BBC Swallows Pentagon Video, Hook Line and Boeing 757

[freddie]

wow! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

This would be laughable if the subject was not so serious. Our TV licence money goes to pay for these chumps to write pieces like this - pieces that would have been laughed off any decent forum. These latest pieces have shown me what direction the BBC are going to take this issue. I am angry but also really quite sad that our national media would respond in this way, it's so far from an acceptable standard of journalism.

[Newspeak International]

I am not surprised the BBC would wish to downplay issues surrounding
9/11.

What I am bloody furious about is the conspiracy theory comments.

"you can see the Pentagon explode as the plane hits"

Any casual observer with any nouse would see nothing of the sort.

[Martin Conner]

Please do not become deluded into thinking the British Brain Control will support the truth. They are corporate media; the charter is tissue paper, much like the USA Constitution.

It is not in their interests to publish anything other than the predetermined capitalist paradigm of keeping the people ignorant.

[freddie]

Oh sure, I wasn't expecting them to be on our side but I did expect a better debunking effort than this! - Didn't you? ... I personally know students that could knock out a better hit piece than this, it's worse than a bad forum post!

I understand what you are saying Martin but my point is that it's not the direction of the piece but its quality that makes me sad. I can understand an editor telling a writer to knock up a piece dismissing the truth-movement, but I find it hard to envisage an editor telling his writer to deliberately write a piece of such poor quality, similarly I struggle to rationalize a professional journalist signing off on such a piece of nonsense. I try pretty hard to make sure my facts are straight / reasoning is reasonable when I write a piece that only a few hundred people will ever read - how on earth could you sleep at night after knocking out such a sloppy piece that you know hundreds of thousands if not millions will read?

[brian]

freddie, if he is to write a piece at all it will by necessity be of that quality.

It is aimed at those who may be exposed to the notion but not familiar with the facts.

A soporific -

Nothing to concern yourself with, they are just those common or garden conspiracy types that are always around, go back to TV land.

[Martin Conner]

[Newspeak International]

Maybe it was not a very well written piece for a reason!


http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=7289#7289


Here's the email I sent earlier:


Dear Paul Reynolds,

There I was, all convinced that there was something not quite right about that day, spent literally years researching demolition techniques of large buildings, the practicalities of cell phone conversations from various altitudes and velocities, the possibilities of remote controlling a heavy aircraft, the standard drill for interception of aircraft deviating from their flight paths, or/and not responding to air traffic control, the availability of fighter jets when/ if/ and where/ they would/ were/ may be scrambled from.
I now realise due to your convincing article that I am indeed a deluded person, and shall no more dwell on trifling matters such as accountability and transparency in
the world, after all I pay the BBC to tell me how things are so I don’t have to trouble myself with such matters.


Incidentaly , my doctor recommends I take the blue pills, they would be so much easier to swallow than my red ones.



Keep up the good work,

Regards


Newspeak

(It’s Brian really)

[Hazzard]

[freddie]

Martin, I totally agree with everything you just said and Hazard is right, that does some up their choices in this matter.

The more I think about it, my initial dissapointment with the tone, content and quality of the article was the wrong attitude - This is good news really, they can't even put up a decent opposition; some people will see through this level of debate and it may inadvertantly direct some people to the movement. With such a weak support (for the official line) from this piece still fresh in their mind, they may be more open to reasonable points.

[Martin Conner]

Bulshit and Blag Corporation or maybe Bollox, Broken and Crap, or more likely Bush ‘n’ Blair’s Coterie. One thing is certain, it is not Best Beneficial Company to trust.

Having said this, I do admire the decision to post a link to the video of LC2. Perhaps Winston has been activated

[Hazzard]

The opposition will come in the guise of a terrorist attack. You can be sure of that. Prepare for the real opposition. Dont underestimate your enemy.

[flamesong]

Newsnight have just done a piece about the Pentagon footage in which Dave Von Kleist was interviewed.

I recorded it but cannot upload it because I can't save it in any of the formats permitted on the forum! There are no video formats permitted!

Anyway, it is viewable via the newsnight website at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

- only until tomorrow night's programme is streamed.

[Newspeak International]

It says it wont be available due to copyright restrictions Flamey!

[Sinclair]

I watched that tonight.

It was more balanced than usual, for the BBC.

[brian]

[Graham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

[John White]

Well, thats either an indirect way of helping the cause or a way to get shot in the foot, becuase thats going to raise lots more interest and at the end of Loose Change, loads of "noobs" are most assuredly going to be saying "WTF?"

so its tantamount to Auntie Beeb asking "Red pill or Blue pill: your choice...."

The only thing missing was a direct google link...

[ianrcrane]

9/11 Truth is gathering momentum!

Much of what has been reported in the British media, since the release of the ‘Pentagon Tape’, should actually be regarded as extremely positive.

Of course, there have been the inevitable references to the ‘conspiracy theorists’ but this has actually served to alert some people that there are those who question the official version of what actually transpired on 9/11. Yes, believe it or not, there are still many millions of people who have yet to become aware of the 9/11 Truth Campaign … or even that there is anyone out there who doesn’t believe the Osama Bin Laden mythology!

The following link will take you to the BBC on-line report, posted by Paul Reynolds yesterday afternoon, titled ‘Conspiracy theorists down but not out’.

www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

We have to bear in mind that reporters working in the MSM are under enormous pressure to ‘toe the party line’. A few months ago I was giving a talk in Hebden Bridge, Yorkshire; at the end of the evening a gentleman came up to me, introducing himself as a Senior Reporter with the Yorkshire Evening Post (he actually gave me his Business Card, so I have no reason to doubt his authenticity). He stated that his own research into the events of 9/11 & 7/7 supported everything that I had presented in my talk. Before I had a chance to reply, he said, “…but do you know what? To write, let alone print, anything that contravenes the official account ….would be journalistic suicide!”

Paul Reynolds report, which lists the questions raised by the ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ and goes on to mention the documentary ‘Loose Change II’, is a masterful piece of journalism. He has maintained the façade of supporting the official version but in just one short article has presented a whole raft of anomalies and has directed people to go watch Loose Change II.

Reynolds is to be congratulated …. But not too loudly, in case his bosses start to appreciate the magnitude of his impact.

Ian R. Crane

[John White]

Hooray!

[Andrew Johnson]

I have archived the Newsnight report here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/BBC%20Newsnight%20-%20Pentagon%20F ilm%20%20-%2017%20May%202006.avi

5 megs download. It's not too bad - featuring Dave Von Kleist etc

[ian neal]

Come on, by BBC standards this is a remarkably balanced piece. Sure it is far from perfect and omits some of key questions / issues posed by 'doubters' and asks the question at the end why if it is an inside job did/does OBL not deny responsibility?. Well doh, he did deny it and in affect accused elements inside the US of responsibility. But definately a positive development IMO

[Hazzard]

Dont worry guys. They have something up their sleaves. Thousands of years planning and all .

Im sure they know exactly what the situation is, and im sure its all under THEIR control.

The key division will come between those who love the NWO and those who love freedom. When that happens, by that timethere will be no more freedom of speach and no more forums to post on and no more people to enlighten.

[SmashySmash]

[xmasdale]

[foliagecop]

Just while we're on the subject of BBC journalists, and Paul Reynolds in particular, it's interesting to note that Paul also wrote the following two articles (one with a brief mention of 9/11):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4774566.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4644124.stm

What I find amazing is that we're citing this kind of journalism as evidence that the tide is turning; that journalists are on our side; that finally we're getting a fair crack at the whip ... when all it is is simply balanced (okay, almost balanced) reportage. All journalism should be balanced. We've just grown so used to hearing one-sided, Government-approved lies that we really are thrown for a loop when someone produces a report that dares to mention the other side of the coin (or even admit that there is another side of the coin).

With his article on the Pentagon, I initially suspected Paul may not have been aware of the import of what he was writing. On the basis of the above articles, however, I am now convinced he most definitely was. May more journalists follow suit, no matter how they have to disguise their voice in order for it to be heard.

[foliagecop]

I agree with what you say, Anthony. And, no, I'm not a forest ranger. I'm just a humble guy up here in Scotland.

Suppression of information is, I agree, the single most important thing in the world today, and I personally try my damnest to make sure as many people as possible are alerted not only to the 9/11 lies, but to the wider, police state/elitist takeover situation that lies hidden behind it.

I'm not a Paul Reynolds apologist, although I understand his position. Ultimately, however (as you rightfully say), it isn't enough. Not if he really wants the truth out there. But I'd bet my house he's more interested in keeping his job than doing that. The sad reality is that if he was more dedicated to this subject, he wouldn't be working for the BBC.

So, although I may commend Paul for what he says, it's entirely within the context of his working for the BBC. If he was an independent researcher or thinker espousing the same views, I wouldn't hesitate to condone him. I mean, c'mon, any sane person investigating the facts soon realises the official version ain't what it's cracked up to be. If it was, it'd be an open and shut case and there wouldn't be any questions to ask (or to duck or dismiss).

[foliagecop]

Anthony, I'm counting to ten before replying because I feel your response to my last post was totally uncalled for. It's clear (or at least I thought it was clear) from my earlier posts that I can indeed "see the woods" on this matter. Your implication that I'm ignorant of, and insensitive to, innocent lives being lost is incredibly insulting.

I'm fully aware of the issues at stake here. I've read many books and seen many videos/DVDs (the entire Alex Jones back catalogue, for example) regarding 9/11 and the rise of the police state, so my ability to see the full picture is not in question.

I also thought it was clear from my last post that my comments about Paul Reynolds were solely in the context of his working for the BBC. A rather limited context, admittedly, but something that must be taken on board in order to understand where he's coming from, whether we agree with him or not.

I'm not so naive as to believe that 9/11 truth is ever going to come from the BBC.

And just to put to bed the notion that my alias is in some way sinister, 'Foliage Cop' was the name of a pilot TV sitcom I wrote some years ago, about an individual who was "Half-man, half-rhododendron, all law enforcement officer". Unsurprisingly, it was never picked up.

Can we please now stop bickering with one another and get back to targetting those who really deserve it?

[foliagecop]

Anthony, it's just hit me that your last post could have been read two ways, and that you may not have been having a go at me after all.

If that's the case, please ignore my last comments and accept my apologies!

[Newspeak International]

you can always use the edit function!

[foliagecop]

My God. I take it all back, Anthony. He seriously believes this? Unbelievable. I'm reminded of the guy who's dedicated a whole site to refuting every single moment of 'Loose Change 2'. He mentions talking to someone who considered the CIA to be behind the assassination of JFK. Website guy's response to this was:

"I had to remind him that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy."

This is the mindset we're fighting against. It's sad (though perhaps not surprising) that Paul Reynolds holds the same mindset. It never fails to amaze me that so many people treat official versions of anything as dogma. Can't they see that governments have their own agenda, one that has sweet FA to do with the interests of the people?

Good job smoking him out, Anthony.