The Conspiracy Files on BBC 2

[sorath]

Hey truthseekers. (I love saying that it always reminds me of spider-man - Greetings true believers)

Did anyone else just watch the conspiracy files on BBC2 regarding 911?

Another planned way to keep the masses from asking to many questions but at least alex jones got some air time on mainstream television. Maybe people that seen it that didn't have questions before might have some now. Heres hoping eh!

[kevstodd]

hello there sorath
ive just watched it!:eek: cant belive what they were saying !:eek: they never even said anything about the engines being the wrong engines for the type of plane they said it was ! or anything about bombs going off before during and after .We were told they were gonna start the dis info just b4 Alex Jones's new film comes out on the 4th and they never let us down lol .think its time to cancel my tv license with a letter of disgust.

[stealth_0073]

this was aired on jan 2007 so its pretty old
BBC = British brainwashing corporation:D

[sorath]

this was aired on jan 2007 so its pretty old
BBC = British brainwashing corporation:D


Ahhh fair enough I only watched it last night and actually turned it off half way through because it was BBC propaganda. I just wanted to see how much they would reveal.

[vienna]

that's why when I'm talking about 911 to people now I only stick to the stuff I can back up with solid facts and extensive sources, no room for doubt, I made some flyers with the folling info - feel free to use it and pass it on - cutting and pasting it on various messageboards etc:

The British-born Islamist militant, omar Sheikh is charged with the murder of wall street journalist daniel peaL. previously, sheikh was the person responsible for wiring $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, mohammed atta in the months before the attacks. Sheikh wired this money on the instructions of general mahmood ahmed, the then head of the isi, pakistan’s inter services intelligence agency
(see sources; (1) ,(2) ,(3), (4), (9) below)

on the actual day of 9/11 general ahmed, the man responsible for instructing the money transfer, was in washington DC and in the weeks leading upto the attacks he had a series of top level meetings at the pentagon, the national security council and the white house with the head of the cia george tenet and the under secretary of state for political affairs marc grossman
(see sources; (1), (6), (7), (9) below)

when the wall street journal exposed general ahmed for sending the money to the hijackers, President Pervez Musharraf forced him to ‘retire’ (see sources; (1), (2), (3), (4) , (8), (9) below)
SOURCES:
(1) - Michael Meacher MP, environment minister 1997-2003, article; ‘the pakistan connection’, [The Guardian, Thursday July 22 2004]
Michael Meacher MP, article; ‘This war on terrorism is bogus’
[The Guardian, Saturday September 6, 2003 ]

(2) - ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is replaced after its discovered he instructed Sheikh to transfer $100,000 into hijacker Mohamed Atta’s bank account prior to 9/11. This is according to Indian intelligence, which REPORTS the FBI has privately confirmed the story. [Press Trust of India, 10/8/2001; Times of India, 10/9/2001; India Today, 10/15/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), The story is not widely reported in Western countries, though it makes the Wall Street Journal. [Australian, 10/10/2001; Agence France-Presse, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/10/2001] It is reported in Pakistan as well. [Daily excelsior (Karachi), 10/8/2001] The Northern Alliance also repeats the claim in late October. [Federal News Service, 10/31/2001] In Western countries, the usual explanation is that Mahmood is fired for being too close to the Taliban. [London Times, 10/9/2001; Guardian, 10/9/2001] There is evidence some ISI officers may have known of a plan to destroy the WTC as early as July 1999. Two other ISI leaders, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan and Lt. Gen. Muzaffar Usmani, are sidelined on the same day as Mahmood [French author Bernard-Henri Levy and Scott-Clark, 2007, pp. 317-319] [Fox News, 10/8/2001] also reported in [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 2/24/2002; London Times, 4/21/2002]

(3) - Summer 2000: Sheikh Frequently Calls ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed in 2000. [Source: Reuters] In 2002, French author Bernard-Henri Levy is presented evidence by government officials in New Delhi, India, that Sheikh makes repeated calls to ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed during the summer of 2000. Later, Levy gets confirmation from sources in Washington regarding these calls that the information he was given in India is correct. He notes that someone in the United Arab Emirates using a variety of aliases sends Mohamed Atta slightly over $100,000 between June and September of this year and the timing of these phone calls and the money transfers may have been the source of news reports that Mahmood Ahmed ordered Sheikh to send $100,000 to Mohamed Atta However, he also notes that there is evidence of Sheikh sending Atta $100,000 in August 2001 , so the reports could refer to that, or both $100,000 transfers could involve Mahmood Ahmed, Sheikh, and Mohamed Atta. [Who Killed Daniel Pearl? by Bernard-Henri Levy pp. 320-324]

(4) - “It is becoming clear that both the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have found it difficult to have continued functioning—including the latter group’s terrorist activities—without substantial aid and support from Islamabad [Pakistan].” [Jane's Intelligence Digest, 9/20/2001]

(5) - September 10, 2001: Pakistan Guards Osama as He Receives Medical Treatment CBS later reports that on this day, bin Laden is admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for kidney dialysis treatment. Pakistani military forces guard bin Laden. They also move out all the regular staff in the urology department and send in a secret team to replace them. It is not known how long he stays there. [CBS News, 1/28/2002]

(6) - September 11, 2001: Intelligence Committee Chairs Meet with Gen. Mahmood Ahmed . as the Attack Occurs ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss ([Salon, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 5/18/2002] [Descent into Chaos: by Ahmed Rashid pp. 26-27]

(7) - Graham and Goss will later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which will focus on Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but will say almost nothing about possible Pakistani government connections to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks [Washington Post, 7/11/2002]

(8) - Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, a close ally of Musharraf [Guardian, 10/9/2001; STeve Coll, GHost wars, pp. 504-505]

(9) - www.cooperativeresearch.org complete 911 timeline

[zarah]

I fell asleep during it but from what I did see it was just another way of propagating the official line to the masses..Generally I find that any 'conspiracy' programme intends to debunk the conspriacy in favour of the government story...usually really poorly.

[world elite]

I watched that crap,the woman narrator Caroline Catz sounded like a teacher that thought she knew everything there is too know.

Massive chunks missed out and unanswered i.e cctv cameras at the petrol station near the Pentagon that were quickly removed after the crash.What do you expect it's the BBC,they can kiss my arse if they want my license fee money.FASCIST:mad:

[iitokio]

The whole template for that programme was;
1: "here's what the conspiracy theorists think..."
2: "here's what really happened"
3: "heres some random person on a payroll telling you they were there"

The thing about the C-117 flying over washington during the attack on the pentagon was laughable. They interviewed the pilot of the c-117 and he said he saw what he thought was an American Airlines plane go into the pentagon. He was then told that conspiracy theorists say the UAV was controlled from his plane and he says its a load of crap. I was thinking to myself, how the heck would he know what anyone else was doing in the aircraft if he was piloting it...
Or does the pilot control the plane AND any UAV's that they are in charge of? I didn't even know about this c-117 over Washington on 9/11 but i suppose it was a coincidence, along with the 1000 other coincidences that happened that day.

[drhemp]

That documentary is one of the worst pieces of journalism that BBC has ever broadcast. Watch this excellent rebuttal on http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133&q=bbc5+conspiracy&ei=fLZrSL2FEIuuigKDpaimDw - a film by 911-truther Adrian Connock, narrated by exMI5 agent (aka Messiah) Dave Shayler.

[citroen999]

where was the bit when the bbc reported the WTC7 had fallen when it was still standing..

they could have at least cleared their own conspiracy up...

in my opinion this is one of the first steps to get the ball rolling on debunking the 911 issue on national tv

the 911 is a real underground movement,,, massive following but little mainstream exposure.. so if they can get to the x-faxtor watchers before we can like they did by brain washing them with the al qaeda shit, then these people will be conditioned to dismiss any nonsense we try to tell them

[deesee]

I finally bailed out when they wheeled out the classic ; the red bandana!

[trustmenot3107]

I finally bailed out when they wheeled out the classic ; the red bandana!

Yes that's when I gave up too. Plus the very burnt passport of the "terrorist".:rolleyes:

[dahine]

hello there sorath
ive just watched it!:eek: cant belive what they were saying !:eek: they never even said anything about the engines being the wrong engines for the type of plane they said it was ! or anything about bombs going off before during and after .We were told they were gonna start the dis info just b4 Alex Jones's new film comes out on the 4th and they never let us down lol .think its time to cancel my tv license with a letter of disgust.

What makes you think they were the wrong engines?

[ajaydean]

Hey truthseekers. (I love saying that it always reminds me of spider-man - Greetings true believers)

Did anyone else just watch the conspiracy files on BBC2 regarding 911?

Another planned way to keep the masses from asking to many questions but at least alex jones got some air time on mainstream television. Maybe people that seen it that didn't have questions before might have some now. Heres hoping eh!

did you notice that on all matters in the documentary, the last word was given to the popular mechanics yes man?....look for youself to find out what organisation owns popular mechanics...its a bit like giving hitler the last word on his atrocities...now either the bbc isfull of crap journalists or they are doing as they are told...in my opinion BOTH

[geronimo]

Hey truthseekers. (I love saying that it always reminds me of spider-man - Greetings true believers)

Did anyone else just watch the conspiracy files on BBC2 regarding 911?

Another planned way to keep the masses from asking to many questions but at least alex jones got some air time on mainstream television. Maybe people that seen it that didn't have questions before might have some now. Heres hoping eh!

Just as Alex predicted and I previously mentioned... Take note, also, the swift response of the BBC to the recent flap of UFO sightings in the UK, in the form of four documentaries. The first part which I saw last night was definitely a hatchet job, and if experience is anything to go by the remaining 3 parts will be no different. Specifically with regard to the Berwyn Mountain case, if you take the trouble to read the chapter on it in Nick Redfern's 'Cosmic Crashes' You will see a totally different picture. For a start, military were crawling all over the place (according to multiple witnesses) and police were turning back traffic to the crash site, not mentioned - in the documentary the nurse's account was made out to be a diffuse spherical light, actually it was a large, egg-shaped glowing solid object on the mountain with lights seen moving up towards it which may have been a military recovery operation, evidenced by the whistleblower who contacted researcher Tony Dodd; the objects or bodies removed from this operation, according to the documentary, would never have been transported by road , and the individuals involved would never have stopped at a roadside cafe on their way to Porton Down - fair enough, except they didn't, because they were stopped in the act of doing so by a vehicle following them and ordered to continue without pause - not mentioned in the documentary - the research and eyewitness accounts of Margaret Fry, not mentioned, which back up the nurse's account: the unusual incidence of childhood leukemia in the area following the incident, not mentioned, and the multiple sightings of UFOs in the Midlands, with accompanying black helicopter sightings, both before and after the incident, including the Cannock Chase incident, none of which were mentioned.
So, if you haven't got it by now that the makers of BBC documentaries are liars, frauds, and serial propagandists, you never will. Simply by leaving out crucial information they go a long way to persuading you to believe someting that isn't true, but twisting and skewing the remaining information is part of this process, as is the not-so-subtle inference that anyone with a different point of view is a 'conspiracy theorist' and therefore cuckoo. In the documentary, they took pains to point out how difficult life was for the witnesses, how they were flooded with phonecalls, called nutters etc.
We are expected to believe that by some massive coincidence, two major events took place on the Berwyn mountains on the same day. First, we are told an 'earthquake' took place at the same time as multiple UFO sightings and military activity, with police turning back traffic into the mountains. In addition, a massive explosion occurred - all this is supposed to be a coincidence
(once again, nothing to worry about!! just turn off your thinking processes and swallow the official story)
The BBC's method is quite easy to predict. First, they lead you in to the mysterious phenomena making you think, what's this? not a debunking job? then, towards the end, they sytematically present what they call 'evidence' (lies, propaganda, skewed information) to bring you around to the point of view that there is no conspiracy, no coverup, and this is all based on natural phenomena with a few kooks muddying the waters. Good 'ol BBC. And now we can look forward to similar techniques being played out with 911.

geronimo

[phaid]

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/9964/licenceqw3.jpg

Or in this case, lies.

[kevstodd]

What makes you think they were the wrong engines?
it was in one of the documentarys ive seen about 911 .it may have been on loose change final cut but i honestly cant remember , if i do ill post it:);)

[kevstodd]

hello there dahine
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29699

Flight 175 Dropped WRONG Engine In NYC Street? from the 911 thread

some info there: follow link
hope this helps

[mrguitarbear]

Just as Alex predicted and I previously mentioned... Take note, also, the swift response of the BBC to the recent flap of UFO sightings in the UK, in the form of four documentaries. The first part which I saw last night was definitely a hatchet job, and if experience is anything to go by the remaining 3 parts will be no different. Specifically with regard to the Berwyn Mountain case, if you take the trouble to read the chapter on it in Nick Redfern's 'Cosmic Crashes' You will see a totally different picture. For a start, military were crawling all over the place (according to multiple witnesses) and police were turning back traffic to the crash site, not mentioned - in the documentary the nurse's account was made out to be a diffuse spherical light, actually it was a large, egg-shaped glowing solid object on the mountain with lights seen moving up towards it which may have been a military recovery operation, evidenced by the whistleblower who contacted researcher Tony Dodd; the objects or bodies removed from this operation, according to the documentary, would never have been transported by road , and the individuals involved would never have stopped at a roadside cafe on their way to Porton Down - fair enough, except they didn't, because they were stopped in the act of doing so by a vehicle following them and ordered to continue without pause - not mentioned in the documentary - the research and eyewitness accounts of Margaret Fry, not mentioned, which back up the nurse's account: the unusual incidence of childhood leukemia in the area following the incident, not mentioned, and the multiple sightings of UFOs in the Midlands, with accompanying black helicopter sightings, both before and after the incident, including the Cannock Chase incident, none of which were mentioned.
So, if you haven't got it by now that the makers of BBC documentaries are liars, frauds, and serial propagandists, you never will. Simply by leaving out crucial information they go a long way to persuading you to believe someting that isn't true, but twisting and skewing the remaining information is part of this process, as is the not-so-subtle inference that anyone with a different point of view is a 'conspiracy theorist' and therefore cuckoo. In the documentary, they took pains to point out how difficult life was for the witnesses, how they were flooded with phonecalls, called nutters etc.
We are expected to believe that by some massive coincidence, two major events took place on the Berwyn mountains on the same day. First, we are told an 'earthquake' took place at the same time as multiple UFO sightings and military activity, with police turning back traffic into the mountains. In addition, a massive explosion occurred - all this is supposed to be a coincidence
(once again, nothing to worry about!! just turn off your thinking processes and swallow the official story)
The BBC's method is quite easy to predict. First, they lead you in to the mysterious phenomena making you think, what's this? not a debunking job? then, towards the end, they sytematically present what they call 'evidence' (lies, propaganda, skewed information) to bring you around to the point of view that there is no conspiracy, no coverup, and this is all based on natural phenomena with a few kooks muddying the waters. Good 'ol BBC. And now we can look forward to similar techniques being played out with 911.

geronimo

The documentary was on Channel 5 , not the BBC , but your points are valid ones.

[lightgiver]

They need to air ZEITGIEST,which i think means Time ghost in english,

or even Loose change on at peak viewing times,something to really get your teeth into;)they may do it at a later time,who knows,apart from us that is;)

But i am sure the BBC one will not be factual.

[mrguitarbear]

They need to air ZEITGIEST,which i think means Time ghost in english,

or even Loose change on at peak viewing times,something to really get your teeth into;)they may do it at a later time,who knows,apart from us that is;)

But i am sure the BBC one will not be factual.

ZEITGEIST literally translates as ' Time ghost ' from German , but means ' the spirit of the age ' in English. Hope that is helpful !

[upsetbrit]

I watched the whole thing on BBC Iplayer.

Did you see the graphic reconstruction by that university nutter on the pentagon crash? His plane never even had engines, no mention was made by that or the BBC about the rings being penetrated... much less showing the circular punch-hole. Where was his evidence of how the wings would react upon hitting the steel-reinforced concrete? They just went through as if they weren't there according to him.

And that popular mechanics weasel?? JHC!! He's posessed by the devil by the look of him. An obvious inside worm.

Why didn't they look at the taxi drivers statement (which was not featured in the hit piece). Remember, the one whose cab got hit by a falling street light?

In a nutshell, he said the light hit his car, he stopped his car, him and someone else lifted the pole from his car, he then looked up and saw the plane hit the pentagon.
OK, so how fast can someone maintain control of vehicle travelling on a highway that gets hit by a falling streetlight, exit the vehicle, summon help from someone nearby, remove the light from the car... all in time to watch the plane hit the pentagon which is mere seconds away in a jumbo?
Again, just one of many OBVIOUS irregularities of that day.

That x-files dude just made me sick though... portraying 9/11 truthers as upset children. What a nob.

Hey BBC, where's the hit piece on Silverstein? Where's the point you forgot to make that the pentagon was hit on the only reinforced section? Where's the testimonies of the firefighters who heard the bombs going off?

Your nazi propaganda machine will fall one day. You'll have your trials. Scum.

[dahine]

it was in one of the documentarys ive seen about 911 .it may have been on loose change final cut but i honestly cant remember , if i do ill post it:);)

I saw it in loose change, problem is like so much in that film it was wrong. It was simply a case of poor research and reporting.

Chris Bollyn (of the AFP) contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, The two companies that manufacture 757 engines. Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce and John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image045.jpg

Want to know why? Because Bollyn had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England that makes them.

[drhemp]

I just saw a report on BBC News 24, as a precursor to the new Conspiracy Files programme to be aired on Sunday about the collapse of WTC7. It showed some close up pics of Building giving the impression the building was heavily on fire; I've never seen pics like this before, I've only ever seen videos showing a few small scale fires, which is in line with eye-witness accounts. The report, which was only brief, showed computer animations of the fires in WTC7, which it claimed together with the "unusual design" of the building and the fact it had a subway system underneath, explained the collapse of the building. Already, to anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of 9/11 would know this is utter bullshit, but be warned, from what I just saw, the programme to be aired by the BBC on Sunday will be a full pronged assault to hide the truth about WTC7 and to convince the sheeple that such a building would in fact collapse at free fall. The 2 minute report has already made me mad, and be warned, for those of us who know the truth, from what I just saw, watching this BBC propaganda on Sunday will be hard to stomach; we can only take heart that the 9/11 Truth Campaign has been so successful that they need to take the lies and propaganda to such levels to maintain the 9/11 cover-up after 7 years.

We must keep up the good work, and keep on spreading the word, burning DVDs - most people when they see the truth, as it is so overwhelming, accept it. The BBC are pathetic and their lies and false journalism must be seen for what it is. We will not give up in the face of such blatant manipulation of the facts. Joseph Goebells' propaganda was widely believed in Nazi Germany and accepted as the truth, so we can take solace that ultimately these liars will have the same place in history as Goebbels.

[picha]

I just saw a report on BBC News 24, as a precursor to the new Conspiracy Files programme to be aired on Sunday about the collapse of WTC7. It showed some close up pics of Building giving the impression the building was heavily on fire; I've never seen pics like this before, I've only ever seen videos showing a few small scale fires, which is in line with eye-witness accounts. The report, which was only brief, showed computer animations of the fires in WTC7, which it claimed together with the "unusual design" of the building and the fact it had a subway system underneath, explained the collapse of the building. Already, to anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of 9/11 would know this is utter bullshit, but be warned, from what I just saw, the programme to be aired by the BBC on Sunday will be a full pronged assault to hide the truth about WTC7 and to convince the sheeple that such a building would in fact collapse at free fall. The 2 minute report has already made me mad, and be warned, for those of us who know the truth, from what I just saw, watching this BBC propaganda on Sunday will be hard to stomach; we can only take heart that the 9/11 Truth Campaign has been so successful that they need to take the lies and propaganda to such levels to maintain the 9/11 cover-up after 7 years.

We must keep up the good work, and keep on spreading the word, burning DVDs - most people when they see the truth, as it is so overwhelming, accept it. The BBC are pathetic and their lies and false journalism must be seen for what it is. We will not give up in the face of such blatant manipulation of the facts. Joseph Goebells' propaganda was widely believed in Nazi Germany and accepted as the truth, so we can take solace that ultimately these liars will have the same place in history as Goebbels.

Good post Dr Hemp, I just saw the same report you were just talking about.

How the hell could a subway system underneath have caused the building to collapse symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint?

It should be blatantly obvious to most reasonable people just by looking at the video of it coming down that WTC7 was brought down with a controlled demoliton.

[keithm]

I just saw a report on BBC News 24, as a precursor to the new Conspiracy Files programme to be aired on Sunday about the collapse of WTC7. It showed some close up pics of Building giving the impression the building was heavily on fire; I've never seen pics like this before, I've only ever seen videos showing a few small scale fires, which is in line with eye-witness accounts. The report, which was only brief, showed computer animations of the fires in WTC7, which it claimed together with the "unusual design" of the building and the fact it had a subway system underneath, explained the collapse of the building. Already, to anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of 9/11 would know this is utter bullshit, but be warned, from what I just saw, the programme to be aired by the BBC on Sunday will be a full pronged assault to hide the truth about WTC7 and to convince the sheeple that such a building would in fact collapse at free fall. The 2 minute report has already made me mad, and be warned, for those of us who know the truth, from what I just saw, watching this BBC propaganda on Sunday will be hard to stomach; we can only take heart that the 9/11 Truth Campaign has been so successful that they need to take the lies and propaganda to such levels to maintain the 9/11 cover-up after 7 years.

We must keep up the good work, and keep on spreading the word, burning DVDs - most people when they see the truth, as it is so overwhelming, accept it. The BBC are pathetic and their lies and false journalism must be seen for what it is. We will not give up in the face of such blatant manipulation of the facts. Joseph Goebells' propaganda was widely believed in Nazi Germany and accepted as the truth, so we can take solace that ultimately these liars will have the same place in history as Goebbels.

this is now the headline news story,every hour on bbc news 24.

the headline is,

has the story of why building 7 fell,finally been solved by experts.

ive just seen it aswell,and this is gonna really piss all people who want the truth,right off.

in computer generated graphics,the bbc show what was happening in the building just before the collapse,how the fuck do they know what was happening just before it collapsed,
they didn't even know when it collapsed because they reported the collapse 25mins before it had even collapsed.

it pisses me off even more that our licence fee funds these lies and we get no say in the matter.

the truth will come out,i really believe that and the bbc must face charges for aiding and abetting and covering up this dispicable act.

the explanation they give is utterly laughable

and just a little question to everyone?

after the 3 skyscrapers had fallen,why was the areas around the buildings not sealed off,with yellow police tape like any other crime scene.

rescue workers could still have gone in and done their job,but none of the evidence should have been allowed to get out until forensic experts had combed the area.

maybe this has been discussed before and i missed it.

[mr_self_destruct]

The BBC documentary might at least make people who hadn't even thought about the issue before, start researching the subject. There must only be a small percentage of the population who've even heard of Building 7 - after the programme there will be significantly more (albeit intially with a distorted view because of the BBC propaganda). I'm sure that at least a small percentage of those newcomers will decide to do their own research into Building 7 and realise the BBC's view is nonsense.

Hey - I'm just trying to be positive here ;)

[thematrix]

It should be blatantly obvious to most reasonable people just by looking at the video of it coming down that WTC7 was brought down with a controlled demoliton.

[disclaimer: I just want to point out that I am still convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and the official story is a pile of lies]

Having said that I think it's important to realise a few things about the towers that collapsed in general - and also Controlled Demolition in general.

Neither WTCtower nor building 7 collapsed "within it's own footprint"

this gets bandied around all over the place and is very clearly false. The towers were pulverised into dust. The contents of the towers were also pulverised into dust and those dust clouds were blown a LONG distance from the "footprint" of each tower. Perimiter columns were thrown out and away from the towers footprints - there's pictures of nearby buildings and structures stuck with huge steel members like pine needles (how far would those have been thrown had they not mpacted nearby buildings?)

In the case of WT2 lots of large pieces of heavy debris fell ontop of and destroyed the nearby Marriot Hotel (hotel employees were among the people that died that day from falling rubble)

Likewise debris from WTC7 was thrown outside of it's "footprint" - given that to it's south at this point was a scene of devastation and the nearby buildings to the left and right were relatively undamaged it seems fairly clear that the majority of the debris wasflung in a southerly direction, following the path of least resistance if it's correct that the building had sustained huge damage to it's south side. Had WTC7 fallen mostly onto it's footprint the rubble pile would have been much taller.

If the buildings had actually collapsed into their footprints no other buildings other than WT1 and WT2 would have been damaged at all.

Given that buildings are about 70% air and 30% structure and contents if the "footprint theory" was correct the rubble ple from each tower would be about 30 stories high - and WT7 would have been about 15 stories high...

When you demolish a building thru controlled demolition as I understand it powerful explosives are placed at critical points in the structure to demolish the support that holds the building up. It is NOT the explosives that are responsible for much of the destruction - it is GRAVITY (to be more accurate the releasing of the huge amounts of stored kinetic energy) that does most of the legwork.

It remains *possible* that a fire or some similar natural means could remove critical supports for any building in the same way that the explosives do and then gravity does it's dirty work so that a building could appear to fall in teh exact same manner as a controlled demolition would.

However given that lots of the supports for any given building need to fail at the same time in order to facilitate this it still remains *extremely unlikely* that a natural cause, which by it's very nature is chaotic will cause the building support to fail in just the right places, at just the right times, so that the building falls in on itself in pretty much the same wasy as it would had it been explosively demolished.

WhatI find extremely odd - and so far unexplained is the way that the towers and wt7 fell to earth so quickly (NOT at "free fall speed" - but still much faster than seems probable if it was merely the top chunk of each tower falling and crushing the floors beneath) and also how the top of each tower crumble so completely when there doesn't seem to be sufficient force acting upon it to cause that to happen.

Also that given the fact that WTC7 was left to burn itself out - and was burning from 10am ish until 5pm ish I think it's more plausible that this building fell as a result of natural rather than manmade - or man "helped" causes - just my opinion.

Another point to think about is the fact that it is *impossible* (if the seismic records are accurate) for explosives to have been used to destroy support structures in each building. To do that explaosive would have been fastened to the steel and what have you. An explosion would have transmitted some of it's energy through the steel into the foundations and the resulting explosive spikes would have registered on those seismic records. Those seismic instruments are pretty sensitive things.

This does not rule out some non-explosive means - perhaps thermite or a n other technology that isn't generally known about in the public scientific arena. Perhaps directed energy weapons, perhaps small "suitcase" directed energy weapons that were hidden inside the buildings that would have been resistant to fire that was raging in the building. Perhaps something else entirely.

No one knows for sure. No one can know for sure. All the truthers in the world can argue from now until the end of time on the internet about exactly how it was done - we can call each other disinfo agents and shills and all the rest of it. I think the truth movement ought to unite - get the message across to the ordinary people that even IF the LIHOP guys are right and the govt cabal that did this only encouraged the Arab terrorists and let nature take it's course - even IF the towers collapsed merely as a result of planes and damage and fires. A proper full public enquiry is essential to really get to the bottom of everything and end most of the internet specualtion. That if it's proved that it WAS an inside job that the people responsible get brought to justice.

[alzee]

When people mention about each of the 3 buildings falling in their own footprint, theyre not far from the truth. Each building essentially does exactly that.

Just like any controlled demolition, they mostly fall down straight. If skyscrapers were left to fall down on their own, they'd topple. Mainly because no entire set of supports are going to give way at the same time, which is what needs to happen to allow a straight fall.

[dahine]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926&q=wtc+7+not+a+controlled+demolition&ei=nXpvSLf-NIrijAKLzZXQDw

[mrguitarbear]

I wonder , would any TV channel be sympathetic to showing a documentary that was pro-truth ?

Its ridiculous to suggest WTC7 fell down due to fire , no skyscraper in the world before 9/11 collapsed due to fire.

" When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth " - Sherlock Holmes. I would say its pretty much as impossible as anything that Building 7 fell down due to fire : I'd love to see the scientific methodology for this stupid deduction. :mad:

[mercuryrapids]

That programme was somehow worse than their earlier programme about 9/11. I don't know how they managed it, but they did. A big crock of crap.

[masonfree party]

and you wonder why i haven't paid my bbctv licence for 20 years...pure zionist masonic propaganda...Geobels would have been proud of it!

[informationx]

That programme was somehow worse than their earlier programme about 9/11. I don't know how they managed it, but they did. A big crock of crap.


Was this the WTC7 one that was just on?

Actually I thought it was better than the first program, but still WTC7 is still unsolved for me. As far I remember they said they based the WTC7 collapse on a computer model, because they had no evidence.

A computer model can fit to whatever you want it to show.

I still reckon Fred Dibnar did it! lol

[mercuryrapids]

1. One of their main witnesses is the guy who runs the company that cleared Ground Zero and the Oklahoma City Murrah Building sites. Not exactly unbiased (as pointed out in the programme in fairness).

2. Barry Jennings is shown on screen to be a liar. Why was this not taken further by the programme?

3. All the goverment can come up with to explain WTC7 is a computer model, but even this didn't show it collapsing symmetrically to the ground. It didn't show it collapse at all, unless I missed that bit (I was distracted, admittedly by a son seeking attention :rolleyes: ).

4. Dick Clarke claims the government can't keep secrets. Hmmm... Manhatten Project, Bay of Tonkin etc.? Or you could argue that they haven't kept this secret, cos if they had, we wouldn't all be banging on about it seven years later!

I'm sure there were loads of other things in there, but those four points stuck out to me. Dylan Avery didn't do himself any favours at the end either, did he? Not exactly the way to dispassionately win over fence-sitters....

[joyful]

It's routine that 'The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower' was a Zionist production looking at the credits. We're so close on their tail we can smell their arses. There is a monster breathing down their neck that is bigger and more horrifying than their imagination.

[and justice for all]

I was watching “Truth Rising” and I completely forgot that ‘thing’ was on at 9... So I only managed to watch the last 12 mins. of it and I almost burst a vain in my head.

[mrguitarbear]

I personally find it worrying that the defence for much of this seems to be ' we are incompetent '.

BBC - ' We lost the 9/11 video tapes , but now we've found them. Cockup not conspiracy. ' The most friggin' important day in 21st century history - and you lost the tapes ! God knows what lesser things they have mucked up.

Richard Clarke on the programme also essentially said the US government wasn't competent enough to plan through and run a 9/11 conspiracy. The most powerful government in the world with a massive army and the most WMDs - and they're totally stupid and useless ???

If I believed all this shit at face value and I wasn't a conspiracy theorist , I'd quite frankly be living in fear for the way things are run on this planet.

[mrguitarbear]

Was this the WTC7 one that was just on?

Actually I thought it was better than the first program, but still WTC7 is still unsolved for me. As far I remember they said they based the WTC7 collapse on a computer model, because they had no evidence.

A computer model can fit to whatever you want it to show.

I still reckon Fred Dibnar did it! lol

The old 2002 explanation was that a large amount of stored diesel caught fire and caused extremely hot fires that brought the building down.

The new explanation is that it was just normal fires that brought the building down. So thats even less likely than the old explanation.

It isn't really much of a contest - c. 400 architects and engineers for the truth movement who say the building couldn't have collapsed by fire in the way it did , versus some firemen who say ' You don't know anything , you weren't there '.

[informationx]

1. One of their main witnesses is the guy who runs the company that cleared Ground Zero and the Oklahoma City Murrah Building sites. Not exactly unbiased (as pointed out in the programme in fairness).

2. Barry Jennings is shown on screen to be a liar. Why was this not taken further by the programme?

3. All the goverment can come up with to explain WTC7 is a computer model, but even this didn't show it collapsing symmetrically to the ground. It didn't show it collapse at all, unless I missed that bit (I was distracted, admittedly by a son seeking attention :rolleyes: ).

4. Dick Clarke claims the government can't keep secrets. Hmmm... Manhatten Project, Bay of Tonkin etc.? Or you could argue that they haven't kept this secret, cos if they had, we wouldn't all be banging on about it seven years later!

I'm sure there were loads of other things in there, but those four points stuck out to me. Dylan Avery didn't do himself any favours at the end either, did he? Not exactly the way to dispassionately win over fence-sitters....

Didnt know you was part of UFO Data magazine, I used to love the old UFO Magazine from Graham Birdsall. I will check the new mag out!

[carlperkins]

The BBC can kiss my arse. What a load of rubbish. Etc...............
Sorry, but after seeing David today, these shows are simply pathetic like thye idiots and twats they are trying to protect. The woman doing the naration? Get a proper job love. Gravy train idiots.

[redman]

What I noticed was they always banged on about people that believe that it was a inside job were not living in the real world.

The old routine of labeling anyone who questions the government as crazy or nuts etc, it's wearing a bit fucking thin.


Also I find it really funny that the BBC are going out of there way to try and discredit the truth movement, but are also trying to pretend that they are being unbiased.

eg. Harry Silverstein interview on NBC or whatever channel it was when he said pull it.... The BBC showed the clip wear he said pull it, but then stopped the clip. If they would of let the clip carry on the public would of heard Silverstein say " and then we watched the building come down ".

The fact that Silverstein said " pull it " and then straight after that he said... " and then we watched the building come down " tells me that he was most definitely not talking about pulling the fireman out of there.


BBC can fuck off if they think I am paying my TV licence.

[endlessvista]

I burst out laughing at the line where she stated in an almost heartbroken voice. "some people even point the finger at the media" as if the media are pure-as-the-driven-snow innocent lambs who are above criticism.

[grole]

Well I was, in some ways, pleasantly surprised at the programme - given that it was put out by one of the main players in the mainstream media. It was somewhat more balanced than I expected, given the circumstances. I really thought it would be a hatchet job on the 9/11 alternative movement.

Anyone who expected a BBC-produced programme to be more positively in favour of the WTC demolition theory is frankly living in cloud cuckoo land. :D

It was better than their previous effort. But I would have liked to have seen some time spent on the highly suspicious rapid removal of material - from all the collapsed WTC buildings. That, to me, is more of a smoking gun than whether WTC 7 fell down or was blown up.

[steppewar]

The BBC can kiss my arse. What a load of rubbish. Etc...............
Sorry, but after seeing David today, these shows are simply pathetic like thye idiots and twats they are trying to protect. The woman doing the naration? Get a proper job love. Gravy train idiots.

The woman doing the narration also did the first program. Her name is Caroline Catz, an actress who has appeared in The Bill and Doc Martin.

I think she's between acting jobs at the moment. Maybe she needs the cash.

Here's her profile ... http://www.carolinecatz.co.uk/

[weirdwolf71]

It was better but more subtle as a hit piece, until the end when they managed to get Dylan Avery to say 'fuck' a bit about the guys 30 year career making him look stupid, and then the chap saying governments are incompetent/can't keep secrets shite.

They're subtle ommissions too were very telling....the most famous/revealing shot of WTC7 coming down with the squibs going off was NOT shown at all, the chap talking about hearing the countdown over the radios, the police audio of 'get back, get back they're gonna blow it up' nout used but instead only the bit when he said 'the buildings coming down' etc.

Very sly.

[mercuryrapids]

Didnt know you was part of UFO Data magazine, I used to love the old UFO Magazine from Graham Birdsall. I will check the new mag out!

Yes, do that... right now... lol :D Cheers :)

[stealth_0073]

Anybody that wants the full documentary! download the 2 links then unrar

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GGKLXSAK part1

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HAGNP51Mpart2

[mr_self_destruct]

Anybody that wants the full documentary! download the 2 links then unrar

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GGKLXSAK part1

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HAGNP51Mpart2

Nice one, cheers!

Look forward to watching this in disbelief... :)

[mr_self_destruct]

Nice one, cheers!

Look forward to watching this in disbelief... :)

edit: can I download it from that site without signing up or having additional software? :confused: I usually use isohunt or piratebay

[lizzy]

and you wonder why i haven't paid my bbctv licence for 20 years...pure zionist masonic propaganda...Geobels would have been proud of it!

just reading re-actions;).........20ys no pay, well done FM.:) LOL

[dahine]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809&q=+mark+roberts&ei=MuJxSMjgM4zuiQLbxcmxDA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-459844559898426929&q=%20mark%20roberts&hl=en

[mrguitarbear]

I wonder if the idea was to give a ' balanced view ' of both sides of the argument ?

If so , then the programme was a total failure. A ' conspiracy theory ' can never be seriously considered using a balanced view , because it is by its very nature ' extreme '. It postulates that the PTB are lying to us or deceiving us.

To provide a balanced view , you have to allow the authorities to reply , and of course they are going to say ' It didn't happen like this ' whether it did ( conspiracy ) or not ( no conspiracy ).

Many of the interviews in the BBC programme were completely pointless - the firemen , Jane Standley , the anti-conspiracy DJs - in that they provided an emotive response to the question , when what was needed were more hard facts to determine whether it was possible for fire to have brought down WTC 7. This is why its called ' the truth movement ' - all that matters is the truth.

Of course , if you prove that the WTC 7 was ' pulled ' then it opens the ' can of worms ' that the Twin Towers might have been pulled , and I suspect the BBC don't want to go there...

[signalnorth]

In this weeks RADIO TIMES, reviewer Alision Graham wrote about the BBC prog The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 The Third Tower

“Conspiracy Theorists (or teenagers talking rubbish on message boards) claim it was blown up by a controlled explosion, though no-one can explain why or to what purpose.”


Maybe a few thousand of us 'teenagers' would like to email her (radio.times@bbc.co.uk) and put her right as to what went on that day/The calibre of the people questioning the official story / The role that people like her play in supporting the forthcoming New World Order nightmare.

Confront mis-information whenever you meet it


What have you done today?

[mrguitarbear]

In this weeks RADIO TIMES, reviewer Alision Graham wrote about the BBC prog The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 The Third Tower

“Conspiracy Theorists (or teenagers talking rubbish on message boards) claim it was blown up by a controlled explosion, though no-one can explain why or to what purpose.”


Maybe a few thousand of us 'teenagers' would like to email her (radio.times@bbc.co.uk) and put her right as to what went on that day/The calibre of the people questioning the official story / The role that people like her play in supporting the forthcoming New World Order nightmare.

Confront mis-information whenever you meet it


What have you done today?

I doubt that she would listen frankly. Tony Parsons in the Mirror had a similar attitude about Princess Diana being murdered.

People have to find out for themselves I'm afraid.

[mr_self_destruct]

In this weeks RADIO TIMES, reviewer Alision Graham wrote about the BBC prog The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 The Third Tower

“Conspiracy Theorists (or teenagers talking rubbish on message boards) claim it was blown up by a controlled explosion, though no-one can explain why or to what purpose.”


Maybe a few thousand of us 'teenagers' would like to email her (radio.times@bbc.co.uk) and put her right as to what went on that day/The calibre of the people questioning the official story / The role that people like her play in supporting the forthcoming New World Order nightmare.

Confront mis-information whenever you meet it


What have you done today?

I emailed them

[redman]

I emailed them



I did too.. :D:D


I sent this... HA HA

Alision Graham, I suggest you do some research on the topic of 911 and WTC 7. Then you wouldn't be so quick to label people who happen to disagree or do not believe the official bullshit story of what happened on 911. It probably wouldn't take you long to realize that there is definitely something not right with what we are getting told. It's not just teenagers or nuts who happen to question the government, and thats alls it is, questions.. That the government can not seem to answer.

There are pilots, architects, demolition experts, policemen and firemen who were there on the day, members of the public that were there on the day, politicians, actors, scientists, doctors, top ranking Armed forces personnel, that happen to question the government over their accounts of what happened and they are the ones who are brave enough to speak out about it. It's statements like yours that keep people from speaking out because of the ridicule that comes with it.

May be one day you will realize that it was you that was acting like the immature teenager.

Do some research on what you commented about and then see if you have got the courage to come out and speak about your views on it, put money on it even if you did think there was a chance of it being a inside job you wouldn't have the courage to say it or write about it. You just keep ya poxy pointless job but don't comment on something you obviously know fuck all about.

Later.

[mr_self_destruct]

The content of mine was similar - without the swearing ;)

[rickcard]

As I wrote on the other thread.

Here is the link. http://thanettatters.blogspot.com/2008/07/sneaky-tony-blair.html

My initial concern in 1987 was the alleged sabotage of rotor pack to shaft welds in manufacture of emergency backup generators. And my technical explanation was that implicated in the torques at sites (like Leeds Gen Infirmary 1987) which fractured the nobbled production welds was third harmonics fed back in the hospital electrical load. (See the link from my link and read the para on harmonics in the new NHS regs and you can see that eventually my technical arguments got through)

In 1987 there were internal inquiries at Petbow backup generators into incidents of malfunction of diesel transfer systems. In one case (Guys Hospital) the diesel from the main storage tank (road accessible) was not pumped to the tank local to the backup generator. In the other case (Credit Suisse) diesel pumped continuously and the local tank (on the top of the tower) continuously overflowed and diesel flowed down the lift shafts.

Roger Evans tory MP Monmouth 1994 submitted various reports for me to MOD. On the subject of diesel transfer systems being "Rogue" my report asked "If there was a fire would you want to be the fireman advancing past the lift shafts"

There is very good reason to say that the manufacturer suffered sabotage consistent with Stage 3 of the IRA Garland Plan.


So to earlier contributors who thought the original NY Fire Brigade explanation, re 12000 gfallons of diesel pumped into the fires, "Unlikely". There were back up gennys at various locations throughout the tower.

As I understand it the diesel transfer system continuously circulated (with a DC pump battery fed capable of circulating 75 gallons per minute.)

For 12000 gallons to be lost from the circulating system every local tank fuel demand valve opened and stayed open causing diesel (a la Credit Suisse incident) to be pumped into the building as local tanks were swamped.

MI5 did acknowledge in writing a report from me which they called for as part of their post 9 11 UK security review (as I understand their request)

Did MI5 fail from 1987 to pass reports of suspect terrorist technique of pre-sabotage to FBI ? (reversing fuel transfer signal wiring etc)

Tony Blair failed to put sabotage into the Good Friday Agreement so if the saboteurs are IRA (or INLA) they don't have to declare their capability, their achievements or to whom they taught the techniques.

Reports of unreliability of backup power had therefore been in the system since 1987. In 96 it was a suspected pattern of devloping pre sabotage that helped lead to the pre-emptive arrest of the IRA team who had viable plans to black out London and South East for six months.

So it must have been with mind boggling arrogance that Blair allowed former Soviet weapons grade nuclear material to UK (Dounreay) for re processing.

The rest is history. Contractors on site cut through the mains power cable with their digger. And the backup power system failed. This triggered in the four billion pound decommissioning of Dounreay. After a serious nuclear accident because the emergemcy backup power failed.

Hilary Clinton got involved in the Plum Island incident. FBI expectations of reliability of backup on vital point (like an ebola research facility such as Plum Island) are for about five failures in 600 starts over a thirty year genny life.

So work out the odds that all three backups failed at the same time and the pressurized eboila containment failed. With scientists l;eaping about with duck tape trying to seal doors and windows.

I understand that to ebola, duck tape looks as a chain link fence would look to a wasp.

Then Fermi Reactor USA ... all four backups failed at the same time.

So I think the New York Fire Brigade diesel explanation is very likely correct. But it seems odd that, given the ease of the maths (circulating volume rate and time between power cut to collapse) and the history of transfer system suspect sabotage incidents in UK, that there appears to have been no proper investigation of who had access to service the backups.

[rickcard]

Oh yes there has been incidents in USA of diesel non pumps which occurred only in genuine power cuts and not during maintenance run tests.

The reason was wiring ... the diesel transfer system had been powered from mains alone which was not in the circuits supplied by the backup. Hence the diesel transfer worked fine except when you really needed it.

Of course it is simple logic for a circuit ... is mains present on the incoming side of the contactopr ? If yes then it is a maintenance run. If no enable some mischief circuitry.

(Wiring along these lines was found at the HQ of BP in London.)

[whatnofish]

the program was interesting to say the least.. we knew it would be an attack on our free thinking ideas.. we knew they would be shooting us down and we knew they would get someone to stand in front of the camara and say.. "i know the truth.. it was a fire.!!!"

its more interesting to she the subtle tricks they use to get there message across and that message is " go to sleep sheeple" they like taking the piss and this is what they are doing again..

if a simple fire in a steel frame building can cause it to fall(straight down) then every steel building in the world is in danger.have they done any extensive repairs to any buildings not effected by the 911 inside job?

the demolition expert who was interviewed and said he would know if there was an explosive out there that could cut through steel without making a bang... i am sure all militry explosives are put out for civilian inspection even the advanced explosives.. i wasnt sure if he said no to thermite (how did small balls from the arc cutters end up at brooklyn bridge 1 hr afetr the towers fell???????)but its got to be high up there..if it even was a normal explosive device that was used..

"no det cord or electric dets where found and it would take months to set up.." again we dont know what was used but they sure as hell wouldnt use normal equipment. but then again they did at oklahoma.. that leads us to the so called expert who investigated waco and oklahoma.. i ask you.. would you leave this man alone with a box of matches or a knife... clearly using his skills to look at these three attacks isnt gonna put the gov in any danger of being found out

[dave52]

I thought I'd just list some notes I scribbled out whilst watching it (that's right, I take notes whilst watching 9/11 documentaries).



Right off the bat, the narrator's very first line was dripping with neuro-linguistic programming. She stated that "We all remember how the twin towers collapsed". Well, no actually. I don't remember how, because I really don't know how. How the twin towers collapsed is still the subject of great debate. That opening line should've been "We all remember THAT the twin towers collapsed", not HOW. Not a good start.

The next irritant was that the narrator told us that conspiracies are big business. This establishes the belief that the Truth Movement's main goal is to make money, rather than to try and find the truth. Clever eh?

Loose Change plane huggers established with the introduction of Steven Jones, Richard Gage and Dylan Avery.

Naudet First Hit footage shown at the begining of the 9/11 overview. Plane looks fake to me - jury still out I guess.

Second hit footage, Michael Hezarkhani ghost plane footage not used, neither is the Fox chopper nose out.

Plane at Pentagon myth re-enforced, Shanksville not mentioned.

OEM Evacuated apparently (operation couldn't have been coordinated from WTC7 then), the last man there was Barry Jenkins. There are two problems with the Barry Jenkins thing. Firstly, when he said that his "higher ups" called him to find out where he was, the reconstruction showed him answering a land-line phone in WTC7. This couldn't have been correct because, if you phone someone's land-line, you already know where they are. So, it must've been on his mobile, but weren't there all sorts of problems with mobile networks that morning, and why not show him using a mobile in the reconstruction? Just a bit strange.

Second problem with Barry Jenkins. The BBC made quite a strong play on the fact that he was the last person in the building, yet throughout his testimony (and in the actual footage of him on the morning of 9/11), he kept referring to "we". We went down the stairs, we heard a loud boom, when we finally got out to the street. Who was he with and why is there no mention of them?

WTC7 Fire alarms were on test all morning, so there is no record of where the actual fires were. That was lucky. A little like all the CCTV not working the morning Jean Charles de Menezes was shot.

Footage of some guy in the WTC7 telling a camera man (on his own?) that he ought to get out. I'd not seen that recording before.

Silverstein's famous "Pull It" statement discussed. Emphasis on the fact that WTC7's insurance was put in place at the time it was built in 1986. The problem with this is the short-sighted view that these events couldn't have been planned that far in advance. But, they really could. There is also talk of how the building couldn't have been built with explosives already set in place. Again, I think this is possible.

Emphasis on the Police and Fire Department's involvement in the conspiracy - bad, bad theorists. In fact this is a strange angle from the BBC (but I can see what they're doing). I don't think I've ever read a theory that directly implicated the Police or Firemen. I think the higher echelons of the Port Authority could’ve been involved (the fact that FEMA was in place the day before for example) and obviously Guliani, but never a suggestion that the actual officers on the street were implicated.

Standly. An innocent mistake to say that the building had collapsed (even though it was stood behind her). Oh, and the missing 9/11 tapes have turned up. They were filed in the wrong place (cock-up not conspiracy). How convenient considering the flak that the BBC got for that lie. Also, the Satellite Feed was scheduled to finish at 5:15 (London time), that's why Jane was cut off - not because they realised that they were broadcasting the news before it had happened. Right... I guess the BBC hadn't paid their bill...

Narrater - "Tower 7 finally collapses", neuro-linguistic programming - like it was a blessed relief, like we knew all along that it would and it was only a matter of time. Really?

Controlled Demolition Incorporated used as witnesses for the defense. They who destroyed the evidence before a proper investigation could be carried out. Come along now BBC. They also cleaned up the aftermath of the Oklahoma Bombing and Wako. Oh yeah - they're good guys.

Thermite Jones!

First mention of the internet shows a link saying "Zion did 9/11". Nice, 'cause apparently we're all Jew haters. Well done to the BBC for resisting the phrase "holocaust denial", I'd have liked to have been in that editorial meeting.

South Face footage and a big push for "the fire did it", rather than the Debris. Strange editorial choice, maybe a glimpse at the upcoming NIST report? Maybe to cover the fact that the tower should have fallen toward the debris damage, not straight down into it's own footprint.

Not just Government and Foreign Intelligence, but Police, Fire service and EVEN the Media were involved? Narrator sounds disappointed and upset that conspiracy theorists could believe that the Government funded BBC could somehow have something to do with it. Or the US Corporate media? Perish the thought. Another little nod to the Police and Fire service involvement, just in case you missed it earlier.

Dylan Avery protects the media? He didn't want to put the Jane Standly section in to LC Final Cut. That's right, Dylan doesn't accept TV Fakery either.

Alex Jones.

NIST made calculations and created computer models. But didn't actually have any WTC7 steel. Thanks Controlled Demolition Inc...! NIST think that normal office fires are probably to blame. Therefore, no steel high-rise is safe.

Hard Fire...!

Richard Clark - the Government aren't competent enough to pull off 9/11. For once I agree with Dylan Avery, of course a government man isn't going to say that they could.

Finally, the classic to end the documentary. Conspiracy Theorists have no respect for the Dead. It's an oldy but a goody...!

[phaid]

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8467/foxtrotwtc7og3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8467/foxtrotwtc7og3.0394860ae7.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=135&i=foxtrotwtc7og3.jpg)

[redman]

I thought I'd just list some notes I scribbled out whilst watching it (that's right, I take notes whilst watching 9/11 documentaries).



Right off the bat, the narrator's very first line was dripping with neuro-linguistic programming. She stated that "We all remember how the twin towers collapsed". Well, no actually. I don't remember how, because I really don't know how. How the twin towers collapsed is still the subject of great debate. That opening line should've been "We all remember THAT the twin towers collapsed", not HOW. Not a good start.

The next irritant was that the narrator told us that conspiracies are big business. This establishes the belief that the Truth Movement's main goal is to make money, rather than to try and find the truth. Clever eh?

Loose Change plane huggers established with the introduction of Steven Jones, Richard Gage and Dylan Avery.

Naudet First Hit footage shown at the begining of the 9/11 overview. Plane looks fake to me - jury still out I guess.

Second hit footage, Michael Hezarkhani ghost plane footage not used, neither is the Fox chopper nose out.

Plane at Pentagon myth re-enforced, Shanksville not mentioned.

OEM Evacuated apparently (operation couldn't have been coordinated from WTC7 then), the last man there was Barry Jenkins. There are two problems with the Barry Jenkins thing. Firstly, when he said that his "higher ups" called him to find out where he was, the reconstruction showed him answering a land-line phone in WTC7. This couldn't have been correct because, if you phone someone's land-line, you already know where they are. So, it must've been on his mobile, but weren't there all sorts of problems with mobile networks that morning, and why not show him using a mobile in the reconstruction? Just a bit strange.

Second problem with Barry Jenkins. The BBC made quite a strong play on the fact that he was the last person in the building, yet throughout his testimony (and in the actual footage of him on the morning of 9/11), he kept referring to "we". We went down the stairs, we heard a loud boom, when we finally got out to the street. Who was he with and why is there no mention of them?

WTC7 Fire alarms were on test all morning, so there is no record of where the actual fires were. That was lucky. A little like all the CCTV not working the morning Jean Charles de Menezes was shot.

Footage of some guy in the WTC7 telling a camera man (on his own?) that he ought to get out. I'd not seen that recording before.

Silverstein's famous "Pull It" statement discussed. Emphasis on the fact that WTC7's insurance was put in place at the time it was built in 1986. The problem with this is the short-sighted view that these events couldn't have been planned that far in advance. But, they really could. There is also talk of how the building couldn't have been built with explosives already set in place. Again, I think this is possible.

Emphasis on the Police and Fire Department's involvement in the conspiracy - bad, bad theorists. In fact this is a strange angle from the BBC (but I can see what they're doing). I don't think I've ever read a theory that directly implicated the Police or Firemen. I think the higher echelons of the Port Authority could’ve been involved (the fact that FEMA was in place the day before for example) and obviously Guliani, but never a suggestion that the actual officers on the street were implicated.

Standly. An innocent mistake to say that the building had collapsed (even though it was stood behind her). Oh, and the missing 9/11 tapes have turned up. They were filed in the wrong place (cock-up not conspiracy). How convenient considering the flak that the BBC got for that lie. Also, the Satellite Feed was scheduled to finish at 5:15 (London time), that's why Jane was cut off - not because they realised that they were broadcasting the news before it had happened. Right... I guess the BBC hadn't paid their bill...

Narrater - "Tower 7 finally collapses", neuro-linguistic programming - like it was a blessed relief, like we knew all along that it would and it was only a matter of time. Really?

Controlled Demolition Incorporated used as witnesses for the defense. They who destroyed the evidence before a proper investigation could be carried out. Come along now BBC. They also cleaned up the aftermath of the Oklahoma Bombing and Wako. Oh yeah - they're good guys.

Thermite Jones!

First mention of the internet shows a link saying "Zion did 9/11". Nice, 'cause apparently we're all Jew haters. Well done to the BBC for resisting the phrase "holocaust denial", I'd have liked to have been in that editorial meeting.

South Face footage and a big push for "the fire did it", rather than the Debris. Strange editorial choice, maybe a glimpse at the upcoming NIST report? Maybe to cover the fact that the tower should have fallen toward the debris damage, not straight down into it's own footprint.

Not just Government and Foreign Intelligence, but Police, Fire service and EVEN the Media were involved? Narrator sounds disappointed and upset that conspiracy theorists could believe that the Government funded BBC could somehow have something to do with it. Or the US Corporate media? Perish the thought. Another little nod to the Police and Fire service involvement, just in case you missed it earlier.

Dylan Avery protects the media? He didn't want to put the Jane Standly section in to LC Final Cut. That's right, Dylan doesn't accept TV Fakery either.

Alex Jones.

NIST made calculations and created computer models. But didn't actually have any WTC7 steel. Thanks Controlled Demolition Inc...! NIST think that normal office fires are probably to blame. Therefore, no steel high-rise is safe.

Hard Fire...!

Richard Clark - the Government aren't competent enough to pull off 9/11. For once I agree with Dylan Avery, of course a government man isn't going to say that they could.

Finally, the classic to end the documentary. Conspiracy Theorists have no respect for the Dead. It's an oldy but a goody...!




Good post, pretty much how I seen it.

The only thing I am not in agreement with is the No planes theory, but to be truthful I have watched all there is to see on it and it did get me thinking and I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.


But I think we can all agree it was pretty cringe worthy shit to watch, but I have to hand it to them, it is very clever how it is put together. To the average Joe who is not clued up you would come away from watching the program with a feeling that no way was it a inside job.. and like you said it's because of how things are worded and put across.

But the worldwide media's actions and reactions to the 911 truth movement only make me believe more and more that it was a inside job and very much a planned and staged event. Forget about the evidence and all the ins and outs of it, just look how the government and the media react... says it all for me.

This program ( which is getting shown practically every night by the way ), is just the cherry on top of the cake because how much they have gone out there way to prop up the bull shit official story whilst using very sneaky clever tactics.

[mr_self_destruct]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3173

[thirdwave]

people do not need convincing that it was an inside job... deep down they already know, its a case of when they decide to except it...
you only need to look at how the buildings go down and use human nature to see that it was controlled...

fear is what is "hiding the truth" ...not the media.

the media is just there to help keep people in their bubble.

I don't even watch these things any more.... its not that people don't know about it ..or suspect it.. its they don't want to face up to it.

[danster82]

The most obvious part of it being a hit piece is when they covered them selves covering the collapse of WTC7. They basically didnt even address it they made out in some lame attempt that the static on the screen connection had something to do with people thinking the BBC are part of the conspiracy..

No it was that they reported the collapse of WT7 LIVE! whilst it was still standing in the background. In a sane world it would be investigated in depth.. who was in charge that day? who gave the reporter the script? and so on

[clozaril]

in the daily mail (no i didn't buy it) tv listings 'now after watching this you will have a rebuttle to the next idiot who speaks such rubbish to you'
:D

[turbine]

I saw this programme too.

Like everyone has said, it seems like they're trying to pretend that they're getting to the bottom of it all just to shut people up. But it's funny how excused the BBC reporting the WTC7 building collapsing before it did and then the camera glitched and cut off.

But I wish they'd go into the the fact the the bottom of the 2nd plane that hit the south tower (I think it was that anyway) which was supposed to look like a USAF refueling plane from the underside of it.

[mr_self_destruct]

I felt quite positive after watching it. They are obviously trying to settle the matter, case closed, but it's quite obvious the case is far from closed and that there are increasing numbers of people realising it!

[coastguard]

Quite a strong Jewish influence in the production of this program.
Archive researcher Kate Redman, Narrater Caroline Catz (formerly Chaplin)
Produced and Directed by Mike Rudin, nearly as top heavy as Newsnight with Paxman, Urban, and Wark.

[lightgiver]

Just watched it on 2,what a joke ,so many contradictions by the bbc,you could have ripped it apart,but i think you are well aware off those contradictions,loved the bit when dylan avery pulled the interview recording out:D,and also the fire chief saying its his decision about whether the building is allowed to burn(was it 6hrs)another contradiction,and then silverstein said he gave the decision to pull it:confused:;)also the debunkers were also government linked:rolleyes:need i go on.
Lots of mistakes bbc,do try to come up with something better next time,do you think all joe public are uneducated just because we did not attend the elite universities.

911 inside job.:eek:

[stealth_0073]

edit: can I download it from that site without signing up or having additional software? :confused: I usually use isohunt or piratebay

hey m8 you wait put the code in then you wait 45 secs
then you press download theres no need to register for it.

[world elite]

I watched it too, i like the bit with reporter Jane Standley where the Satellite feed breaks up as Philip Hayton interviews her live,and the narrator explains it was due to a timed Satellite feed that, get this, ran out at 5:15pm just in time so not too see WTC7 come down behind her.Plus most news channel wouldn't have a timer if possible on an event like this.:eek::rolleyes: Come BBC you must try harder than that!!!!!