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

Too much conspiracy?

Peter Barron | 11:45 UK time, Friday, 1 December 2006

Wherever you turn these days there are conspiracy theories.

Newsnight logoRecently Newsnight broadcast a piece by the film-maker Shane O'Sullivan pointing to new video evidence that three CIA agents were present on the night of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. That generated loads of earnest debate across the web. Then we've had the assassinations of Pierre Gemayel and Alexander Litvinenko, and theories abound. Lord Stevens' report into the much-theorised death of Princess Diana is due any day, and almost every day new emails and attachments land in our in-boxes pointing to apparent discrepancies in the official version of 9/11, with titles like The South Tower Napalm Bomb Seventh View.

While the conspiracy theory has long been with us, the internet has allowed it to become an exploding and intriguing growth industry. But how much of this stuff should we report?

When Shane came to us saying he thought he had new evidence in the Bobby Kennedy case of course my first reaction was "oh yeah", but when he showed me the video of the three alleged CIA agents, and the testimony of former colleagues who positively identified them, I was convinced the material at least raises new questions - without buying into a grand theory which explains exactly what happened.

Last night an amateur film-maker spoke to me about his belief that there's been a huge cover-up in the official reporting of both 9/11 and 7/7. Why, he asked, doesn't the BBC report the many discrepancies and oddities surrounding the accounts of these hugely significant events?

In fact, on Newsnight we have briefly examined some of these questions, but we've barely scratched the surface of the icebergs of material which float around the web.

The reason we haven't gone deeper is that there's surely no rational explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent inconsistencies.

But I would say that the fact a conspiracy theory surrounds a story should never be a reason either to run with it or reject it. Take, for example, the stories of white phosphorous at Fallujah and Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. One true, one rubbish. But it would be a big mistake to make up your mind until you've had a look.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 01:49 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • PeeVeeAh wrote:

First world people love a ripping conspiracy! What else have we got to worry about in our Maslovian tree-top!

People who watch (or 'live'?) the Soaps schedules are suckers for such fodder. Modern media and programming has pandered to this demand for decades. The unchartered motives of opinionated, PC-weilding wannabes are unweighted when matched with accountable news providers - to the extent that the marbled hall bastions are even contemplating dumming-down to compete for the limited attention spans of the e-club 'News Surf'it' (No, it doesn't really exist - but it seems like a catchy pun!

People are naive if they believe that conspiracy can be avoided by open government ideals. Those with power will always revert to the old tool chest of self-perpetuating methods.

Oh alright, I'm a bit of a cynic! But thankfully not important enough to be the stuff of conspiracies.

Peter;

As an American, and what I believe to be a true patriot, not one to be in lockstep with the advocates of an oppressive agenda that would purport to protect me and others from ourselves, but one who encourages open discourse and the intelligent gathering and dissemination of information, I look to Newsnight and to the BBC, as well as one or two other outside sources, for information on a daily basis.

I appreciate your willingness to examine, and in some cases reexamine, events in order to shed the most available and most accurate light on the matter. While I am not sure what can be gained by reopening the investigation into the events surrounding the death of Bobby Kennedy, at the same time it would be naive of me not to think something worthwhile might come of it.

In these days of increasing awareness of the injustices and outrageous disservices committed by those who would feign to act in our interests, it is critical that we remain open to any number of possible explanations for the occurrence of the events that unfold before us.

Regards from across the pond,


Davis Wolf

  • 3.
  • At 01:57 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Sandra Sedgwick wrote:

I totally agree with your opinion on the conspiracies but they should be looked at as you say. I have never been able to understand why helicopters were not used to rescue people from the towers in 9/11 before they collapsed. I know no aircraft were not allowed over NY after the planes hit but why let the people burn? Regarding the Princess of Wales, I live in France and everyone here believes she was assasinated. The crash is very suspect, something happened in that tunnel. The Americans can not be trusted they are a cowboy society.

Sandra Sedgwick, France

  • 4.
  • At 02:11 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Tom Gill wrote:

Just because you don't believe in a conspiricy, doesn't mean there isn't
two strangers following you.

  • 5.
  • At 02:16 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Asi Kavi wrote:

Just beause you think most earth shattering world events could be a series of random unconnected accidents, does not mean there is no one in the shadows conspiring to make them happen.

Truth is what we unconsciously want to believe.

  • 6.
  • At 02:37 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • AKBER A. KASSAM. wrote:

I fully agree with Peter Barron on conspiration issues. !!!!!

  • 7.
  • At 02:55 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Phill wrote:

Sorry but I must pass comment on the statement that there's no rational explanation for (in specific) the 9/11 attacks other than that they were carried out by Islamist terrorists.

I ask what rational drove the alleged 9/11 terrorists? What did that day achieve for those accused of planning and carrying out those attacks? Perhaps a death toll and chaos was all they had in mind. Perhaps it was a desperate act of delusional people whose rational while flawed and incomprehensible to those in the west, remained broadly identifiable. But what if 9/11 was the product of a rational far more reasoned and calculating, a rational of a group who recognised the true power that fear and terrorism can bring?

Regardless of whether you consider it ridiculous conspiracy, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the US administration was to some degree involved in 9/11 for the purposes of galvanising a nation to support an administration with plans for an extremely questionable foreign policy. Yes it’s the stuff of Hollywood and conspiracy web sites. But disregarding the current state of affairs, it seems to me that in the years that immediately followed the 9/11 attacks the Bush lead government benefited far more than the Islamic world or any extreme Islamic groups, which have only suffered greatly (justifiable or not) at the hands of the US military.

Though never covering this area my interest in 9/11 conspiracies was in fact sparked by Newsnight, when it covered the release of a few more seconds of footage showing the attack on the Pentagon. Having since reviewed much of the information that is available on the internet, information which I find is almost universally ignored by main stream media, it seems there are a staggering number of relevant questions about what happened before, during and after 9/11. I can find no rational answers to these questions and I’d be happy to provide you with a list.

I fully appreciate the politically and credibility suicide that Newsnight could be making by covering 9/11 conspiracy theories and pointing a finger at the US government. But at the very least I would like to see someone in the BBC at least ask why so many conspiracy theories have been born from such a tragic event, why so many people believe them and why there are so many unanswered questions the US government should have answered a long time ago.

I agree with you Peter - we should be given the full picture - this way we can come to our own conclusions! I'm glad you give us an opportunity to do so.

  • 9.
  • At 03:38 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Steven Martin wrote:

You should be careful not to dismiss all conspiracy theories. Many of them may make our eyes roll but many have much substance to them. For example look up Operation Northwoods on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). It was a plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame them on Cuba as an excuse to invade. It was released under the US freedom of information act. There are plenty of conspiracies that are a matter of record.

Just take the Suez Crisis. The plan was for Israel to invade, then Britain would say "Oh no, how terrible. We must send a peace-keeping force to stop all this fighting.". Of course, Britain just wanted to secure the canal. At the time this would have been dismissed as a conspiracy.


On a separate note, why is "Have Your Say" so..., well, useless? I posted a comment on the Cuba topic yesterday and not only has my comment not been published, but neither has anyone elses since 17:16 yesterday. This has happened time and time again on many different topics. Yet my comments on Al Jazeera are published within minutes of posting them.

  • 10.
  • At 03:45 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Simon J George wrote:

Conspiracy is the opiate of the people, as Marx did not say.

Since we live in a world where increasingly people believe that God did not do it, people have a natural tendancy to look for other explanations (It human nature and its how we got this far). However Conspiacy is what lazy people look for instead of the more complex and less emotionally satisfying reality of a messy world.

The one thing most people can not cope with is the idea that random chance did it.

Given a choice between the lone gunman and the government cover up, then the government cover up is actually the more reassuring explanation as it suggests destiny and events are capable of being within our control. A world where no one is master is far scarier to most people than one where at least someone, even if you are not sure who that someone is, is in control.

Of course sometimes it is a conspiracy...

  • 11.
  • At 04:01 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • June Borsberry wrote:

Just keep the questioning going insofar as you are able. It is so heartening.
June Borsberry,
Toronto

  • 12.
  • At 04:11 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Steve wrote:

Funny the way many people are so brainwashed into believing that conspiracy theories are only ever plausible if carried out by "their side" - never by "our side".

So the possibility of state intervention in assassinations or tragedies is at least worthy of consideration when we're talking about, say, Russia or China. But the UK or US? Never! We're benign - everyone knows that. (Well, everyone in the UK and US anyway... )

It's precisely this deep-rooted mindset that "our side would never do such a thing" that prevents people from even entertaining the possibilities, regardless of the available evidence. The mindshift required for most people to accept such possibilities is simply too great, and would strike too great a whole in their security blankets of everything they've always believed.

And therein you have the perfect immunity for the crime.

Add to that the stigma that has built up around the terms conspiracy theory (and particularly conspiracy theorIST), the sense of ridicule and embarassment at speculating about such things, and it's very easy to see how large scale conspiracies could play out and easily remain undetected.

  • 13.
  • At 04:12 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Joshua Knowles wrote:

Peter,

I want to deal with 9/11 and not Bobby Kennedy. Thanks for pointing to Mark Urban's report on the Pentagon impact, which I had not seen before. Evidence of the impact has been difficult to come by and that fuels some unhelpful conspiracy theories, but the correct response to those theories is not to laugh at or ignore anyone who questions the evidence. Mark's report is commendable for its balance on the matter.

However, Newsnight does not get any where near top marks on reporting much more difficult and unsettling questions surrounding 9/11. The theory that controlled explosions were used to collapse the Twin Towers and the third building, WTC 7, which was never hit by a plane, is hard to dismiss, while the official NIST reports of why the buildings completely collapsed are hard to believe. Can Newsnight - Susan Watts perhaps? - report on this, being careful not to conflate legitimate questions about the collapses with more extreme conspiracy theories, which for example, try to claim no planes hit the Towers - a frankly ridiculous assertion?

Thanks

  • 14.
  • At 04:52 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Adam Neilson wrote:

"...there's surely no rational explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent inconsistencies."

The thing is, some of the inconsistencies with the 9/11 story are more than just puzzling; I refer not only to the prima facie 'evidence' as reported (or not) by the major media groups, but even prominent perjorous testimonies to the 9/11 commission, which itself was chock full of conflicts of interest; so much so that one of the commissioners resigned in disgust at the administration's 'stonewalling'.

There is masses of evidence, amply documented (though requiring serious research), that the American administration could and should have prevented the attacks, even without the foreknowledge that we know they had. And it's not just nut-jobs saying this; you don't have to search far to confirm that.

  • 15.
  • At 05:25 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Ron C wrote:

Like Phil I am surprised that more is not made by the responsible media of the glaring discrepancies in the official 9/11 story.
Demolished buildings, vaporised aeroplanes, the absence of any air cover in the most advanced nation in the world.....come on Newsnight give it a go...risk upsetting the American Goverment.
Failing that I recommend the British 9-11 Truth Campaign website to anyone with a questioning mind.

  • 16.
  • At 06:01 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

I would like to step forward as the amatuer filmmaker who spoke to Peter Baron last night.

i would first like to say a huger thanks to peter for finding the time to speak to me.

What i found from speaking to him is that as regards 9/11 and 7/7 is that there did not seem to be any hidden agenda in whether they should broadcast alternative theories or not. But was very clear from my half hour meeting was that he genuinely is not entirely sure of what the 911 truth movement are questioning.

Whenever the subject is brought up it is called a conspiracy theory, yet i was not putting an alternative theory as such, just questioning the present official theory, and wanting to know why the contradictions and the misinformation is still reported as fact without any subsequent checking.

I am afraid that it iis not a matter of people convincing those with the power to broadcast to do so. It is a matter of those in the mass media not having a clue about the contentious issues.

What we need is not for the mass media to educate us, we seem to need to educate them.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8288604829321343357&q=fema+10th+sept

A link to some interesting admissions.


  • 17.
  • At 06:12 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Anita Bullock wrote:

Mr Barron proudly declared in his email that "The reason we haven't gone deeper [into 911 inconsistencies] is that there's surely no rational
explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two
groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent
inconsistencies."

I wonder if he thinks that all those thousands of scientists, academics and ordianary people are simply being "irrational" when they suggest that the reason was to start an illegal war? There is noting irrational about this, we actually had a war, so stop trying to gag the BBC Mr Barron! Let us have an open discussion about 911 on the BBC, people need to see those documentaries on the web. We need the truth not the Murdock spin! We need a poll of the people who pay your salaries. Ask the general public if they think it is irrational to question the official 911 story and see what answer you get !

I would like to draw your attention to a paragraph that wrote by Peter Barron in the BBC Newsnight email blog titled "to Much conspiracy?":

"The reason we haven't gone deeper is that there's surely no rational explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent inconsistencies"

I suggest that you have two options; Option one is that in view of your role as a news broadcasting organization, you are judges as far as you choose what to air and what not, the answer is that you must judge everything that comes in and if a conspiracy, titled as a conspiracy by whom???, sounds credible then you must air it.

Secondly I must draw your attention to your comment that the reason why you "haven't gone deeper" is because there is no explanation for the attacks; saying that the terrorists because of what they are is the reason for why the attacks were caused. why stop there? why not classify people as either good or bad and not capable of thought.
your second option would be to classify these people; round them all up and work out what they are...

Why don't you do both!?

sincerely,
Leo Mumford.
leomumford@gmail.com

Peter you say: "the fact a conspiracy theory surrounds a story should never be a reason either to run with it or reject it."

There are always two kinds of Conspiracy Theory, the official CT and the unofficial CT.

In the case of July 7th, the Official CT is outlined in the Official Report, a report that has many anomalies, inconsitencies and errors, a fact admitted by Dr John Reid on 11/7/06.

This Official CT has never come under the scrutiny it deserves by any part of the media.

We have never been shown compelling evidence to support the Official CT, just one image of the 4 taken over 40 miles from London, an image that fails to identify 3 of the 4 accused men.

Yet the Official CT is accepted as Fact, because, laughably, to question it makes a person a conspiracy theorist. This is just doublethink.

Please watch this 28 minute documentary called Ludicrous Diversion which questions the Official CT and gives the reasons we need to demand the evidence is released and why the media must take responsibility for questioning these events:

http://tinyurl.com/y86nke

9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theories - again!

In the last year or more, because so many onliners are obsessed with this, I've spent a lot of time clicking through to their links and following their arguments.

Why? Because if it was proved that our Prime Minister and the American President were capable of this I'd willingly let the dogs loose on them both with no qualms for their personal survival. I say that as one of the few blogs around supporting Tony Blair.

The very idea that either of them would plan to murder their own people - and perhaps their own families who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - is just too, too far-fetched.

Clicking through to the links above hasn't clarified anything for me. The NY mayor wasn't saying anything other than "it's coming down". And so it was, some way or other. Bringing the towers down would have been expected in a controlled way when they were about to, possibly, topple sideways.

As far as the Pentagon plane is concerned I don't really understand this. If the plane disintegrated and then vapourised, would there be no trace of dna or human ash or anything? Somebody help me on this, please.

I know we often say life is stranger than fiction, and so it is. But THIS strange?

And if Bin Laden was not responsible for the Twin Towers why did he not deny it? Hubris? Well, it may not have ruined Bin Laden yet. We just need to be sure that we don't get carried away on the blame culture magic carpet before others are ruined.

Proof? Bring us proof that will stand up in court or stop this tittle-tattle. THEN and only then will I accept that there is a possibility that the western coalition is headed by evil, maniacal despots.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com

  • 21.
  • At 09:57 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Steve Watkins wrote:

When the BBC ocassionally mention that Litvinenko accused the FSB of blowing up apartment building in Russia, do they call this a conspiracy theory or an allegation?

I am interested in what factors affect people judgement about whether a theory is considered plausible, or conspiracy craziness. Next time you hear something you think is a crazy conspiracy theory, try replacing the countries/entities mentioned in the theory, with other countries/entities. If the results are different, then this suggests our views of what other countries etc 'are capable of' have a massive effect on what we consider plausible.

  • 22.
  • At 10:33 PM on 01 Dec 2006,
  • Jo-An M Partridge wrote:

Throughout history there has always been consipiracy, however, with new forensic technology we are being asked to believe in the 'truth' of the present day findings of forensic historians.

But, why should we? when they cannot agree on such attacks as 9/11 and 7/7.

The theories now given are just that 'theories', which are sometimes flight of imagination worthy of a Disney cartoon.

So, what if there were three FBI agents by Kennedy's side, isn't that where they should be?

Life is full of anomalies during WW2 the 'underground' resistance was admired and supported for the courage and initiative displayed, whereas today any resistance to a Government no matter how corrupt is considered terrorism.

Being ever cynical I believe the so-called threorists have an eye on the Almighty Dollar, and we as the gullible silent majority are being conned. Cheers Jo-An

Ten minutes spent reading up on the bombing of Bologna train station in 1980 and the activities of Propaganda Due in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s will yield a well-documented example of a terrorist conspiracy executed by elements within a Western government against its own people.

These things happen.

And thorough investigation of ‘discrepancies and oddities’ is arguably the only way they will be uncovered - if and when they have occurred.

On the specific issue of 7/7

It took the efforts of an ordinary citizen to finally extract an admission from John Reid that a key time in the 7/7 Timeline, as given in the ‘Official 7/7 Narrative’, was incorrect -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5170708.stm

The most active July 7th ‘Truth’ group that I am aware of has its homepage here…

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/

And a 30 minute video that attempts to communicate key ‘discrepancies and oddities’ from 7/7 can be found here…

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ludicrous+diversion

There are some people, people without access to the resources of an organisation like the BBC, who are trying their best to get clear answers to the ‘discrepancies and oddities’ of 7/7. They are not advancing alternative accounts of 7/7 but simply asking questions. Isn’t that what our journalists are supposed to be doing?

  • 24.
  • At 02:00 AM on 02 Dec 2006,
  • Juan Ruiz wrote:

I am an independent journalist for a local community radio station in Madison WI. I've heard and read alot of conspiracy theories in my time so far. As a journalist im interested in political topics of all sorts. All the reports i've read, I would like to not believe most of them. But sadly I think alot of them are all too real, with such little accountability to those in power. Its incredibly saddening to me. Its actually caught me in a cycle of paranoia and mistrust of almost everything and everone. Its kinda terrible actually. I would like to turn the light off in my brain saying that theres something terribly wrong witht the state of affairs in this country and the world. There are alot of fingers pointing upwards, towards powerful coporate entities. I guess I would like to hear your views, and your experiences of these type of issues. Thanx a young journalist. Juan

  • 25.
  • At 04:20 AM on 02 Dec 2006,
  • Jon Saint wrote:

Newsnight is one of the few news programmes worth watching but the comment by Peter Barron that "The reason we haven't gone deeper is that there's surely no rational explanation...." is amazing. The reason you should go deeper - into any story let alone 9/11 - is because that is what journalists do. If journalists don't go deeper, using their sophisticated resources and skills, then what's the point of the profession. 9/11 killed thousands. The event has since been used by a reactionary - and arguably wrongfully elected - government to promote and justify preemptive war, dismantle the American Constitution, rip up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, flout the Geneva Convention and illegally invade other countries. What happened on 9/11 led to Afghanistan and Iraq and may shortly lead to a war with Iran with possible global consequences. Without 9/11 half a million people might still be alive. It was a pivotal event and its timing, method and puzzling inconsistencies should be seriously examined. Until questions are asked how can answers be judged? There are crazy theories regarding 9/11 precisley because very few journalists have risked ridicule by asking sane questions. If 9/11 had been the 9.11 from Paddington which crashed with the loss of just one life.... Well, I can't help but feel that puzzling inconsistencies about the track, the signals, the train, who was driving it and any suspicions about management culpability would have been better investigated than any aspect of 9/11 to date. There are simple, factual questions about 9/11 which have never been aired. Asking just a couple would be a breakthrough and would not mean subscribing to any conspiracy theory - in fact not asking them feeds into conspiracy theory. The official 9/11 Commission Report makes the Hutton report look faultless. Start with the official document. The dead on and since 9/11 deserve at least that.

  • 26.
  • At 12:12 PM on 02 Dec 2006,
  • anon wrote:

"But disregarding the current state of affairs, it seems to me that in the years that immediately followed the 9/11 attacks the Bush lead government benefited far more than the Islamic world or any extreme Islamic groups, which have only suffered greatly (justifiable or not) at the hands of the US military."

The Americans benefited more than the Japanese in the years after Pearl Harbour, does that mean they were responsible for the attack?

The Allies benefited more than the Germans in the years after the attack on Poland, does that mean they were responsible for it?

Of course not. Admit it, your belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory is based solely on a hatred of Bush. If the Democrats had been in power at the time you would not believe any conspiracy theory.

  • 27.
  • At 01:08 PM on 02 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

The interesting thing about 9/11 is not the conspiracy theories, it's the contradictory "facts" as reported by the mainstream media and govt sources. If you don't like "conspiracy theories" then a good starting point is the documentary "9/11: Press for Truth" about the widows of 9/11 victims who pressured the Bush admin to set up the 9/11 commission. These are just normal people with no political agenda who want to know why their husbands died and who until now do not believe that they have received satisfactory answers.

  • 28.
  • At 07:26 PM on 02 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

BlairSupporter, I have a friend just like you, who thinks the sun shines out of Blair's policies. If I even so much as mention 9/11 he calls me a "conspiracy theorist" and says I think "the jews did it" and "the moon landing was faked" even though I've never mentioned either. Then when he asks where I get my information from, I offer to show him the relevant book, DVD, newspaper, magazine or website. But he refuses to even look at it. He prefers to read his own comforting sources and wacky websites that he can then accuse me of reading (when in fact most of my reading material is sourced from the mainstream media and official govt documents).

  • 29.
  • At 09:35 AM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Ragnar wrote:

If conspiracy's do not exist. Why is it an offence in 90% of the weorld?

"* 15. * Ron C wrote:
the absence of any air cover in the most advanced nation in the world....."

People that bring this point up really DO make me piss myself laughing in dirission.
So how do you think air cover would have helped??
By shooting down four fully occupied passenger jets over New York?

Go on, please DO tell me Mr Air marshall.

  • 30.
  • At 06:03 PM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Gregor Aitken wrote:

Regarding blair supporters comments,

I dont know if anyone has accused blair or bush of anything,

All that is being said is that the officaial versions have massive holes in them and they should be looked into properly.

As soon as all the questions are answered i am sure people like me will be very happy. I just want to know how did wtc fall at freefall speed due to a localised fire.

I want to know if it was a 'mother of satan' liquid bomb or c4 that was used on the tube.

I would like to know who asked the security firm to carry out a mock exercise on the morning of 7/7, an exercise that was to test reactions to 4 stations being bombed that very morning, and and the 3 stations that got bombed were in the 4 chosen for the exercise

I am not blaming blair or bush or binladen

I only want an understanding of facts

How did burning aircraft fuel manage to melt steel when it doesnt even get close to the temperature required?

Where did the thermite at ground zero come from?

If i can have satisfactory answers to questions like this then i am happy.

  • 31.
  • At 01:24 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

It is an extremely important and healthy thing, to be cynical and questioning about the powers that be. In the US, it is expected of citizens,''to protect their Constitution from Tyrants'' I hear. Here in the UK, it is especially so, since we have always been subjected to secretive and controlling powers,( and getting worse by the day) with no written constitution for an umbrella. We have also been leaders in the dark arts of espionage and subtifuge, for centuries. Our Mi5/6 shared all this knowledge with the fledgling fore-runner's of the CIA during WW2. Between them they have caused much 'mischief' in the world. They are ( or 'rogue elements' )are, capable of ANYTHING! Some people who question this caperbility here, make me smile---sardonically---their inocence/ignorance,is breathtaking. To those who are'nt convinced that our masters are less than honest, and beyond repproach, I say, you fall into three catagories--1, your afraid of the implications/ramifications, if all this is proven true--so your in denial. 2, your too lazy/incapable of following the evidence. 3, your part of the huge debunking army, that the government uses to ridicule/threaten anyone who becomes a risk. This includes the media, but this is more subtle in this country , but that great old ' for national security reasons' sure is a catch-all wonder weapon. Since WW2--in the US in particular, all the national media have been in bed with the security sevices. The mainstream media have been an utter disgrace in the US---frightend to death of questioning even the most blatent lie----in fear of breaking rank and protecting their countries freedoms because of the so called 'Patriot' act.This is why Americans have such a one sided view of the world anyway,it makes 'Pravda' seem almost neutral. This is also why 'The Free Press' has suddenly blossemed in the US ( Land of the Free ). Remember when Bush told Americans, that it was unpatriotic to entertain any thoughts of conspiracy--on SEPTEMBER 11 !! This was when people were in shock, and not even thinking of such a thing, WHAT PROMPTED THIS REMARK? If only a tiny proportion, of the masses of unanswered questions and discrepancies, which have been ignored by the US government, prove to be in contradiction of the 'official' findings------???There's an old saying----If it looks, tastes and smells like, thats what it is !!!

  • 32.
  • At 03:43 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Susan Starke wrote:

Yes, 9.11 was the result of a conspiracy. No doubt about it. It was a conspiracy of 19 Muslim fundamentalist fanatics who cast a terrible stain upon the reputation of their religion in a previously tolerant nation and whose actions ended up resulting indirectly in the deaths of many thousands of their coreligionists.

Rick B: I live in the area where the "Jersey girl" 9.11 widows live and believe me, they are not respected as impartial suffering widows. They have a huge partisan axe to grind and they have used their undeniable personal tragedy to advance it. Many other 9.11 families do not agree with them at all.

  • 33.
  • At 08:29 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Ted wrote:

Simon J George (above) is right.

When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything. (First said by GK Chesterton nearly a century ago).

  • 34.
  • At 11:34 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Sussan Starke, I defer to your personal experience on the Jersey Girls political stances. However, do you think they were wrong to ask for the 9/11 Commission to be set up? Also, is it wrong to ask questions of your govt?

  • 35.
  • At 01:12 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

Susan Stark (32)----A TV investigation into the 911 'terrorist's' backgrounds, revealed that three quarters of the named members are alive, and living in various middle east countries,doing jobs in I.T, nursing, and banking, and know nothing of the atrocity. It sounds to me like your 'Knowledge' of the subject, comes strait from US mainstream media. I think you are a 'No 1'in my classification of none believers ( entry No 31 ). The 911 Truth movement is gathering such strength now, that I don't think their demands for a REALLY independant, and thorough new investigation into 911 can be ignored much longer. Of course--this would trigger a similar investigation into 7/7 ( our contribution towards the 'War on Tourism'--as Bush calls it ) Prepare for a SHOCK !

  • 36.
  • At 02:50 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

I have been pushing the truth agenda for 911 and 7/7 for a few months now. and the debate always seems to go back and forward over the same ground.

The lack of air defence is a prime example, People like me ask where was it, why did planes take an hour to cover ground they could have covered in 15 mins.

A simple question.

So those who believe the official version of events retort with would it have mattered if they were their.


A fair question in itself, but doesnt actually answer the question.

If we could all just with the facts and argue those it wouldf be so much better.

  • 37.
  • At 03:17 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

i believe in God too BTW

  • 38.
  • At 03:57 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Joe wrote:

To Susan, I welcome your comments, it's unfortunate that the majority of the other comments posted here are so rude/patronising towards your personal view.
The comment that 'this was not a rational attack' which according to most of these commentaries therefore means that the CIA etc were behind it is ludicrous, I'm sorry but when have terrorists atrocities ever been rational?, or indeed the terrorists themselves?.

To Rick B and Gregor Aitken:

Rick - I do check the sites that others send me to, and it takes some time I can tell you. And yes, I would be heartbroken if it turned out that Tony Blair was involved in any of this. Wouldn't you and the rest of the British people?

Gregor - Many people on the internet accuse Blair and Bush of EVERYTHING!

But it's more disconcerting to me to analyse the conclusions that could be drawn from their conspiracy position. It would seem that western security services, police, the courts and perhaps government bodies are all working AGAINST the public. And perhaps even WITHOUT the knowledge of the countries' leaders.

Call me naive, but I cannot believe any of this.

Your questions are perfectly valid and I can't answer them. But as for the exercise on the 7th July, wouldn't it have been wiser to cancel that exercise if an attack was known (to avoid attention)?

My concern is that we are adding two and two and getting five.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com

  • 40.
  • At 10:30 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • John CB wrote:

Well the BBC does from time to time look at these issues. Horizon over 20 years ago took a serious look at the Bermuda triangle-and showed that it was a complete nonsense. A documentary in 2003 about the JFK assassination presented a convincing argument that the available evidence showed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole killer. The so called "magic bullet" scenario was a mendacious distortion of that evidence. I have read the various web sites on 9/11 with an open mind and it is clear that the controlled demolition scenario isn't credible even as a hypothesis, never mind the "truth". I think the mainstream media do need to pay some attention to these issues however. I think the reason they are not is because to most people the "9/11 truth" arguments are obvious nonsense, like the moon hoax or creationism. This is to ignore the fact that some people who find the truthers' arguments superficially appealing need to see those arguments rebutted, but find it hard to trust any organ seemingly connected with the American establishment. So surely this is where the BBC comes in...

  • 41.
  • At 12:32 AM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • chiz wrote:

There are some sociological commonalities to the way that conspiracies work and develop.

One is the citation of the opinions of 'experts' who aren't any such thing. There is an almost automatic belief by many people, not just the media, that if someone has a formal qualification in some subject their opinions have some grounding in expertise and are therfore worth paying attention to. Yet the world is full of people with PhDs in biology who think the bible is literally true, or Phds in history who think the holocaust is a hoax, and so on. The fact that there are 'experts' in engineering who think it is impossible for a plane to hit the pentagon without leaving a trace etc etc isn't at all surprising. Its a rare form of lunacy that can't gain the support of least a few qualified experts.

Another is that the key stories often circulate and circulate and circulate and circulate etc without calibration or re-checking. A story may well be debunked by subsequent research but this debunking doesn't always travel the same paths, or as far, as the original story and many people encounter the story unaware that it has been debunked. Many christians, for example believe that that there is extrabiblical evidence for the historical existence of Jesus in the writings of Josephus even though this claim was debunked centuries ago. The story just circulates within churches and sunday schools endlessly. Likewise some local antivivisectionists believe that not only does insulin have nothing to do with the cause of diabetes but that it is insulin therapy itself that causes the symptoms of diabetes. They believe this on the basis of uncertainties about insulin that existed shortly after it was discovered. It hasn't dawned on them that there might have been subsequent research that resolved those doubts. Even if the doubts that some people have about 9/11 are all resolved many will never hear about it. Philip (#35) cites the claim that many of the terrorists are still alive even though this blog only a few weeks ago explained how that mistaken belief arose. A century from now there will still be 9/11-deniers.

  • 42.
  • At 09:12 AM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Ragnar wrote:

" * 36. gregor aitken wrote:
and the debate always seems to go back and forward over the same ground.

The lack of air defence is a prime example, People like me ask where was it, why did planes take an hour to cover ground they could have covered in 15 mins."

Damn EXACTLY. And why have none of the conspiracy addicted answered MY question, which was "WAHT THE BLOODY HEL WERE FIGHTER JETS MEANT TO DO? SHOOT DOWN FOUR, FULL, UNARMED, PASSENGER JETS, OVER NEW YORK CITY CENTER? JUST SO THEY COULD GIVE YOU LOT SOMETHING MORE TO INVENT POSSIBLE REASONS WHY THAT WAS ALSO A "CONSPIRACY"?

It would appear that conspiracy fruit cases do not like to be given tough qestions to answer either.

  • 43.
  • At 12:08 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Philip wrote:

Ragnar No 39----your ignorance is staggering----YES, that is precisely what US defence planes are expected to do. There is a longstanding proceedure for pilots to follow. ANY plane that strays off course and /or fails to respond to known contact proceedures, or as in these cases beeing discussed---turned off their responder's---then they should shoot the planes down. There would'nt be any hesitation now--believe it! There are many experts in this field, including retired airforce top brass, who have publicly stated that the whole of the eastern half of the US air defences were absent that day, a completely unprecendented situation. This state of the art radar protection, cost US citizens 40 billion dollars !!! Where were the planes ? all over the US on 'excersizes', anywhere except were they were needed. AMAZING eh? what a coincidence !! Wise-up mate and do some reading/viewing. I think you come into my type 2 category.

  • 44.
  • At 01:04 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

Ragnar,

Lets calm down a little bit and lets be a bit less emotional.


lets start with facts.

Four passenger jets were not over new york city.

and yes the standard operating procceedure at that time was for any and all aircraft that stray from their flightpath would be intercepted by noraid.

It is then by presidential order if they should be shot down.

And that is the answer to what you ask "WAHT THE BLOODY HEL WERE FIGHTER JETS MEANT TO DO? SHOOT DOWN FOUR, FULL, UNARMED, PASSENGER JETS, OVER NEW YORK CITY CENTER?"

Sadly this is whats should happen if hijackers decide to use a plane as a missile in highly populated areas, or into nuclear facilities.

Sadly what should happen is you shoot it down and accept that a few lives have to be given to save many. Its a utalitarian principle.

Shooting them down would cause the least harm.

This is fine, but none of this happened. No jets intercepted anything that day. In fact even the pentagons missile defence system failed.

i have answered your question, yes thats what they were meant to do, that is what an air defence does.

I love tough questions ask me more.

Blair supporter i would recommend you read "Confessions of an economic hitman"
Its a very frank an honest book and gives you an insight into how far our govts. and big business go to get what they want.

  • 45.
  • At 04:51 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Phill wrote:

To - Greg Aitken.

You’re entirely missing the point.

Fighter escort response is and was a standard procedure before and after 9/11. Getting Presidential permission to shoot down airliners etc, etc, is beside the point. It’s not the issue.

Fighters are supposed to incept and escort planes that have lost radio contact. Many episodes like this occurred before and after 9/11. On 9/11 fighters should have at least been on an intercept course to track at least one of the four hijacked planes that day.

Look at this site an the considerable efforts made to intercept the late Payne Stewart Learjet when radio contact was lost.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-4906

Yet on 9/11 there were four planes recognised as hijacked and no effective response. Not only is that strange, it represent gross failure of military standard procedure for US air defence. On the one day it was really needed, the most advanced military nation in the world failed to respond at all.

It's not a case of what would those fighters have done if they intercepted the air liners. Its why did that never happen? Why were no fighters even on the way at the time each plane crashed? I'm not pointing a finger, laying blame. People would just like to have that and other such questions answered.

It's deeply frustrating that people fail to understand that those who question what happened on 9/11 simply want answers to valid questions. Not to blame others.

  • 46.
  • At 05:40 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Phill wrote:

To Joe response 38.

"I'm sorry but when have terrorists atrocities ever been rational? or indeed the terrorists themselves."

So the only rational for what happen on 9/11 was that it was the act irrational extremist terrorist.

Rather than say the rational act of people who might have something to gain. Indeed a crazy notion. It's depressing how easily people dismiss possibility when they have little to lose from considering possibility and everything to lose by trusting a government that invaded another country on false information.

Regardless, what I find most interesting about all of the comments on this page is that all the "doubters" of 9/11 in specific are generally asking for answers to questions. All the "accepters" dismiss these questions by saying something along the lines of "Oh, how could a government possibly be involved, that's ridiculous." Yes it is ridiculous, but they asked questions, they didn’t make accusations.

People want answers. Regardless of who they believe was responsible, the majority of the “nutters” will go away and stop annoying others if answers are provided.

If one person can give me an explanation as to why World Trade 7 collapsed at near free fall speed having suffered minimal impact and fire damage; the first steel building to ever to collapse from fire damage. I'll stop asking that question.

If I've somehow still got your attention take please take 51 seconds to watch this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&mode=related&search=

Again. No steel building had ever collapsed from fire alone yet here we have a policeman telling by standers WTC7 it is about to collapse. How could he know that? Lucky guess? He sounded pretty sure of himself. Or did someone tell him that? If someone told him, how did they know that the first collapse of a steel building from fire alone was about to occur?

The 9/11 commission report gives no explanation.

Answer, that’s all that is wanted.

  • 47.
  • At 07:08 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

BlairSupporter, I never said Blair was involved. It's not as simple as simply choosing between "muslim terrorists did it" or "Bush/Blair did it".

Ragnar, I don't see your question as being a particularly informed one. Suicide attacks by plane have been around for a long time and the CIA knew of the "Bojinka plot" in '96 that involved airliners. In the G8 summit in Genoa in '01 Bush stayed on-board an aircraft apparently in order to protect him from just such an emergency. There are also reports that there were anti-aircraft missiles on the roof of Bush's hotel on the morning of Sept 11th. NORAD was also carrying out simulated exercises on 9/11 against the exact same thing.

Bear in mind that United 93 was brought down by passengers (apparently) who sacrificed their own lives in order to save more people who would've died if the plane had crashed into a built up area. It's a very simple equation to bring down a jet liner that's heading towards a built up area.

Remember also Payne Stewart's private jet which had a fighter escort accompany it when it went off course (pilot and passengers lost consciousness). As I recall the plane ran out of fuel and crashed in the sea but I'm sure the fighter pilots would've shot it down if they thought that would save a built up area.

  • 48.
  • At 07:09 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

BlairSupporter, I never said Blair was involved. It's not as simple as simply choosing between "muslim terrorists did it" or "Bush/Blair did it".

Ragnar, I don't see your question as being a particularly informed one. Suicide attacks by plane have been around for a long time and the CIA knew of the "Bojinka plot" in '96 that involved airliners. In the G8 summit in Genoa in '01 Bush stayed on-board an aircraft apparently in order to protect him from just such an emergency. There are also reports that there were anti-aircraft missiles on the roof of Bush's hotel on the morning of Sept 11th. NORAD was also carrying out simulated exercises on 9/11 against the exact same thing.

Bear in mind that United 93 was brought down by passengers (apparently) who sacrificed their own lives in order to save more people who would've died if the plane had crashed into a built up area. It's a very simple equation to bring down a jet liner that's heading towards a built up area.

Remember also Payne Stewart's private jet which had a fighter escort accompany it when it went off course (pilot and passengers lost consciousness). As I recall the plane ran out of fuel and crashed in the sea but I'm sure the fighter pilots would've shot it down if they thought that would save a built up area.

  • 49.
  • At 09:46 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • nehad ismail wrote:

Conspiracy theories are not recent phenomena. Since the time of Adam and Eve, there have been conspiracy theories. From Roman Times until modern times people thrived on speculation and analysis of events involving death.
In recent times, the asassination of John F. Kennedy, the death of Marilyn Monre and more recently the death of Princess Diane and Dodo Fayed in a road accident are still the subject of conspiracy theories.
The 9/11 2001 events provided vast material for conspiracy theorists. I heard the strangest stories about this particular event.

What is worrysome, just last month,
another small pilot plane
was able to fly over the Hudson River,
and bash into another apartment
building? No security if one is flying
under 1,000ft or less! One doesn't
even have to report, or be on radar.

This is not a conspiracy theory, and
what is still happening after the
9/11 event, is a part of the same
administration, which vowed to
protect the whole of its Country.

I believe that anything is possible.

Blos
blossomf@videotron.ca

  • 51.
  • At 10:54 AM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Matthew Stringer wrote:

"The reason we haven't gone deeper is that there's surely no rational explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent inconsistencies."

If you only take things at face value don't get upset if one day you discover that you're being lied to.

Matthew

  • 52.
  • At 10:56 AM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • John R wrote:

The main problem I have with many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they assume a level of governmental competence yet to be seen in any other area of their operation. Is it conceivable that the same US government that has tried and failed to kill Castro multiple times could have accomplished such elaborate schemes as some of the conspiracists propose? Could Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, who have proved so utterly clueless when it came to the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, have so skilfully hoodwinked the world on 9/11?

Of course we have been lied to - but these are lies to cover up failures of intelligence and failures to act to prevent the attacks. And of course the unscrupulous have profited by the situation - but war profiteers are nothing new.

The Bush Government certainly could has planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, but I have far less difficulty believing that a small group of lunatics did it than the current shower in the White House.

  • 53.
  • At 12:49 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Robert Stevenson wrote:

There are legitimate concerns regarding the 9/11 official narrative. David Ray Griffin outlines all the discrepencies in his book about the 9/11 commision report. His other book 'The New Pearl Harbour' gives the most plausible and so far convincing sequence of events and also outlines the reasons why this covert operation took place. The links between the CIA , the ISI and Al Qaeda are historical fact and any journalist worth there salt should know this. Paul Thomson's work is convincing as is the work Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed. In fact if anyone wants a clearer understanding of what happened on 9/11 just look at the work of the three writers mentioned. You can access a lot of their work on the web. If you have broadband watch '9/11 Press for Truth' on Google Video. There is a lot of distracting disinformation and misinformation knocking around which serves to discredit their work and prolong the belief in the official narrative. There will never be an official independent investigation into 9/11 because this kind of truth is not meant for public consumption (or understanding).

  • 54.
  • At 01:39 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Barbara wrote:

It would have been impossible for the Bush administration not to know that 9/11 was coming. That's one of the first notes of the official story to fall. Secondly, NORAD did not respond? What?

The Pentagon had no defense for incoming? They were said to have had two systems which were turned off. And, VP Dick Cheney in control.

The myth that this is conspiracy-free America must fall.

And, how did the hijackers -- all supposedly Muslim -- benefit? By watching devastation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Unlikely.

What we are offered in response to conspiracy is coincidence theories which fall as quickly as they are promoted.

And, the significance of the three CIA agents in the ballroom of the hotel where Bobby Kennedy was killed
is not only in their presence, but in their specific histories.

Some of the more prominent researchers on 9/11 have requested the European community to gather information, as well; if not, also, to hold official investigations.

For those who think these questions lead to something too long ago, too mysterious to bother with, let me add that most of the events, names, motives re the JFK assassination were known almost immediately; the motives being that clear. Same for the RFK assassination, though the new evidence contributes further to our understanding of how it was done.
And, the fact of a "conspiracy" in the assassination of Martin Luther King has been confirmed by a jury and most of the details have been put down in a book by the lawyer who represented the family.

What we are often working our way through is the cover-ups, because there is no such thing as a perfect crime. The cover-up is all important.


  • 55.
  • At 04:58 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Gregor aitken wrote:

Two big ones for you

Watergate was a conspiracy theory
Arms to iran was a conspiracy theory

And i am sure there have been many more
did half the italian govt not resign at one point.

These conspiracy theories do turn out to be true remember as well as nonsense.

And i am sure when the facts have been cleared up we will know the truth.

  • 56.
  • At 05:56 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Josephine White wrote:

If I can interrupt this 9/11 conspiracy frenzy for a moment...

Its perfectly reasonable for the BBC to be wary of conspiracy theories and I understand why.
What I CANNOT understand is why they are so loath to investigate and expose conspiracy FACTS!

Like, why for example, all three major political parties in Britain are complicit in strengthening Britains membership of the EU while the vast majority of the British public are either passionately opposed or at least highly cynical and very wary of Britains membership.

And why the British public have not been allowed a say or a vote on Britains membership of the EU in over 30 years?
Forget the theories.. this is a FACT, and yet the BBC consistently refuses to address the EU issue.

As the BBC is bought and paid for by the British public ( apart from the huge grants it receives from the EU for staying "on message" of course) this is generally regarded as one of the greatest scandals of our times.

  • 57.
  • At 06:27 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Ian Downing wrote:

Money lost by the Enron scandal will be recouped by the Iraq war.

It is quite surprising that doubts expressed at the time of the Iraq invasion have proved to be correct.

How long can there be any justification for Guantanemo Bay - Bush's equivalent of 'reds under the bed'.

I wonder if the US disgraced bully boys (the neocons) will fade into the woodwork for the next ten years.

Maybe Iraq will be able to sort itself out by then.

  • 58.
  • At 10:13 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • Ragnar wrote:

"44.* gregor aitken wrote:
and yes the standard operating procceedure at that time was for any and all aircraft that stray from their flightpath would be intercepted by noraid."

You will find there is a massive difference between NORAD (North American Air Defence, and NORAID, an organisation set up to supply funds to the IRA.

Hopwever I digress.

Allong with;
43.Philip wrote:

Ragnar No 39----your ignorance is staggering----"

As a recently retired Tornadoe piulot with the Luftwaffe, you do NOT have to tell ME "contact procedures".

So Philip, "your ignorance is staggering"

Feel a touch silly now do you?

I have also, since 9/11 spoken to a pilot of ANY nation that would have obeyed those orders.

  • 59.
  • At 01:00 AM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • blossom wrote:

Mr. Stevenson:
How right you are... Consider that all were
Democrats who were assasinated in the
US, because they were all promoting
human-rights, and values, and
depricating corruption in government.
It was already proved, that there
were no WMD, and yet the 'bush'
administration lead to the immediate
invasion of Iraq, without even the
approval of the US security council!
What about the constant lies since,
about the winnibility of this chaotic
war
in Iraq, and that the bringing down
of the statue of Sadam Heussein, was
done by the tidings of the 'bush' team ,tidings of good show, rather
than what was reflected by the Iraqi
people themselves.
Why din't they go after al quaeda
immediately? I do not believe in the
much "stupidity" theory, since they
are smart enough to initiate whatever
they plan to do, and it seems to work
for their administration, and against
all others.
Recalling Mr. North,after the alledged rebukes, to replace Donald
Rumsfeld, is another travesty of the 'bush'
administration of getting what it wants.
Why does he refuse talks with Iran,
and Syria?
Call it what you may, but there are
a lot of unanswered theories out
there, and as you have wisely put it,
we, the public, are just not meant
to know those facts. But we can guess!

If you will remembr katrina, which
devestated the coast; whereby, once
again 'bush' landed, and promised
to rebuild, and this is not a conspiracy, but actual, that they
would rather rebuild the Casinos, etc... rather than rebuild for their
own forgotten poor citizens. Another
blemish, but one that is welcomed by
this administration. There is a lot
of valuable property out there, and
certainly those developers who will
tend to make the almighty dollar,
will surely acquire this promised
land.
They bought the trailers, but omitted
to deliver them. Now at the cost
of millions of dollars to the tax-
payers, they have
wrotted. Is this really poor mis-management? Or desired for future
prosperity?
Musn't forget also, that they knew
that the 'dams' were not strong
enough to sustain the waters from
inflitrating the Coast, and causing
such devestation.
The list goes on and on, and if the
Dems won with a majority in this last
vote,
it was a referandum against
"bush", and his cronys!
Ask the people of N.Y. what they
think 5 yrs. later about 9/11...
They still do not know the truth, and
are still asking serious questions.

Blos
blossomf@videotron.ca

  • 60.
  • At 05:29 AM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Mahmud Ibrahim wrote:

Peter,

Can you rationally explain how an Hijacker's Passport was found in a building we were told was so hot that steel melted away very quickly???

How did a LARGE boeing aircraft crash into the Pentagon building without living much debris and charred remains of all those killed??

How could an aviation fuel known to burn at a lower temperature, melt steel which needs considerably higher temperature to melt?

Why were those supposedly fanatic and extremist Muslim hijackers - we were told - were partying away with wine, women and eating pork chops, the night prior to their martydom!

Why did those 'Arabs' live a Van at the airport parking that contained aircraft manual in Arabic, a copy of the Koran, and other paraphenalia that could easily expose their trail? Would a thief cover his/her tracks or advertise themselves as they did?

I could go on with a dozen such questions that defy logic sorrounding that tragic event.

But ofcourse, to Peter Barron and his likes, this line of questioning is not rational!!!

  • 61.
  • At 12:53 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • gregor aitken wrote:

For those who bundle 911 and 7/7 in with the moon landings and diana i would like them to remember

Watergate was a conspiracy
The Iran-Contra affair was a conspiracy


Sometimes these conspiracy theories are proved to be true, so, rather than dismissing something as a conspiracy theory and therefore nonsense, why dont we look into these things and then either disprove them or prove them.

Adopt a scientific approach or even dare i say a journalistic approach.

Also i am loving the amout of petty insults that are thrown the way of anyone who questions the official theory.

I have been called a conspiracy fruitcase by ragnar and another blogger suggested that conspiracy is what

"lazy people look for instead of the more complex and less emotionally satisfying reality of a messy world"

Its also been mentioned that people like me due to our lack of spirituality need something to believe in.


Why do these people have such vitriol towards those they disagree with and why the desire to insult rather than disprove any of the relevant questions.

ragnar especially seems to be upset that folks question the theory.

why is this ragnar?

Why not just answer some basic questions rather than trying to humiliate the questioners

Just a thought.

I also go back to the point i made at the start newsmen like Peter Barron dont have an agenda against the truth its just that they are so engrained in the prevailing news culture they genuinly cant see the evidence. Its almost like their job is to just report the current news agenda rather than working to find the truth. (11 and 7/7 does just not fit into the 9-5 of the modern newsroom.

I think the woodward and bernsteins that we believe exist in the press are no longer there. Now it is about reporting live now from somewhere where nothing is happening rather than giving a journalist time to seek out the truth.

I find it a worry that the journalistic standards have plummeted to such a poor level just when we really needed the jounalists to work hard to find the truth.

I fear most news is spoonfed to the newsrooms from reuters and the press accociation and if they dont say its news then it aint news.

Which leaves us where?

  • 62.
  • At 02:17 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Steve wrote:

The safest conspiracies are those that would most stretch people's sense of credibility and sense of security.

As J. Edgar Hoover famously said, "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

People like to analyse the mindset of those drawn to conspiracy theories, and there's a certain validity to that insofar as those who are drawn to ALL conspiracy theories. But it's also interesting to analyse the mindset of those who appear overly keen to dismiss them with ridicule.

If we look at the reaction to the suggestion that 9/11 was orchestrated domestically, there's a lot of fear detectable in people's responses.

They fear having their sanity questioned, so they quicky dismiss it with talk of loony tunes and tinfoil hats, lumping it alongside the likes of Area 51 and Elvis in this broad category called "conspiracy theory".

They fear having their patriotism questioned, so they continue under the myth that their own country is somehow uniquely benign in the world (even though just about every country has that same myth).

They fear having their sensitivity to the victims questioned by being wrong, so they suggest that those differing in their opinion of 9/11 are themselves being reckless with the memories of the deceased and the feelings of the bereaved.

And they fear the possibility of their sources of trust having been misplaced all these years. So if it's not in the House of Commons or on the nightly news, it's not happening.

Which of course is where you come in. Not with some hastily packaged 10-minute slot lazily acting as lip-service to the crazier strands of 9/11 conspiracy theories (complete with X-files soundtrack and handheld camera because you fear having your credibility questioned by taking it seriously). But rather a calm, rational, meticulously researched *long-term* investigation. One that may not even air for a couple of years if that's where it takes you.

In terms of world affairs, 9/11 has undoubtedly been the most significant event of our time, in terms of what happened, where it happened, and what it started. Any investigation deserves nothing less than a thoroughly serious treatment.

How about you identify a small panel of your researchers who are at least open-minded enough to take on something like this, even if you don't broadcast the fact?

  • 63.
  • At 03:28 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Gavin wrote:


Ragnar (58) the Tornadoe you puiloted (sic.) was it anything similar to the a Tordnado Multi Role Fighter that are sometimes piloted by the German airforce?

I doubt Philip (43) does feel silly now as you appear to have agreed with him: "I have also, since 9/11 spoken to a pilot of ANY nation that would have obeyed those orders."

Lets assume that what you meant to say is that you have not spoken to a pilot since 9/11 who would shoot down an airliner and scarifice 100s of lives to save 1000s. (This is probably because you've never actually spoken to a fighter pilot at all ever.) But lets be kind and take you at fave value is it then your conjecture that these fighter pilots are either a). In league with Al Quaeda and want terrorist plots to succeed or b). Just can't count?

Incidently I've noticed that fighter piots are able to bomb Iraqui cities with out too much of a problem. Are you suggesting that a morals only kick in when they have the chance to save their own people?

  • 64.
  • At 03:53 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Fred Sales wrote:

What I find interesting is the fact that certain "characters" in the "JFK drama" appear in the "9/11 drama". They appear in the Iraq debacle. In the Afghanistan mess. In the Iran-Contra mess. Why? I would venture an answer. "Because they are good at playing this game, a game that is very dangerous and one that has nothing to do with Democracy." :-) Cheers.

  • 65.
  • At 08:37 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Let's be honest here - no mainstream news organisation is going to ask serious questions about 9/11. Case in point - the anthrax letters in October 2001 where all sent to journalists or opposition politicians. The anthrax was traced to an American military base and...funnily enough the case was never solved. Are you going to be the journalist who follows that up...I doubt it. Some things are just too sensitive and too dangerous to pry into...as a couple of Russians have found out recently after investigating their own conspiracy theory concerning the Moscow apartment bombings in '99 and the casus belli for the invasion of Chechnya.

Steve,

I am quite sensitive to quotes that
J. Edgar Hoover might have made on
any point! He would know more about
corruption, than any one of us!

Blos

  • 67.
  • At 04:00 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • Phil Howe wrote:

I have been writing to the BBC for several years now asking them why they have not investigated the questions surrounding 911, of which there are many. Never have I received a reply or has the BBC, In 5 years, ever made a reasonable attempt to do the job they are paid to do. INVESTIGATE.

I fail to see how the offical version of 911 can be regarded as rational, lol, please, we have brains you know, alt least some of us :0)


My prediction is that the bbc programme on 9/11 will attempt to undermine those who question 911, retort with the usual 'psychology of conspiracy theorists' argument, and basically scoff at the idea of a conspiracy.

Imagine if the BBC actually proved me wrong and remembered what investigative journalism really is.

Over here in the Netherlands we are miles ahead(I am a british ex pat), Dutch prime news frequently questions the official version of 911 and runs hard hitting documentaires on the subject. It seems to me the BBC is afraid of being left behind and shown to be somewhat complicit in the event by way of its lack of investigative journalism for 5 YEARS!!!

Please BBC, it is high time you did your job and did it well.


Many thanks

blossom said:

"Mr. Stevenson: How right you are... Consider that all were Democrats who were assasinated in the US, because they were all promoting
human-rights, and values, and
depricating corruption in government."

Just as well Blair is not President of the USA then, otherwise he might be next in line, since he is now promoting British "values". And on human rights Blair has a long history. Oh yes he has! I could only find 11,000 links on the web on that (though I expect some of them are anti)!

Here's one:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:vD46PXw8ltMJ:www.mediaculture-online.de/fileadmin/bibliothek/blair_speech/blair_speech.pdf+human+rights+and+Tony+Blair

As for corruption in government - the jury's still out. Believe it or not, it is! So enough said on that. But two out of three should be good enough for most of you on here, don't you think?

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com

  • 69.
  • At 07:59 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • Mexworkman wrote:

Conspiracy theory or conspiracy fact? Why is it so difficult to separate these two completely different ideas? I believe that something should be labelled "conspiracy theory" when based on a plausible version of how and why certain events took place, but lacking in crucial evidence to warrant further investigation into the matter. On the other hand, such evidence HAS been provided as in the case of 911 for example the obscene amount of put options in American Airlines stock just days before 911. This as in many other identifiable key points of evidence have been bundled in the wacky busload of "conspiracy theories " and "conspiracy theorists". Why is it so easy to ignore the truth as if it is just some mere hypothesis?

  • 70.
  • At 08:15 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • espontaneo wrote:

the media can tell us what they want and we can only listen, if they(you) say its true then the majority tend to buy it, we're a dumb trustworthy lot who don't want the hassle of thinking for ourselves. the military,the monetary, the government and the media are dirty bedfellows...aren't you, aren't woo, yesh woo are, yesh woo are! too much conspiracy, why should we trust you, haven't you bought into this nonsense, you who make your own name be regurgitating the associated press.. nah i think you think for yourself, really i don't...men are lazy, fact, now roll over and let me rub your belly...

  • 71.
  • At 10:49 PM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • robert woods wrote:

To:
Sandra Sedgwick, France

Yes something did happen in that tunnel,the car CRASHED,Period

The several conspiracy theories about
death of Lady Diana Spencer and her titled "boyfriend" Mr.Dodi AlFayed and unfortunate driver by night at Paris Alma tunnel are yet under discussions on the world midia nowadays...
But in common sense many of those ones has no chance to be accepted by a further analysis of the situation happened on that night..
But a certain mystery and unclear points has to be seen as a real possibility which deserve a better investigation without paranoia and emotional distress...
Certainly only all real true will be knowed not NOW or in a near future...
But at least in the next 50 years maybe...
After death of many celebrities concerned with the case....
The rest it is pure speculations for scandal makers over the press and public opinion even after ten years of Lady Diana,late Princess of Wales tragic death under not yet completely cleared event that may not be ignored furtherly by the british public opinion and worldwide as well...

  • 73.
  • At 10:57 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
  • Matthew Stewart-Smith wrote:

The best information I've seen about 9/11 is Dave McGowan's Center for an Informed America newsletters, which describes all of the questions about it in detail and presents, IMHO, the most plausible scenario: that it was intended for flight 77 to hit the Pentagon and flight 93 to hit probably the White House first, but things didn't go completely to plan and they had to improvise with a missile - hence all the glaring inconsistencies about those things.

Steven Jones' paper is also well worth reading - don't be put off by the description of it as an academic "paper", it's not difficult to understand and presents a clear case for the twin towers having been demolished, complete with pictures and links to videos.

For anyone willing to delve deeper into "conspiracy theories", I'd also like to point out that the complete text of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, a book written in 1971, is available on-line. It can be summed up in the title of one chapter: "Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution". Something that immediately struck me reading this book was that very little attention is paid in the mainstream news media and history textbooks to the power of central banks and the role of money (loans to governments etc.) in shaping international affairs. Some people claim that there is a huge, centuries-old conspiracy to create a "New World Order" - and I believe this looks a lot more plausible once one understands that bankers (who stay behind the scenes) wield far more power than politicians (whose words and deeds we hear about). The video "Monopoly Men" is also worth watching.

  • 74.
  • At 01:53 AM on 11 Dec 2006,
  • Steve Lane wrote:

"The reason we haven't gone deeper is that there's surely no rational explanation for the attacks other than that they were carried out by two groups of Islamist terrorists, however puzzling some of apparent inconsistencies."

There is a very rational explanation.
These were false flag operations using willing dupes.
It is a common CIA practice.
Both American and British governments have used these events in much the same way as Hitler used the Riechstag Fire. Its to condition people to fear terror so they will be prepared to give up prieviously cherished fundamental human rights. We are now living in a country where your every move can be logged.
We are expected to trust our government with this power and that they will never missuse it.
Our freedoms now come as permissions not rights.

Our governments have used those events to persuade us that the War on Terror and our preemptive invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are right and necessary for our security. Remember it was not Afghans that were alleged to plot 911 it was Saudis funded from Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI.
These are apparently our allies so we can't invade them
Remember also that Saddam had no WMD and was never a serious threat to us. This was known by many well before the war, including our leaders but they willingly distorted the intelligence and even lied to us.
Why? What did they hope to gain?

We are being subtly pushed to fear Middle Eastern people especially Moslems. As it is mostly Moslem countries in the Middle East that own the oil or the routes for its delivery we demand to control. Is this a coincidence?

  • 75.
  • At 08:00 AM on 14 Dec 2006,
  • Ragnar wrote:

61 Gregor Aitken
Why do these people have such vitriol towards those they disagree with and why the desire to insult rather than disprove any of the relevant questions.
ragnar especially seems to be upset that folks question the theory.
why is this ragnar?"
I do not totaly dissagree with the theory. In fact I can quite see where it would benefit Bush more than it did A.Q.
What I do hate is stupid comments about shooting down passenger jets over New York, or ANY other city.
1)NO one would give the order (Or better saiod, some one, at LEAST one in the chain of command, would refuse).
2)NO pilot would, either on moral grounds, or out of concern of later doing life, OR death, in Leavenworth, as the U.S (Or ANY countries) Governments scape goat.
(See Lindy Walker and the Abu Grahib fiasco.)
It was Nürnburg that established the principal legal precidence, that the responsibility of carrying out an order rests with the man that pressed the button. Allthough the chain of command may be culpible, the trigger finger is ultimately answerable.
Another falacy of reasoning. "Steel does not melt at such low tempratures". No may be not. But we are not talking about two men and an oxy-cetelyn bottle. We are talking about a heat which would DEFFINATELY damage the steel, PLUS how many thousand tons resting dirrectly on top of it? Add in the chimney effect and the windage at that height. It is the combination, NOT, as the fruit cakes choose, the individual componants, that brought the buildings down.As to the other building "WTC 7"(?), how long do you think YOUR house would last if some one dropped a couple of hundred thousands tons of burning steel and concrete in the back garden?

  • 76.
  • At 01:49 PM on 14 Dec 2006,
  • Phill wrote:

To Ragner.

WTC7.... Best guesses and assumptions don't hold up against confusing facts. My house like most peoples houses are not made of 47 stories of fire proofed construction steel. Ludicrous comparisons don't make sound judgement.

WTC7 was not critically damaged by the fall of the North Tower. Even if it was critically damaged why did it fall down symmetrically, the entire building collapsing in 6 seconds.
47 stories falling in 6 seconds equals a falling speed that is just outside 10% of the free fall speed in a vacuum. That's based on some "fruit cake" notion called physics, daft I know.

People don't want explanations by comparison of what would happen if the Twin Towers collapsed in their back garden. They want scientific evidence. A steel building entirely collapsing at nearly free fall speed? Does that remotely make sense? Does it make sense that, the 9/11 Commission, FEMA or the NSIT have not come up with any credible explanation?

Whoops I forgot, 80% of the steel from ground zero was shipped off and sold to India and China for recycling within weeks of 9/11, there's no evidence left to do science on.

…………Cos that’s what you do with evidence from a massive crime scene, you sell it for recycling.

And I'm a fruit cake for being suspicious?


  • 77.
  • At 03:51 PM on 14 Dec 2006,
  • Bryan wrote:

Before I start, I should point out that I have absolutely no evidence on which to base this theory, but then the same could be said for many of the suggestions I have seen floating around lately...


There has been extensive discussion of the fact that the damage caused to the pentagon was inconsistent with the impact of a fully-loaded jet liner. It has also been stated that any such impact would leave recognisable debris, i.e. wings, engines, passenger's belongings.

Could it be that on this occasion the US Air Force were able to intercept the hijacked flight, or the pentagon's own anti-aircraft defences were activated? The lesser damage incurred may be consistent with wreckage from a shot-down aircraft impacting with the pentagon.

The political fallout from such an act would have been enormous, particularly in view of the fact that similar measures were not taken to protect civilian targets. As such, the military would be keen to remove all physical evidence as soon as practicable...

  • 78.
  • At 10:59 AM on 15 Dec 2006,
  • Ragnar wrote:

That should read Lindey ENGLAND, NOT Lindey Wlker. Who is some one else.

It is a shame that people let a phrase "conspiracy theory" prevent them from examining basic facts and drawing basic conclusions. This even applies to officials tasked with completing funded investigations into "anomalous events".

Some facts:

1) WTC 7 collapsed to the ground into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. No plane hit. Video comparisons between it and the collapse of Fort Worth Towers show all that it was a controlled demolition.

2) WTC 1 & 2 collapsed to pulverised dust in 8 & 10 seconds and there is no possible way this could have happened without explosives being used.

These are facts - which cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory.

It baffles me why journalists have not followed up on statements of credible witnesses like William Rodriguez and the research of people like Prof David Ray Griffin and others (and Newsnight and others have been offered this opportunity).

  • 80.
  • At 08:06 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
  • steve shallcross wrote:

unanswered questions !

How did building 7 fall down when it only sustained a few fires ? The very same building that contained the CIA ,FBI and the mayors bunker !

Never before has any high rise building collapsed due to fire until 911 when THREE fall down ? three firsts in one day ???

A boing 757 makes a 16 -20 foot hole in the pentagon the most fortified building on this planet ? the amazing shrinking plane !

Facts of that day

Fact the twin towers came down at freefall speed no resistance defying the laws of physics !

fact norad failed to intercept not just 1 but 3 planes that had gone awol laughable.

Conclusion
The north and south tower and building seven which got no tv coverage ?
failing floor trusses holds no water and is laughable.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION !!

Pentagon wasnt hit by a boeing 757 impossible simple

That most of the the debunkers of conspiracy theorists (including Maddox) choose to try to attack the theorists personally, rather than the evidence and arguments that they present, speaks volumes. It's playground stuff - rather than dealing with the evidence and arguments in an informed, careful and intelligent manner, they'd rather make the whole thing a mess by being insulting and rude. I can only presume that this is because the debunkers are incapable of actually dealing with the evidence properly.

For those interested, I strongly recommend both of David Ray Griffin's books on 9/11, especially the second one on the Commission Report itself. I've watched numerous documentaries on these topics and the best that are freely available are the lectures by Griffin, and the movie '9/11 Mysteries', both of which are on youtube and Google video. It's also worth noting that the BBC Timewatch series did a three-part programme on Operation Gladio back in 1992, fully 9 years prior to 9/11. This three parter is also available on Google video.

  • 82.
  • At 09:29 PM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • Raymond Denson wrote:

There are many people who will not look seriously and objectively at the evidence of government agency in the events of 9/11 because they believe that it is inconceivable that an American government would purposefully destroy its own citizens.
I am reminded of Alexander Werth's visit to Majdanek extermination camp in 1944. When he described the mounds of human ash, the partially consumed bodies in the crematoria and the tens of thousands of shoes, his report was rejected by the BBC. They said that what he portrayed was inconceivable.
Sometimes the inconceivable is true.
The Nazis too destroyed their own citizens in the pursuit of power.

  • 83.
  • At 09:44 PM on 25 Jan 2007,
  • Raymond Denson wrote:

On September 11th 2001, three skyscapers collapsed. The destruction of WTC No7, which was not hit by a plane, is the most difficult to explain in terms of an attack by Arab terrorists. We, the naive public, require maximum guidance at this point, a detailed account in simple terms.
What do we get? The Report of the 9/11 Commission doesn't mention this building at all! Isn't this in itself prima facie evidence of a coverup?

  • 84.
  • At 11:54 PM on 09 May 2007,
  • I. Z. Y. wrote:

How can the twin towers collaps faster the free fall speed? (It is a scientific fact that in free fall, the speed will be at most "g"). The newspaper writers do not know this and they can not see the fantastic fall of the towers. Addditionaly they do not broadcast the videos where the firemans say "many bombs in the building". Belive in witness testimonies, not the what you hear or read.

This post is closed to new comments.

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.