Will this Sunday's BBC documentary whitewash 9/11?

[wickywoowoo]

Who would be accepted as independent enough to carry out such an investigation though? I doubt we would be truely happy with anyone proposed and would find ways of dismissing them all as shills somehow.

I think the whole independent investigation thing really needs thought out.

[Banish]

"I thought the show was pretty good what do you guys want blood!"

And that's exactly what it was - a show. It was not a fair representation of the facts.

They simply batted the simplest of straw man arguments into the stands.

I still cant believe you guys cant SEE the fake airplanes, even in that footage tonight. It's them we really need to go after!

[Banish]

[Newspeak International]

We wont get it Banish,all we can do is highlight the very obvious inadequencies of the previous investigations,and those in charge of steering them.

The manipulation going on in the media really needs highlighting too.

I even heard this "Certain liberties need to be sacrificed for freedom in this country,under the current threat" PP by David Milliband on Question Time last week.

I would suggest that is ammunition for our cause,it's nationwide and it's
in you're face.

Anyone disagree?

[mason-free party]

anyone got credit list of producers/directors etc...?

[Stefan]

Well in the light of morning I don't think this was as bad as my first reaction.

By wasting so much of their time on discussing the X-files, the "pain" of the victims and weaker parts of the body of evidence they aren't making a response hard.

All we need to do is present the full body of evidence and say-

Why do you think they didn't mention: and then reel off all the strongest most verefied evidence.

If we have no evidence and they have all the answers, why didn't they even mention most of the main points? etc

They could have spent an hour with Judy Woods talking about pennys on the window sill- now that WOULD be a hit piece.

Judy Woods face is a hit piece in itself.

So lets focus on the positive- No No Plane, No death star, No Lizards, No real attack on the real evidence, main scientific source was David Coburn, who has no degree and a back ground in sports journalism.

Should be a piece of p|ss to tear apaart when campaigning.

[mkpdavies]

Very strange piece. Dismissive whitewash, rather than a hit piece I would suggest.

They could quite easily made it look 10 times worse, but didn't.

The one piece I was personally focussed on was WTC7. When they showed it collpasing like it did, the people I was watching it with all said they didn't know it had even happened. I asked them all if they believed a fire, that was not even visible at the time of collpse could happen so completley and in such a symetrical fashion and none of them could quite accept it.

One of the people I had already shown Loose change too and he agreed with me, that anyone who had looked into the subject and seen all the details that this programme obmitted or skirted over, would simply see this as a trivilisation of the whole issue. It was clearly coming from a biased angle and didn't explain much away at all.

Will there be a single person who has looked into this be turned by this programme? I don't think so.

Will this make others look into it more? Yes I think it will!

Sometimes I wonder what the intentions of a programme maker is. My impression is this programme WANTED people to go out and look at it in more detail, while superficially looking dismissive on the top level.

[IronSnot]

[miketysonbarry]

i watched last night with someone who was on the fence, but now thinks that there is more to the story than we are being told. so the bbc have shot themselves in the foot. thousands of people who previously had no opinion on 911 will have been awoken from their slumber. thanks bbc, you have failed miserably in your efforts to stop the truth. now so many more people will talk about it today, not afraid to discuss whats wrong about 911. bbc 0 truth 1.

[Bufordt06]

I believe the two version story, sorry if someone else has already mentioned it but the preview clips we saw of AJ were not in the final edit.

The shakey camera when filming Fetzer made me laugh. I really hope the general public can see through this nonsense.

[Carlos]

if anyone didn't catch it, or wants to re-watch(was such a masterpiece)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7621076970651593769

[A Sharp Major]

I thought given the time slot, the programme was fair to both sides. Look at the thousands of pages of argument that have gone on on this site and others. A programme stating and debunking every point ever raised would still be on at Chritmas. Perhaps some people expected too much.

Some major players may not have agreed to appear. I got the impression that the Alex Jones clips were archive footage (Avery and Fetzer exclusives). Avery didn't seem to understand what a similie is and yes, Fetzer had that 'I'm mad' look about him. Jimmy Walters has been rubbished in this way as has Judy Wood (the latter by the 9/11 Truth movement itself). Not flattering.

mark e said

[xmasdale]

[dontbelievethehype1970]

did you check the radio5 live message board, it was popluated entirely with pro government messages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148564?thread=3902219&skip=0&sho w=20

[mobypaterson]

that's a mite strange isn't it? The live phone in gets nothing but support for the truth but the message board is over-run with those damn "conspiracy theorists"!

Shoes on the other foot now people!

[ishaar]

I thought the 'documentary' was lame in all aspects, from any angle. Viewers looking for confirmation the US government weren't complicit in the events of that day would have found little comfort in this almost amaturish, obvious hit piece.

main points:

The animation of the tower collapse left the core standing and quickly faded before the end of the animation in an attemp to make the error less obvious.
The theory of collapse they gave us, the 'pancake' theory, has already been abandoned by NIST as too improbable.

They claimed building 7 was a towering inferno, briefly showed a clip of a large portion of the building with fire coming from 2 floors then almost immediately zoomed in on that small fire so it filled the frame in a pathetic attempt to make the fire look 'big'.
And where was the structural engineer? you know, the expert you interview to validate your claims of collapse through fire, the guy with the qualifications and experience? eeerrr, we couldn't find one...will this kid do? He has a website.

The pentagon. Impressive. They found an adult, professor Mete Sozen. He claims he has merged realistic graphics with physical simulation technology to recreate the impact of the jetliner with the pentagon, then goes on to explain that the damage to the pentagon was caused by the mass of the plane plus fuel contents, no explanation as to why the 'damage' took the form of a small hole, no explanation as to how the outside walls avoided damage from the 'mass' of the engines.

The professors work is mentioned on this site:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Scroll half way down for a good pic of the hole in the outer wall, (assuming this is a genuine photo) apparently, the engines 'evaporated' befor thay made contact with ..... anything! By the way note, no parking here.

The treatment of the Pensalvania 'crash site' was equally shabby.

I can only assume that no-one actually working on this documentary really wanted to. It seemed thrown together with very little care, a very poor job. Perhaps deliberately so.

[Snowygrouch]

The purpose of this hat will become clear later this week to some people.
I hope you`re hungry....

[kbo234]

[mason-free party]

The Conspiracy Files
News Commentary – February 19, 2007

I hardly ever watch television but on Sunday night there was something I had to see: I even missed one of my favourite movies, Gladiator, broadcast at the same time on another channel just to watch it.

I needn’t have bothered

Even before it was broadcast the BBC’s documentary on the events of 9/11 was stirring some controversy, with claims that it would be a “hit piece” or an attempt to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

There were even claims that two versions had been made.

Although this writer does not question the integrity of those making this suggestion – Ian Crane from the UK 9/11 Truth Movement – this notion probably originated in a think tank of some covert disinformation department: the object being to disorientate and confuse those genuinely seeking the truth about 9/11.

The fact that some were ready to entertain such notions can probably be attributed to sheer naiveté; which is a weak point of many of those seeking the truth and a point of vulnerability sought by the powers that be.

As it turned out the program was a “hit piece”, despite its best efforts at seeming like a balanced investigation.

Making me seem all the more stupid because this should have been apparent even before the show was broadcast.

What made this so abundantly clear?

Well a quick look at the show’s BBC website revealed a Question and Answer page that sought to explain why the U.S. Air Force could not prevent the 9/11 attacks.

The reason the US military response was so poor was because they were simply unprepared, explained the shows producer Mike Rudin.

And the source of this revelation was a now notorious article that appeared in popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 Myths. Written in part by none other than Benjamin Chertoff, nephew of Michael Chertoff, chief of America’s Department of Homeland Security: an impeccable source, for the official version of 9/11 events if ever there was.

Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who heard bombs bring down Building 7 as he ran from it, was also interviewed for the show and reportedly came away with the distinct impression that its intention was to dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory.

But we should have known that this would be the case from the very start. The first program in the series, an investigation into claims that Princess Diana’s death was not an 'accident' was broadcast last year and like the 9/11 investigation it too sought to buttress the official version of events.

Pointedly, it made no reference to Richard Tomlinson’s affidavit on Princess Diana’s death.

Despite going through the motions of being an impartial investigation the Conspiracy Files is classic, calculated disinformation. Little more can be expected from the B.B.C. though but to add insult to injury, viewers are expected to fund this through the compulsory payment of licence fees.

The Conspiracy Files should be a warning to all of us. The powers that be are getting worried: too many people are waking up and too much is being revealed. This was an attempt to nullify serious research and discredit the findings of previous investigations.

Will it work though?

Somehow I don't think so, too many people are becoming aware of what is really going on. The Conspiracy Files was an attempt to mislead and deceive with the media equivalent of sleight of hand but too many people are asking too many questions and unless the Internet is shut down, this will only grow.

So we can now expect the infiltration of the 9/11 Truth movement with double agents intent on wrecking it.

Indeed this may already be happening; word is that Michael Meacher, the former government minister who sparked controversy with claims over the Iraq War and September 11 has already been approached

Stay tuned...and switch off your T.V.

Sources:
BBC 9/11 Documentary Likely Hit Piece
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/150207bbcdocumentary.htm

BBC vs 9/11 Truth: The Smear Begins
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/02/bbc-vs-911-truth-smear-begin s.html

Two Versions of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6043

Could the US Air Force have prevented the attacks?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm#1

Debunking The 9/11 Myths
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=8

Michael Chertoff: Defender of Terror
www.paranoiamagazine.com/chertoffterror.html

NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm

[Leiff]

The producer is currently being interviewed by Alex Jones...

http://www.infowars.com

[Thermate]

[Pikey]

[scubadiver]

I would regard this to be better documentary than "Loose Change", seriously!

It may not be representative and may not provide info on the evidence we have but could encourage people to research further!

[Howie]

New link to videos:

http://www.911archive.info/mcmp720x360_player.swf

[Bongo]

http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.pls

Alex Jones getting back at the producer, Guy Smith, of the BBC documentary (Now!)

HAHAHAHA. When asked about Operation Northwoods, Guy Smith has just admitted that he has no doubt that Governments have carried out false Flag terrorist events in the past! GOTCHA!

... So what makes anything any different now?

You will need Real Player (I think) for the stream...

Good so far

[wickywoowoo]

Alex Jones is getting all smarmy with his English 'accent' and he is shouting at Guy.

He is NOT helping "the cause" at all.

[Bongo]

Wicky, I don't agree, he has got Guy in a place where he can only say "I don't believe it"! So far Guy has not come forward with a single reasonable rebuttal.

[rodin]

[Banish]

[IronSnot]

Well I've seen the first 20 minutes and it's basically a BBC Loose Change as far as I can see. The PM guy looks like a fool, and the BBC pointed out many anomolies including a visual comparison of WTC 7 and other demolitions. You shouldn't forget that this is the first time a lot of mainstream viewers are even going to have heard of the third building to collapse that day.

This is as good as you could have expected. It's not a hitpiece in any way in the first 20 minutes or so.