed on this information to the FBI - so the FBI did not know to look for them.

The two future hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar settled in San Diego, where they started to take lessons at a local flying school. They used their real names in official documents and one of them - al-Hazmi - was even listed in the local phonebook.

Had the CIA tipped off the FBI that two known al-Qaeda operatives had travelled to America, it would have been easy to track them down - and possibly the 9/11 attacks could have been thwarted.

But Dale Watson, who led the FBI's investigation of 9/11, told The Conspiracy Files that there was no deliberate CIA plot to keep information from the FBI.

He said: "In large organisations you do have breakdowns in communications at the lower end. There was never any top down orders either by the FBI or the CIA. And anybody that believes that - they're wrong."

Dale Watson might just be telling us a tall tale there. We've heard all sorts of stories about agents in the field starting investigations that could have foiled the plot but who were called off the hunt by their superiors. Perhaps there was never any all-encompassing top-down orders from central headquarters in either the FBI or the CIA. But the right people knew that certain sorts of leads ought not to be investigated! We could talk to Coleen Rowley about that, but we'd do most of the listening!

 

 

 

 

The story of one instance where the CIA had information that could have led somewhere if only the FBI had known of it (1) doesn't begin to cover the question of whether the attacks could have been prevented, and (2) conveniently places the blame on an intelligence agency the administration has been trying to intimidate and eviscerate for years -- first in the pressure to find intelligence that would support the administration's bid to sell their long-planned war in Iraq, later in a reshuffling that eliminated all serious opposition to the unitary executive, based on the pretext that the CIA had been wrong in their assessment that Iraq did in fact have WMD. Oh what a tangled web these professional mass murderers do weave!

After the attacks, government officials were summoned to give evidence before a Congressional Inquiry set up to investigate the intelligence failure before 9/11.

It seems that the CIA information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was "lost in the system".

BBC doesn't want to talk about the other things that were lost in the system, or buried by the system, as the case may be.

 

 

 

 

But at least they're willing to quote Bob Graham.

But Co-chairman Senator Bob Graham told The Conspiracy Files of his frustration at the lack of co-operation from the FBI in that inquiry, and by the government's decision to censor over 30 pages of his report which related to Saudi Arabia.

"Within 9/11 there are too many secrets," he said, "and that withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security."

Interestingly, the BBC has left the last word with a skeptic. And the quote, coming from a US Senator, deserves to be taken seriously.

 

Within 9/11 there are too many secrets, and the doubts they engender certainly cannot be dispelled by 10 narrow questions. The Questions They Don't Ask

 

Some of the questions the BBC doesn't ask are even more interesting than those they do. And perhaps there's a good reason for this.

 

What about president Bush, sitting there in the classroom doing a deer-in-the-headlights impersonation after being told the country was under attack? If he was a target, why didn't the Secret Service whisk him away? And if he wasn't a target, how could they have known that? And why didn't he do anything? He's Commander-In-Chief, right? Or only during campaign season?

 

What about the hijackers? How did they get into the country? How did they get their flight training? Why did they seem to be leaving deliberately conspicuous trails? Or do fanatical Muslims usually snort cocaine and pick fights at strip clubs?

 

What about the bin Laden family? Why were so many members of the alleged ringleader's extended family collected and ushered out of the country so soon after the attacks that the FBI didn't even get a chance to talk to them? And speaking of the FBI, it doesn't list Osama bin Laden as a 9/11 suspect because, it says, it has no hard evidence implicating him.

 

Why is Sibel Edmonds gagged? She knows things about money, and drugs, and Turkey, which the administration is deathly afraid of. So she's under a State Secrets gag order which prevents her from telling us certain things which we're told would be very detrimental to sensitive diplomatic and business arrangements. I'll say they would! If you take a look at the amount of poppy being grown in Afghanistan and shipped through Turkey you can get a sense of how sensitive it really is!

 

Why was the steel from the WTC collected as quickly as possible and shipped to China for recycling? Why wasn't the world's greatest-ever crime scene preserved? Why did it take so long for an investigation to be set up? And then why was it run by an administration insider with a specialty in public perception and myth-making?

 

Don't get me started! There are a zillion and one other unanswered questions, and by not even admitting that those questions are out there, and that we're still waiting for answers, the BBC shows quite clearly that it's not interested in the truth, and hardly interested in supporting the official story, but primarily interested in discrediting those who would question the very absurd official account of that very absurd day.

 

There's hardly any journalism involved in such an effort. Baby, what a big surprise! The Method In The Madness

 

Realistically speaking, it seems crazy to go to air with a case this weak. But circumstances have forced Guy Smith's hand. They've spent money on this. It's been scheduled and advertised for quite a while now. He can't back out at the last minute.

 

So now it's a question of production. When the propaganda special airs on Sunday night, with all the magic of modern audio/video behind it, spellbound viewers will allow themselves to be put to sleep on the pablum of officially sanctioned lies, with no hint of the tyranny creeping up around them.

 

But you won't be among them, will you? Nor your friends, nor your families.

 

I don't usually encourage people to email my articles to others, but if you ever wanted to do something like that, this would be a good time to try it. ;-)

 

The truth shall set us all free, my friends. But only if we share it!

Producer Struggles to Defend Flaws & Bias of BBC Hit Piece

Guy Smith says 'we can debate these issues all day' without being able to debate any of them

 

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

 

The producer of the BBC Conspiracy Files documentary, a poorly researched and bias hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday and struggled to defend charges that the program was laden with glaring flaws and crass emotional manipulation throughout.

 

Judge for yourself by listening to the MP3 audio.

 

 

Smith began by claiming that he conducted the investigation in an "objective and balanced way" and yet there were as many as thirteen individuals representing the official story or a whitewash version of it versus just three individuals representing 9/11 skepticism. How can a more than four to one ratio be judged as balanced? In addition, the debunkers were allowed to talk at length while the skeptics were tightly edited and had extremely little on screen time.

 

 

 

Smith is completely dishonest in claiming the evidence alone led the nature of the documentary because the way in which it is filmed and edited clearly betrays an overwhelming bias and a zeal to discredit the skeptics by means of editorial deceit and cinematic manipulation of the audience.

 

 

Smith was forced to state "no I'm not denying that" when he was questioned on the imbalance of having four times the amount of debunkers compared to skeptics.

 

Dylan Avery's first question for Guy Smith was to ask, "How can I drop out of something I never attended." In the hit piece, the narrator calls Avery a "self-confessed dropout," a clear smear attempt to undermine his trustworthiness, when in reality Avery never even attended college.

 

Smith bizarrely tried to wriggle out of this basic factual error by claiming that in England the term "dropout" doesn't mean to drop out of college or University, but merely to go a different route. Being British, I immediately confirmed that dropout, in the overwhelming majority of its usage and certainly in this context, means to have attended University or school and dropped out. It means the same thing in England that it does in America and a simple search of the BBC News website shows that the term 'dropout' is almost always used in this context.

 

In claiming otherwise, Smith is dishonestly trying to hide from the fact that the term was deliberately used to undermine and smear Avery in the documentary.

Trying to change the meaning of words in the context they are used is a crass attempt to deflect accusations of bias and Smith needs to take a long and serious look at himself in the mirror.

 

When asked about the deliberate implosion of the twin towers, Smith responded, "We looked into that and we came to the conclusion that the evidence just doesn't support the conspiracy theory."

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the evidence the BBC was using to illustrate its ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse scenario, which was so implausible that even official NIST investigators had to back away from it, was a graphic animation that shows just ten floors collapsing every six seconds, meaning the BBC is telling us that the twin towers took around 66 seconds to collapse when in reality they fell in just fourteen.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBynRZGG8

 

Above is an excellent debunking of this animation and below you can see how the BBC used it to support their flawed case.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoAftFBLdiI

 

When challenged on this flaw, all Mr. Smith could say was "it's not misleading," despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at it and see that it is. Guy Smith will probably recoil in embarrassment at the You Tube explanation above when he realizes he has used a completely flawed animation as the central supporting evidence for his advocacy of the official conspiracy theory that two modern 110 story steel buildings were demolished into small pieces and dust in under sixteen seconds without the use of incendiary devices.

 

When challenged why Smith failed to include the words of just one of the dozens and dozens of first responders, police and firefighters who heard and saw explosions, and namely Craig Bartmer, the former NYPD official who heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from it, Smith at first claimed ignorance to who Bartmer was, even though he had met and interviewed him at Dylan Avery's home.

 

Smith says that he tried to "go back to primary sources, to eyewitnesses" when in reality the show gave 10 minutes to a Hollywood sci-fi producer of a show that went off the air five years ago, and there was no coverage whatsoever of the primary eyewitnesses who reported bombs and explosions, just one selective clip of a fireman talking about damage to Building 7's sprinkler system.

 

When challenged with why he didn't even mention firefighters who reported bombs, never mind use any of the literally dozens of video clips and audio segments from the official NYFD tapes, Smith had no answer and began talking about people who had complained that he gave too much air time to "conspiracy theorists," implying that a ratio of four to one in favor of the debunkers was not enough.

 

Smith began to sound like a broken record at this point, repeating the line 'we could debate this all day' and variations of it without ever actually being able to debate or defend the numerous flaws and bias throughout his hit piece.

 

The producer had the gall to claim he had looked at the evidence in an "objective and dispassionate" way when the documentary was laden from beginning to middle to end with emotional manipulation about how asking questions about 9/11 was insulting and hurtful to the victims, a ludicrous and cynical attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

 

In reality, Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the attack, and represents the largest group of 9/11 victim's family members, says that over half of his members are asking the same questions, not to mention the Jersey Girls and numerous polls of New Yorkers that consistently show the majority believe there is a government cover-up surrounding 9/11.

 

When challenged on the notion that Smith had already come to a conclusion before filming for the show had even finished and therefore betraying an implicit bias, in addition to Alex Jones' claim that Smith laughed off 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a restaurant meeting months before the show was aired, Smith stuttered before claiming he went into the project with an "open mind."

 

I would suggest Mr. Smith’s blatant and offensive bias in producing this sham documentary comes as a result of his zeal to maintain his perch in the media establishment peanut gallery and on the BBC gravy train. Maybe it’s Mr. Smith’s fear that because of journalistic cowardice in tackling the weapons of mass destruction farce, he realizes his role in the media is under threat – because people don’t trust the mainstream any more and are increasingly turning to the alternative press in search of truth.

 

The Conspiracy Files charade will ultimately only fan the flames of 9/11 truth even more, being that its flawed evidence, inherent bias and manipulative smear tactics will be obvious to those who still maintain the ability to think for themselves.

 

Is this BBC2 documentary available online anywhere, I missed it.

Is this BBC2 documentary available online anywhere, I missed it.

 

The hit piece can be viewed on google video, here

 

BBC Discredited; Retractions on 9/11 Hit Piece Forthcoming?

Complaint responses suggest consternation within corporation on revelations of bias in Conspiracy Files documentary, indicates large number of complaints received

 

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

Prison Planet

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

 

 

The BBC's response to complaints made against the bias and inaccuracy of the 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary suggests that an overwhelming backlash has caused considerable consternation at the network and possible retractions or apologies may be forthcoming, with BBC bosses potentially fearing the company's credibility has been tarnished.

 

Following the airing of the show on Sunday evening, numerous websites representative of the 9/11 truth movement issued precise and detailed rebuttals to what many saw as nothing more than an outright hit piece that used crass emotional manipulation, concocted evidence and cynical bias in an attempt to dismiss questions about the official story behind 9/11.

 

Appearing on the Alex Jones show on Monday, the show's producer Guy Smith offered little to defend against allegations that the program represented nothing more than yellow journalism and an attempt to create a strawman argument in the interests of debunking 9/11 skeptics.

 

From what can be gleaned from how the BBC is treating complaints made against the show, it seems that the backlash has forced the complaints to be passed up the chain of command and that the overwhelming response is forcing bosses to consider whether it might be necessary to issue retractions or clarifications in an attempt to calm the furore.

 

Here's the BBC's standard response to complaints being made about the Conspiracy Files program.

 

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

This is to let you know that we are dealing with your recent complaint but are waiting to clarify some points with other colleagues in the BBC before we reply more fully to you.

We will of course respond as soon as possible but trust you will understand that the time taken can also depend on the nature and number of the other complaints we are currently investigating. The BBC also issues public responses to issues which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

 

We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email and, in the meantime, would like to thank you for contacting us with details of your concerns.

Regards

 

BBC Information

 

Because the BBC is funded solely through taxpaying British citizens via their TV license fee, the corporation is obliged to issue retractions and apologies if complaints about a particular broadcast are high. On most occasions, they are at least forced to clarify their position on their editor's blog website. 9/11 truth websites across the spectrum are encouraging readers to make complaints and so it's safe to speculate that the BBC has been inundated with them.

 

There have been numerous instances where BBC investigative programs have had to issue retractions and apologies due to faulty research or deliberate bias, a notable example being a 1999 Horizons documentary which sought to debunk the research of controversial archeologist Graham Hancock. An investigation upheld Hancock's complaint that his response to debunkers was not included in the show, and the BBC had to air the re-edited documentary.

 

The BBC divides complaints into four different categories - accuracy, bias, taste/standards and other. Since the Conspiracy Files farce displayed overwhelming inaccuracy in several claims it made, most notably the "pancake collapse" animation which even official NIST authorities have backed away from, and also betrayed patent bias in pitting thirteen debunkers against just three 9/11 skeptics, while ridiculing the character of the skeptics by means of false accusations and stereotyping, it fits into at least two of these categories.

 

We must push now for a retraction, an apology, or at the very least a clarification from the BBC in regards to this blatant hit piece. The basis for our accusations that the program was a hit piece are documented here and here.

 

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml and select "make an official complaint." Please be as polite as possible and remember that the person reading your complaint will most likely have no connection to the production of the hit piece. Be clear and concise in your complaint, and stick to the facts about the bias and inaccuracy of the program.

 

If the BBC are forced to respond to the backlash, it will deter other networks and producers from creating malicious hit pieces designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You gotta see this...

 

The PentaCon (Smoking Gun Version)

Watch it

Website Here

AND HERE'S SOME INFO TO GO WITH THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT'S SPARKING THE NEW ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON COVER-UP!!

 

http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1992197&postcount=489

BBC: "Conspiracy on conspiracy"

The Laukev7 Report

Friday, February 23, 2007

 

 

 

Isn't it funny how the more Rudin tries to deny there is a conspiracy, the guilter he appears.

I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

For someone who isn't a spy, he sure is giving a very good impression of one.

 

 

 

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland,

claimed last Friday that

a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “

BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

”

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

 

 

It's a shame it's just a conspiracy theory, Rudin. If you did have another version of the documentary, you could have released it to save your credibility. According to you and your ilk, conspiracy theorists love to engage in wishful thinking, and you just shattered their hopes that BBC might not be a totally inept propaganda mouthpiece as your documentary has revealed it to be.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Gee, I wonder where people get such ideas? Maybe it has something to do with your 'documentary' trying to smear us by showing to the public theories that neither Alex Jones nor 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK actually endorse, and that have been discredited inside the movement years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

You missed another opportunity to save your arse, Rudin. Conspiracy mongers as we are, we had some hopes that maybe you're just being ordered to make up that bilge for public consumption, but you're telling us that you're just an incompetent on your own. Too bad for you, Rudin. Even we conspiracy theorists are coincidence theorists at heart, and we would love to believe that you're just so inept that you can't do enough research to find our real arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that

in the programme

, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

You're so full of shit. Your documentary didn't mention anything about the 'New Pearl Harbor' quote in the document of the Project for a New American Century, which you could at least have attempted to spin into meaning that the neocons didn't plan but just 'wanted' a New Pearl Harbor. It made no mention of Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it' quote, which you could have attempted to spin into meaning that he 'pulled the firefighters' out of the building. Your documentary repeated the assertions made by the NIST report, called Popular Mechanics a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having been repeatedly debunked and being owned owned by Hearst, and used an animation of the 'truss' theory that was long debunked. Anyone who does basic 9/11 research will find out about those essential facts. In addition to that, Alex Jones went on the record saying that he showed those documents to your colleague.

Instead, you tried to link us to anti-Semitism by taking the Odigo story out of context and claiming that we still believe in the missing 4000 Jewish employees rumour. You pitted three 9/11 opponents against thirteen supporters of the official story, while showing Alex Jones for only five minutes and portraying him as a cult leader, and falsely calling Dylan Avery a 'college dropout'. And on top of that, you undermined their image with manipulative camera work. Naturally, we're expected to believe that you're doing all this by coincidence, and I bet you will answer that all just imagining those conspiracies on top of the other layer of conspiracies (oh yeah, and makes the conspiracy more complicated, even though it's supposed to simplify the world for us).

 

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

Hmm, let's see, you're smearing us as a bunch of people who believe in conspiracies because we like to make up fantasies, calling us cult members and college dropouts and implying that we're anti-Semites, all this on British public television reaching to the entire world. Maybe there's a reason why we might want to defend ourselves.

 

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

Leaving aside your insinuation (or shall I call it a 'conspiracy theory'?) that we're part of a fake grassroots campaign, and the fact that our numbers have nothing to do with whether our theories are true or not, anyone who took a research methodology class in college can tell that this question is blatantly leading. The phrase 'it is generally accepted' adds a heavy bias to the question. This has an especially exacerbating effect when carried out on the phone, where the respondent will tend to vote with the majority for fear of judgement from the person taking the poll, and have little time to think about the question before answering.

 

 

 

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

However, as we pointed out in Debunking BBC, other polls, scientific or online, consistently show high levels of support for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

 

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804zogbypoll.htm

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm

 

 

 

 

Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306supportsheen.htm

 

Despite the best efforts of the now whimpering attack poodles of the mainstream media, an online CNN poll shows that over four-fifths, or 82 per cent, agree with actor Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/110906insidejob.htm

 

Documentary film maker and radio host Alex Jones, coordinating today's 9/11 truth movement events in downtown New York City, says that the atmosphere around ground zero has dramatically changed, with the majority of firefighters and police officers now sympathetic to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/111104cnnpoll.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Official BBC propagandist concludes:

 

In fact

our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts

of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.

And this Sunday,

The Conspiracy Files

series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.

Aww, mister Rudin throws us a lolly to prove us that he's not a government agent. Nice try.

 

 

 

:) Busted!

 

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background

 

Monday, February 26, 2007

 

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows a BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

 

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

 

CLICK AND WATCH THE CLIP FOR YOURSELF

 

This amazing clip is currently carried on Google Video and you can watch it above but many expect it to be removed shortly. We are attempting to download an original copy from the source.

 

To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7.

 

Although there is no clock on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

Here are some further screenshots from the video.

 

 

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

 

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.

 

In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.

 

This newly uncovered video confirms what we all knew, that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!

 

This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.

 

The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.

 

 

That's amazing ^.....the BBC Studio Reporter even gives the official line, the 'official reason' why WTC7 has fallen before it actually has!!

 

 

 

He's just reading what's being fed to him via a newswire service to BBC from official press releases.

 

 

 

And then, when they go to New York live they even zoom in on the area, WTC7 clearly still standing, yet the reporters don't even know because Journalists are just the great repeaters of information.

 

 

 

Oops.

 

The truth is coming, day by day. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

 

 

If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

 

Watch the clip below.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPxnS3PDqIg

 

 

According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed.

 

 

"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler.

 

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

 

Since the BBC obviously had a source for this information, though they refuse to acknowledge exactly what that source was, it can be surmised that the news took a few minutes to make its way to the on air anchor, therefore we can approximate that someone knew Building 7 was going to collapse at least half an hour before it fell. However, if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint.

 

First responders, firefighters and police are all on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was to be "brought down" and many took that to mean that it was going to be intentionally demolished by means of explosives. Some even reported a 20 second countdown preceding the building's collapse, which can only mean one thing - that it was deliberately imploded according to a pre-determined schedule.

 

Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA.

 

 

World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.

The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened. So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute.

 

We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives."I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long."

"The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."

Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse.

 

 

Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage.

 

Good article below that deals with many details I have posted in the past.

 

The huge amount of lies involved in the whole cover-up have been so widely pointed out that it sometimes seems as if I am living in a constant nightmare; where most of the people are in a mass coma and do not have the ability or energy to even think for themselves.

 

I'm not in a nightmare though - this is what the world is like these days!!!

Did Cheney Allow Or Order 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon?

Sherwood Ross

Friday, March 2, 2007

 

Although the official 9/11 Commission Report(CR) said Vice President Richard Cheney did not arrive at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center(PEOC) under the White House until "shortly before 10 a.m." that tragic day, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified when he arrived in the room at 9:20 a.m. Cheney was already there. (CR published no testimony from Mineta.)

 

The timeline is important because if Cheney arrived at 10 a.m. it would have been about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was allegedly struck by a hijacked airplane at 9:38 a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. Some 125 Pentagon employees perished in the attack.

 

Mineta testified "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

 

Since the airplane was not intercepted and destroyed, even though the vice president knew of it, "the orders" may have been to allow the plane to hit the Pentagon. All of this, and more, is contained in the March/April issue of "Tikkun" magazine, "a bimonthly Jewish critique of Politics, Culture & Society." The piece was authored by Dr. David Ray Griffin, a principal debunker of the accepted 9/11 dogma, and published by Rabbi Michael Lerner on grounds, "if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president..."

 

In Griffin's view, "the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government." If he's right, 9/11 was, indeed, the crime of the century, and what has been called a false flag operation involving the fabrication of evidence to make it appear the Taliban government of Afghanistan was complicit, paving the road for invasion.

 

To begin with, there's even a question of whether American Airlines Flight 77 under control of Al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour struck the Pentagon. It would require, Griffin charges, not only outfoxing military radar for over an hour but the quite miraculous performance of descending 7,000 feet in two minutes while executing a 270-degree banked turn and bashing into the Pentagon without touching or damaging the lawn, a feat of aeronautical magic.

 

Griffin, a professor of philosophy and theology at Claremont Graduate University, Calif., says the impact of the strike, unlike those of the two planes that struck the Twin Towers, did not create a dectactable seismic signal. "Also, according to photographs and eywitnesses, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not evident in the aftermath of the strike on the Pentagon."

 

Karen Kwiatkowski, then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of "a strange lack of visibile debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact." Another witness was CNN's Jamie McIntyre, who reported live from the Pentagon that day: "The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand." (How does that square with any photos you've ever seen of crashed airliners?)

 

Griffin also quotes retired pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence, who said, "There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757... There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel... The expected 'crash' damage doesn't exist...Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged!" So it may have been more than just a slip of the tongue when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blurted about the "missile" that hit the Pentagon.

 

The CR report alleged there was no warning of an unidentified aircraft heading to Washington until 9:36 a.m., only "one or two minutes" before the Pentagon was struck, yet Mineta said Cheney knew of it at least 10 minutes earlier, time to order an evacuation.

 

"By omitting Mineta's testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10 a.m., the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon," Griffin writes.

 

The author goes on to say, CR's conclusion "contradicts Cheney's own account, which can still be read on the White House Website. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" shortly after 9/11 Cheney said: '(A)fter I talked to the president...I went down into...the Presidential Emergency Operations Center...(W)hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.' So he got there, as Mineta said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 minutes afterwards."

 

Griffin asserts the public has been fed three different yarns about why Flight 77 was not intercepted before hitting the Pentagon. Initially, military officials said no fighter jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit; next, they said fighters were scrambled but did not arrive in time because of late FAA notification; finally, the CR found the FAA did not notify NORAD until after the planes crashed.

 

Particularly curious is that the FBI "immediately confiscated videos from security cameras on nearby buildings," and destroyed crash evidence, Griffin said. "After the strike, officials picked up debris in front of the impact site and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up."

 

Griffin's views are akin to those published on Internet site "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which has joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents and physical evidence related to 9/11. The group's cofounder, James Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, calls Mineta's testimony "devastating."

 

"It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit," Fetzer said. "In fact, there are multiple witnesses who contradict the Vice President's account, including Richard Clarke, Condoleeza Rice, and several others. It had to have been a 'stand down' order, but the mere fact that he knew the plane was coming in and did not warn the Pentagon is proof this was an inside job," Fetzer said.

 

Philip J. Berg, former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and member of Scholars, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm.

 

The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against (Zacarias) Moussaoui(for willfully concealing advanced knowledge of the forthcoming 9/11 attack). No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?"

 

Fetzer said the government's case against the hijackers is counterfeit. "A growing body of evidence supports the inference that these 19 men were patsies for forces within the United States government."