BBC2 9/11 Conspiracy files - pre-transmission

[Andrew Johnson]

See also:
Will this Sunday's BBC documentary whitewash 9/11?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7030

Thanks to a dedicated poster and campaigner on this forum (whose name is associated with the initials SG), I put this together and sent it round my e-mail list. I believe Ian Crane is also posting something, so you might like to wait for that as well.

Review - and decide on your action:

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

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

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2013028,00.html
He was in the Guardian YESTERDAY. Coincidence?
Action:

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

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

HelenBoaden.Complaints@bbc.co.uk
vine@bbc.co.uk
1_6_10feedback@bbc.co.uk
info@bbc.co.uk
guy.smith@bbc.co.uk
mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk

and any other BBC ones you can think of! (or re-work the message below to send to other organisations)

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


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

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have discovered from a source within the BBC that there are 2 versions of the upcoming "Conspiracies" documentary about 9/11. We understand that there are people in the BBC who want the truth to come out and other ones that don't. We understand that the main person backing the "whitewash" version is Mr Garth Ancier.

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

Of course, as you will realise, this calls into question the standards of professionalism, journalism, honesty and integrity which seem to be at work in the BBC. We KNOW 9/11 was an inside job, and however many times David Icke or "No Planes" is mentioned in relation to it, it will not detract from the smoking guns which more and more people have now seen and understand.

We therefore strongly advise that the "honest" version is broadcast on Sunday, because if it is not, the BBC's reputation as a news broadcasting entity will be forever tarnished or destroyed. Clearly, we must also call into question the motives of an executive who can (or is trying to) influence what is to be broadcast, and this matter will need serious review also.

As you may know, William Rodriguez, Decorated hero and survivor of the World Trade Centre Disaster, is speaking around the UK. His testimony blows apart the official story of 9/11 and this will likely have been heard and read by 10s or 100s of thousands of people by the end of this month.

So, we know what the game is, and we are now "calling your bluff". We are watching you and waiting for your response.

Yours Sincerely,

[ianrcrane]

To whom it may concern:

incl:
HelenBoaden.Complaints@bbc.co.uk
vine@bbc.co.uk
info@bbc.co.uk
guy.smith@bbc.co.uk
mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk

Two versions of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian R. Crane
Chair - 9/11 Truth Campaign (UK & Ireland)

[Fallious]

There a list of news contacts with relevant papers and such to get this into? Ian's piece does a rather nifty impression of a press release

EDIT: Sorted: http://www.webcom.com/~leavitt/medialist.html or perhaps not, its old.

[kbo234]

Here is my letter to the Beeb addresses (three of them didn't make it so I will send again to other parties within the BBC). I think it is a good idea to contact as many BBC people as possible about this.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Word is around that you have 2 versions of the '9/11 Conspiracy Files' programme prepared....a fairish one and a more savage 'hit-piece'.

As a 9/11 activist I must tell you that I care little which you show. The fact you are covering controversial 9/11 evidence at all is symptomatic of the gains we have been making over the last months. The truth is out there and growing exponentially. Showing this is a win-win situation for us.

The very fact of its being broadcast legitimises the 9/11 debate in the public domain. Great news for us.

This programme will ultimately only define one thing. The credibility and integrity of the BBC.

You can be the first mainstream media outlet to present a fair presentation of the devastating evidence (free-fall speed collapses of WTC's 1, 2 and 7 and other evidence for controlled demolition) or you can spin the story in exactly the way we expect....emphases on the verbal rather than the material......ridiculous NIST and 911 Commission report claims presented unchallenged, 'No-Planers' and loud-mouthed abusive demonstrators given prominence etc...

Ultimately, everyone will know the truth of 9/11. It is now impossible to stop this happening.


This programme is going to define who YOU are and how you and your Corporation are perceived.

Best Wishes,


Kevin Boyle

[Pikey]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/150207bbcdocumentary.htm

[Fallious]

My edit of Andrews letter. More of a gutting and re-fitting. Less punchy, but I got a bit carried away.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to voice concern over information that has recently been leaked to the 9/11 truth campaign concerning the BBC's upcoming "Conspiracies" documentary about 9/11. I have heard that there are 2 versions of the documentary; one being balanced journalism, a second which is a hit piece focusing on circumstantial arguments and character assassination. The leak demonstrates strong support for the balanced version within your organization, but I suspect a small yet significant group of individuals to be pushing for the "whitewash" version, the leading voice being Mr Garth Ancier.

As I’m sure you realise, this will call into question the standards of professionalism, journalism, honesty and integrity which seem to be at work in the BBC. Millions of people around the world have woken up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and with it they are realising the extent of corruption demonstrated by channels such as FOX and SKY News. They also clearly demand that issues such as 9/11 be given a fair treatment on television, not the whitewash of days gone by. Your airing of the hit piece version of this documentary will ultimately result in more people turned off to your programming than ever before, and will deal a serious blow to your integrity as an unbiased broadcaster.

As I’m sure you are aware, the 9/11 attacks lie at the root of the current global climate of fear, war and death. We have been drawn into illegal wars and lost hundreds of service people as a direct result of the political manipulation of this tragic event. Without 9/11 and the ensuing wars we may well have never suffered the horror of the 7/7 attack in Britain, or the bombings in Madrid, and now America is targeting Iran and threatening nuclear terror. With this in mind, I believe it's every free thinking person’s solemn duty to campaign for a full and independent investigation into these events. By broadcasting the honest edit of your documentary on Sunday, you will be making a great contribution to the ending of the phony war on terror and inevitably saving many lives in the process.

I, and thousands of others await the show with baited breath, but do not be complacent that your choice will only affect a small minority of fringe conspiracy theorists. Our cause is based upon a vast weight of evidence and echoes the hundreds of unanswered questions posed to the 9/11 commission by victims of the attacks. Thousands of intelligent and respectable people are woken up each week; through the gradually relenting newspaper articles, visiting tours of distinguished 9/11 researchers and people involved in the events and the wealth of alternative media available on the internet.

This could be the most significant television program any channel has aired in the last few years, raising acceptance for the discussion of 9/11 and opening up public discourse about the attacks, or it could be another indication of the BBC's slide into mediocre, prescribed journalism. Whatever the case, the event will be remembered and acted upon.

Yours Sincerely,

[TonyGosling]

The temperature is rising down at the corporation - and I'm not talking climate change....

[AllThatWeSeeOrSeem]

Well done everyone,

I have posted as many folks as I can - with my version of the letter (a variant) to make sure it gets read.

Some of my emails bounced back - so I found other routes in through their web-site.

I also took up the suggestion of emailing panorama - because it may be that the channels we are hitting hard are suffereing "fatigue" - either way

KEEP HAMMERING!!!

Let them know we are here and we won't go away,

Bring on the critical mass,

Love and peace to all,

xxx

[scar]

Im getting bounced back from:
mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk
"User unknown"
The others are fine.

[scar]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/150207bbcimplies.htm

[spiv]

My e-mail just left, would encourage everyone to send theirs.

[Mark Gobell]

There is a funny irony to this.

We are adopting the Bush doctrine here. LOL

Pre-emptive strikes against the causes of disinformation and those that harbour propagandists.

We will make no distinction between those media outlets who promote disinformation and those that protect it's protagonists.

You will all share in their demise.

God bless the Truth.

[QuitTheirClogs]

Regarding political interference and censorship – this is a BBC article regarding a petition raised by the American Union of Concerned Scientists

US Scientists Reject Interference

BBC - Thursday, 14 December 2006

[Pikey]

Well done to those who have written in, but I dont think that we should expend too much of our limited energy on it.

Lets make sure that we record the program then analyse the content and give a professional 911 truth movement response.

Our limited resources would be better deployed by going out in the community playing the 911 truth dvds giving further presentations like Ian Crane's, the Willie Rodrigez tour and generally raising the awareness of 911 truth at grassroots level.

Sowing seeds should be our priority to enable the grassroots public to make an informed choice of what they believe is the 911 truth.

[Shoestring]

This is the e-mail I have just sent to the BBC:

Dear BBC,

I have read that, supposdely, there are two different versions of the BBC's upcoming documentary "9/11: The Conspiracy Files." One of these is a fair and balanced piece of journalism; the other is a whitewash aimed at ridiculing the 9/11 truth movement. Reportedly, the person most strongly pushing for the whitewash version to be broadcast is a new BBC appointee called Garth Ancier.

I would be very disappointed if this is true and the BBC has indeed produced a whitewash edit of "9/11: The Conspiracy Files." If it has, I seriously hope you will not be showing this, but instead will broadcast the fair, balanced edit. It is not the role of the BBC to produce distorted journalism or to act as a propaganda mouthpiece for the U.S. government. Its role should always be to produce programmes that are accurate and fair, and its loyalty should always be to the general public and its viewers.

I would also add that, with the now massive level of public suspicion about U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, I am convinced that a public scandal over this is now inevitable. Several journalist have, in my opinion, already effectively destroyed their own credibility through their poorly informed attacks against the 9/11 truth movement. I really do not want the BBC to do the same, and permanently damage its reputation by broadcasting a distorted, "whitewash" documentary about 9/11. I hope that the BBC will instead act responsibly and be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Yours sincerely

[stav]

heres my letter -
It has come to my attention that the planned 911 conspiracies program has two edits. One being a complete whitewash and another being a balanced account of all the glaringly obvious flaws in the official conspiracy theory.
As i am sure you are aware that the only way people could know about two versions is through people in your organisation leaking the information, does this not also show that there are honest people with integrity in your organisation who would like to see the truth be made known in the mainstream.
I personally believe you should play the balanced edit as to show the British public that the BBC has the British publics interest at heart and not the economic prospects of the US market. Obviously there are people within your organisation who would like the whitwash to be shown, I hear Garth Ancier is the most vocal proponant, i would like to point out to you that your alligance is to us the British public not the corporate business affiliates within the US. Also by playing the balanced account you will have so much more integrity and power when the corrupt official are all being tried in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity, you will be the ones who stood up to be counted in humanities time of need, you would be seen as bold and coragous at the forfront of journalism which will give you so much more back than you ever will get than if you follow in the footsteps of the spinless other news organisations.

So my message to you as a concerned British citizen is to be the epitomy of journalistic integrity and do what is right and what your heart feel right to do.

thank you for taking the time to read this email.

faithfully

[David WJ Sherlock]

Obsessive focus on strawman theories say individuals interviewed for
upcoming show.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the BBC's best efforts to skew the investigation process into areas that can't be proven and simply discredit the 9/11 truth movement, the organs of establishment media remain oblivious to the fact that 9/11 truth has reached critical mass and the tipping point has already passed. The only ramifications of this broadcast will be to reassure the myopic sheeple that their government couldn't possibly lie to them, while provoking enough interest in those who still have the capacity to think for themselves to do their own research and find out the truth.

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

Source: Prison Planet
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/150207bbcdocumentary.htm

Also listen to this song about building 7. http://www.songcity.co.uk/911Building7.htm

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

about Garth Ancier

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

[Thermate]

Found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6368341.stm

Worrying piece indicating Guy Smith the producer of the series had preconceived notions and set out to "prove" them correct.

I seriously doubt there are 2 edits of this show from reading this. There is and only ever was going to be the hit piece.

The article allows comments!

[Mark Gobell]

[fixuplooksharp]

who is the leak, how did we find out there are 2 versions? someone please clarify this for me. Source?

[The Watcher]

fixuplooksharp asked:

[conspiracy analyst]

[TonyGosling]

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

If anyone gets through to someone involved in this decision on the Television Centre number above, please post a quick report here immediately.

ta

[Banish]

Yes. Rudin is a moral coward, I was bounced back from him also last week. His 9/11 email filter is working ok!

Hi Mark, how you keeping me old son? All's good here!!

[Patrick Brown]

I can't see what the big deal is.

So what if they have two versions of the 911 documentary. I'd actually be surprised if they didn't have at least two versions. What would make it controversial is if we knew that the two version were diametrically opposed in their conclusions. We are talking about something without any real evidence so why don't we just wait until the show has been aired and then make a judgment.

[TonyGosling]

interestig discussions going on on this open list- with private archive - including the interesting question of which version has been sent around the national papers for the TV review people!

[AllThatWeSeeOrSeem]

Once again

Patrick attempts to divert our energies

Previous diversions include "Andrew Johnson - Shoulkd we agree with his theories on planes or no planes?"

..and now this one.. of lets do nothing and wait and see....

hmmmmm

[Snowygrouch]

All,
The leak was made to me personally in the last 48 hours.

No names will be released but I have absolute confidence in the validity of this story.

The two different versions are made with two distinct aims in mind. There are people getting very very flustered in the BBC about this.

It IS WORTH emailing/writing/phoning. I have been ASKED by the leaker to pressurise people in the BBC by exposing this and calling them.

No arguments DO IT NOW while there exists a chance to sway opinions.

Calum

[AntiNWO]

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

See the full story here:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2007/160207bbcpressur ed.htm