BBC response to complaint about 9/11 Conspiracy Files'

[kbo234]

Here is my original complaint, made on 11th Feb '07:

I would like to complain about the 9/11 'Conspiracy Files' programme.
There is a part in the film where a conversation takes place between
NORAD and the FAA stating that a plane had been hijacked. The NORAD
controller asked if it was real time or exercise. The 'Conspiracy Files'
female narrator said that there was 'much confusion' during these
exchanges.
Most seriously and a loud and distracting woman's voice was ADDED to the
conversation, which confirmed the impression of confusion. On the
original recording of this exchange there is no woman's voice. This
addition is falsification of evidence. It can be described in no other
way. I await your response to this complaint with interest.

Here is the BBC's reply, received today 23rd April '07 (61 days later):

Thank you for your further letter regarding '9/11: The Conspiracy Files'
broadcast on 11 February 2007. Please accept my sincere apologies for the
delay in responding. I know our correspondents appreciate a speedy response
and I am sorry you have had to wait in this instance.

I understand you feel that the presence of a woman's voice during the
conversation between NORAD and FAA was a falsification of evidence. I have
since been in contact with the programme's editor who has replied as
follows:

"Dear Mr Boyle

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding "The Conspiracy Files".
I'm sorry you feel the response you've had so far was unsatisfactory. I
hope we can address your concerns in detail here.

First, you suggest the programme was wrong to suggest there was "much
confusion". In fact the script says "But in the confusion, it was a further
9 minutes before interceptors were scrambled."

The clips made available by the Pentagon to an associate producer of the
film "United 93", make clear there was confusion. The author, Michael
Bronner, writing in Vanity Fair, which published the audio material,
suggests that most members of the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) team
at North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) were initially confused
about what was going on, and assumed that it was part of an exercise, not
the real thing:

"Powell's question - "Is this real-world or exercise?" - is heard nearly
verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and
are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room,
first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send
"inputs" - simulated scenarios - into play for the day's training exercise."

Secondly, you suggest that "a loud and distracting woman's voice was added
to the conversation which confirmed the impression of confusion." There are
two separate clips which were edited together because they are from the
same time.

The audio material provided by the Pentagon, some 30 hours of recording,
was taken from different sections of the operations floor of the NEADS,
part of NORAD.

The first clip we played was:

08:37:52 BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit],
we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New
York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or
something up there, help us out. POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

This clip is timed at 8:37:52. The author next describes the reaction in
another part of the NEADs floor - where the separate, second clip used in
our film was recorded. He writes that the women in the ID section hear the
word 'hijack' and like most others on the NEADs floor were confused as to
whether this was part of an exercise or not.

The second clip is timed at 8:37:56, i.e. beginning some 4 seconds into the
first clip.

The two clips are separate and drawn from different parts of the operations
floor, which we see in the pictures. But they are from the same period of
the morning, and relate to the same episode. And we know from the author
that almost everyone in the room was confused. The two clips accurately
capture the confusion that is clearly evident on the operations floor of
NEADS at this time in the morning.

At this point, certainly, the notion of actually firing anything at a
passenger jet hasn't crossed anyone's mind. In the ID section, the women
overhear the word "hijack" and react, innocently enough, as anyone might
with news of something exciting going on at work:

8:37:56 WATSON: What? DOOLEY: Whoa! WATSON: What was that? ROUNTREE: Is
that real-world? DOOLEY: Real-world hijack. WATSON: Cool!

You can read more about it at the following webpage:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the content of external
websites."

I trust this sets out the BBC's standpoint on the matter. If you wish to
pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial
Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint. You can
write to them at the following address:

Editorial Complaints Unit
BBC
Media Centre
MC4C6 Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TQ

Alternatively you can e-mail the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk

[kbo234]

This reply basically admits that no-one was listening to the actual 'tape' broadcast on the programme and that the two separate recordings were edited together.

No one has denied that there was confusion in the control room on 9/11. This confusion was obviously deliberately manufactured.

What is being alleged is that this 'documentary' was dishonestly put together. This view has been confirmed by the BBC's response.

The viewer was left with the impression that the air traffic controllers were listening to a cacophonous confusion of simultaneous voices....rather than clear single voices. The confusion arose from the simutaneous concurrence of the real world/exercise flight events rather than from any confusion in the communication systems themselves, as was presented.

The BBC might claim that this dubbing of the two tapes was reasonable 'poetic licence' in the context of such a serious programme......but from our perspective it was just another of many editorial 'sleight-of-hand' techniques used throughout the programme.....all working towards the producer's chosen end....selling the public ONE BIG LIE.

[Snowygrouch]

Very good work and congrats on getting an interesting reply.

C.

[Bongo]

Shame the BBC still can't come up with a satisfactory response to the fact that they predicted the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Centre on live footage and nearly half an hour before it actually happened!

With Baited Breath, regards,

Brian.

[Graham]

I have also had trouble... concentrating on them using FEMA's "pancake collapse", when FEMA abandoned it last year. They simply won't provide an answer. Have been through the process twice. What's next? Ofcom?

[telecasterisation]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Maybe I'm being dense but I can't fathom what the BBC are saying in that response, are they spinning us that there were two recordings of the NORAD/FAA exchange on 9/11, the one we have heard many times ...two calm professionals going through the routine they were trained to do and another ambiant NORAD HQ recording with a hysterical female boss struggling to get her head round the concept that a real world incident could occur the same day they were having exercises?

Is it right those tapes were first released to the director of 'Flight 93', has he been cleared fom the conspiracy? his film was pure propaganda.
Guy Smith must have doctored those tapes at least once...unless the FAA operative repeated the phrase 'not an exercise not a test' over and over and over.

[ian neal]

[Bongo]

Ian, I think I should answer Telecastrations query ...

Telecastration wrote...

[Ravenmoon]

Too right ian & i'd also like to ask them why they thought a steel framed building would collapse for the first & only time ever in mans history due to fire !!