VIDEO - 9/11 & the British Broadcasting Conspiracy

[ian neal]

http://www.bbc5.tv/index.html

This is David Shayler and Co's latest edit of the response to the BBC's conspiracy files on 9/11.

Unfortunately only available on a small screen at present and so the picture quality is poor. A big thank you to all those involved for all the hard work that is inevitably involved in putting something like this together.

I'm sure any constructive feedback will be welcomed.

Email: editor (AT) bcc5.tv

[TonyGosling]

at last!!

look forward to watching this - and feeding back

[BBC5.tv]

You can download a high quality bit torrent version from:

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/stats.html?info_hash=b09b08cf6a16b68 06a75a612e296ba90b2690edf

Enjoy!

[Pete J]

This film is absolutely inspiring - very watchable and well crafted.

I hope you'll all watch it - is there going to be a DvD that can be got to hand out to key people (like . . . BBC staff ??) . .

I can't beleive the producers of this movie managed to appear so even handed while at the same time so directly addressing the issues of selectiveness in the BBC version - it really makes the 'Conspiracy Files' film look quite infantile. A great job on any budget.

It's another bit of inching forward in breaking down the barriers - except more inches than usual.

[Justin]

Well done Davd, Adrian and everyone else involved - absolutely first rate and one to be shown to all MPs, Peers and other decisionmakers, not to mention media journalists.

[BBC5.tv]

Email it to everyone, bbc5.tv!

Adrian and co put a heck of a lot of effort into this, and it shows.

Enjoy!

[karlos]

dont want to be a party pooper but are you allowed to call yourselves BBC5?
Must be a breech of trademark or a passing off offence surely.


having said that
the film is excellent
100% bonafide

[Mick Meaney]

On Google Video
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1882365905982811133&hl =en-GB

On Internet Archive
http://www.archive.org/details/911_and_the_British_Broadcasting_Conspi racy

The team have created an outstanding weapon in our arsenal.

[WyldeChylde]

Well, well, well. Truly amazing how people have no idea of the side David and the crew put forward in that documentary, having only seen the BBC version.


Apart from spreading the word, is there anything else we can do?

[BBC5.tv]

The bbc5.tv website now has the improved quality video uploaded:

http://www.bbc5.tv/watchflv.html

I won't say enjoy this time, only ciao.

[ian neal]

I suggest the London group drafts a flyer and makes some copies and gets down to the BBC in White City for a weekly protest or if anyone is really 'hard' a permanent vigil/picket.

[karlos]

As i said the documentary is excellent.
But caution.
Are we allowed to call it BBC5.tv
they are bound to object once they find out
far better to brand it differently and avoid the hassle
they could quite easily get an injunction as the video includes clips from BBC show which although news clips can be used under fair usuage policies the clips from an actual may not be usuable especially if the project is marketed a BBC5.tv.

As i said i dont want to be the party pooper but better to be sure before we hit a juggernaut.
BBC can issue an injunction and do the makers for breech of trademark, passing off as well as breech of copyright. Google will pull the video instantly. Honestly it really makes no difference to the video to remove the BBC5.tv from it.

[flamesong]

[flamesong]

[karlos]

[flamesong]

Stand aside, Stelios, and let the activists with bottle get on with their work.

[karlos]

[BBC5.tv]

Dude, the battles today, not tomorrow. Lets go forward and if this gets the party started then so be it. Man where we're going copyright will fall by the wayside and you know it. It's about the people finding out and if they sue us it plays into our hands surely, any publicity is good publicity. The film will go viral and then all they can do is try and get some money out of us but we have none so who ultimately cares? They'd be entering into a no man's land and they know it. We've got the truth on our side and that is an auspicious tool.

My name is at the end of the credits and honestly I want a reaction, been waiting for far too long already. Proactive not reactive hey. Have courage in your convictions, as if we stand, maybe other people will too.

Anyway it's just a ride so I'd rather it went a bit faster!

Peace,

scott.

[flamesong]

[Craig W]

Watched the film. Reasonably well made, a bit slow in parts, some strong points made as well as a few weak points and red herrings.

The following comments are made in the spirit of helpful feedback and not as any sort of attempt to attack or rubbish the film or its makers.

Criticisms:
- I don't like the title - it implies that the BBC were "in on it" and will alienate the mainstream
- no Arab names on flight manifest - thought this had been debunked as they were not included out of respect for the victims (or some such?)
- the sequence on transponders, radar blips, and whether the aviation/defence authorities should have been able to keep track of the planes was confusing and the point was not made clearly to me.
- Shayler says both towers came down in around 10 seconds, "almost freefall speeds". My understanding is that seismic data shows the towers took between 12 and 14 seconds to fall. We do not need to overstate our case - that is still astonishingly fast.
- regarding Silverstein's "pull it" comment, Shayler says, "The fact remains that pull is an industry term for a controlled demolition." While technically correct, in my understanding of the term this statement is a little misleading. Afaiaa to pull a building in demolition terms mean to attach hooks and chains to it and literally pull it down using heavy machinery (as the remains of some of the other WTC building were finally demolished). It does not afaik refer to the use of explosives. Of course, Silverstein may have been using it erroneously, not understanding this nuance. But it should be made clear to avoid accusations of shoddy work.
- Shayler said that Flight 77 made a "near impossible manoeuvre" - my understanding is that this was not backed up by pilots' views and is a myth
- I don't see the point in saying that the BBC didn't mention that thousands of New Yorkers had suffered with breathing probems since 911. How does that affect whether or not the OGCT is correct? Or whether the BBC's programme was a fair representation of the alternative theories?
- regarding the $2.3trillion in "lost" Pentagon money. There has never been any mainstream suggestion afaiaa that this money (which was lost over a period of 10 years) simply disappeared. The story is that poor accounting/auditing practices meant that it simply couldn't be tracked, ie they cannot know what it was spent on or whether it went missing somehow (but this last is pure speculation). Shayler makes the statement "Fraud at the Pentagon is not uncommon" after the footage showing Rumsfeld announce the "lost" money, giving the impression that it may have been lost through fraud. This is pure speculation and disingenuous. From what I have read, I think this piece of supposed suspicious "evidence" is a red herring and not worthy of inclusion in any serious investigation.

Positive elements (there were many more):
- no CCTV of suspects at any of the airports from where the planes took off
- failure to point out the long-standing relationship between CIA and Islamic terror/AQ
- failure to cover fairly the many drills and exerciss on the day and how some of them resembled the attacks
-
- the several dropped FBI investigations into OBL and the BL family
- John O'Neill's resignation
- state-sponsored terror and false flag terror
- Operation Gladio
- the lack of context in the BBC piece
- the failure to investigate the background of the 911 Commission
- the inaccurate impression given that 911 scepticism was disrespectful to the victims' families

Thanks for your efforts.

[mason-free party]

stelios...the law is an ass made to be broken..end of story

[blackcat]

[Dogsmilk]

But the point about the flight manifests is certainly important; I have seen critics post the manifests containing the hijackers names on this very forum, during the 'JREF invasion' I think. IIRC the previous lists without their names were casualty lists with hijackers names allegedly deliberatly witheld as Craig says. Any inaccuracy is ammunition.

[Craig W]

Why the aggressive tone, Blackcat?

I have made it clear that I support the film and that my criticisms were intended as constructive feedback.

If you wish to address the particular points you find disagreeable in critics corner then go ahead. Though I am no defender of the OGCT and I don't see why we can't disagree on detail without having to go to critics corner.

Regarding the $2.3trillion, you make some very strong claims and such claims require very strong supportive evidence. Do you have any? If it was such a bombshell, why would Rumsfeld have announced it at all? The idea that they hit that part of the Pentagon to cover up this massive loss (presumably because it was incurred fraudulently), while possible, is pure speculation.

Maybe I'm wrong on some of these points, and they are cautiously worded because I am by no means certain (hence my use of afaics and afaiaa, etc). But is it not important to try and stick to only those bomb-proof pieces of evidence that are irrefutably suggestive of shadiness? We don't have to preach all the many hundreds of 911-related conspiracy details. I'm sure you don't buy every one. I'm sure there are some you consider less likely, less plausible. Well, these were mine in this film.

[Justin]

Flamesong wrote:

[Craig W]

Blackcat, regarding Dov Zakheim, his tenure as Comptroller of the Pentagon began in May 2001, so he can hardly be thought responsible for the whole $2.3trillion (whether it was incurred over three years or 10).

His wikipedia page has this info (not syaing it is definitely true but is worth checking out further and provides two references for it from the DoD and Senate):

[blackcat]

[Stefan]

Excellent job boys well done.

Very proffessional and stylish, I think it should be proposed that the campaign fund printing a proffesional looking bunch to send to journalists and news organisations, especially the BBC.

Minor nit-picks - some problems with pacing (for my liking) pauses in between points are a bit lengthy.

Saying thermite is used in controlled demolitions is opening yourself up for a debunk to contend with - it is generally only used to slice up steel at the end, although you can win the argument by pointing out it has been used in demolition of oil rigs, I always prefer to describe it by its capability to slice through steel if I mention it at all, which makes the same point.

As far as I know only the outer ring of the Pentagon was steel reinforced concrete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was debating a debunker and they came out with this with a source to back it up, and I couldn't find anything to refute that. Still next to impossible for the craft to have bashed through that many normal walls anyway.

Nit picky I know, but as the film itself says - debunkers focus on these tiniest of details and ignore the rest.

One thing that saddens me is that we didn't have the funds to make this a swift response.

The Scientologists had a DVD produced and sent out as a mass mail drop within a week of that Panorama. Shame we weren't in the same position to immediatley knock down these BBC myths with a finished product of this quality while the show was still fresh in peoples minds.

All in all though - good stuff. I will circulate it gladly.

[Snowygrouch]

I though it was bloody good.

Great to see Dave doing what he does best again.

Well done all.

C.

[Craig W]

Feel free to provide your evidence, Blackcat.

If you want to play games then find someone else to play with. I'm not interested.

BTW that info wasn't from Wikipedia but from Jim Hoffman's site here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

It seems there were several reports of this issue months before 911 so why would the supposed announcement on Sept 10th need burying? It was old news.
See here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/dollars_2-12.html
Here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=11 98
Here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1095
And here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=408