BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Controversy and conspiracies

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 20:11 UK time, Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Are some conspiracy theories just too controversial to discuss publicly? We've spent the past few months investigating whether there is any truth to the many theories that have grown up about the London bombings of 7 July 2005. The results of our investigation will be shown as part of the Conspiracy Files series on BBC Two in the Autumn.

But were you to believe what some publications have recently written about our documentary (eg the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Spectator and others) you would be forgiven for thinking that we shouldn't be making the programme at all.

But conspiracy theories about the London bombings are an important public issue.

The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted. Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.

Last year one opinion poll found that around one in four British Muslims do not believe that the four men identified as the 7/7 bombers by the authorities actually carried out the attacks. It is perhaps not surprising that the Metropolitan Police themselves have acknowledged the importance of tackling conspiracy theories about 7/7.

As programme makers we need to be sensitive to the feelings of the families of those who were killed in the bombings and to the survivors. But this should not stop us scrutinising conspiracy theories and the effect they are having on public confidence in the police and the government. Without such scrutiny, these theories are often treated as facts by those who find them seductive.

Some newspapers have alleged that we paid a conspiracy theorist, Nick Kollerstrom, to take part in the programme. This is not true. The BBC has covered the cost of some incidental expenses amounting to no more than £30. This includes the cost of a return train ticket from London to Luton because we asked him to film with us at the location where he had discovered a fact about the bombings - namely that the train that it had been said the bombers took to London did not run on 7 July 2005.

The BBC has also covered the cost of lunch and cups of tea on some of the days we have filmed with him. We did not cover the cost of his trip to Leeds during which he visited the family homes of some of the bombers. Along with his views of 7/7, Nick Kollerstrom's views about the Holocaust will be scrutinised and challenged in the programme.

When the documentary is broadcast in the Autumn you will have the chance to decide for yourself what the facts are about the 7/7 conspiracy theories and the theorists who promote them.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    The problem with conspiracy theorists is this:

    By definition, they already don't believe the "official" explanation of something.

    They have already formulated their own opinion on what "really" happened.

    Anything further that doesn't support *their* opinion of the "truth" must be, in their minds, simply an extension of the original conspiracy.

    Because they are the only ones who know the "truth".

    Taking an untrustworthy government aside for a moment, most conspiracy theories bounce off the fact most people's minds refuse to accept that yes, sometimes things can be clear cut, can be simple.

    For some obscure psychobabbling reason, humans seem to always want things to be this huge dark conspiracy, because to accept sometimes nasty things can happen completely out of the blue goes against their idea of "rational explanations".

    If they can't rationalize the facts, they have to concoct some sort of rational explanation themselves, which becomes "truth".

    You've got zero chance of ever persuading them otherwise. Just look at how many people still believe the moon landings were a fake.

    (With the aside that newspapers, especially the Sun, are unlikely to ever want real answers on some questions, it shuts down their fantasy spin machine potential to sell more Page 3 nudies in the future :P)

  • Comment number 2.

    You're right, Moonwolf, but then the reverse is also true - many people would refuse to accept even the possibility of a conspiracy having been committed by their own country's political or intelligence agents, no matter how suspicious the evidence.

    "Anti-conspiracy theorists", you might call them. They can be just as fixed in their critical thinking. And I'd wager there's a lot more of them around that conspiracy theorists.

    Interestingly, these same people would probably be quite willing to entertain the idea of such conspiracies having been committed by other countries, such as Russia or China. The Sun newspaper for instance, so critical of the 7/7 conspiracy above, had no qualms about splashing on Putin being behind the Litvinenko poisoning. Yet you won't hear it giving much credence to Lugovi's claims that it was most likely carried out by MI6.

    I don't necessarily subscribe to any conspiracy theories, but I do think 'the big lie technique' often goes under-appreciated in these discussions.

  • Comment number 3.

    Conspiracies and controversies! are around and should be investigated...and if proven to be untruthful or lying...then the corrective measures should be taken.

  • Comment number 4.

    Clearly Mike Rudin's decision to post this blog is a conspiracy to test out the limits of the BBC's recently-updated blogging software.

    (and a thorough good testing it will receive, too!)

  • Comment number 5.

    Maybe the conspiracy theorists involved in a conspiracy of their own?

    It's quite possible that a conspiracy theorist will be paid by someone to try to cast doubt on the truth which has already been uncovered...

    Or am I just being paid to say that?

  • Comment number 6.

    It's good to see the BBC being quick off the mark and waiting 3 years to check the facts of a massive terrorist attack.

    The problem with not believing in what I am being told about 7/7 or any other area where the truth seems to have been manipulated is that automatically makes me a conspiracy theorist.

    The label is handed to anyone who disagrees. If I ask a question, I never get a straight answer, instead i get treated with aggression and insults for even thinking the question, let alone asking it.

    Rather than answer a straight question you get told your mad, crazy or in a state of shock because of your inability to rationalise the world around you, or you are told that to anything other than the official truth would involve an incredible amount of people and it could not be done.

    The same arguments can be applied to every "conspiracy theory" you can think off.

    All this would be fine but for the occasional moments where it turns out something was going on.

    The Iran-contra affair, a massive conspiracy involving the us govt/big business/drug dealing/terrorists.

    turns out it was all true.

    Watergate - True again

    USS Liberty - admitted

    Gulf of Tonkin - admitted

    So please call me all the names under the sun, question my grip on reality and ask me if I wear a hat of tin foil and believe in lizard men. They are the only weapons you have and they are there to make sure that you never give a straight answer to a straight question.

    Instead of trying to work out why we ask questions why not help us with the answers.

    Oh yeah, and Mike I am really looking forward to your new doco on 7/7 your one on 9/11 was fantastic.

    and if anyone can't wait till the autumn i would recommend '7/7 The ripple effect'







  • Comment number 7.

    "Wag The Dog" made flesh?

    The reverse happens a lot too, and there are people who definitely have vested interests in promoting conspiracy theories,

    I guess it boils down to who can you trust any more.

    I doubt there's more logical people than conspiracy theorists around though - at least if online is representative :)

  • Comment number 8.

    "Doubt" turns to "Conspiracy theory" when there is no logical reason to explain the disbelief in conventional thinking.

    Just because someone else comes up with some half baked conspiracy theory with tenuous or apocryphal evidence to support it doesn't mean others can jump on the bandwagon saying "Yeah, that makes more sense" and expect to be any more believed than the original crackpot.

    I've heard all sorts of "semi-plausible" reasons to say 9/11 was a conspiracy theory - for some obscure reason, all of them come from people who weren't there. I *was*, and I *know* what I saw - but somehow, that makes me part of a conspiracy, as an example :P

    7/7 might be a conspiracy - but no-one has actually proven anything is amiss, allowing for the natural paranoia and reticence of governments to ever admit just how badly they screwed up :P

  • Comment number 9.

    Quote: 'But conspiracy theories about the London bombings are an important public issue.'

    Surely it's the facts which are important...

  • Comment number 10.

    Moonwolfe,

    Always trying to confuse the issue, aint you

    There were 4 attacks on 9/11 so you were witness to one attack. How this means you know for sure it was done by 17 terrorists I don't know. unless it was you who found the amazing fireproof passport, of course.

    Your locality to the actual attack only means you know for sure it happened, its why it happened that we are left to theorise about and who pulled the strings.

    You try an confuse the issue a lot, where all that should matter are the facts and having an open an honest investigation by truly independent people.

    I have only ever heard semi-plausible theories for both events both official and non-official.

    All i know is hat both official versions of 9/11 and 7/7 are not telling the whole story, and the BBC, I suspect, will find that the official version of events is exactly what happened.


  • Comment number 11.

    Moonwolf, you are a very confusing guy, you are an ocean of contradictions. So you say i am illogical, i believe in half-baked theories, i have obscure psychobabble and i jump on the bandwagon of the latest theories.

    If i get this right your saying i let others do my thinking for me.

    It doesn't help answer any questions but i will go with you.

    You then say that no-one has proven anything is amiss.

    So are you waiting for some one to come along and tell you it has been proven, Do you need a press release. Surely you only have to prove things to yourself.

    Why not instead of listening to semi-plausible theories. sit down and read the evidence, become a one-man jury. Get to know all the names and events involved and have an original thought.

    You have to prove it to yourself. If you are happy living in the trust of others and are waiting to be told by an external authority that this is the truth, then are you not just blindly jumping onto the bandwagon, interpreting the world through the eyes of mass opinion.

    And all of this only helps you avoid answering the simple questions. The confusion, the insults, the anger. Why not let us ask our questions in peace. If you don't think there is anything in what we say, why waste your time attacking us. It just seems illogical and sadistic.

    May peace be with you


  • Comment number 12.

    One of these days I'm going to read an interesting article on these pages where Moonwolfe and Hank_Reardon aren't at each others throats.

    To some extent, every one of us needs to live in the comfort of trusting others, unless we're paronoid delusionists, in which case we should seek psychiatric help to allow us to learn this.

    What I mean is that we grew up in the comfort of being able to trust our parents. If we didn't, we become broken and disenchanted with the world, and that's not healthy. As adults we live in trust of our friends and partners, again, if we don't we have issues that need resolving with psychiatric help.

    Even suicide bombers, to some extent, live in a level of trust of their handlers that what they are told of the cause of their suicide, and what will happen to them after they are dead, it's the handlers that are creating "suicide factories" who are the really dangerous ones.. You can only die once, you can send people to their deaths many times.

    So where does that leave us in this world of conspiracies and lies?

    Well, first.. There is most certainly information that the British and American governments wish to keep hidden from their citizens.. Whether that is because they wish to keep things calm, whether that is because they wish to hide their fallibility or whether, in reality, they don't wish the people that they are targetting to become aware of this until they are able to do something to stop them, who knows? Call this a conspiracy if you wish, I call it proper policing.

    And then, there were most definitely conspiracies and lies that led to the bombings in the US and the UK. These were conspiracies and lies by the disenchanted. The people who took it upon themselves to risk their lives in an effort to kill and maim citizens of a country who they have been brainwashed into hating.

    So then the simple fact is that we can't prevent people from conspiring.. Last Valentines day I conspired with the florist to give my wife a surprise bouquet of flowers.. Nobody apart the florist and I had any idea what I was planning.. Imagine if giving flowers was illegal.. How difficult would it be to prevent me from carrying out my dastardly plan of giving my wife a nice surprise when only two people were aware?? So we have poor old MI5 trying to do basically the same job.

    Yes, it seems illogical and sadistic from the point of view of someone living in the West, but the "have not"s believe that the only way to become a "have" is to fight a war.. I've spent quite a bit of time doing aid work in 3rd world countries, and I can understand people risking their lives to come to the UK to live in the relative safety of Hackney or somewhere like that.. What I can't understand is why people believe they need to destroy it when they arrive.

  • Comment number 13.

    I think it will all depend on how you cover it.

    Most of these conspiracy theories fall apart when someone relentlessy probes the evidence. Classic example: the princess Diana hearing where even the barrister being paid to support the conspiracy ended up having to admit he had no real evidence.

    My concern is that you will give 'impartial' coverage to the conspiracies - leaving a false impression that they have some foundation.

    The problem with things like 7/7 (compared to the moon landings or area 51 etc) is not that they are 'controversial', the problem is that some people feel they have a right to act on them - up to and including lethal actions.

  • Comment number 14.

    As already seen by the reaction of the critics, there is a conspiracy of sorts, to ensure that the public are fed, unquestioningly, one official version of the truth. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the truth is a lie, i am saying it is right to take time to question and test the official narrative. Otherwise we do leave the door open to those in power, at anytime now or in the future, to think its ok to exchange the truth for a lie, just to suit a particular agenda. Unless we are able to ask questions we can not trust the answers we are given. If we must suffer air-time given even to the most extreme of conspiracy theories in order to preserve our fragile democracy, then so be it. Those that appreciate democracy should keep their ears open, however inconvenient that is, no matter how costly to our day-to-day comfort. We have a responsibility to listen, not only to those in power, but to those on the receiving end of it. We should be careful not only to listen to those who seek to gain, but to those who have much lose. Beware those that talk about decency and respect but in all reality have no real moral bank-bone. Beware those, who given any opportunity at all, will take time to criticize public service broadcasting because it challenges their own financially driven agenda. Ah, but now i'm beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist!

  • Comment number 15.

    Given that the BBC claim to have lost the "tape" of the "WTC" coverage of WTC7 falling down on BBC World, I suspect that Auntie is the last person to be telling us what is a conspiracy and what isn't.

  • Comment number 16.

    You guys love talking about us conspiracy theorists but hate talking about the issues we raise. My belief, and please prove wrong, is that you are not aware of the issue, the controversies of the official truth.

    So instead you talk around the subject or claim some extra understanding of the situation because of reason x or reason y.

    But never, never actually answer a simple question.

    If i ask about Peter Power make sure you reply that i must wear a tin-foil hat. If i ask about Bus cctv footage reply that if I believe this then maybe i am a threat.

    Jon112, you seem pretty sure that all controversies surrounding 7/7 are baseless, could you explain these issues for me. then I would never need to think about this subject again or be abused for being confused.

  • Comment number 17.

    But no one’s yet mentioned that as Princess Diana was really an alien shape-shifter it was her body double that died in Paris. Princess Anaid (as she’s now called) lives on the dark side of the moon and returned to earth and planted all the bombs so as to cause a third world war that would divert attention from the alien invasion planned for 2012, as foretold in Mayan hieroglyphs. Our only hope is the alien technology found on Mars (denied by NASA). Why else would Bush want to send a manned mission to Mars?

    Proof? Why its obvious!

  • Comment number 18.

    As someone who enjoyed the excellent Jon Ronson book 'Them: Adventures with Extremists', you are 100% right to make such a programme and investigate such things.

    After reading that book, and some of his other one's, it really is often the case that truth is actually stranger than the fiction of any conspiracy theory, and it is incumbent on journalists to get to the bottom of that truth.

    Of course, in these days of newspaper 'churnalism', that is too much real work for the hacks on those tabloids you mention, which one suspects is the reason they are slinging so much mud.

  • Comment number 19.

    Remember Anna Politkovskaya, the prominent Russian journalist and fierce critic of the Kremlin's actions in Chechnya, found shot dead in Moscow?

    Would investigating that be suitable for the Conspiracy Files, Mike? Or would it be more suited to a mainstream investigatory programme like Panorama?

    If the latter, is your reason that, unlike 7/7, 9/11, Diana, Dr Kelly, etc, this conspiracy theory doesn't hinge on "our side" having been behind it?

    Do you think that's what dictates whether something is considered acceptable for us to be suspicious about, versus whether it's deemed a fruit-loop tin-foil conspiracy theory?

  • Comment number 20.

    Hank_Reardon reckons I'm pretty sure it's all baseless (16). Actually I was making a serious response to an editor who has to deal with a genuine dilema. All the 'the queen is a space alien' stuff is amusing. This editor has to deal with a 'conspiracy' theory which might have serious consequences.

    By the way Hank - how do I know you're not one of the lizard aliens in disguise, just raising these issues to make us distrust our governments and thereby make the coming invasion easier? The lizards do carry out psyops and disinformation you know.

    PROVE to me that your are not one.

  • Comment number 21.

    Just to add:

    I would like to see some serious BBC investigations (ie. without the X-files window dressing and spooky presentation) into Pakistan's ISI, with regard to the alleged financing of 9/11 and the tragic murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. When are you going to cover this? You (or it might have been one of your BBC colleagues) acknowledged on radio that this area looked rather murky and decidedly more credible than the other more widely circulating 9/11 theories.

    I would also like to see a proper investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister and mastermind of its revival after the civil war, surely the ultimate act of political suicide for the official suspects?

    How about the two SAS men captured in Iraq in 2005, who were, for some reason, dressed in Arab gear and in possession of all those explosives (according to the BBC)? Now what were they doing? If you recall, this was deemed important enough to warrant TANKS being immediately deployed to get them out of jail.

    And while we're at it, why did the BBC not cover the Israeli strike on Syria last year when it happened? Surely an extremely newsworthy event. Sky News covered it, but the BBC chose to keep completely quiet, at least until the Israeli-imposed news blackout was over. What does that do to instil our trust in your objectivity?

    How about the plot by the British Secret Service to destabilize Prime Minister Harold Wilson, that was recently revealed?

    How about the suspicious activities of British agents operating in Northern Ireland, some of which have come to light over recent years?

    All these things and more sail close to the area of conspiracy theory, yet I would say they deserve proper mainstream investigations, not 'conspiracy' presentation which inserts a bias from the start.

    Do you think there is room for a series that investigates things like this but without the spooky music and x-files styled branding?

  • Comment number 22.

    Jon112, your not getting it are you.

    One more time then.

    It wouldn't matter if i was or was not what ever you accuse me of being, none of this will change the controversial events of 7/7. I don't matter in all of this, only the truth matters, not who tells it or who thinks they know it.

    You have once again failed to address the question and just gone back to ridicule.

    You will do anything to avoid the questions. Its getting to the Michael Howard proportions of denial.

    You seem to be able to question Obama's fitness for government( i am 100% with you there) and you even have a mistrust of the BBC , their 'left wing bias' and even your own conspiracy theory surrounding 'the Balen report'.

    But for this issue you turn to surreal arguments about lizards, moon landings and such.

    It is a shame you feel a need to do this.

  • Comment number 23.

    "It's good to see the BBC being quick off the mark and waiting 3 years to check the details of a massive terrorist attack" (Hank Reardon, #3)

    That's disinformation, Hank. The BBC were all over the facts of these attacks at the time and have been ever since. What they are checking out now is your *interpretation* of those facts. This attempt to poison the well is a bit rich coming from you, seeing as you yourself are aggrieved at insinuations that you can't be right because your type apparently wear tin foil hats and believe in lizard men.

    "The BBC will, I suspect, find that the official version of events is exactly what happened" (Hank Reardon, #10)

    Thus you betray an inclination to believe that any official body that doesn't reach the same conclusion as you, must itself be an extension of the conspiracy. This rather neatly demonstrates Moonwolf's original claim in #1.

    "Surely you only have to prove things to yourself" (Hank Reardon, #11)

    Perhaps, Hank, if you only want to live in a fantasy world. If you want to join the rest of us, you have to bring an acceptable standard of proof along with you that will convince more than just your good self.

    "Sit down and read the evidence, become a one-man jury" (Hank Reardon, #11)

    This is precisely why we don't have one-man juries. We have 12-man juries. That way, we ensure the evidence gets the proper treatment and we guard against the prejudice of any individual juror.

    "But never, ever actually answer a simple question" (Hank Reardon, #16).

    Forgive me, but I haven't seen you post any simple questions in this discussion. What are your simple questions please?

    More generally, I find that if you blatantly base your question on a premise your opponent doesn't accept, it's blindingly obvious that you're not going to get a simple answer, because the answer has to address the premise before it can address the 'substantive' point. Logical argument 101. But I suspect you skipped that class.

  • Comment number 24.

    The concept of producing programmes on alternative theories is all very well.

    Some theories may well be either true, have a modicum of truth or make reference to a form of truth which is laudable.

    Some theories are pure nonsense drivel which do not stand up to actuality or logic.

    I say let idiots speak - let them speak for as long as they like; let them speak and be seen as the idiots they are and let as many people get to laugh at them as possible.

    If someone truly believes in a theory then they shouldn't really be asking for money they should do it for the love.
    So the BBC were wrong to pay that guy, can't remember his name now, doesn't matter and I don't want to remember his name.

    Anyway, perhaps the entire western media is a CIA plot to invoke feelings of Americana pride throughout the world and perpetrate anti capitalist feelings amongst the masses.

    Iraq doesn't actually exist except inside a studio where the moon is in the studio next door and the only reason for the existence of pretend space exporation and images of war is to provide a cover for the shameless payouts made to big global clothing, food, drink and oil companies by government via our tax money letting the Berlinger Group members live the life of Riley.

    See we can all make rubbish up, but whatever you do, don't say the above is true, because it's not, I made it up.
    I accept cheque or Paypal payments - thank you.

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 26.

    OK Chris,

    Here we go,

    I fully accept I live in a world of my own Interpretation. So in my world, yes, 9/11, 7/7 didn't happen the official way, In my world there were never any WMD's in Iraq and it is nothing more than a land grab, $140 barrel oil is by design as is our coming food crisis and our present financial one. The BBC is little more than Pravda and we are only ever told what we are meant to know.

    So yes, I live in a completely different world to you in terms of how we see it.

    I have at no time put forward a theory about 7/7 only asked for clarification of the evidence and some controversies. I may have theories but thats all they are, all I have ask for is clarification of the official events.

    Now there are many simple questions and many difficult and technical questions, and not just regaarding 7/7 but to many other aspects of our medias', and for me specifially our state broadcasters, approach to the 'war on terror'.


    So here a few simple questions

    On 7/7

    Why were we told that there was no bus footage from the no.30 bus only for it then to magically appear in the last few weeks.

    Who was Peter Powers Client ?

    These are the two most simple questions i can think of Chris.

    Regarding the war on terror on a whole I would like to know why the BBC edited the David Frost interview with Beniazir Bhutto and removed her talking about the murder of Osama Bin Laden.

    You can watch the Al-Jezzera version against the BBC version and I would have imagined her saying this would be newsworthy and also have a major impact on our 'war on terror'.

    I am guessing we can accept the premise of the three questions. Peter power did have a client, we have seen the bus footage after being told there was no footage, and Bhutto did say Osama Bin-Laden was murdered.






  • Comment number 27.

    Hi Mike

    Please feel free not to publish this - I was more interested in commenting on your serious question than having a debate on space aliens and disapearing video tapes.

    Basically I usually think programmes that look at the conspiracies are great - good entertainment and often informative.

    But is the 7/7 situation a special case?

    Personal view: I think you should be careful about the 7/7 one - it involved the deaths of many people (ordinary people not those who have placed themselves in the public eye) and it is also something which could act as motivation for a small number of people to carry out serious violence.

    At the very least it would need a careful 'Panorama' style report rather than a lighter style of coverage. Would it be appropriate to consult with relatives/survivors first?

  • Comment number 28.

    So, if I'm getting this right ...

    Hank is really Princess Diana's alien stunt double's press officer, currently based in the ruins of the Universal Studios sound stage that burned down, destroyed to cover up the fact that the moon landings were really made by Gerry Anderson using rejected Thunderbirds bits, in the process of filming the next episode of 24 which accidentally got sent to Cannes for pre-screening in several jet airplanes, the mistake discovered in transit so the US Government took control of the planes and slammed them into the nearest convenient tall buildings to destroy the evidence, an impact so tremendous pieces of the engines were catapulted into a semi-ballistic trajectory that resulted in one piece falling to earth and slamming into an inoffensive bus in London, the shockwave causing sympathetic pre-detonations in tube trains, while all the time the corpse of Bin Laden is mouldering in a cave somewhere on an adjacent sound stage waiting for the opportune moment to spring up and write a memoir entitled "I was George A Romero's Muse"?

    (Side note to the BBC: I reserve copyright on the above mentioned plot, script available for Torchwood, please contact my agent)

  • Comment number 29.

    As i say, you never get a straight answer to a straight question.

  • Comment number 30.

    It's the first time I'm hearing of the Conspiracy Files series.Probably because I dont receive BBC2.

    I first heard of the Industrial Military Complex from BBC's 'Why We Fight'.'The History of Self' about Freud's nephew innovating PR to control the masses sounds was almost unbelievable.

    Had someone told me this,I would have dismissed it immediately.However watching the documentaries,my perception changed.Partly because I find BBC 'mostly' credible.

    To prove a theory u should have some proof or point out a series of many coincidences.Otherwise its not worth talking about

    Some theories are self evident.Iraq was for oil,the Neo-Cons theology,the CIA foreign assassinations,power of the Israeli lobby,Fifa corruption,the UN security council,etc.(didn't mean to make it American centric but they were examples that easily came to mind)

    Im usually very skeptical of Conspiracies.I agree with dotconnect,however, on investigating the ISI.It's no secret that ISI and ex-ISI sympathized and aided the Taliban in the 80's-90's.Since the political wing of the ISI was created in the 60's-70's,they've pulled the strings which may have been detrimental to each govt regime.

    I also agree with dotconnect on Hariri's assassination.Syria forced to withdraw,then Israel goes to war with Hezbollah.Then a post-war inquiry by Israeli authorities where Olmert admitted the plan for war was made 2 months prior of the Israeli soldier's capture.Hence it may have been the excuse needed for war.Then the UN inquiry blamed 'criminals' for Hariri's death.The support for Salafist extremists,as reported by Seymour Hersh,by the US in Lebanon to counter Hezbollah is preplexing.

    As a Pakistani Muslim who lived in the ME,u wouldn't believe the stories from my Arab and Pakistani peers,many of whom are very educated and intelligent.I think Pakistanis are very susceptible to conspiracy theories,but why I dont know.

    Here's an enjoyable list:

    Malcolm X was Muslim and assassinated by the CIA. (Umm...What about MLK's assassination?Too Christian?)

    The earthquake in Pakistan was caused by the Pak's Nuclear test years earlier.(Even though it was tested in a different province. oh yea, and it was God's wrath for being bad Muslims!)

    The earthquake in Pakistan was created by Americans via a satellite weapon to force the Pak govt to capitulate in their fight against terrorism (Scary...almost believable)

    Jinnah,the founder of Pakistan,wanted Sharia Law (Actually he was an Atartuk fan and wanted a Secular State.He was born an Ismaili Muslim.Most Pakistani's do not know this and sometimes react with horror)

    Ayatollah Khomeini was an American Agent (Just WOW...)

    Daniel Pearl was captured by Indian RAW agents who wanted to embarrass Pakistan (Watch the movie 'A Mighty Heart')

    Sectarian violence was caused by RAW (Its proven extremism was exported by Saudi Wahabists-but HEY! No way our Arab bros could be involved!).

    4000 Jews were not in the WTC on 9/11 (PLEASE...!)

    Benazir Bhutto was killed by the CIA (No way a Muslim radical would kill a woman!)

    There's many more. So it's no surprise 1 in 4 Muslims believe 7/7 was a conspiracy no matter how much evidence u put in front of them,their minds are made up.There's no reasoning with...take my word for it.

  • Comment number 31.

    I think blaming Iraq as being "for oil" is hiding a lie within a lie.

    If you look at the situation in the area at the time, you'll find there's a much greater chance that Iraq is about area for a US presence in the area (read, bases in a beholden country).

    KSA has domestic problems with a US presence - one of the reasons why it's got so many supporting AQ is how that presence has been perceived.

    The US has a lot of lobby pressure to maintain a presence in the region to help protect Israel. If KSA is too "unstable" for that presence, being able to move it to a bigger area more centrally located increases the strategic coverage there.

    Of course, this is a guess, but here's something to look out for that would support this (just for Hank, who won't believe this anyways).

    1) The Iraq-US agreement for post-2008 will include the US being able to create at least two bases inside Iraq, with independent fly-over authority (and, by extension, US sovereignty within their boundaries).

    2) Before the UN mandate expires at the end of 2008, the US will exercise its military prerogative in Iraq to permit Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

    3) US presence in KSA will draw down, relocating to Iraq.

    There you go Hank - unlike conspiracy theories, I give you predictions on what events *may* support my own theories. In the meantime, they remain just that - theories. Which means I don't go demanding the BBC go ahead and spend all its time and money trying to prove them for me :P

    As for giving you answers to your questions, Hank, you still haven't answered mine - are you in the pay of, or have an interest in, any group, organization, entity, or other party that has a vested interest in reducing the public perception of the BBC in order to diminish its ability to report on issues that would be an embarrassment to those entities or their agenda? :P

    People in padded cells should be wary of throwing conspiracy theories :P

  • Comment number 32.

    It is again fascinating to read the polarised commentary engendered by another series of Mike Rudin's 'Conspiracies' series. I have to say that based on the treatment of the 'issues' last time (9/11, Kelly especially) I am not convinced that this one will prove to be as independent, balanced or rigorous as it needs to be....all tv programmes need to entertain as a priority it seems!!
    I certainly agree with dotconnect's sentiments having spent three years researching the facts, myths and conspiracies surrounding the, so-called, 'war on terror'! I do not know what or who was actually behind the attacks in 2001 (9/11) or 2005 (7/7) but I am increasingly uncomfortable and dismayed at the blatant lies and propaganda being 'churned' out by the official conspiracy theorists. My reading of titles by Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright, Kathy Gannon, Nafeez Ahmed, David Ray Griffin and many others has convinced me that the 'official' narratives supplied by the 9/11 Commision, US Govt, UK Govt, Mainstream media outlets, Intelligence agencies are at best incorrect/misleading, at worst lies and distortions. If one follows the arguments and logic offered by Griffin and Ahmed in their coverage of 9/11 and 7/7,respectively, when compared to the official theories promoted by Popular Mechanics Magazine, 9/11 Commision report and the UK government's 'timeline' for 7/7, there are many discrepancies, ommisions and contradictions. Like these authors I want to know why Omar Sheikh, identified as part of the M16/ISI/CIA cabal in Pakistan and linked to the ISI chief wiring $ to Atta in Florida, still remains on 'death row' in Pakistan for the murder of Daniel Pearl (who appears to have been executed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and has not been questioned or investigated for these financial links to 9/11 (FBI sourced). On 7/7 how did Peter Power come to be involved in 'terrorist emergency drills for a client' at exactly the same underground stations as the blasts occured on the same day? Who was this client? Why has the evidence of the explosive changed from 'military grade' to 'home made'? Where is the CCTV footage from all the movements of the perpetrators?
    I have no theory to offer but I am certain that we have not been told the truth. I am fearful that the truth is almost too unbearable to contemplate but seek it we must.....the families who suffered and continue to suffer the grief and devastation of those terrible 'conspiracies' deserve nothing less than the whole truth.

  • Comment number 33.

    Moonwolf we agree, I think Iraq is a landgrab too

    I make the point again that i am not putting forth theories just questions about the given official account. It would be surely only he cost of a phonecall to find out why the Bhutto footage was edited, not their entire budget.

    I have also told you before that i am not in the pay of anyone for any reason (although, if you want a laugh, I have worked freelance for the BBC in the past)

    Well done on your predictions, I will make one too/ I predict you will flip and flop between insults/mockery (28) and complete sense as long as it is not in regards to the question asked (31).

    Its a fun game you play, but not very usefull. If you don't know the answer thats fine, if you don't feel you or anyone else should offer an explanation that too is fine, but please stop with the games, misdirection and mockery.

    I have had you, Jon and a few others attack me for not believing the official theory, but none of you have offered an answer to the questions I asked.

    The Bus footage is proof that something is amiss, either we were being lied to when they said there was no footage or they were lying when they said they had footage, but they can't say both and be telling the truth.



    i

  • Comment number 34.

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was approached by the BBC to participate in this episode of the risible Conspiracy Files series.

    We rejected the BBC's approach and our reasons for doing so can be read here:

    http://tinyurl.com/27mn6f



  • Comment number 35.

    i just read the rules
    So I won't put links or quotes this time. I wanted to give accurate sources, but it's too tricky.

    I'll just add that I hope BBC checks Kollerstrom's sources and the sources' sources.

    When I did (check sources of conspiracy theorists) I found they refer to each other as "experts" so as to give credence to their theory and thereby their source's theory - kind of like: I'll scratch your back...

    If someone proffers that his theory is "scientifically sound", their sources ought to be independent, objective and sound as well. Not simply - the guy agrees with me therefore I believe him. And while you're at it call him an expert and he'll call you an expert and so on.

    Also - does BBC add to the fray when they invite a hitherto no-body to be an "expert". Is that not akin to knighting someone an "expert"?

    2 more things - just came to mind:

    If someone is feeling unnoticed? Here's a shortcut to fame - at least notoriety, though you don't have to commit a crime - just take up a cause that everyone gets riled about; say it strong and frequently and sooner or later BINGO - BBC will be knocking at your door.

    and 2 - Something seems oddly paradoxical: Don't Holocaust Deniers aim to revisit history, to correct it; perhaps even turn it upside-down? So wouldn't it be the last thing they'd want - to revitalized the opposition? our memory of the horrors of the Holocaust? Do they see their campaign reawakens sleeping images of atrocities and can't help but promote the flames or anti-aryanism, while refreshing those that will do anything for it to NEVER happen happen again - lest we forget?

    So if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think the Holocaust Deniers were mere patsies for the Holocaust Museum administrators.

  • Comment number 36.

    TheHos: "Why has the evidence of the explosive changed from 'military grade' to 'home made'? "

    When it was hitting the media at the time, most of *us* said "home made", because of the initial BDA reports coming through the media, and a knowledge of what it would have been like if it *had* been mil-spec explosives.

    The idea it was mil-spec was based on laypeople's ideas of how the amount of damage produced by such relatively small devices could be so extensive - Trust me, if it had been mil-spec, the body count would have been far greater and the stations in need of serious renovations before they reopened.

    (Experiment for you. Take half a kilo of amfo and detonate it in a closet, examine damage. Take 4 kilos of amfo (to ballpark replicate mil-spec equivalent) and repeat. Compare damage.)

    Hank: I'm sorry, I didn't actually intend to be serious with you, the mockery is much more fun - since serious would unlikely make any difference. You can relax and go with the flow if you like :P

    The bus footage isn't proof of anything, except perhaps the drive the CCTV recorded to took too long to reconstitute (after being pronounced unrecoverable by most specialists), or "We want to make sure it doesn't have evidence of something we need to investigate and therefore suppress releasing knowledge we have it to avoid spooking anyone it casts suspicions on, then found out it didn't so was safe to release".

    The "public's right to know" never existed to begin with, was never enshrined in any constitutional system (and still isn't) (and if it was, you can bet that would have gone the way of the dodo long before 42 day internment came up).

    Just because you *want* to know doesn't mean you *can* know, *should* know, or *will* know. El Prince being in Afghanistan was a "don't need to know", but someone decided you *should* know - blithely disregarding the consequences to whole bunches of people.

    I hate to be blunt but - your desire to know anything does not, will not, and never will, trump anyone else's right to live. It's entirely possible that the things you want to know could have the end result of getting someone killed - we don't know (duh). So, you're stuck.

    The BBC showed responsibility with the documents that some total plonker left on a train, realizing the information contained inside it might have consequences far outweighing the *desire* of the public to know. Whilst I'm sure that will feed into the whole "the BBC are nothing more than pawns of the Government" theorists, at least *someone* thinks about such things.

    So on the assumption *this* show is being made with the *same* responsible attitude to the potential effects on the lives of others, I'm sure whatever the BBC will broadcast in this segment will be looked at by the producers in the same manner - responsibly to avoid getting someone killed, or helping someone kill someone else.

    At the same time, I'm also pretty sure that they're intending on reporting the things that need to be known that's safe to know.

    Despite the Government defanging the BBC with the Kelley incident to avoid it being even further embarassed, I have a little bit of faith that most of the journos at the BBC would bypass the quisling Trust if they thought it was important enough still.

    YMMV - but since you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary, at least have the decency to remember "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't only apply to a court of law.

    (Incidentally, no-one should click any tinyurl link, you can't see where it's going to take you until you get there. It's a great known way to compromise computers)

    I'm one of the last people that would "defend" the BBC - but some of you guys are so far out there you're unbelievable! Deserved criticism is one thing, but leave the paranoia and grand conspiracy theories on HYS with the rest of the zealots.

  • Comment number 37.

    @ Moonwolf

    "(Incidentally, no-one should click any tinyurl link, you can't see where it's going to take you until you get there. It's a great known way to compromise computers)"

    Apologies for posting a tinyurl link (just shorter than the original url for the article that I was referring to).

    This is the full url for the article explaining why J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign refused to participate in this episode of the BBC's risible Conspiracy Files series:

    http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-refuse-bbc-conspiracy-files-offer.html






  • Comment number 38.

    It was a great idea when it started, but then (as always) the smegheads discovered it masked destinations, making fake sites much easier to hide.

    Unfortunately there's no way around it, short of tinyurl creating a bridge page when you click a link that translates the URL to the real destination, and gives you the option of clicking through or not - a two step process that most people would just skip, making it redundant.

    Interesting link.

    I'd debate most of your thoughts about coverup by the BBC (or, at least offer the same reasons I'm sure you already know as to why it's in the Government's best interests, if innocuous in intent, to disseminate disinformation, if it has).

    Peter Power certainly appears to be too convenient, but there's one thought springs to mind instantly - I know how *I'd* attack certain infrastructure, and I know there are others who would share that "optimal" selection of targets, so I'd assume he'd likewise be able to pick "optimal" - which doesn't say anything about timeframe, but you might want to consider that when examining location.

    All in all, a much better analysis than Hank's, kudos :)

    (And in the interests of disclosure, no, I'm neither a government or media "person", just a veteran and retired close protection specialist)

    (Oh, Hank? Just as an FYI, I'm also a girl :P )

  • Comment number 39.

    Oh moonwolf,

    Now as far as i remember there has never been an chemical understanding of what the bomb making material was, it is still officially a 'homemade organic peroxide based compound'.

    Now the accepted belief that we were told at the time was that this was a homemade liquid bomb, TAPT, not amfo, not c-4, (It was the forensic examiners and french media who first brought up the c-4 charges being used and you who first mentioned amfo.

    As for the bus footage, the original claim was not that the cameras/harddrives had been damaged and unrecovered but had not been working at all, the driver had not turned it on the system was down was the Mets explanation, so there was no information to extract from the hard drive.


    Its very good that you know a lot of things about a lot of things, but I see why you avoid the questions, its because your knowledge of the events and issues seems to limited and sketchy at best.

    you may know your BDA but you are confused about your amfo and tapt.

    Hence you have problems answering even the most simple questions. i would love to hear your reasons as to why we have only ever had one still of cctv of the 'bombers' as they moved through one of the most filmed public transit systems in the world

    I agree with you that we need a constitutional right to know this information, I personally would love a bill of rights.


    Also, do you have a tiny url conspiracy theory there moonwolf. Iif you press the link it takes you to a long and well constructed letter explaining why those who have spent years now pouring over evidence didn't think the best idea was to join in with the BBC Mockumentary.

    You do realise that your argument has descended to 'we have no right to know'. thats your most brilliant argument yet.

    And have you done this amfo experiment, if so, your madder than i first thought, blowing up your closet and ballpark.



  • Comment number 40.

    No, I'm not confused about TAPT and amfo - I said as an experiment to illustrate the effects of home made vs analog mil-spec explosives in a confined area. Where exactly did I say they used amfo *or* TAPT?

    I think you need to brush up on TAPT as well, it's not quite the most stable of substances. I think you've been listening to buzz-word-laden conspiracies too long, an acronym is just an acronym.

    Next you'll be saying binary bombs can actually bring down airliners.

    As for tinyurl - feel free to scoff, I'll be more than happy to send you to a few, but you really should brush up on common internet security practices. I know that may be a stretch given the UK is still somewhere in the 90's when it comes to technology, but there's this thing called Google - or The Register.

    Nice try with reinterpreting what I said, I don't think there should be any constitutional right to know, I said there never has been one.

    And no, I don't think there should be one.

    As for a bill of rights, you had one, you just signed its death warrant yesterday though :P

    Why do you have a problem with the idea that you don't have a "right" to know? If you *want* to know, join the services.

    You still haven't asked a question that hasn't been answered yet.

    J7 is far better at this paranoid conspiracy theory debating thing you know.

  • Comment number 41.

    Moonwolf,

    I asked three questions

    None have been answered.

    Peter Powers client is?

    The bus footage came from?

    Bhutto was edited because ?

    I don't want to debate anything with you, i don't expect an answer from you or from the bbc, i just want to be allowed to ask a question on a public forum.

    My point about tatp is that what we were told was used, not what i think was used, I know it is a highly volatile material, OK. I don't know if tatp was used, I am just saying that was the explosive liquid we were told they used, shall i repeat again. I am only saying this is what we were told was used.

    I am not offering any theories just wanting answers to the confusing aspects we have of the official events.

    I am not here to inform anyone or convince them of anything, let alone you. I just want to ask the questions on a public forum, so that there is proof the issues have been raised.

    And yes there a many people who will know the issues much better than me and will be able to argue their points a lot better than me, so please go and mock them, not me. I can hardly even spell and punctuate. So please why not go to 'veterans for truth' or your local 'we are change' chapter and argue with them they have theories, I don't.

    I just have a few questions, thats all.

    Can i ask them in relative peace please



  • Comment number 42.

    As you are a veteran moonwolf I am sure you will were as horrified as I was about the footage of a marine throwing the puppy from a cliff. About 6 months ago it was a 'conspiracy theory', something people like me would be accused of all things for mentioning or asking questions about.

    Today we are told that, "Lance Cpl. David Motari, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment at Kaneohe Bay, is "being processed for separation" from the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps said in a news release. He also received unspecified "non-judicial punishment."

    Now if people hadn't asked questions these guys would still be out there representing the people of America.

  • Comment number 43.

    Hank -

    You still haven't offered any PROOF that you are not one of the lizard aliens.

    There are some real inconsistencies here.

    Why are the BBC letting you post so many times? Is this all a plot to let the lizard aliens spread their disinformation?

  • Comment number 44.

    Jon, 56 people died that day, I think it is sickening that you see this as a source of an opportunity for your own brand of 'comedy'.

    I fear what you would say to the victim groups that want a 'public enquiry'. Would you mock them Jon? I guess your that guy, eh.

    One of the Victims has their own blog, would you go there and give her the same abuse and treat her such a manner.

    Really if you have nothing to add. why do it.

    It seems sadistic and horrible to me.


  • Comment number 45.

    Moonwolf, you're right, we can look at Iraq as a land grab,and perhaps a military strategy to stay on both the East and West of Iran and North of Saudi Arabia. Maybe it sounds like a conspiracy,but I'm sure it's crossed many minds including skeptics.

    "It would be surely only he cost of a phonecall to find out why the Bhutto footage was edited, not their entire budget."

    Hank I have to disagree with the Bhutto footage as edited, I've seen at least 3 Camera angles of the gunshot and then the explosion and I can equivocally say they don't look edited to me. The lack of footage after the explosion is not a conspiracy but the impact of it and the circumstances of the cameramen.

    However you're right the Bhutto inquiry has a lot of questions,such as security,the ISI official in the car(even though Bhutto spoke out against the ISI) and his powerful links and whether or not Bhutto's death was an injury to the head rather than a bullet wound(which makes it an issue of political martyrdom). That's why the People's Party are asking for an UN inquiry,because they distrust Scotland Yard's findings.

    But none of these points above proves a conspiracy or cover-up. The tragic events may just be as the Pakistani government claims.

    I've got 2 more conspiracies:

    Promoted by Ahmedinijad (And many Muslims):

    Israeli's caused 9/11 (Only for Ahmedinijad to publicly get blasted on video by Al Qaeda's No.2,Al Zawhiri as Shiite propaganda of showing Sunni's being incapable....so much for unity....how embarrassing)

    Al Jazeera is an American product,because whenever there's an American fiasco or crucial debate on Bush's policies an Al Qaeda video shows up. (WOW...however the BBC covered Al Jazeera in a documentary long time ago, and pointed out a scary conspiracy of Americans deliberately targeting and killing 2 Al Jazeera journalists)

    Holocaust never happened, or it wan't 6 million,or where are all these survivors coming from demanding reparations (Very popular with all Muslims,Arabs or non-Arabs, and anti-Jews. Simply put did Hitler have an ethnic cleansing Agenda? Yes.Is there video?Yes.Let's for argument sake say it was 10,000 people killed,that to most is genocide,unless ur Janet Reno.The survivors?There were many refugees,and as the immigration policy of Israel allows relatives of someone Jewish,even if they aren't themselves,is allowed citizenship so they could make claims too. I don't care for the numbers,just the atrocities.)

    There's a reason for the Holocaust deniers in the Muslim world. Israel's abuse of the Palestinians is considered Apartheid(which I believe in too...Hey,I'm Muslim,u didn't expect that I would let Israel off the hook,did u?) by most and hence the plain hate. Most believe the Holocaust story overshadows every other atrocity committed in history and is used to garner sympathy from the West.

    For everything there must be proof. Otherwise it's a dead end.

    The BBC I believe does not run on speculation. I credit BBC for it's coverage of the Sectarian violence of the 90's in Pakistan where no other international news agency bothered to investigate further,not even the local Print media of the time.Sunni's denied it and blamed RAW.Shiites simply kept mum to avoid outing themselves.

    But yes,sometimes BBC does seem bias.Notably the use of the word Islamists and this love fest for Benazir Bhutto who wasn't a saint by any means. However they weren't the only ones to blame. And they are still on the top,I say.

    One conspiracy theory I do believe is the whole Iran Nuclear weapon issue.I just don't see it.Hiding ur program is NOT proof.Saddam Hussein did the same thing with UN inspectors.The UN inspectors were always skeptical even though they had limited access.There's always been a Neo-con agenda(I think BBC has done a documentary on them) against Iran.

    Many Americans believed Al Qaeda were Shiites. When Hezbollah was at war,American officials urged the Sunni states publicly on TV to rid themselves of this menace(they didn't call Shiites by name,however u can conclude the US has used the sectarian divide sometimes for their advantage). Hence the accusation of supporting the Salafist Fatah Al-Islam(Al Qaeda sympathizers) in Lebanon and Kurds in Iran (as reported by BBC)

    That's my state of mind. If u think I'm crazy then I'm sorry. If u think I'm skeptical then I'm sorry. But I tried to give my reasons above. And I believe the BBC TRIES to be non-bias,but if u think they don't,well that's ur opinion...

  • Comment number 46.

    Hank

    Still no proof you are not an alien?

    Sorry for any offence. Obviously I don't really think you are an alien.

    But here's the point...

    People throwing out randomn allegations and expecting you to refute them isn't very productive.

    If I really wanted to make that allegation the onus is on me to prove it, not for you disprove it.

    No matter how many 'inconsistencies' I find in what you say it doesn't prove you are an alien - it just proves I found an inconsistency.

  • Comment number 47.

    saf,

    I am talking about the osama bi-laden interview with bhutto, not the assassination.

    and again i am not putting forth a theory just asking why the edit.

  • Comment number 48.

    I have alleged nothing Jon,

    Just asked three questions, alleged nothing about anything.

    your presuming allegations or making assumptions on my behalf, but i have only asked a few questions

    Your man Mike posted about an upcoming film he was making, i asked two questions about it and one about general editing policy at the BBC.

    That all, no accusations, no theories, nothing else, and what a storm there has been about it.

    I have been linked with holocaust deniers, accused of being in the pay of secret forces, had every theory ever thought up presented as something i must believe in and have been basically abused by about 4 or 5 folks here. I was even told that i have no right to know

    All i have done is ask some questions. This really scares the hell out of me that such vitriol comes from asking 3 questions.

    Our freedom of speech still exists but if you actually use it you have to be prepared for an onslaught.

    Bring it on, I will not stop asking questions.


  • Comment number 49.

    "I am talking about the osama bi-laden interview with bhutto, not the assassination."

    Oh...my mistake. Sorry.

    Another correction:
    The BBC documentary I mentioned as "History of Self" is actually "Century of the Self". Sorry if anyone were frustrated Googling it.

  • Comment number 50.

    I was hoping someone would answer the question about the Benazir Bhutto interview but I've had to become a member just to do it.

    The interview was originally by Al-Jazeera, and distributed to the BBC to broadcast on its website.

    Bhutto made an allegation that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. This claim was so unexpected and impossible to verify that it seemed most likely that she had mis-spoken and had intended to say that Omar Sheikh was the man who murdered US journalist Daniel Pearl - not Osama Bin Laden.

    The BBC edited out the misleading reference to prevent what seemed to be a genuine error from being more widely disseminated. The BBC admitted it was mistaken to have done so and that it should have been left unedited.

    I understand, correct me if I'm wrong but the website should now carry the original interview as broadcast by Al-Jazeera.

  • Comment number 51.

    Carlito,

    Thank-you for the answer.

    I don't know if you are party to editing policy or represent the BBC but a serious attempt at an answer is well appreciated.

    But you answer does beg a question, you say it was originally edited out because it couldn't verified, but now the website carries it.

    So does that mean the information has been verified?

    You have to agree it is quite an amazing statement she makes, and just as amazing that frost lets it slip by unnoticed or that nobody after the interview thought about asking a follow up question, Or that anyone from the BBC thought to delve a bit further.

    Your theory could be spot on though.

    Now, have you any Idea who Peter Powers client was?

  • Comment number 52.

    Well we have all seen the incredible footage of the BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC Building 7) on the afternoon of 9/11 while it was still standing in the live shot behind her head.

    So, what should we believe; what we see with our own eye's, or what you and the BBC tell us?.

    A recent BBC programme (Panorama) led with a story about companies who were allegedly profiteering from the Iraq War.

    Many reputable persons had been making the same accusations since the start of the War in 2003, and not once has the BBC giving any credence to their voice's.

    Also, some of us are still not comfortable with the "official" findings regarding the death of Dr David Kelly, or the behaviour of the BBC; before and after the fact.










  • Comment number 53.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 54.

    Moonwolf, you can conduct any number of experiments with humans: we naturally defer to "authority" and suffer peer pressure. We are also susceptible to crowd panic and fear. Hence, most people would naturally go along with the stories provided by politicians about the events of 9/11 and 7/7. For me, I am reasonably certain that we are being told the truth about 7/7 (mainly because of 21/7) but my doubts arise because of 9/11...

    Just so many loose ends with 9/11. Pre-knowledge, physics-defying and no propoer follow up. The 9/11 Commission report disowned by its authors, no science, no air crash investigations, no FBI follow-up. No trials except on people that have been tortured!!!

    Give me evidence and not apologies for the politican's stories.

    Check this out:

    http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/fl20080617zg.html

    Or the article in the FT last week...

  • Comment number 55.

    Hi everybody
    This is my first comment on this blog.
    I would like to know your thoughts regarding the conspiracy theory involving the bilderberg group.
    Most conspiracy theories on the internet seem to involve this group.

  • Comment number 56.

    Personally I think that making tv programmes like this is sick.

  • Comment number 57.

    The British Government was behing the 7/7 attacks. Five minutes of REAL JOURNALISM shows anyone that.

    9/11 was even more blatantly an inside job.
    I don't feel sorry for you media whores who are being paid to keep the people from the truth. In time the truth will spread.

  • Comment number 58.

    The official story is also a conspiracy theory. I can't believe that the BBC didnt do thier part to get more reputable representatives of the 9/11 truth movement. Instead its the same old story... BBC side has a list of reputibale experts in the field.. and the other side (9/11 truth) gets the fringe freaks and weirdos. Talk about fair and balanced journalism right? You could of had MIT proffesors, Architects, Engineers, Scholars, Pilots, Ex U.S. Military, Mr Fujimoto from the Japanese Democratic Party... the list goes on and on.. instead you find someone that missrepresents the whole movement. One day the truth will come forward, and newspapers like this.. and you sir, will be painted as cowards.

  • Comment number 59.

    The official stories of BOTH 9-11 and 7/7 simply do not hang together.

    For 9-11 to be true the laws of physics need to have been suspended. Quite simply those fuel based office furniture fires are not enough to cause massive steel beams to give way to the point that they provide ZERO resistance to the alleged structural collapse.

    Sticking on topic, WTC7 - 30 floors of this fell in 5.8 seconds - which is the speed of freefall in A VACUUM. For an object to fall this distance in air would take well over 6 seconds (circa 6.4seconds). What is the only possible way to make a vacuum of this space - by explosives blowing all the matter out of the way of the falling debris.

    Further, watch '7/7 Ripple Effect' and then tell me why the bus managed to get into Tavistock Square (of all places). Also tell me why there are eyewitness statements of the bomb damage oin the tube trains causing the metal to bend INWARDS. Also please tell me why an Israeli security company was running a simulation drill of a terror attack on all 3 hit stations on the very same day. Mathematically the odds of this are 1 billion to 1 (even in a timeframe of just a few years).

    But as ever we will be left with a farcical hit piece on 9-11 and 7/7 truth that will make out anyone to be a Nazi if they think for themselevs and do not believe the official rubbish.

    Shame on you BBC!!! shame on you.

  • Comment number 60.

    Don't expect impartial reporting from the BBC. They are part and parcel of the state/corporate war machine. From the moment 9/11 and 7/7 happened, they parroted verbatim the official US and UK government line, and never, for one moment, investigated the events independently. The BBC's contributions were, and continue to be, shameful pseudo-journalism.

    Not only did WTC7 collapse in a fashion typical for controlled demolition, but the BBC, like CNN, reported on it before it even happened.

    http://jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html

    Sadly, the BBC is not a source of impartial, investigative reporting, but a mouthpiece for the forces that orchestrated the tragic events. I am certain most of the BBC staff are not aware of this. However, I'm equally certain that some of the higher-ups are.

  • Comment number 61.

    Of course no one should doubt the word of government that told us that Saddam Hussein was poised to launch an NBC attack within 45 minutes. Any government that uses material pilfered from an online student thesis to make its case for going to war must enjoy 100% credibility.

    If you think that 7/7 happened exactly as we have been told then I ask you to look up "Visor Securities". They were hired by persons unknown to run a drill on 7/7 in which the 3 tube stations that were eventually attacked were first the target of simulated attacks. You can go to Youtube and find an interview with Peter Power, managing director of Visor, in which he talks about this eerie "coincidence" filmed by ITV on 7/7. If this documentary fails to mention the Visor connection then it is obviously a fraud.

    I am already suspicious as the producers have failed to interview Alex Jones instead relying instead on an astrologer to make the case against the official story. If this turns out to be a one sided hit piece instead of a credible piece of journalism I am going to be furious. I DO NOT PAY A LICENSE FEE TO HAVE PRO GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT! I will be on to my MP about this in the most strongly worded terms.

  • Comment number 62.

    The expression “conspiracy theory” itself has become a cheap pejorative term for the intellectually lazy to hide behind. It’s meant to undermine the credibility of the opposition without ever having to confront the actual details of their argument fairly and thoroughly.

    Another poster here had commented that the problem with conspiracy theorists in general is that they always choose to side against the official version of everything. Yet those who choose to use the term “conspiracy theory” are generally guilty of automatically believing the official version of everything. Their preconceived notions and tendencies to always accept the government’s explanation serves to erode their ability to be objective when analyzing new data. These are the same types who believed without a doubt that the Bush adminsiatrion knew exactly where the non-existent WMDs were In Iraq as Donald Rumsfeld had claimed [lied]. As we now know, the mainstream media lead this charge with their gullibility and complete lack of journalistic integrity. They reported but never bothered to question or verify. Now, the BBC which also loves the term “conspiracy theory” for the reasons that I’ve described above is proving itself to be just another government pawn under corporate control.

    For years we were told that those who believed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged were just conspiracy theorists. Then of course the declassified documents came out which proved that it was indeed a fraudulent pretext for war.

    We were told the same about the dangers of fluoridated water and now the truth is slowly emerging from various different organizations, news outlets and professionals in the field of dentistry.

    We were told the same about the plans for a North American Union until the internal documents were finally revealed which even exposed the its secretive “evolution by stealth”. In other words, the people aren’t supposed to know until it’s too late.

    There are many other examples but you should get the point.

    News flash! Governments lie and the media does their bidding. How many more times are you going to have to be deceived before you finally wake up and realize this? I’m beginning to believe that some people actually enjoy being lied to and misinformed because they just don’t the courage to handle uncomfortable realities. It’s both sad and pathetic but true.

    Even if you don’t agree with people like myself who have openly questioned the official version of 9/11, at least respect and appreciate our willingness to challenge authority and the establishment which has proven to be pathological in its compulsion to lie. Someone has to step and hold them accountable because the complicit mainstream media including the BBC is certainly unwilling to do its job appropriately.


    These unprofessional and biased hit pieces which are now becoming a hallmark of BBC are getting ridiculous. They magically reported the collapse of building seven twenty minutes before it happened and now they have no choice but to sling mud in the other direction out of self-preservation.


    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062008_smear_attack.htm

    BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth
    New documentaries about 9/11, 7/7 and who's representing the "conspiracy theorists"? A holocaust denying, Neo-Nazi crop circle fanatic!

  • Comment number 63.

    the "conspiracy files" piece on 9/11 was, to my mind, an absolutely shameful hit-piece against the 911 truth movement.

    luckily for the bbc, it can redeem itself by seriously interviewing the people who have seriously researched the anomalies of 9/11 and 7/7 rather than positioning non-representing, ill-informed placemen as spokesmen for the "theorists".

    familiarise yourself with the research of just two men to start you off - David Ray Griffin and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. their research pieces alone will demonstrate that serious, that word again, questions should be asked. and answers demanded.

    or is Nick Davies' "Flat Earth News" the model being adopted by bbc tv?

    ah there I go again - these conspiracy theorists will insist on reading books on subjects of importance.

    and they refuse to be dumbed-down, I may add.

    so, Mike, the choice is yours - serious investigative programme producer or slavish government mouth piece ? I'd like to think that Watergate might cross your mind from time to time.

    do the job properly and fearlessly.

    make us proud of you.

  • Comment number 64.

    911 Truthers seek to encourage the general population to support an international/non-neocon dominated investigation of the 911 atrocity; an open process that is well funded and has subpoena power. This mass murder has never been properly and publicly investigated. Existing forensic evidence relative to dust and metallic sphere chemical analysis casts real doubt on the official NIST and FEMA building collapse theories. ( [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] page 22) In our system of government (as if that means anything anymore), it is a jury that is the finder of fact. In this mass murder case, there has been no discovery, no presentation of evidence, no direct testimony and no cross-examination. We have had to settle for a flawed, incomplete and self-contradictory 911 Commission public report that made damn sure that no one would be held accountable. Planned trials of accused terrorists allegedly responsible for the 911 attacks will be in secret. Published testimony will be censored due to “national security” concerns. Confessions obtained under torture will likely be introduced into evidence. The death penalty will follow and, like Saddam, dead men tell no tales. There will be no further public disclosure of the money trail, or of the unusual insider trading (short selling UA, AA, etc.) hours before the attack that made several “unknown” entities tens of millions. With all the lies this administration has spewed over the past seven years, why anyone would give them the benefit of the doubt on anything is beyond me. And in the case of the 911 atrocity, there is ample room for doubt.

  • Comment number 65.

    hold on just a sec here....

    "Some newspapers have alleged that we paid a conspiracy theorist, Nick Kollerstrom, to take part in the programme. This is not true."


    "... The BBC has [paid] ... expenses amounting to no more than £30." {from blog entry above}

    "Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, also a Holocaust denier, was paid expenses during filming of the BBC Two series Conspiracy Files." {from Sun article linked to in the blog}

    "The BBC was under attack last night for paying expenses to a disgraced academic..."{from Daily Mail article linked to in above blog}

    I gather from the part of your blog I quoted above that you are upset that newspapers have insinuated that you have paid this controversial figure an *appearance fee* for appearing in your forthcoming documentary. When the articles you link to in this blog to demonstrate your point both have in black and white the admitted fact that you merely paid this guy expenses.

    I *sincerely* hope that the work that is done on the actual program is of a *much* higher quality than you put into this article.

    Mike you are the series producer, of this program and you can't even seem to get your facts straight in your own blog about a project you were presumably intimately involved in for "several months". I can see this after 2 minutes of double click research and I am an internet nobody posting in the comments section.

    I think the papers you link to are upset because you *paid this guy some money*. Money placed at your disposal from the licence payer.

    Dodgy blog entries notwitstanding I look forward to watching your program as I have read a lot on 7/7 that makes me very uncomfortable.

    There is one item that spooks me about the whole 7/7 event. An eyewitness, who survived from inside one of the carriages on one of the trains, is on record as having said that the metal flooring of the carriage where the bomb had detonated was pushed UP as though the blast came from underneath the floor of the train and NOT from within a rucksack/strapped to a suicide bomber. ( I am sure in the course of your months of research you have stumbled across this.)

    Might I humbly suggest that that £30 might have been better spent on a train fare for an explosives expert to contribute to your program, to explain to physics lay people like myself how this would be possible when presumably a suicide bomber would have no access to the underneath of a tube train.


  • Comment number 66.

    Anyone with half a brain can see that 7/7 AND 9/11 were not what the media tried to sell us. BBC is just another tendril of the propaganda machine very nicely packaged in cool red and white motion graphics.

  • Comment number 67.

    So, let's see:

    NIST, charged with providing the official scientifical explanation of the unprecendented collapses on 9/11, says "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

    400+ architects and engineers have joined Richard Gage in openly claiming controlled demolition caused the officially unexplained collapses (see ae911truth.org). On top of that, countless other individuals, including members of the military, political and intelligence establishment, uphold the same position (see patriotsquestion911.com)

    The FBI says the identities of the supposed hijackers are "not known" -- after parading
    19 names and photos in front of the world 24 hours subsequent to the event. Names and photos of people who later protested, thus, in all likeliness, not having committed suicide on 9/11. The BBC itself reported on that, but it might have gone the way of your 9/11 footage. Also, the backstory to these photos stemmed solely from supposed Atta's supposed luggage, conveniently found in a rented car parked at Boston Logan, which was an intermediate stop coming from Portland to NY -- after all, who doesn't rent a car for 30 minutes of waiting at an airport?

    Steven Jones, physics professor, has isolated direct, unequivocal evidence of thermate, a potent incendiary, from WTC dust collected on several spots in Manhattan: Iron-rich spherules, spiked with sulphur and several alkali metals in just the right proportion. None of the ordinary contents of an office building could begin to explain these artifacts under any plausible circumstances, they must have been the result of a thermate reaction, capable of silently and critically weakening steel on short notice.

    And let's not even discuss how your official story desecrates the graves of Newton and Galilei.

    So, to summarize: You got nothing left. There is no single part of yor story that holds water anymore, and even those organs officially representing it have abandoned position. That leaves you, the media -- which, as we all should know since march of last year, has been faithfully reading from the script even before the events had unfolded completely -- as the last bastion between the Big Lie and the general populace. And that last bastion is being eroded little by little, one by one, with every passing day, courtesy of the amazing internet.

    The day of reckoning nears, and you...have chosen poorly.

  • Comment number 68.

    Just an honest question for you english sceptics.
    Why is it that every strange or unusual story is a ''conspiracy theory'' even if it can be proven without doubt that the story and/or conspiracy, is really true?

    To my knowledge, you englishmen are the only people in the world, with exemptions of course, doing this. It's reeeeeeally strange....

    Let's make an silly example:
    In a (fictive) newscast, a BBC reporter is telling us that ''Pigs can fly, because they are born with wings, and this is The Truth''.
    But, if someone outside mainstream media or government, gives you proofs that pigs are NOT born with wings, and therefore cannot fly by themselves, they are ''conspiracy theorists''.

    Please excuse my idiotic english.

    Toumas, Norway

  • Comment number 69.

    I wonder how many of us truly consider the possibilty of goverment's around the world planning attacks such as 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings as a form of control( fear ). Our civil liberties have been taken away gradually over the years since 9/11 and only a minority of us have actually challenged the goverment or brought it out into the public eye. Just the other day i was reading an article on the bbc website where the goverment are pushing for a communications bill where they can listen to and monitor our phone calls and emails. So how far will this go? the answer is how ever far the powers that be want to take it. Mr Bush is already wiretapping his citizens phone calls and monitoring their internet usage, so if you really want your freedom do some research on the goverment it's very revealing and a hard pill to swallow.

  • Comment number 70.

    i pity all of the souls who blindly follow everything your government tells them. to even suggest that your government was truthful on EVERY aspect of what happened that day (or any other) is utter ignorance. i live in America and unfortunately, everything that your government has forced upon you guys is slowly happening here. the sad part about it is that hardly any of you drones ever speak out and stand up for yourselves. the day i am being watched by my government 24 hours a day is the day i set sail for Fiji. wake up people, the BBC is lying to you! turn your TV off. do your own research and don't rely on pathetic smear campaigns for the truth. this article is nothing but paid-for lies from the "higher-ups". why can't you people see that?

  • Comment number 71.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 72.

    Hello Mike,
    I recently heard that you intend to make another 'documentary' about 'conspiracies'. If it is in any way as pathetic as the last series called Conspiracy Files, i don't think i'll even bother watching it.
    Frankly, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the issues and arguements that have been painstakingly researched by countless scientists, engineers, demolition experts, actors, politicians and hey, even documentary makers! Some of these persons have lost their jobs and careers to ask questions that needed to be asked and endevered to answer them using sound, proven physical and chemical reasoning.
    I notice that those who still uphold the official lie that is being used to cover up what happened and who was behind it, on 9/11 and 7/7 on this blog have no arguement other than to try to hide behind the label 'Conspiracy Theorists' and resort to ridicule. This of course will not work. By now tens of millions of people around the planet are becoming aware of the fact that we are not being told the truth about these events and many more besides.
    If you haven't even bothered to do any research into these subjects then you are complicit in the conspiracy to keep the general public in the dark about those terrible events and you will eventually have to answer and be brought to justice along with those people that are higher up the pyramid.
    There is a massive growth in numbers of people that are beginning to see through this grand deception and we will not put up with being ridiculed any more!
    We want answers to our questions, that is all. Why was there no footage of the the so called bombers on 7/7 released? Why was the steel of the floor of the carriage of that train bent upwards indicating that the blast came from underneath it? Why did Building seven fall down for no reason and why was it reported on before it happened? Why was there no wreckage at the site in Pensylvania where we are told the plane came down? Why was an engine of a 737 found in New York when we are told that 767's hit the world trade centre towers? Why wont those of you that uphold the official lies debate the evidence, issues and discrepancies surrounding these events? It is because they are lies.There are many more questions that have not been answered and you can label us 'Conspiracy Theorists' all you want but that will not stop the truth from being exposed and neither will your third rate 'documentary' series.
    May i suggest that you find a new line of work because yours will become obsolete in the end. We pay our television licence in the trust that we are being given honest and correct information not so that we can have the wool pulled over our eyes with blatant pro establishment propaganda. Belive it or not, some of us are not so easily fooled. Your documentary better be good or you will receive worse comments than this on your blog.

  • Comment number 73.

    Mike explain to the global audience watching every move you make with the new smear documentary ,what a holocaust denier has got to do with 9/11? This is a very poor sleazy attempt to distract from the facts that the BBC doesnt want to focus on. When the new hit piece/yellow journalism comes out this is going to affect the BBC's repuation globally to the extent its news coverage will be seen as tainted corrupt because of this hatchet job. BBC enemy of the people.

  • Comment number 74.

    Wow, I am so glad that you really dug into the 7/7 Conspiracy. Who could live with the IDEA that the official story could be wrong, I really need the BBC to make me feel warm and cost at night knowing that we'd never be lied to by the government.

    And WOW... look at the amazing expert you have chosen to talk about the 7/7 Conspiracy... Oh wait.. let's check again...

    Nick Kollerstrom

    Who the hell is this guy, has he published anything on the subject worth reading? I can name 10 people that have covered this in much greater detail and are much more credible. Instead you get some holocaust denier to talk about 7/7?

    You are disgraceful and should be ashamed!

    Erik
    Sydney

  • Comment number 75.

    The problem with labeling anyone and everyone who feels all is not right with the official story "conspiracy theorists" is you discredit everyone, i for one fear the involvement of the security services in the 7/7 bombings but do not wish to be lumped in with holocaust deniers. The lines between intelligence and counter intelligence are far too blurred for us to get a true picture of whether any goverment agency was complicit in the 7/7 bombings. The fact that no realistic investigation is ever undertaken fuels paranoia and we are left to fill in the gaps. After 9/11 and the subsequent wars of aggresion i will never just accept what what our elected officials tell us happened, they cannot and should not be trusted.

  • Comment number 76.

    Outside our village hall there stands a memorial. It is shaped like an obelisk. I’ve never really understood why this shaped structure is so often used and found in our major capital cities; London, Washington, Paris, Rome etc. I do understand that the names from Bloomfield to Brothers to Hogg represent young people who died believing they were putting their lives on the line for their families, friends and future generations. I understand that when Winston Churchill warned Parliament from the back benches of the impending danger of Hitler, many of his fellow MP’s derided him suggesting the silly old fool shut up and retire.

    In recent years I have vocally supported Blair and Bush’s invasion of Iraq, believing, according to the information laid before me, there was justification. I now feel ashamed of voicing such opinion at for example, Turkish dinner tables, and now ask for forgiveness and support the call for an instant withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan and that we stop being the policemen of the world.

    I demand at least a new enquiry into the events of 9/11. I ask that my suspicions about those 3 buildings - yes, 3 steel structured buildings – being blown-up by controlled explosions be addressed; I am afraid that the destruction of those 3 buildings was not caused solely by aeroplane collision. I call upon the editors of all newspaper publications and all media news outlets, to stand up and be counted; to do their duty and as Churchill voiced his concerns over the Third Reich; for us to voice our concerns over a similar movement active today, but wearing a different face.

    I do not know the whole truth; how could I? But, I do know our politicians and media are presenting daily tosh and nonsense and demand a re-evaluation of the path our society is taking today. Our children are tomorrow’s future and we must help them to realise a peaceful and healthy future.

    I demand Peace at Home, Peace in the World. I demand some semblance of the truth.

  • Comment number 77.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 78.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 79.

    Mr Rudin, I suggest you stop disseminating unadulterated government propaganda. Read up on how western nations terrorise their own populations into a state of fear, so that they accept draconian "security" measures. This is not a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy fact.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

  • Comment number 80.

    I hope this show will explain how BBC staff could time travel and report on the collapse of Building 7 when it hadn’t yet occurred - it is clearly seen behind the reporter during filming. But I fear that the show will just, once again, prove that the BBC News now contains just as much fiction as an episode of Dr Who – well it certainly has the time travel element pinned down.

    In all seriousness, when the foundation of the BBC is supposed to be Trust: it is such a shame that the BBC is loosing, if it hasn’t already lost, its independent, impartiality or honesty.

    The BBC is paid for by the people, I think the least we deserve for our money is the truth.

  • Comment number 81.

    If the BBC doesn't interview the following people in this "documentary" then i have no option but to believe that they are truly a propaganda station.

    Nafeez Ahmed
    Gordon Ross
    Michael Ruppert
    Peter Dale Scott
    Riva Enteen


    These are the true leaders of the truth movement and as such any attempt at a fair and critical discussion without these people is purely and simply biased.

    instead I'm sure david icke will make an appearance with his lizard people.

  • Comment number 82.

    Hello,

    I am very interested in the up coming BBC documentary about WTC 7, because this building has for so long been seen by the public as THE 'smoking gun' of 9/11 - which to this day has been willfully ignored by the MSM and the Official Reports into 9/11.

    Naturally, this 'willful ignorance' on the behalf of MSM and the western governments have given rise to very serious concerns and has led to a wave of new and plausible alternative theories from suspicious individuals. Of course, these individuals have a variety of credibility. Some offer silliness, while others offer science and a logical calculus which can only be matched by the most analytical and logical private investigators.

    I hope that the BBC has taken this chance to highlight the CREDIBLE concerns that are outlined in the many publications and works of David Ray Griffin, as well as Dr. Nafeez Ahmed - two of the most outspoken and eloquent scholars (actual career university professors) - who have given up many years of their lives to highlight the very serious logical contradictions and flaws in the 'official' story about 9/11.

    I also hope that the BBC has point for point dissected and thoroughly rebutted the work of 20 year architect Richard Gage AIA founding member of 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth' (you can see his very detailed work for free at ae911truth.org).

    To make clear, I HOPE that the BBC has done the honest job of giving a fair showing to the CREDIBLE people within the 9/11 truth movement. I HOPE because, if not, I can only be confronted sadly with the fact that the CREDIBLE concerns are 'too tough' to brush over.

    I HOPE that I am wrong, and that the BBC and the 'official conspiracy theory' are right - for the sake of the thousands of dead and innocent civilians everywhere in the world that have been displaced and whose lives have been destroyed on the back of the events of 9/11.

    No 9/11 and we have:

    No Iraq war
    No Afghanistan war
    No Oil Crisis
    No 4000 US solders dead
    No 655,000 Iraqi dead
    No biggest budget deficit in US history
    No warming up to war with Iran
    No 4 million Iraqis homeless

    Still to this day we have no answer using the scientific method for:

    Why ANY WTC towers 'collapsed' themselves
    Why Osama Bin Laden has not been caught, killed or captured
    Why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all unaccountable to the 9/11 commission (no public testimony, and not under oath)

    and so on...

    I sincerely hope that this new BBC documentary addresses these serious issues, and in a serious way.

    Only time shall tell.

    Senator Bob Graham: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing – although that was part of it – by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States...."

    Senator Max Cleland in an interview with SALON: "This should be a national disgrace. it IS a national disgrace...."

    Looking forwards to the show.

  • Comment number 83.

    Why choose possibly the most insane andf obviously psychologically damaged individual to represent those seeking the truth behind various events?

    You could go to many many scientists or ex-intelligence officials who themselves question the official line, yet you choose to interview a neo-nazi who dabbles in crop circles....

    way to go on the balanced journalistic front BBC.

  • Comment number 84.

    Mike Rudin
    Disinformation agent/yellow journalist
    BBC

    I wonder who the BBC is answerable to? Its certainly not the British people. A bit like the government then. And if Gordon Brown thinks the English will elect him as Prime Minister he's in fr a rude awakening. He serves his banking masters. The masters who are by design destroying the middle class. It stops being theory when things you were told 6 years ago are all happening. The housing/credit bubbles bursting. The crash of the dollar, the ridiculous decision to sell of billions of gold, losing billions of pounds. To understand economics you have to remember when lots of people lose money, someone else earns even more because of crashes and bursts.

    Quoting this author: "The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted."

    God forbid we should distrust a government that took us to Iraq on a stack of lies pinnochio would be ashamed of. Can't be having that now can we. Must discredit these theories once and for all, get some crackpot on who doesn't even closely represent the truth movements views, thereby inferring anyone doubting our glorious govts unshakeable morality is a kook with views like his.

    Note: Not everyone who thinks the U.S and U.K govts are nefarious and evil or answer to evil nefarious individuals from Bilderberg, hold the same views as David Icke. What are the chances of any documentary that explains the WTC's 3rd collapse (building 7) coming up with a theory that's half believable. Even if the building had a big gouge/gash on the lower floors on one side you would not get every floor collapsing at the same time at the speed of gravity. You would have a building on the verge of toppling over. You dont need a PHD in physics to work that out. A carpenter, lumberjack can grasp the problem with building 7. Of course to believe the official cinderella tale of the evil terrorists involves suspending laws of physics established by Newton and Einstien, you also have to ignore the footage of the police and firemen telling people to get out of the area the building is being brought down. As for buildings 1 and 2 you have to also ignore Giuliani on TV saying he was told to get out the towers were going to collapse. I remember on the day thinking something just wasn't right. A collapse was the last thing I expected. It never even crossed my mind. Buildings dont just fall down like that. So Yeah stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and go lah lah lah I can't hear you lah lah lah.
    Sorry Mike not a chance. The 9/11 and 7/7 govt fairy story is so full of holes the belief that the Anglo American alliance has gone to unprecedented lengths to get people on the same agenda as them is the only logical explanation. Both govts behaviour before, during and after the self inflicted attacks has been beyond bizzare and often surreal. Not just the lies, or then on live TV lying about lying on TV, and no doubt would be prepared to lie about the lying about the lies, if that hasn't already happened with some officials, but also the way Saddam was handed over to be hanged. No trial, no judge, no jury. Utterly disgusting. I'm sure everyone remembers the Saddam statue slipper beating episode. Surprise, surprise it was all staged, like a Hollywood production. We lost trust in the govt long ago. The BBC can join them, because by defending a lying govt with the blood of over 800,000 human souls on it's hands you are as guilty as them for questioning us for questioning their integrity, especially as theyve been so honest with us. Adopting an attitude that our own govt would never consider murdering a handful of us to further an agenda, well newsflash. When you lie about the reasons for going to war, send British troops out to the MidEast on the basis of these lies, that makes our govt complicit in the murder of its own citizens. Is it a big stretch to imagine they would carry out a "psyop"/"blackop" snuffing out 50 lives to get the country fully onboard. The truthful response they would give is "it was a bargain". Of course they never tell the truth.
    If you want the brainwashing to stop folks box up your TV and sell it. Inform the BBC they can whistle for the license money.

  • Comment number 85.

    Dear Mike Rudin

    I hope you read further than Moonwolf and jon112 on this one because they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by people who have got you worked out. The tactics of these two are so blatantly about ridiculing those who ask legitimate questions, without any knowledge of the facts, and trying to smear them by association, exactly as you are trying to do by using Nick Kollerstrom. It does have to be said that this works because as soon as I start pointing out holes in official versions to people they will just recall that it was a "holocaust denier" who said what I am saying, and therefore not only am I made to look of dubious integrity but also criminal by association. I'm sorry the BBC has stooped so low, but you are only doing your job of course; they wouldnt put it out if you investigated it properly. As several people have pointed out, there is no hesitation in putting out serious investigations of Putin's dodgy dealings because he is "not one of us". I'm afraid, if you are genuinely of the opinion that we are not being misled over 9/11, you have a shock coming. But I think you do know, and I hope you can live with your conscience.

    PS even Moonwolf had to admit that the J7 people have a solid argument in not having anything to do with you. Oh dear...

  • Comment number 86.

    I would like also, to know who the hell Nick Kollerstrom is. What has this person got to do wih credible people who are trying to determine what happened and why we've are constantly being lied to? I have never heard of this person and i have been well aware of pretty much all the major members of the movement to expose the truth for at least 7 seven years now.
    Also. Why are you going to be 'scrutinizing' this individual's interest in the Hollocaust when you are supposed to be making a documentary about the 7/7 bombings? The hollocaust is a subject on it's own and nothing to do with this event or 9/11. I also fail to see what revisionism has to do with being a Nazi. Asking questions about what we are being told happened in Nazi Germany does not necessarily mean you are a Nazi, it may mean you just want to know what really did happen. You should not be associating these subjects at all and you certainly shouldn't be associating them with so called 'False Flag' 'Terrorist' attacks pulled of by our own government and blamed on Muslims who had nothing to do with them so that wars of conquest could be justified in the middle east. If i were you, i'd scrap this documentary because it's only going to inflame more attention and outrage which is the opposite effect to the one that you want. People everywhere see through these shallow and sensationalist attempts at propaganda and covering up your governments lies.
    How much do they pay you, Mike for selling the British people out and taking us further down the road towards what George Orwell warned us about? You can be rest assured that efforts will be stepped up to counter this garbage!

  • Comment number 87.

    There is no mystery about "conspiracy theories" or theorists! Just compare what we know to what we are being told and if the two do not match up we should be concerned.

    There are so many inconsistencies surrounding 911 and 7/7. If we had real journalists and reporters, (and not just "repeaters" parroting the establishment's line), they would have made sense of what happened in those events years ago.

    Unfortunately we do not have objective reporting in this or any other country. Anyone standing back and looking impartially at the events of the last few years can immediately see how they have been manipulated to bring about the increasingly totalitarian world our governments are creating.

  • Comment number 88.

    As most sane people can see the promotion of your and the official ridiculous 'Wacky conspiracy theories' regarding the '911 massacre and the 7/7 cold blooded murders are so to promote the 'Neo-con/Zionist experiment'. This is what you are paid to do, but do it very poorly you do.

    Will you be explaining how a commercial jet liner that has a maximum speed at 35,000 feet of 580 mph can maintain the same speed at ground level.

    If this alleged 767 that impacted WTC 2 could have ascertained a speed of 580 mph before impacting the tower, then by the laws of fluid dynamics it should be able to fly at just over 1000 mph at 35,000 feet given the same engine power.

    The only commercial jet liner to have this capability is or was Concorde!

    When promoting your ridiculous 'Wacky conspiracy theories' about the 7/7 murders I presume you will of course (not) be covering the drills conducted by Peter Powell and co of Visor Consultants which simulated the same and or exact scenario of bombings in London at those same places at those same times.

    Will your ridiculous 'Wacky conspiracy theories' explain how the alleged bombers (patsies) arrived at London at the said times when Jack Straw clearly said in the Commons that the train involved in the official ridiculous 'Wacky conspiracy theories' was cancelled?

    Any way that's enough for now, I will just say, happy conspiracy theorising, ridiculous 'Wacky conspiracy theorists'.

    Yours Subject X.

  • Comment number 89.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 90.

    since my last comment has not appeared and all i did was pick some holes in the official story i would just like to say i've changed my mind and this dramamentuary will be the truth.
    Mike rudin is an honest man who will tell the truth even though he's being paid by people who don't want the truth to come out. I'm sure no stone will be left unturned. He's going to explain to us how building 7 fell at free fall speed into it's foot in 8 seconds without it being a demolition, i look forward to hearing how this happened. Normally with a fire, a building collapse's in stages but not this one, straight down before you can say insurance job or look, all the papers from the investigations in to city fraud have gone. I hope also to find out how you can have an official report into 9/11 yet fail to look into building 7.
    He's going to show us the footage from the hundreds of cctv camera's that covered the pentagon to show us the plane. Thats all it would take to blow the conspiracy out the water. Show us the film of a plane and that will be the end of the conspiracy.
    Still i'm sure like Danny Wallace and his conspiracy film of 9/11 you'll be hoping that you too, once you've shown to the man you can be trusted you can appear on Jonathan Ross

  • Comment number 91.

    Dearest Michael,

    Many members of the fascist BNP are supporters of the official 7/7 story and use the tragic events of 7/7 to whip up hysteric Islamophobia - claiming that the attacks were the work of dangerous Muslim extremists who are infecting every facet of our decent Christian society. Many of the BNP, as I’m sure you’re aware, are also Holocaust deniers.

    So here you have supporters of the official story who are racist Holocaust deniers - maybe you should have featured them as representative spokespeople for the official story. But hey that wouldn’t be fair would it, since it would tarnish by association anybody who supports the government’s story as being a fascist lunatic.

    This, however, is exactly what you’ve done to anybody who has the arrogant temerity to question the government’s story by featuring a holocaust denying crop-circle loving fool as representative of them. This is an intellectually and morally bankrupt way to present an argument but one which, sadly, for a lot of people, is rather effective. You will of course be fully aware of this, which I’m sure is the reason you’re doing it.

    If you wanted to feature somebody credible, articulate and highly knowledgeable on the events of 7/7 as your spokesperson for those questioning the official account, then you couldn’t have done better than journalist Steve Watson. But that, of course, was not what you wanted to do.

  • Comment number 92.

    I think people misunderstand this programme genre, the clue is in the title "Conspiracy Files"

    The programme is not a documentary, but rather bizzare entertainment, on the death of many people, including all those killed in "the war on terror".

    The Hegelian dialectic -

    Create a problem, to provoke a reaction, then offer "the solution".

    It is an age old trick used by rulers, politicians and rabble-rousers. It can be seen in the posts to this blog! We are now living in an age where this is the ONLY way to control reasonably educated people.

    Unfortunately, with the age of the Internet, people are waking up from their stupor. An ex-BBC employee Eric Blair tried to warn us about this, in a book written in 1948. What is incredible is that the house of cards is lasting long as it is!

    "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive".

    The war on terror (remember the IRA?), and just about everything else, is an attempt to prop up, a "Great (Oil) Civilization" (of which there have been many: Aztec, Greek, Roman, Myan, Cambodian, Egyptian, Babylonian etc.)

    Arguing about it "who has done what", and "in who's name", is missing the point. Knowing who really controls the financial system, and who's pushing for a world government and a "New World Order" is what we should be debating. The man, men (or families!) behind the curtain, pulling political leavers.

    Whatever, it will end in tears, and in a thousand years, a camp "Dan Cruikshank" will pop up, telling people about a long forgotten oil civilization who idolized young women, and sports people, who were obsessed with celebrity, money, sex and murder, and worshipped oil.

    Personally I wish I could go back to my childhood, when I was protected from most of the obscenity, all I was concerned about was whether Dr Who would defeat the Cybremen.

  • Comment number 93.

    Get over it guys, the BBC did a big mistake by choosing to cover up for the anglo-saxon empire. This time it went wrong, hell wrong. We all know that they will say a thousand truths in order to tell you one crucial lie, in this case the 9/11 cover-up. We all know that the paradigm has been shattered. It will be a long ride for the NWO mouthpiece that the BBC is for it to regain the confidence it lost among a big chunk of the intelligentsia of the western world. BBC can go to africa and expect people over there to gobble up their propaganda, wholesome. Good Luck with your empire-buidling!

  • Comment number 94.

    What happened to the bbc O yerh they tell porkys for the goverment ide like to see how u think u going to D-bunk the 911 truth its not going to happen we know what happened and we know the bbc is helping cover it up SHAME ON U

  • Comment number 95.

    I would like to address this directly to Mike Rubin: If you wanted to produce a serious analysis of 7/7, why on earth didn't you interview Nafeez Mosadeeq Ahmed? He is widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost authorities in terrorism and conflict analysis, and has been a regular political commentator at the bbc itself! Would he not have been preferable to Nick Kollerstrom, as a credible questioner of the official narrative? Unless of course the BBC had other ideas....... Please read ''The london bombings - an independent inquiry'' by nafeez ahmed. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] This will open up your eyes to the orwellian nightmare that is the bbc.

  • Comment number 96.

    Unbelievable! reffered to the moderator for questioning the impartiality of the BBC and noting the unfairness of licence fees.

    Well i'll say it again, hopefully without being censored.

    Nafeez mozadeeq ahmed. Read his book for an independent inquiry into 7/7 that doesn't exhibit conspiracy phobia.

  • Comment number 97.

    Why were terror drills being carried out that exactly matched the events of 9/11 and 7/7 at the times the real attacks were carried out?

    Britain has the most CCTV cameras in the world why is there only one photo of the London bombers? there should be tons of footage

    Some people on the train have said the blast caused holes in the floor of the train with the metal carrage being pushed upwards indicating the bomb being under the train

    How can anyone trust the government when the blatantly lied about weapons of mass destruction? remember that

    Why are civil liberties in this country, the USA, Canada, Austrailia, Europe and the rest of the world being stripped away faster than michael schumacher on race day?

    Governments want control, so they say we are thretened by terrorists, then they remove civil liberties in order to 'protect' us, it's a simple scam they are pulling off.

  • Comment number 98.


    Take a look at the websites below and ask yourself why, when there are many hundreds of architects and engineers.....Government, intelligence and law enforcement officials.....pilots and air-traffic controllers......politicians from across the political spectrum.....victims family members who all question the official story, would Mr Rudin and the BBC choose to ignore almost all of them and speak to an unknown Holocaust-denying fool instead.
    Having heard Mr Rudins recent weak, stuttering, dry-mouthed performance in a debate with Alex Jones on Radio 5 Live I am in no doubt that he has absolutely no interest in finding out the truth about anything.


    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
    Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    Architects and Engineers for 911Truth

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
    pilotsfor911truth.org

  • Comment number 99.

    Indeed, why should we trust the views of any media organisation when they refuse to publicise the annual Bilderberg meeting, which this year hosted Hillary and Obama at Chantilly. If they cannot tell us the most basic news regarding what our "leaders" are up to, then why should we trust them to tell us things of the utmost significance?
    Conclusion - we must disregard the popular media as a source of genuine information and resort to alternative ways of finding out what is truly happening such as the internet.

  • Comment number 100.

    The real truth about 9/11 and 7/7 is going to come out eventually and so I think that this attempt by you Mr Rudin and the BBC to debunk the so called cospiracy theorists will come back and haunt you in years to come. The official myth just starts to fall apart as soon as anybody does their own research, so I won't be watching this new Conspiracy Files series for sure.

    As sad as it is for me to say, I no longer believe anything I hear from the BBC. Ten years ago, I really couldn't have imagined myself saying that.

    The piece about the lost intelligence document on a train this month was yet another example of what appeared to be political propaganda. It was so easy to see through it, it was actually quite insulting.

    Unfortunately, once we lose trust in our media, reality becomes very depressing indeed and the oulook, extremely bleak also. But whatever happens, I will personally keep searching for the truth and hope, along with many others now doing the same, that those that are guilty of perpetrating the lies, will eventually be held accountable.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.