Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: WTC7 - BBC's Mike Rudin replies - ignores 3k comments
Mike Rudin's controversial BBC documentary on WTC7 which he produced and released before the final NIST report on WTC7 has several bbc blogs.
Rudin has never previously commented on his blogs but after a record 3000 blog entries he has made an entry. Unfortunately it shows he has ignored the comments or the email sent directly to him and he has definitely ignored both Chandler's and Harrit's scientific contributions...
# 3009. At 4:21pm on 22 May 2009, mike_rudin wrote:
I welcome the comments that keep coming in. I was surprised to see them pass the 3,000 mark. Thereve been some really interesting comments and debate, but the substantial issues remain. The official investigators, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have provided a detailed explanation of what happened. The key issue for all those who dont accept that explanation is to provide a better alternative.
Vast and complex conspiracy theories have been constructed, sometimes contradictory, but the key questions remain for sceptics:
Why would someone choose to do such an horrific act? How would you ever keep an incredibly complex conspiracy secret? Why has no evidence ever been found of anyone placing explosives in World Trade Centre Building 7?
Several people continue to ask if the BBC plan to do another programme about WTC7. I cant rule it out, but after three Conspiracy Files programmes about 9/11 and WTC7 it is unlikely we will do another Conspiracy Files programme. But Im keen to keep across new comments and developments.
Ive spent the last nine months on another series. This time looking at surveillance in the UK.
The series called Whos Watching You?, which starts on BBC 2 on Monday, shows how surveillance of all kinds has increased massively in the UK recently. We found no grand conspiracy with senior politicians and mandarins plotting to watch us all for nefarious purposes - no Big Brother. Instead a whole series of little brothers have stepped into our lives. The question now is whether we have too much surveillance and whether it is properly regulated.
Complain about this comment
# 3010. At 6:12pm on 22 May 2009, ianbrotherhood wrote:
Hi Mike,
It's great you looked-in on the blog, and I'm sure I'm not the only participant who feels gratified that you found some comments interesting.
However, what you feel about the quality of debate or the significance of passing the 3k mark is, to be frank, irrelevant. I cannot and will not speak for other regular posters, but I for one do not want to hear your 'opinions'. Rather, I would like to see you address the peer-reviewed evidence which has emerged since last October i.e. the Chandler videos and the Nils Harrit/Steven Jones 'nano-thermite' report.
One simple question - have you watched the Nils Harrit interview to which I sent you a link more than a month ago?
(I'm not holding my breath for an answer, but here's hoping you don't wait until we've hit the 6,000 mark before you deign to drop in on us again...)
Complain about this comment
# 3011. At 6:20pm on 22 May 2009, SteveAustin87 wrote:
Mike, thank you for taking the time to comment here in your blog. It is appreciated.
I do hope that you took the time to read ALL the comments (and related links) that were posted here, and yes I know how very much time that would take.
I would like to comment on part of your comment...
"Why would someone choose to do such an horrific act? How would you ever keep an incredibly complex conspiracy secret? Why has no evidence ever been found of anyone placing explosives in World Trade Centre Building 7?"
Now why would someone choose to do such a horrific act? Could be lots of reasons, could be just insanity. Let's pretend it was Bin Laden and his Al Qeada for a second and see what possible motive he would have...
- They hate us for our freedoms (Official governmnent theory)
Does that make any sense to you? Especially since 9/11 the US (and many other countries) have seen their liberties nearly completely disappear (which would mean that according to the "Official government theory" of why that the "terrorists" won, they got what they wanted)
Now let's look at an alternative theory where bush/cheney/mossad/cia/etc.. were behind the attacks...
- excuse to invade afghanistan (for oil and control of region)
- excuse to expand the wars to other countries (for oil and control of region)
- excuse to invade and destroy israel's enemies
- excuse to shred the US Constitution and Bill of Rights
I could add more but I wont for now.
The military/industrial complex and many of those in the bush government have made A LOT of money off these excuses (cheney with his halliburton to name only one of many)
Seems to me that this motive (the alternative that says it was an inside job) for doing this act of terrorism makes a lot more sense than the official conspiracy theory.
Next...
"How would you ever keep an incredibly complex conspiracy secret?"
You've heard of the Manhatten Project? A secret WWII project that involved, IIRC, nearly 100,000 individuals, yet it was kept secret for far longer than this 9/11 has so far.
Then again this 9/11 complex conspiracy has not been kept secret, if it had we would not have a 9/11 truth movement. It is simply made to appear that way by the Mainstream Media and their refusal to cover the alternative theories in an open and honest and fair manner.
"Why has no evidence ever been found of anyone placing explosives in World Trade Centre Building 7?"
Now this makes me wonder if you have read anything on this entire blog of yours. I will skip the first 2800 posts or so of evidence of all sorts of things, including explosives and instead only concentrate on one single piece of "PROOF", the Active Thermitic Materials paper by Niels Harrit...
That is a good synopsis of the whole paper and there is a link there to the full paper.
Mike, please tell me why you say that there is no proof of explosives? If you claim that to be the case then you either have not seen the Harrit paper (though I believe one of the other frequent posters here emailed it to you) or maybe it was given to a relevant expert at the BBC for analysis and debunked? Is that the case? Because that paper proves explosives were at the WTC.
Mike, I hope it won't take another 3000 posts to get another response from you. It is understood that people are busy (well except for myself the past few months :} , though that is about to change shortly with our new project finally really starting to get underway) and that you may not have time to post here on your own blog but it would be nice if you could take a little more active roll in this discussion.
Thanks Mike
3012. At 8:48pm on 22 May 2009, ynda20 wrote:
@3009,
Hi Mike,
It seems that you haven't really looked at very much of 3000 comments...
- I did a point by point comment to your blog @2995
- I have sent any email detailing the scientific evidence for nano-thermite found at ground zero
- 3000 comments here and still we haven't come across anything solid to support the official story. I am looking hard! The best we have are the phone calls from the planes but as we have pointed out again and again - these could easily have been spoofed. "Hi Mum, This is Mark Bingham" - doesn't give me a great deal of comfort that these were real messages.
You ask
Why would someone choose to do such an horrific act? How would you ever keep an incredibly complex conspiracy secret? Why has no evidence ever been found of anyone placing explosives in World Trade Centre Building 7?
Why? That's a good point. We have mentioned motive, means and opportunity countless times in these 3000 comments
How to keep it secret? Money and death threats. We have identified a ton of money (up to $700billion) that has vanished from US DoD accounts. And my estimate is that you would only need $10 to $100 billion to make it an inside job to build all the stuff you need and buy people's silence. Death threats are real: we have identified countless people that have mysteriously died associated with 9/11 including Barry Jennings who You yourself have interviewed!
Finally your last question "no evidence of people planting bombs" - this is a bonkers question if you have read the scientific proof that explosives (nano-thermite) has been found. The question is who did it not whether it was done or not!
Anyway it is good that you haven't completely disappeared off the face of the planet.... You of all people should know how important a subject this is!
It's fairly obvious from Rudin's response that he hasn't kept up to date with any of the 'alternative' evidence, yet he must be of above average IQ to even hold the 'job' he has.
The only conclusions I can draw are he's either sh*t scared or part of the problem.
I wonder if they ever actually look back at what they have written? The shame of it ;-) _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Wikipedia of course only refers to AZF. But is actually the location of the French military establishment: SNPE. The SNPE factory made rocket fuel: nano-thermite! The explosion was blamed on a Muslim that had started work there 5 days previously. Within those 5 days, he managed to discover a way of making the largest peacetime explosion on French soil, killing himself in the process. It took another N days for the police to gain access to home by which time all evidence for and/or against him had been destroyed. Does the word "Patsy" ring a bell?
I have emailed the webmaster of a french website that covered the scandal but no reply.
Back to Rudin's blog: there has been a new flurry of responses there... perhaps it'll get to 4000!
Grief, this Rudin fellow comes over as an absolute imbecile - it must feel terribly uncomfortable to maintain such idiocy and utter blankness faced with overwheliming evidence of treason in high places. I wouldn't trade his place for a pile of manure, organic or not.
Anyone who can still be bothered to deal with him and the majority of Bilderberg Broadcasting Cabal 'policy-setters' might like to offer them this clip as a reminder that NIST is (to use an apt 18th century expression) entirely exploded...
Link _________________ "We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject:
Mike Rudin has taken over final tweaking and scheduling of the Conspiracy Files 7/7 'documentary' in the run up to it's being shown before the end of this month.
Mike Rudin has not returned a single one of my calls.
Mike Rudin likes using the expression "The Truth" to describe his programmes.
Mike Rudin misrepresented WTC7 eyewitness Barry Jennings who is now dead.
Mike Rudin uncritically reports Bush adviser Richard Clarke when he says any conspiracy on 9/11 is "Impossible"
Mike Rudin believes the collapse of Building 7 to be "No mystery".
Mike Rudin has never called those that analyse conspiracies "Investigative journalists" or "Researchers".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/mike_rudin/
Mike Rudin has met with 9/11 Truth Committee member Ian Neal.
For those that haven't seen him in action here he is.
We managed to drive tfk off. He was full of hot air and a bit like Team Pixels - full of "answers" - so much so that he could have easily been a whole department within the Department of Homeland Security!
As for carlos - he was annoying as hell - but was really dumb. With comments like "Every car fire melts metal" - he was the biggest truther-recruiter on the blog!
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:31 am Post subject:
scienceplease 2 wrote:
Quote:
You miss TFK? I sure don't.
We managed to drive tfk off. He was full of hot air and a bit like Team Pixels - full of "answers" - so much so that he could have easily been a whole department within the Department of Homeland Security!
As for carlos - he was annoying as hell - but was really dumb. With comments like "Every car fire melts metal" - he was the biggest truther-recruiter on the blog!
I reckon TFK's handlers told him to give up.
Carlos didn't have any answers whatsoever (5592 - "You misunderstand my role here. My role is to point and laugh. Your role is to prove your case about 9/11.") _________________ Currently working on a new website
It may be 10 years since the attacks in the US on 11 September, but conspiracy theories have not faded over time, says Mike Rudin.
Numerous official reports have been published since the Twin Towers fell, but just when a piece of evidence casts doubt on one theory, the focus then shifts to the next "unanswered question".
Here are five of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories circulating in online communities.
1. Failure to intercept the hijacked planes
The question: Why did the world's most powerful air force fail to intercept any of the four hijacked planes?
Conspiracy theorists say: The then US Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to stand down and not to intercept the planes.
File photo of a F-15 fighter Fighter jets failed to intercept the hijacked planes
Official reports say: This was a highly unusual multiple hijacking with violence on board, and where the transponder, which provides the exact location of the plane, was turned off or changed.
What is more, a routine military training exercise happened to be taking place that day at US air defence command.
Air traffic controller Colin Scoggins was in constant contact with the military and did not see any lack of response. There was confusion and a lack of communication between the civilian air traffic control (FAA) and the military.
The military's equipment was also outdated and designed to look out over the ocean to deal with a Cold War threat.
2. Collapse of the Twin Towers
The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?
Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.
Remains of World Trade Center buildings after the attacks on 11 September 2001 Five new skyscrapers are being built on the World Trade Center site
Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing.
Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions".
The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.
Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.
No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition.
3. Attack on the Pentagon
The question: How could an amateur pilot fly a commercial plane in a complicated manoeuvre and crash it into the headquarters of the world's most powerful military, 78 minutes after the first report of a possible hijack and leave no trace?
Part of the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed after Flight 77 crashed into it A memorial in the grounds of the Pentagon marks the deaths of those who died when Flight 77 crashed
Conspiracy theorists say: A commercial Boeing 757 did not hit the building but instead a missile, a small aircraft or an unmanned drone was used. But since evidence has increasingly shown that the American Airlines Flight 77 did hit the building, the emphasis has shifted to questioning the difficult approach manoeuvre. It is argued it was not under the control of al-Qaeda but the Pentagon itself.
Official reports say: Airplane wreckage, including the black boxes, were recovered from the scene and they were catalogued by the FBI.
Although some early video did not show much wreckage, there is a good deal of video and still photography which shows plane wreckage and evidence of the flight path, such as broken lamp posts.
The remains of crew and passengers on the plane were found and positively identified by DNA. Witnesses also saw the plane strike the Pentagon.
4. The fourth plane - United Airlines flight 93
The question: Why was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible?
Conspiracy theorists argue: United Airlines flight 93 was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in mid air, scattering the wreckage over a large area.
The crash site of Flight 93 at Shanksville, Pennsylvania Forty-four people died when Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Official reports say: There are clear photographs showing aircraft wreckage and the cockpit voice recorder, which showed there had been a passenger revolt and the hijackers had deliberately crashed the plane.
Initial theories that heavy debris was scattered many miles from the main crash site turned out to be false. In fact the wind had blown light debris such as paper and insulation just over a mile.
Another theory was based on a misquote from the local coroner, Wally Miller, who said he stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies. What he also said was that he quickly realised it was a plane crash and there would have to be a large funeral service for the many victims.
In addition, the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down.
5. Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
The question: How could a skyscraper, which was not hit by a plane, collapse so quickly and symmetrically, when no other steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire?
The remains of World Trade Center Building 7 Offices for civil emergencies, the CIA and the Secret Service were based in World Trade Center Building 7
Conspiracy theorists say: The World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition using both explosives and incendiaries.
Initially the focus was on the phrase "pull it" used by the owner, Larry Silverstein, in a TV interview. But in fact he was talking about pulling firefighters back. (Demolition experts do not use the term "pull it" as slang for setting off explosives.)
Now the focus has shifted to the speed of the collapse which reached near free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is argued only explosives could make it collapse so quickly and symmetrically.
Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up. They claim tonnes of thermite and conventional explosives were rigged inside, not just WTC7, but also the Twin Towers.
Official reports say: A three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burnt for seven hours.
The mains water feeding the emergency sprinkler system was severed. No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition.
Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity). More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee.
Conspiracy theories have proliferated following the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, and over the last decade these theories have taken many twists and turns, explains Mike Rudin.
Ten years on from the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, conspiracy theories have continued to evolve. They now question every aspect of the official account, despite the fact that every year has provided more witnesses and evidence to bolster the official explanation.
An opinion poll, carried out by Gfk NOP for BBC's The Conspiracy Files in 2011, found that 14% of people questioned in the UK and 15% in the US did not believe the official explanation that al-Qaeda was responsible, and instead believed the US government was involved in a wider conspiracy. Among 16 to 24-year-olds that belief rises to around one in four.
Since 9/11 there have been numerous lengthy and painstaking official reports - the 9/11 Commission, congressional investigations and many inquiries by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. None has ever found any evidence of a wider conspiracy.
The myriad of conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are rarely spelt out in great detail - perhaps because when they are, they have been quickly debunked. Nor is a motive usually explained.
Underlying distrust
The starting point for 9/11 conspiracies is that many people find it hard to believe 19 young men, armed with just knives and box-cutters, could casually walk through airport security, hijack four commercial planes and then within the space of 77 minutes destroy three of the iconic symbols of America's power, in the face of the world's most powerful and technologically-advanced military superpower.
It is a shocking thought.
As with many conspiracy theories there is a distrust of anything official and disbelief that government and security forces, which are so often portrayed as invincible, can be beaten by a small group of poorly-armed men.
It is a similar argument that questions whether a lone gunman could have killed President John F Kennedy, then the most powerful and best-protected man on the earth, or how someone so special as Princess Diana could die in a car crash.
Nothing is taken on trust about 9/11. If an eyewitness, an official or an expert counters a conspiracy theory, their motives are immediately questioned.
And the theories are ever evolving. When evidence comes forward that casts doubt on a theory, one rarely hears an admission that the theory must be wrong. Instead the focus shifts to the latest "unanswered question".
"We don't know the full story of exactly what happened," says American radio talk show host Alex Jones. "We know the official story is completely unproven and a fairy tale. I'm saying that it needs to be investigated."
Controlled demolition
A number of conspiracies focus on the actual collapse of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center.
Initially many questioned how such huge skyscrapers, which had dominated the Manhattan skyline for so long, could be brought down by an hour or so of fires - alluding to the possibility of some kind of controlled demolition.
But then the official report set out a rational explanation. And it also pointed out that contrary to the conspiracy theory, controlled demolition is always bottom up and not the top down collapse of the Twin Towers.
So then the focus shifted to World Trade Center Building 7 - another huge skyscraper which also collapsed on 9/11, but which was not hit by a plane.
The theory is that tonnes of explosives and an incendiary called thermite were used in a controlled demolition to destroy the building from the bottom up.
But when it is pointed out that thermite has never been used in controlled demolition, the theory once again moves on and claims that new and secret types of explosives and incendiaries were used.
So what is the attraction of conspiracy theories? And why are they so persistent?
Writer and producer of 90s US television series The X-Files, Frank Spotnitz, offers an explanation. He argues that we live in an age of anxiety, where we do not know who to trust and what to believe in. Conspiracy theories, he says, offer "a magic key that fits all the pieces together" and makes sense of our uncertain world.
'Fantasy event'
Other conspiracy theories question whether a commercial Boeing 757 even hit the US military's Pentagon headquarters in Washington DC.
And another suggests the fourth plane, which crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was shot down by a American military missile.
Even the death of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011 is questioned. A host of different conspiracy theories suggest he died as early as 2001 or even that he was captured by American forces some time later.
"It is utterly astonishing that we should be able to kill a man who actually died nine years earlier in this fantasy event in Pakistan," says Prof Jim Fetzer.
But judging by the BBC's opinion poll, belief in conspiracy theories about 9/11 seems set to continue for a long time to come.
Gfk NOP carried out the opinion poll for the BBC in the UK and USA in July. Both were telephone polls with 1000 adults and the margin of error is +/- 3%
Question: Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by 'Al Qaeda'. However some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?
An unpopular subject but 9/11 had three skyscrapers fall. The twin towers and WTC7 (the latter not hit by a plane) - they all apparently er "exploded" due to fire. How can anyone build, live or work in skyscrapers until the mystery of their destruction is resolved?
Rated -30
Comment number 155.
chrislabiff
@91.ynda20
Who felt the need to give this 12 minus ratings? Why?
It seems the new bbc commenting system is not only useless but also has automatic bots to modify user viewpoints on matters... of course, there were no other serious 9/11 comments...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
