BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

[ref]

Is there a way to watch this without downloading the torrent? If not, what do I have to do first?

This thread has Youtube and Google Video links.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75184

 

[JAStewart]

Sh-tseeker, you say they had no quotes from Anchors?

Yeah, real expert testimony there.

Just because someone, who is unqualified in that field, thinks that it looks like a CD DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS A CD. Have you asked any Controlled Demolitions Specialists? Didn't think so.

 

[JAStewart]

Ok i'll deal with issues I can (There are better debunkers than me who can deal with the rest of your post).

Omissions:
1) no eyewitness reports of explosions.
2) No FDNY testimonies.
3) No quotes from anchors.
4) No sustained shots of the WTC1 & 2 'collapses' showing explosive force
5) No mention of debris hurled 400 feet sideways.
6) No molten metal.
7) No Thermite
8) No Steven Jones
9) No David Ray Griffin
10) No mention of 4,000,000 views of Loose Change.
11) No 85 confiscated videos at Pentagon.
12) No Minetta testimony.
13) No skeptic eyewitnesses at pentagon or Shanksville.
14) No no-planes.
15) No free-fall speed.
16) No clear clip of WTC7.
17) No toxic dust. No dying responders.
18) No big-names ( Bowman, Paul Craig Roberts, Von Buelow, Meacher, Sheen, Lynch etc etc).
19) No polls
20) No BBC report that 5 of hijackers still alive.
21) No UBL denial
22) No insider dealing
23) No Silverstein
24) No Marvin Bush.
25) No 'Pull it'
26) No Northwoods.
27) No power-downs at WTC. No sniffer dogs.
28) No Rick Siegel
29) No 911truth.org.

1) Witnesses heard explosions during the empire state building fire, and what sounded like gunshot's - inside job? Explosion sound does not equal bomb.
2) FDNY were obviously not included because NONE of them agree with the inside job theory, let alone the controlled demolition theory. Again, its a case of explosion does not equal bomb.
3) Anchormen and woman are not qualified in the field of controlled demolitions nor are they structural engineers.
4) Unnecessary - everyone has seen the collapses over and over and over. People know how they fell.
5) No, but you must have noticed the fact that 3 floors of one of trade centers had compressed into a 3 foot high compression - with compression like that it would be very easy for debris to hurdle 400 meters. I'm surprised it wasn't further.
6) Hot pockets of fire melting aluminum. Fire is hot.
7) No evidence of Thermite/Thermate
8) Because his work can hardly be called 'science'. Check out the work Gravy did on his Truth Movement Lies paper.
9) David G still thinks somewhat that the hijackers are still still alive and also believe they were never in the US. That speaks volumes.
10) They didn't mention that there have been a substantial quantity of hits, and infact did not even mention Screw Loose Change. You should be happy. 4,000,000 people
11) It is a criminal investigation. The authorities aren't here to please every little trivial bit of your imagination.
12) Minetta's testimony has been proven inconclusive and unsubstantial.
13) They are a minority.
14) Well if they had talked about No-Plane it would have made it seem like they were graspin' at for topics. Inside Jobbies are a minority let alone the no-brain, no planers. Grow up.
15) Debris is falling around the towers faster than the towers are falling - which is defying gravity?
16) There was a fine video of WTC7 in my opinion. And it even showed that it wasn't straight down.
17) This is more a political matter and in NO-SINGLE-WAY related to the 9/11 conspriacy other than the fact that it was dust and debris from the towers.
18) Are Sheen, Lynch, Meacher's opinions as celebrities valid? No more so than a normal person on the street. They are not structural engineers nor are they controlled demolition experts.
19) The polls are an absolute joke. They have been dealt with on this forum many a time. Do a search!
20) BBC made an error and retracted the story. They apologized and admitted the error was made on a mix of identities. For example, Mohammad is a very popular name.
21) I don't get what you're staying here? Osama has admitted involvement. Of course he would deny it originally - would you want the US Army™ chasing after you? After he was secure and outtathaway, he admitted it.
22) Been debunked, get over it.
23) Silverstein had no involvement other than his properties were destroyed.
24) What should be investigated about Marvin Bush?
25) Oh please. I want to type 'just die', but I'm trying to be peaceful and diplomatic.
26) Northwoods. A false flag operation that was iREJECTED! by the US govenrment this totally goes against a CTers belief that the Government promotes false flags - you should be glad they didn't mention it.
27) Co-incidence. Been debunked.
28) What about Rick? Once you've explain the squibs, why the building fell where does that leave him? Hearing rumbles from falling buildings?
29) Yeah, but no 911myths.com, no ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com, etc.

"hey! get-get-get-get get over it" - OK Go.

 

[jhunter1163]

Someone should have told Dylan that the UK press doesn't take kindly to uppity Yanks.

 

[Architect]

Hey, don't just pick on the UK. No-one likes uppity Yanks!

 

[bonavada]

just got in..........
in disgust, i might withold my license fee as well. i had to endure the fkn welsh open snooker final last night. i hoped forlornly BBC2 Wales would deem the "conspiracy files" programme important enough to interrupt the joy of watching ronnie o'sullivan chalking his tip and pondering a pink for 3 fkn hours (like they did yonks ago with the iranian embassy seige when alex higgins and the SAS ruled the roost)
sorry, older UK'ers might know what i'm ranting on about i'm just fkn annoyed................

BV

 

[fsol]

There was no mention of the 4,000,000 viewers of Loose Change that is true. They actually said it was "viewed tens of millions of times" they even show a screenshot of Google Video with the number of views at 3,803,307. That's barely seven minutes into the program. How much of it has Truthseeker1234 actually watched I wonder to form his argument?

 

[busherie]

4) Unnecessary - everyone has seen the collapses over and over and over. People know how they fell.--> feeling has nothing to do with this, you know it.


12) Minetta's testimony has been proven inconclusive and unsubstantial.--> that may be your opinion, but it's false. don't mix 9/11 com report with a bible


17) This is more a political matter and in NO-SINGLE-WAY related to the 9/11 conspriacy other than the fact that it was dust and debris from the towers. --> related in the sense that this is a hint about how the bush administration prioritizes long-term health and the life of its citizens compared to short-term money!

26) Northwoods. A false flag operation that was iREJECTED! by the US govenrment this totally goes against a CTers belief that the Government promotes false flags - you should be glad they didn't mention it.
-->well the CT's point is that it may have been rejected (at the highest level of government, was approved by military hierarchy, remember) under Kennedy, but you know, the point is it shows you how far governements can contemplate doing when what they call "national interest" (cold war then, energy now) is according to them endangered. If it went as far as Mc Namara under Kennedy, who knows how far big wedding may have been under Bush. After all, pre iraq war lies went high....


on several other points you mentionned, i agree though.

 

[JAStewart]

The US did not want to sustain the Cold War. The threat of a nuclear was too great. (Northwoods)

 

[JAStewart]

"4) Unnecessary - everyone has seen the collapses over and over and over. People know how they fell.--> feeling has nothing to do with this, you know it."

Exactly. So feeling like it was a CD, based on just LOOKING at the way it fell is incorrect. "People know how they fell" was supposed to indicate that people had SEEN the collapses on tv, hundreds of times.



"12) Minetta's testimony has been proven inconclusive and unsubstantial.--> that may be your opinion, but it's false. don't mix 9/11 com report with a bible"

Minetta's testimony contradicts everything.



"17) This is more a political matter and in NO-SINGLE-WAY related to the 9/11 conspriacy other than the fact that it was dust and debris from the towers. --> related in the sense that this is a hint about how the bush administration prioritizes long-term health and the life of its citizens compared to short-term money!"

Thats politics, not 911 inside jobbies. In politics there are plenty of scandals, and that is one right there.


"26) Northwoods. A false flag operation that was iREJECTED! by the US govenrment this totally goes against a CTers belief that the Government promotes false flags - you should be glad they didn't mention it.
-->well the CT's point is that it may have been rejected (at the highest level of government, was approved by military hierarchy, remember) under Kennedy, but you know, the point is it shows you how far governements can contemplate doing when what they call "national interest" (cold war then, energy now) is according to them endangered. If it went as far as Mc Namara under Kennedy, who knows how far big wedding may have been under Bush. After all, pre iraq war lies went high...."

The US did not want to sustain the Cold War. The threat of a nuclear was too great (Northwoods). Why do you think they agreed with Russia to never invade Cuba if Russia pulled its warheads out of Cuba?
Check this out

 

[JQH]

Bollix!!

I'd just completed a long rebuttal of Truthseeker1234's post when the system told me I was not logged on. I really can't be bothered doing it again, partly because others have made similar points but mainly because I know he wouldn't believe a word I say anyway.

The problem with these so-called Truthseekers is that they've already decided what the truth is and are hammering the evidence to fit.

 

[JAStewart]

The problem with these so-called Truthseekers is that they've already decided what the truth is and are hammering the evidence to fit.

Evidence?

 

[T.A.M.]

you know..."truther" evidence. Speculation, hearsay, non-expert opinion, unheard of agenda biased media outlet reports....you know..."truther" evidence.

TAM

 

[Architect]

Wanna Larf?

press release from Ian Henshall, author of '9/11 Revealed'

BBC Programme on 911 Conspiracies repeats many canards.

19 February 2007

There were fatal misstatements of fact and key omissions in the BBC's programme on the nine eleven "conspiracy theories" which aired last night. The programme highlighted the most sensational and lurid allegations including a bizarre anti-semitic rumour which can only increase tensions in the Middle East. It ignored more widely held theories that rogue elements in the CIA facilitated the 911 attacks to help establish the war on terror.

1. The programme claimed that the Washington's official 911 investigation found no conspiracy. However it was built in to the terms of reference of the 911 Commission that no individual in the US should be singled out for blame, even accusations of incompetence were not allowed. When commission chair Thomas Kean commented that heads should have rolled there was a storm of protest in Washington and Kean withdrew his remarks.

2. The programme claimed that the official NIST investigation of the collapsing towers confirmed the official story. However the evidence produced by NIST did not support the NIST conclusions. NIST also made it clear that it had made no attempt to explain the most suspicious elements of all: the speed of collapse and the total destruction of the central core down to ground level. This canard has been repeated across the mainstream media most recently by George Monbiot in a bizarre article in the Guardian comparing "conspiracists" to a virus.

3. The programme suggested that the "conspiracy theorists" were causing grief to the relatives of the victims. They failed to mention that it was the relatives of the victims whose pressure led to the creation of the 911 Commission and that a large number of victims relatives angrily dispute the official story. Indeed one victim, William Rodriguez, an eyewitness who claims the bombs were set in the basement of the buildings, is touring Britain at the moment. The BBC has refused to interview him on any of its programmes.

4. The programme stated that the debris trail from flight ninety three was consistent with a crash rather than a shoot down. It closely examined the weakest evidence and failed to mention the strongest evidence. It appeared to misunderstand the allegations that a mystery plane landed in Cleveland airport.

5. The programme stated that there "happened to be" a "routine defence training exercise" on the morning of the nine eleven attacks. It failed to mention that these "routine" exercises contained a hushed up "anti-hijack exercise" which only came to light with the unofficial release of secret tapes from NORAD. The BBC must have been aware of the contents of these tapes because they ran an excerpt on the programme.

6. The programme falsely stated that the Pentagon "gave inaccurate information" to the official inquiries due to "human error in the fog of war". But the inquiries took place some years later. In fact 911 Commission officials determined that the falsehoods from the Pentagon were not due to the fog of war and there were grounds for bringing criminal prosecutions against Pentagon officials.

7. The programme failed to mention the blocking of FBI officials in Minnesota who correctly suspected that Zacharias Moussaoui was involved in a plot to fly planes into the World Trade Centre weeks before the attacks. Despite sixty memos to FBI headquarters these officials were refused permission to examine Moussaoui's laptop on legally spurious grounds. However the programme had a murky and confusing description of a second similar incident.

Ian Henshall is the UK's leading author on the subject with 911 Revealed favourably reviewed in The Daily Mail and the Sunday Times and letters carried in The Guardian. However the programme makers made no attempt to contact him.

Is there a conspiracy across the media to spread canards and misinformation? No.

Is there shoddy research, incompetence and a refusal to admit newsrooms bought a lemon from the CIA? Yes.

Is there a policy to smear dissenters as "conspiracy theorists" approved by top management at the BBC? Presumably, after all the official story is a conspiracy theory too, and a widely discredited one at that.

Ian Henshall

 

[CHF]

Omissions: no eyewitness reports of explosions. No FDNY testimonies. No quotes from anchors. No mention of FAA records being destroyed. No sustained shots of the WTC1 & 2 'collapses' showing explosive force . No mention of debris hurled 400 feet sideways. No molten metal. No Thermite. No Steven Jones. No David Ray Griffin. No mention of 4,000,000 views of Loose Change. No 85 confiscated videos at Pentagon. No Minetta testimony. No skeptic eyewitnesses at pentagon or Shanksville. No no-planes. No DEWs. No free-fall speed. No clear clip of WTC7. No toxic dust. No dying responders. No big-names ( Bowman, Paul Craig Roberts, Von Buelow, Meacher, Sheen, Lynch etc etc). No polls. No BBC report that 5 of hijackers still alive. No UBL denial . No insider dealing . No Giuliani, No Silverstein
No Marvin Bush. No 'Pull it' No Danny Jowenko. No Bush at Booker. No CIA funding of Al-Qaeda. No Northwoods. No power-downs at WTC. No sniffer dogs.
No Willy Rodriguez. No Rick Siegel . No 911truth.org.
Distortions: WTC7 shown four times in weakest shot (the one used for Berger CNN interview where 7 is half hidden). Impression of scientists v. isolated fanatical individuals. Alex Jones as cult-leader at quasi- evangelical 'rally'. Fetzer in close-up moving his head around a lot . Only Dylan held his cool and in one classic scene when interviewed about Wally Miller he exuded seething if controlled anger. Strawmen like '4,000 Jews' used to discredit whole range of 911 skepticism. Presented 'evidence' of UA93 crash as Bandana and Passport, then said , "In the face of ALL THIS,some still believe it was a conspiracy."
Lies: "WTC 7 was a raging inferno"."Flight 11 took off that morning". OGCT presented as fact.
X-files writer-"To think that the US government contains mass-murderers is preposterous". Popular Mechanics given credibility as ordinary down to-earth magazine.
Ended by trying to boil down the whole movement to FBI's admission of failure to act on intelligence supplied to CIA. ''The American people were failed" .
Concluding words of V/O: "The other conspiracy theories are just that - theories.
The evidence doesn't support them.
We were never shown that evidence.

No "pull it"? "Flight 77 took off?" No hijaxckers still alive?

Are you implying that these are your stronger points?

Be thankful they left all that out!

 

[David Wong]

"4) Unnecessary - everyone has seen the collapses over and over and over. People know how they fell.--> feeling has nothing to do with this, you know it."

Exactly. So feeling like it was a CD, based on just LOOKING at the way it fell is incorrect. "People know how they fell" was supposed to indicate that people had SEEN the collapses on tv, hundreds of times.

I was confused by his quote, then I realized he misread "People know how they fell" as "People know how they feel" and went from there.

 

[Alareth]

No mention of 4,000,000 views of Loose Change.

Wow, Loose Change has been popular.

That's it guys, I'm out. That's the overwhelming evidence of an inside job right there. How could I have been so blinded by actual facts and evidence when it's been nothing but a popularity contest the whole time.

 

[William Rea]

Wow, Loose Change has been popular.

That's it guys, I'm out. That's the overwhelming evidence of an inside job right there. How could I have been so blinded by actual facts and evidence when it's been nothing but a popularity contest the whole time.

You thought it was ever anything but a popularity contest? wow.

 

[Larry Lovage]

There were fatal misstatements of fact and key omissions in the BBC's programme on the nine eleven "conspiracy theories" which aired last night.

As opposed to the excellently sourced material for even one of the Truther claims.

The programme highlighted the most sensational and lurid allegations including a bizarre anti-semitic rumour which can only increase tensions in the Middle East.

Well, it was the one programme covering the issue, so it really had to pick and choose its targets. And in fact it hardly touched on the really lurid allegations, including laser weapon demolition, no planes (holograms) in NYC, complicity of the Vice President, complicity of firemen and policemen on the ground and any number of others - published in other disappointed lists of what the programme didn't cover, in fact.

It ignored more widely held theories that rogue elements in the CIA facilitated the 911 attacks to help establish the war on terror.

Actually I'd never heard that one, and I've been reading the theories here and on the 9/11 sites for a year or two. So I think we'll forgive the BBC this one lapse.... It did mention the conspiracy theory that laid the blame on the Bush Administration itself, and for the reasons stated - to justify the war on terror etc. Slightly more important than that it was just rogue elements in the CIA.

1. The programme claimed that the Washington's official 911 investigation found no conspiracy. However it was built in to the terms of reference of the 911 Commission that no individual in the US should be singled out for blame, even accusations of incompetence were not allowed. When commission chair Thomas Kean commented that heads should have rolled there was a storm of protest in Washington and Kean withdrew his remarks.

erm, but the programme mentioned the 9/11 Commission in the context of the opposition to which the conspiracy theories have begun. In addition there is a difference between deciding that "heads should roll" - a phrase which implies negligence or incompetence rather than criminal responsibility - and an actual conspiracy, so even if Kean had been allowed to name the people he thought should have been fired, this would not amount to him discovering a conspiracy in the sense of the conspiracy theories being promulgated.

2. The programme claimed that the official NIST investigation of the collapsing towers confirmed the official story. However the evidence produced by NIST did not support the NIST conclusions. NIST also made it clear that it had made no attempt to explain the most suspicious elements of all: the speed of collapse and the total destruction of the central core down to ground level. This canard has been repeated across the mainstream media most recently by George Monbiot in a bizarre article in the Guardian comparing "conspiracists" to a virus.

Why do I remember seeing explanations for the fast collapse in the NIST report?

3. The programme suggested that the "conspiracy theorists" were causing grief to the relatives of the victims. They failed to mention that it was the relatives of the victims whose pressure led to the creation of the 911 Commission and that a large number of victims relatives angrily dispute the official story. Indeed one victim, William Rodriguez, an eyewitness who claims the bombs were set in the basement of the buildings, is touring Britain at the moment. The BBC has refused to interview him on any of its programmes.

Evidence for this refusal? Of course some victims' families called for the 9/11 commission, and some victims' families "dispute the official story" (which is not the same as believing the government actually murdered their loved ones. However, some victims were FDNY officers (just for example) and conspiracy theorists have specifically maligned many of those firemen.

4. The programme stated that the debris trail from flight ninety three was consistent with a crash rather than a shoot down. It closely examined the weakest evidence and failed to mention the strongest evidence.

Which is? As has been pointed out many times, the debris from a shot down aircraft which broke up in mid-air would spread far more than the 8 miles that light material is recorded as having travelled.

It appeared to misunderstand the allegations that a mystery plane landed in Cleveland airport.

Not as far as I recall. The mystery plane was due to a mis-statement by the Mayor of Cleveland based on inaccurate reports in the first hour. That is what the programme investigated and revealed, as well as the true identity of that Cleveland flight. Is there some other understanding we're supposed to have of this?

5. The programme stated that there "happened to be" a "routine defence training exercise" on the morning of the nine eleven attacks. It failed to mention that these "routine" exercises contained a hushed up "anti-hijack exercise" which only came to light with the unofficial release of secret tapes from NORAD. The BBC must have been aware of the contents of these tapes because they ran an excerpt on the programme.

But the substance of the 9/11 conspiracy theories do not rest upon the fact that there was an anti-hijack exercise going on, that that exercise was a secret because it was part of the National Defence, and that those participants failed to do the actual thing they were exercising. The programme was pointing out the failures of the very people supposed to be protecting New York from the attack it suffered when it mentioned the anti-hijack exercise. As I recall, the programme did mention that it was an exercise for exactly this sort of thing, and here's another clue - sometimes you don't spell out in narration something that is made clear in the taped evidence you are broadcasting.

6. The programme falsely stated that the Pentagon "gave inaccurate information" to the official inquiries due to "human error in the fog of war". But the inquiries took place some years later. In fact 911 Commission officials determined that the falsehoods from the Pentagon were not due to the fog of war and there were grounds for bringing criminal prosecutions against Pentagon officials.

Wow. Something that has some basis in fact, at last.

7. The programme failed to mention the blocking of FBI officials in Minnesota who correctly suspected that Zacharias Moussaoui was involved in a plot to fly planes into the World Trade Centre weeks before the attacks. Despite sixty memos to FBI headquarters these officials were refused permission to examine Moussaoui's laptop on legally spurious grounds. However the programme had a murky and confusing description of a second similar incident.

One of only a number of items that there was presumably simply not time to include. Give them a break, or make a better sixty minutes yourself.

Ian Henshall is the UK's leading author on the subject with 911 Revealed favourably reviewed in The Daily Mail and the Sunday Times and letters carried in The Guardian. However the programme makers made no attempt to contact him.

Diddums.

Is there a conspiracy across the media to spread canards and misinformation? No.

Is there shoddy research, incompetence and a refusal to admit newsrooms bought a lemon from the CIA? Yes.

Is there any evidence that any mainstream media outlet relied at all on CIA source material, as opposed to talking to many of the people involved from all points of view and walks of life?

Is there a policy to smear dissenters as "conspiracy theorists" approved by top management at the BBC? Presumably, after all the official story is a conspiracy theory too, and a widely discredited one at that.

Ian Henshall

No, there is no policy to "smear dissenters". In fact the programme demonstrated considerable dissent on its own part, in promoting the idea that the Government was involved in a cover up of the failings of the CIA, the FBI and the military.

"Discredited" does not mean "disbelieved by loons", if you are referring to the concept that US-hating Islamist suicide terrorists actually did this thing. A mountain of evidence has been made public, that Muslim men in their 20s to their 40s, recorded as having boarded the planes, were discovered to have been associated with Islamist movements, had trained as pilots, had trained in Al Q'aeda camps, had appeared in videos extolling their operation and their spiritual leader Osama Bin Laden, had left wills and otherwise dealt with their affairs, and have disappeared, presumed vaporised. I've read many CT theories about 9/11 - regarding demolition, regarding foreknowledge and put options. But other than "Are you stupid enough to believe that 19 guys with box cutters could do this thing?" I've never read anything that actually discredited the "official story".

 

[Aphelion]

The documentary failed to cover things like the ISI connection, Able Danger etc. On the Alex Jones show today, the producer of the film could only reply that the ISI link was "interesting" and he may do other documentaries which cover such material.