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

Answering 9/11 questions

Mike Rudin Mike Rudin | 16:37 UK time, Friday, 16 February 2007

I certainly agree with the comments about the need to remember how tragic the events of 9/11 were.

There should be no escaping the fact that nearly three thousand innocent people lost their lives that day.

But I don’t think that respect for the victims and their relatives is a reason to avoid reporting why so many innocent people lost their lives.

It does mean that we should report sensitively.

We hope we have done so in our film about 9/11. And we hear from the sister of a man who lost his life at the World Trade Centre. It is important that the voice of people such as Cheryl Shames is heard.

You cannot ignore the fact that there are a lot of questions about what exactly happened on 9/11.

Chris Townsend makes the valid point that the sheer number of conspiracies should not be mistaken for the depth and breadth of evidence supporting them.

But again I don’t think that is a reason to avoid investigating the questions that have been raised. In fact I think the sheer number of questions is one reason why they should be properly investigated.

I think that any subsequent investigation should be based firmly on the evidence. And we have tried wherever possible to speak to eyewitnesses and to find hard documentary evidence.

Have a look at our Question and Answer section on our website, where we have set out the arguments for and against, and the evidence we have found.

You’ll have to watch on Sunday and make your own mind up how well we answered the many questions that have been raised.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 05:48 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Mark Morton wrote:

As much as I'm a supporter of the BBC, I think you're morally on very dodgy ground including the death of Dr David Kelly in this programme.

'Press Releases: Nearly a quarter surveyed believe Dr David Kelly did not commit suicide - BBC poll', http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/02_february/16/conspiracy.shtml

Regardless of what anyone may think of the Hutton Inquiry, I found it distasteful that the BBC is featuring conspiracy theories in relation that a death that the corporation itself was implicated in.

If you have evidence to suggest that the death of Dr Kelly wasn't suicide, then present it, but for the vast majority of people who accept the coroner's verdict on his death, even asking the question starts to make people disbelieve the official version of events, when you're not presenting any opposing views in your press release.

Some may say that the BBC is trying to remove the blame that it holds, partially, for Dr Kelly's death.

I'd just like to point out that although you may be able to find lots of different theories on 9/11 (some completely ridiculous), the majority of the people in the 9/11 truth movement agree on SO MANY facts and do NOT endorse the few people making up crazy stuff mainly to discredit us.

We are serious people, who've done serious research and no steel frame building has ever collapsed through fire, except for 3 buildings on September 11th, 2001.

And anyone who doubts that something was very wrong that day, I'd like to pose some questions:

What happened to Building 7?

It wasn't hit by a plane...so how did it collapse?

And why is the owner of the building in a documentary saying on camera that they decided to 'pull' the building and they watched the buildind collapse?


There is endless things to research. So figure it out for yourself! Don't let them take you for a ride!

  • 3.
  • At 07:15 PM on 16 Feb 2007,
  • Cosmin Maris wrote:

I really hope that Guy Smith decides to air the balanced view which indicate that 9/11 was an inside job and not the 9/11 Truth hit piece that wants to stifle dissent and ensure that truthers are seen as some strange cult.

Speak up now people for reason!

I found Thursday’s Jeremy Vine show on 9/11 utterly excruciating. Insane nonsensical bunk about "Lizard men running the planet" and "Holograms hitting the Towers" completely destroys the valid, fair and reasonable concerns of millions of people. There are literally hundreds of far more credible points that could have been discussed, namely the blatant and troubling omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report.

It seems the most ridiculous nonsense was selected for discussion yesterday, none of which is advocated by 99% of the people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Madness about "no planes hitting the Towers" is actually regarded as something so ridiculous that it might even be something deliberately circulated to discredit everything else that’s credible. Also David Shayler is a very unpopular figure for spouting damaging nonsense. Why not have the people who are actually respected by the 9/11 Truth Movement like Michael Meacher MP or Tony Benn? Both of whom have called for a real investigation into the attacks.

The 9/11 truth movement stands for the fact that we still don’t know the truth about 9/11, and it’s imperative that such a vital truth be obtained. It stands for a real investigation, not “theories”. So I fear, much like yesterday’s radio show, the program this Sunday will grossly misrepresent the very group and issue it’s meant to be covering.

  • 5.
  • At 11:04 PM on 17 Feb 2007,
  • Ohtobemoderated wrote:

Doug, this will be a Whitewash.

The BBC Has no intentions of investigating this Criminal Act to any intensity, just look at the 'Questions and Answers' it's all bunkum.

Where's the investigation?

Where's the Journalism?

I probably could have done a better job this morning in my Shed, with a slide projector.

Mike i hope you are ashamed of yourself.

3,000 people died on 9/11 but hundreds of thousands more (also innocent) lives have been extinguished since this event, what about their families? Or don't they count?
It is all in direct correlation to what happened on 9/11.

And quoting 'evidence' from the 911 Commission report, is fasile and demeans your viewers/readers/listeners intelligence.

Do your Job BBC.

  • 7.
  • At 01:00 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • JJ wrote:

I concur 100% with Mr. Brown. It is utterly excruciating to come across these associations (Lizard Men - that's David Icke, isn't it?) and other misrepresentations which are an attempt to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is a common ploy of the CIA in America. Remember,
Lee Harvey Oswald was just a "lone nut" until it was later disclosed through de-classified documents and the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) that Oswald was in fact a CIA operative with a high-level security clearance.
The real investigation of 9/11 involves scores of Professionals (Engineers, Physicists, Architects...), Academics in many fields, Scientists, Explosives experts, etc. to the firefighter's themselves, the majority of whom heard multiple explosions upon the collapse of those structures.
Investigation and enquiry is not the work of lunatics.
Abetting criminal complicity in this event with malicious propaganda is not the work of true journalists and a crime in itself. The credibility and credentials of the "9/11 Truth Seekers" by far outweighs the paltry lot who perpetrate pap, TV crap and it's spin. PEOPLE WILL KNOW THE TRUTH. Especially over time. Steel frame buildings DO NOT collapse because of jet fuel - Engineering 101
Check out Professors Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones and Judy Wood on the Web and Wikepedia. Their scholarship and credentials are impeccable.


  • 8.
  • At 05:11 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Dave Fennimore wrote:

In a sane world, whatever's left of the BBC's credibility should disintegrate after this.

Concerning 9/11, might I point those with still-open minds towards the web-site www.911cultwatch.org.uk which performs exactly that function

I completely respect your right to take whatever positon you like regarding 9-11 but you cannot underestimate how absurd it comes off to those of us in the US. Well over 99% of republicans and democrats have zero doubt concerning any conspiracy along the lines you mention. However, as a fan of the BBC please keep it coming. It makes interesting reading and one never knows...

Very truly yours

HE Grant
Editor
www.playbackcommuications.blogspot.net

  • 11.
  • At 06:43 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • julia t. wood wrote:

I have another conspiracy theory, very similar to your conspiracy theory about US Government beind involved in the demolition of the Twin Towers:

When V1 and V2 rockets were raining down on London during WWII, the Nazi didn't had anything to do with it. There were no rockets with a range long enough to fly over the channel. In reality, it was Sir Winston Churchill who secretly ordered a super-covert operation to bomb London, murder thousands of civilians and blame the Germans for it.

Sounds credible?
Yes. As credible as your 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I hope you have the spinal fortitude to publish this commentary.

  • 12.
  • At 06:47 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • James Kay wrote:

I agree with Doug Brown. It was ashame that proper representatives of the truth movement couldn't discuss the real evidence of their conspiracy theories. It was very interesting what the former MI5 man had to say however I would have liked to of heard more evidence.

Such as Professors finding thermite in some samples of the WTC remains. Such as the tape released of firefighters radio transmissions in the WTC reporting bombs going off on the 8th and 10th floors. Such as the shaking of a tripod camera a great distance away from the Trade Centre before it collapased suggesting a huge explosion. The in-tact single turbine engine fan found in the Pentagon which couldn't be identified by a Rolls-Royce engineer. The black-box data being at an altitude too high to hit the lamp posts outside of the Pentagon. Questions which the Conspiracy-Files programme wouldn't lamely answer.

Why do we have to have some nut case come on to help people bring ridicule to those who seek the truth. I don't think any major media group will seriously question 911.

  • 13.
  • At 09:48 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • diane Stewart wrote:

The documentary is clearly not impartial. Through editorial style, wholesome credibility is given to anti-conspiracy witness's etc and this is not even cleverly woven into the documentary. The conspiratorists are contexualised in an amateur environment and shown to be little extreme or whacky. The programme does not address particular evidence which is central to the 'conspirators' allegation eg why the towers fell at such a fast rate? ie the speed of gravity. The programme just adds fuel to the conspirators theories - that they is an almighty cover up and the BBC are complicit in it now!

  • 14.
  • At 10:01 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Mike Hays wrote:

It saddens me that you didn't even tackle the questions raised by the families who lost relatives on 9/11. (9/11 Press for truth) All your program served to do was to cherry pick the information you wanted to release, so that you could make the people who are asking valid questions seem like angry, crazy conspiracy theorists.

The evidence doesn't support them, case closed?

Since you didn't even deal with 1/10th of the issues raised by the official story on 9/11 - issues raised by the families themselves! Then no - definitely not case closed. Your "documentary" is borderline propoganda, totally weighted unfairly against those who are asking very, very valid questions - and deserve answers that actually make sense about what happened on 9/11.

I used to think that the BBC made pretty good, impartial documentaries.

Not any more...

Hope your pay cheque was worth it.

  • 15.
  • At 10:02 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • tom wrote:

well that was a joke..
you should have called it "debunking the 9/11 conspiracy". yet again the BBC has managed to make a nice little propaganda piece. You entirely failed to document the actual evidence that forms the conspiracy around 9/11 and instead made vague references to the content of loose change and other, then referred to the very facts (as evidence against a conspiracy) that form the conspiracy in the first place..

I would happily have watched the program if properly titled, but frankly it was more fluffy BBC rubbish, lets hope that people have the presence of mind to go and look themselves..

  • 16.
  • At 10:04 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Coert wrote:

"Watch the programme on Sunday and see if we were up to the challenge." Short answer: obviously not. What a shallow program. For more interesting and in depth pro and con arguments check http://www.911truth.org (pro-conspiracy) & http://www.debunking911.com/ (con-conspiracy) and try to make up your own mind. Instead of watching a 'documentary' with a clear preconceived conclusion.

  • 17.
  • At 10:09 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • edward shore wrote:

9/11 Conspiracy files.

what a disappointment.
Didn't answer for me the fundamental question:
Is it true that satelite thermal imaging showed hot spots - high degree temperatures - that are unexplained by jet fuel, or not?

Was the steel shipped off to China in days or not?

Was there evidence of thermite or not?

Why spend so much time discussing improvables and irrelevancies...


why is there such a big conspiracy movement?

Cos the d*mn questions are never answered

  • 18.
  • At 10:10 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Richard Benjamin wrote:

Using Alex Jones and Loose Change to exemplify the kind of thinking of those who doubt the official account of 9/11 is as misleading as using the popular Sun newspaper to represent the cream of British political thinking.

  • 19.
  • At 10:11 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Anon wrote:

It is a shame that all conspiracy theories are bundled together and treated as a set.

Some are grounded in reality, some are nuts.

For example, why was so much of the program given to the rather daft "missing plane" theories whereas no demolition experts were interviewed regarding the collapses (hint: doing that kind of demolition is normally very, very expensive because it is very, very difficult)?

The physical evidence is too unstable to build a case on. Documentary evidence is better, Here's a good link.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Taking the most extreme interpretation of a theory and discrediting it is no help.

Also, why was there no discussion of historical precedent for self-inflicted wounds? (Perl Harbour, Operation Northwoods etc.)

Re-broadcast The Power of Nightmares and Century of the Self, please.

  • 20.
  • At 10:12 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • edward shore wrote:

how annoying to do a general sweep of the conspiracy and not answer any of the specific questions that the conspiracy theory thrives on...

the confiscated CCTV tape from hotels around the pentagon

the shipping of WTC steel to china

the thermal imaging which showed hotspots

the mobile phone calls from a jet in flight

i'm happy for the rich to carry on running the world if only some questions can be answered, otherwise I'm still another sceptic

  • 21.
  • At 10:13 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Hi,

I've just watched the show and found it fascinating.

While I’m not convinced by the official story I though the ending of the program made sense, it’s probably incompetence rather that a conspiracy.

I think the sad fact is that most people would prefer to think that there were some bad people in the USA government who were responsibly rather than having one of the most powerful nations on earth being this incompetent, which is much more scary!

  • 22.
  • At 10:14 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Jenni H wrote:

As a psychologist myself, I would be inclined to disagree with the assessment that what motivates belief in a 9/11 conspiracy theory is the desire to be part of a less threatening and more controlled/ordered world.

The reverse case could quite easily be made, perhaps more convincingly - that the leap to believing that your benign government is not so benign after all is infinitely less comfortable.

I think the program was a complete joke. A whitewash if you will. It gave no air-time to most of the evidence about government involvement and spent most of it's time painting the truth seekers as conspiracy nuts. A CNN poll found that 90% of the New York population believed the government was actively involved in orchestrating 9/11. When this many people have the same opinion, it's no longer a conspiracy but a reality.

The show made no mention of the fact that half of the alleged hijackers have been found to be alive and well. It made no mention of the firefighters reporting bombs going off in the twin towers. And it made no mention of the many Government officials warned not to fly that morning (Condoleeza Rice telephoned the Mayor of New York personally, Salmon Rushdie banned from flying, etc).

One of the opening statements of the program that "the official account is unequivocal" is a blatant lie!!

Why didn't the makers of the show report the real issues and the real factual evidence instead of skirting around the issues. Mainly I think because the BBC is Government controlled.

Alex Jones said himself that when he tried to talk about the real issues the producers wouldn't allow him to.

It reported that WTC7 fell because it was damaged by wreckage as the twin towers fell, what about the other buildings in between the twin towers and WTC7? Your building falls down if your name is Larry Silverstein and you have a massive insurance policy, oherwise your building is safe.

There is countless amounts of EVIDENCE that the program made no mention of and the makers of it should feel ashamed at the misinformation they gave out tonight.

The BBC needs to get a grip on reality and stop lending it's services itself to the Government.


STOP THE WHITEWASHING AND REPORT THE REAL STORY INTO 9/11!!

  • 24.
  • At 10:19 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Ray wrote:

Just because some of us don't believe the official version of 9/11, it doesn't mean we automatically sign up to the extreme theories like the towers being brought down by demolition, the Pentagon being hit by a missile, or the one about Flight 93 being shot down - all of which you chose to concentrate on in this programme.

Plenty of people don’t buy into those.

Attacking them was useful of course, but perhaps not as insightful as you might hope in debunking the idea of it having been planned by elements of the US.

Still, interesting nonetheless.

  • 25.
  • At 10:23 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Rick B wrote:

I was very dissapointed in the documentary. BBC2 has lost its bite. What happened to the bravery of documentaries like the "Power of Nightmares". This was just a hatchet-job. Fair enough you debunked some of the conspiracy theories but to imply that ask questions about 9/11 are the upsetting the victims' families is beyoned the pale, especially as you didn't mention "9/11: Press for Truth" about the 9/11 families who pressurised the Bush administration to set up the 9/11 Commission in the first place.

  • 26.
  • At 10:25 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • RT wrote:

I honestly cannot fathom the nonsense that was this progam this evening.

The program appeared to have been based wholly around Loose Change which anybody who's done the research understands is definately not the definitive 9/11 conspiracy film.

The program portrayed the few conspiracy theorists interviewed as absolute nutjobs or ill informed youth, barely scratching the surface of all the genuine, rational people involved in the 9/11 truth movement.

It even threw in the "it was all the Jews" angle, that a quick google search would show is absolute nonsense (a view shared by pretty much everyone I've ever been in contact with regarding the 9/11 truth movement).

What about all the glaring inaccuracies and dead ends found in the 9-11 Commission's report? Along with all the damning pieces of evidence already well documented on the Internet and many other mediums. The traces of thermite found on the ruins? The discussion with Larry Silverstein where he openly admitted to the decision to 'pull' (a term meaning to perform a controlled demolition on a building) the WTC towers on live television. The list is almost endless.

You have, without a doubt, done more harm than good to the subject matter and to the 9/11 truth movement as a whole.

  • 27.
  • At 10:25 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Mike wrote:

What a shame. Great title, great idea, great subject matter but your program did little research.

Despite watching it all, and boy I struggled it was just a collection of soundbites from the extreme to the gentle granny, with a gentle coating of a soft ladies voice.

Why did you not utilise web sites such as www.inplanesite.com?

Why did you not utilise the work done on The Power Hour and enhance it?

I did not want proof that it was all a cover up but you failed to explain anything and only skimmed over the content.

Nothing on the reports issued after? No interviews with 'people on the ground', firemen? Not one piece of data from your US colleagues in radio and tv?

Is it true that the only skyscrapers in the world to fall from fire are the twin towers? This despite others around the world having burnt for 24 plus hours. The win towers burnt for what, 109 minutes? I want to know these things. Despite it not being a concern I think it's odd that an indifferent like I seems to have more info than the entire bbc research team.

So after a good start you flaked out in the end and avoided depth. Sad really it could have been great.

  • 28.
  • At 10:27 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Barnaby Griffin wrote:

I have just watched your documentary on 9/11 and was very dissapointed. The conclusion that no evidence backs up the conspiracy theories is blatantly untrue. As a person who hasn't even seen 'Loose Change' I still have enough knowledge about 9/11 to know that the official version of events is laughable. I felt your program wholly biased. A teenage nerd, a crazed Texan and another sweaty, manic looking fellow were your only representation of the movement against the offical version. They said over again there was plenty of evidence to back up their claims but were not given an opportunity to state that evidence. Of course, none of them commented on the really outlandish claims such as the X-files writers' involvement or the absence of Jews because these conspiracies are a joke and only believed by a tiny minority. What credibility does a hollywood script writer have to comment on these issues anyway, let alone a grieving family member and a passenger on the delta flight?

The stronger evidence suggesting government involvement was completely omitted from your documentary. Such as: The bizarre stock market activity prior to the attacks, the fact that no building had ever in history collapsed entirely from fire (WTC7), the immediate removal of the steel from the debris so as to prevent investigation, the discovery of molten metal at ground zero suggesting the use of thermite explosives, the speed in which the towers collapsed defying the laws of physics, the ability of a rookie to maneuvre the plane into the pentagon (and why the plane didn't nose dive into the building rather than target an area of the pentagon which was under refurbishment at the time thus had very few people in that area) - there are a lot more questions that are unanswered that your program failed to mention.

The majority of the people seeking truth about 9/11 would just like a thorough investigation - something which hasn't happened discounting the 9/11 commission whose efforts were actively hampered by the US administration. You had a great opportunity to highlight some of the glaring inconsistencies of the official version and you failed. Bad job.

Barnaby Griffin

  • 29.
  • At 10:27 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Bill Kirchner wrote:

With this new hit piece against people questioning the official 911 version, BBC has denigrated their reputation to the level of FOX News. Another propaganda outlet but FOX is more entertaining.

  • 30.
  • At 10:29 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Burton wrote:

The program was facinating and having not long viewed "Loose Change" and passed to all my friends, found a lot of questions answered. As expected. The problem with conspiarcy theorists is that they let the wood obscure the trees by believing the made up rumours that are placed inbetween the known facts.

It is easy to believe a story that fits your own political bias and personal beliefs. I look at a lot this stuff and make up my own mind. I always end up with the view that out of all these supposed plots by government organisations are considered by these people, and they forget to include on highly important piece of the equation. That is incompetence.

However one conspiarcy theory discussed at the end had me intrigued. I can see that the buffoonery and downright imcompetence coupled with professional competiveness, distrust and jealosy [between Departments]prevented two huge government organisations sharing valuable intelligence information being acted upon.

Then at the post mortem a massive back peddling/self protection (cover up!) operation kicks in.

I just wish these people put as much effort into protecting us rather than being all so precious with each other about thier own secrets.

This is no disrespect to our friend across the pond becuase I am sure we are just as adept at exactly the same here in Blighty!

  • 31.
  • At 10:31 PM on 18 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Clarke wrote:

Just watched the 9-11 Conspiracy Files this evening. Stinks of a very lame atempt at debunking the mountain of credible evidence that points to 9-11 being an inside job. Very little focus on the collapse of the towers which perhaps provides the biggest evidence of government complicity. How do pancaking floors fall at the speed of near freefall, i.e meeting no resistance. How can an interlinked core of 47, 3 feet thick steel collumns completely vaporise. Why were the structures 'atomised' producing pyroclastic clouds. Why, even if the trusses around the damaged areas failed, would the upper floors meet ZERO resistance from the concentrated volumes of steel and concrete comprising the floors below. What of the accounts of New York firemen witnessing multiple explosions. None of these issues were tackled by this mockumentary. So sad, but typical of the BBC. C'mon journalists stop thinking about paying you mortgages on your nice London houses and do some good honest journalism for a change.

  • 32.
  • At 12:36 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • geoff wrote:

The program that aired tonight on the BBC was nothing more then a slap in the face to the families of the victims of 9/11. It was baseless, amatuer journalism and a disgrace to the BBC. I hope this less then mediocore effort to find out answers about 9/11 is followed up with a comprehensive and serious look at what really went on that day. Awful...just awful journalism.

  • 33.
  • At 12:47 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Jay Andress wrote:

I'm a viewer in Wales. It took me an age to find the damn program in the listings and when I did it was shown 2 hours later than everywhere else. When I switched on to view it it had been cut from the schedule. God, I'm bloody furious! I was hoping to see a sensible treatment of the real issues regarding 9/11 and maybe I would have got that or maybe I would have got the "conspiracy theorists are all mad" routine but it would have been nice to find out. Instead BBC2 Wales thought it more socially relevant to show a short program about gardens. Thanks a lot.

  • 34.
  • At 12:59 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Christo wrote:

Thank you for a sensible, as it seemed to me, summary & dismissal of the 9/11 conspiracists. The final link on yr posting doesn't work.

I look forward to yr programme on the Kelly affair, which does seem to me very murky.

  • 35.
  • At 01:25 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Kevin wrote:

Hello,

Having just seen the 9/11 episode from this 'Conspiracy' series, I am left wondering what the motives are here.... Is the editor REALLY attempting to 'separate fact from fiction'?.If so, this demonstrates a feeble attempt IMO.

At best it's a lightweight skim over of the some salient points around the questions raised that challenge the 'official story': at worst it's a manipulating programme which (intentionally or unwittingly) attempts to suggest that there is no authentic weight to so called 'conspiracy theories' IN GENERAL.

After presenting an extremely 'whistle stop' tour of a few aspects, the narrator then tells us 'the evidence supports a conspiracy AFTER 9/11, and not before'. What? What 'evidence'? - the evidence the programme fails to show in any detail whatsoever? I understand it's beyond the scope of an hour's TV to fully examine all the aspects, but if that's the case , then the editors/writers have to accept that they cannot make sweeping statements after a lightweight investigation.
The totally obvious 'heart strings' section was the limit as well.. I have true sympathy for anyone who lost their loved ones on that tragic day, but there's no mention of those that lost friends and relatives, but still don't believe the 'official story' put out by the US Government? Believe - there are plenty!
And why so much air-time for the X-Files guy? He's no expert here... He's a FICTION writer!!

This kind of TV serves a totally counter-productive purpose to what it purports to do. This appears to be the formula:

Skirt over the main points, appear to allow some 'conspiracy theorists' to have their say. Soften the viewer up with a heart-string puller and then, with no substantial evidence, dismiss anyone who's challenging the 'official story' as misguided individuals who 'have difficulty accepting it'. Oh, and finally, make people feel guilty about questioning the official line 'for the sake of the victims'. It's an insult to the victims NOT to search for the truth about what happened!
Now that's great journalism.
Bleueugh!

I DO sincerely hope that this series is going to gain in integrity, instead of serving as a dangerous quick fix 'alternative view-basher'. Please let's not have the same sort of treatment for the rest of the series. It does more harm than good.


Disappointed of London.

  • 36.
  • At 07:44 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Dear Sir

Re: The Narrowly framed 10 Questions about 911 posited by the BBC:

The BBC can roll out any number of explanations as to why air exercises were sufficient to derail the NORAD air defense in the Northeastern US on 911, but they don't dare approach the next logical question: Who scheduled those wargames?

Did Osama bin Laden send key components of the US Air Force to places like Alaska and Greenland that day? And if not, who did?

  • 37.
  • At 09:43 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

I have a question. Why did you waste my money on this programme? If you are going to make a programme on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, i expect some sort of serious investigation of the subject matter. In other words, don't waste time on the lunatic fringe; instead try to provide an objective academic analysis of the claims made by serious conspiracy theorists (if they exist?). That way we can learn if there is anything to their claims ?

There are a number of serious academics who have raised questions about 9/11. I was expecting you to draw on this material. In fact the bare minimum you could have done is just taken David Ray Griffin's list of (what he believes to be) irregularities and inconsistencies in the official account as the basis for the case for the prosecution. Then all you need to do is to build the case for the defence (of the official version). Surely we dont believe the conspiracy theorists, so the official version must be true. So that means if you have intelligent journalists talking to the right people it shouldnt be too hard to de-bunk these conspiracy theories. Picking the holes in Professor Griffin's arguments would have made for interesting television. Instead what I got from you was the idle musings of talk-radio shock-jocks and self-confessed college drop-outs. I think your average GCSE student could have dismissed most of their arguments without too much difficulty. So what went wrong? Did your journalists want an easy life and interviewed the first few conspiracy nuts they could get their hands on? Could they not even be bothered to read the whole of David Ray Griffin's best-selling book so that they could find out what the grown-ups have to say about 9/11 ? Or did they not feel intellectually capable of challenging any serious analysis ?

Congratulations - another triumph for the BBC !

  • 38.
  • At 10:24 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Mitchell wrote:

Sundays program about 9/11 conspiracy theories was totally one sided and did not give any crdibility to the people asking the Americans and the rest of the world to question actions taken by their goverments.They focused mainly on the "Loose Change" documentary which I see as an opener to many other great documentaries that go into greater depth about what happened on 9/11 and who has gained from it, the BBC basically interviewed 3 civilians and tried to dicredit them with experts who believe what they have been told, check out "Improbable Collapse" for many an EXPERT who will explain why the towers could NOT have come down from the planes or the fire, ask why they fell at freefall speed when experts will tell you that the "Pancake" effect (the official version) should have taken 4 or 5 times longer, do not believe everything you are told by both sides but have an open mind and explore all posibilities. I would not have expected much more from the BBC as we must remember that it is goverment funded and lets face it Blair and Bush are thick as thieves.
If you want to know more check out the following
"Improbable Collapse"
"911 - The Road To Tyranny"
"911 - In Plane Site"
"911 - Martial Law"

There are plenty of great web sites as well, as they said in the X-files "The truth is out there"

search for it !

  • 39.
  • At 11:36 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • treveo wrote:

Facts, come on then Joe #2, show me the 'FACTS', you cannot, all you do is repeat incorrect statements made by people who do not know any better.

So again show me the'FACTS', try and get away from your hyperbole.

  • 40.
  • At 11:37 AM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • dmatr wrote:

...no steel frame building has ever collapsed through fire...

Something missing here, but I can't quite put my finger on it(!) What else happened on 9/11, was it just a day when some large buildings caught fire? I find it hard to believe you could have missed the fact that WTC 1 and 2 were hit by fuel-laden Boeing 767 passenger jets.

So re-write your original sentence: previously, no steel frame building has ever collapsed through being hit by a fuel-laden jet plane travelling at 500mph and catching fire. Why? Because this has never happened before.

It [WTC 7] wasn't hit by a plane...so how did it collapse?

WTC 7 suffered significant structural damage from falling debris and an intense multi-floor fire. You wouldn't know this if you base your analysis solely on "truther" websites, since they deliberately omit photographic evidence showing the level of damage sustained by WTC 7.

In all 3 cases, the collapses were not due solely to fire. The collapses were due to massive fires *and* significant structural damage.

And why is the owner of the building in a documentary saying on camera that they decided to 'pull' the building and they watched the buildind collapse?

This has been explained by the person who actually said it. He was not referring to pulling or demolishing the building, but pulling the FDNY operation in the building.

If you were genuinely interested in the facts you would already know your questions have been answered comprehensively and repeatedly, so the question becomes: what benefit do you gain from shielding yourself from the explanations that address your concerns?

  • 41.
  • At 12:09 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Steve, London wrote:


Anyone interested in looking into 911 Truth and what serious people are
saying about it should and would view the following:-

"911 And American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out"
Berkeley, California 26th September 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3195658770053494633

The BIG Issue goes Intello.
These are NOT Fringe Radicals speaking.
Drip Drip Drip - The Lies Unravel.

Concerning the BBC's so called "Investiation" into the 911 truth movement
and the well publicised discovery from a source within the BBC that there are actually 2 versions of the resulting documentary about 9/11 and that among other things commercial / political dynamics have been in play concerning the choice of which version to broadcast.

The BBC may well have shot itself in the foot here.
If the buzz in the internet is anything to go by.
Does the BBC not yet understand the size and gravity of the 911 issue and where it is all leading.

There is now widespread speculation concerning the BBC that it is merely interested,
for amongst other things commecial reasons, to chooose popularity over deep objective analysis
on the subject of 911.
That the documentary is
- no more than a counter attack
- in the guise of a "straw man" strategy
- ie present the most wacky aspects of the 911 Truth movement
- to maximise doubt in the wider population.

Which is why - to my mind - serious pieces of debate and information like the one I mention above are so much more important.

The BBC would - if it had been serious - simply have sourced, aired and followed up on the video
"911 And American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out"

Frankly I think the volume of Questions without plausable Answers concerning
"the day that changed the world" has already reached critical mass and is
- in my humble opinion - ultimately unstoppable - or rather
- uncontainable as those that fear the real truth would like.

The cat is out of the hat, the rabbit is out of the box.
Time will tell. The Truth.

What the BBC needs to imperatively understand is the size of this issue
and where it is going.
If not the BBC seriously risks grave danger to it's reputation if it fumbles the ball.

There is no doubt there are a lot of eyes on the BBC and it's actions at this moment.

  • 42.
  • At 12:43 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Dave Nutley wrote:

The programme last night i feel was heavily biased towards the US Govt's official version of events and made the conspiracy theorists interviewed look like the minority and trouble makers. The programme ignored many issues which have been raised about 9/11 and concentrated on de bunking the theories. Just as an example when a plane crashes , the first thing any investigation needs are the planes black boxes. NOT ONCE was it mentioned that none of these boxes was ever recovered from ANY of the 4 flights, in fact the phrase 'black box ' was not even said in the programme. This just smacks of the BBC being told what to investigate and what not to. Was this issue just too prickly to broadcast? Other issues like Senators being advised not to fly that morning, none of the hijackers names appearing on flight manifests, strange objects underneath one of the planes - there are too many unanswered questions and i feel the programme only brushed the surface of issues which they felt they were able to prove the theorists wrong. I was disappointed in the programme as a whole and was expecting more of the BBC than just to 'toe the line'.

  • 43.
  • At 12:50 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Gareth Wigdahl wrote:

Watched the program on Sunday. Amazing how many major issues were omitted by the BBC.
Why wasn't it mentioned that thousands of share options were purchased in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11. Why was the CCTV footage taken from the hotel near the Pentagon never released by the FBI? Why didn't the BBC show the footage showing (what may have been) explosives attached to the base of one of the planes that hit the World Trade Centre Tower.
There are still many questions to be answered but I don't think they ever will.

  • 44.
  • At 12:58 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Lyne wrote:

I’m amazed that the program did not touch on the fact that NASA released aerial photo’s of Ground Zero five days after the attack, these were infra-red and showed massive hotspots coming from the sites, the construction workers & fire crews at the scene state that the sub-basement areas contained molten metal, this was despite tens of thousands of gallons of water being pumped onto the remains ? ( Maybe NONE of the laws of Physics apply to this atrocity ).
William Rodriguez, the last survivor out of the WTC is touring the UK, I saw him at Exeter Cathedral
on the 3rd February (I was standing next to BBC film cameraman that day) his personal account was that there were numerous explosions in the basement & upper levels, none of this footage was used, too near the truth Mr. Rudkin ?

  • 45.
  • At 01:05 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Jan Wouters wrote:

I concur with Steve from London.

Total lack of investigation.
Slick disinfo.
Shamefull.
There goes the last trusted source....

  • 46.
  • At 01:06 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • s. selmes wrote:

Dear BBC
I watched your conspiracy programme with stunned amazement. Although I can appreciate the concept of psychological needs, I have a psychology background, to produce a programme about something so major and significant to world power and politics and fail to mention some deeply disturbing unanswered questions is paramount to propaganda for the American government.
No mention was made of:
1. The huge Truth movement in the USA and across the world - and Scholars For Truth
started by physicist Prof Steven Jones who is joined by countless other academics, and hold filmed conferences to discuss the huge body of evidence of the coverup. Many are scared to speak out for fear of loosing their jobs. The tens of thousands of New Yorkers who marched on the streets demanding explanations to the lack of information.
2. The fact that it is mechanically impossible for a building to fall into its own footprint without controlled demolition, and yet strangely 3 did on that day in New York.
3. The fact that the buildings were designed to be hit by several bigger planes than they were, and still keep standing.
4. The fact that most fire-workers stated they heard lots of explosions, including huge ones in basements where several people were killed.
5. There was no proper forensic assessment of the site because all the debris was removed and sent to China and India for re-cycling.
6. The fact that the USA did nothing to counter the attacks - which were spaced well apart.
7. Re- the above point, 10 heads of state and our Micheal Meacher noted that the USA had plenty of evidence that such an attack was likely but did nothing to stop it.
8. The fact that the official report ignores the confusing collapse of building 7.

I could go on.
All of this information is available on the internet and through accessible DVD's.

  • 47.
  • At 01:18 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

Simply funding a bunch of guys hell-bent on carrying out the job a conspirator with vast resources already wants them to do would surely have been a more simple proposition - and one less likely to be revealed.

  • 48.
  • At 02:22 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Peter Harris wrote:

FACTS NOT covered during BBC2 Conspiracy Files Programme 18/02/2007 :

The FACT 4 of the Terrorists included in the list with photographs drawn up and shown on World Wide TV shortly after the incidents are still alive and were interviewed by.....The BBC AFTER the events, they of course stated their complete innocence.
The FACT, Towers "Power Down" on the week-end before the "Attacks" This meant Tenants were given a short period to close down their computer systems to enable "communication up-grades" to take place. (1st time since Towers were built) No power meant no CCTV or effective security was in place, enabling demolition experts to enter unchallenged so that detonators, squibs and explosives could be placed in crucial areas. To be controlled remotely.
The FACT Boeing 757 & 767's can be flown remotely via GPRS.
The FACT Usama Bin Laden denied any involvement.
The FACT $2 Billion HAD to be spent to remove asbestos fire retardent covering of any exposed steel. This work would probably have taken 4-5 years to complete, causing huge disruption to the Towers Tenants and traffic in and around Downtown New York.
The FACT, Silverstein's (WTC Leaseholder) famous "faux pas" regarding the pulling(professional demolition term) of WTC 7
and the way he tried to wriggle out of what he originally meant when confronted afterwards.
The FACT the designers of the Towers designed them to withstand the impact of one or more Boeing 707's. (biggest airliner at that time)
The FACT that a Steel Cored High-Rise building had NEVER collapsed before 9/11due to fire.
The FACT that the new WTC Leaseholders had increased their Insurance cover for the WTC complex to include...Attack from Terrorists.
The FACT Silverstein Properties Inc. received Insurance payout of around $5 Billion, also claiming that the 2 separate attacks constituted 2 separate claims!
The FACT both buildings collapsed at free-fall speed (10 secs.approx.), meaning there was NO resistance between the point of collapse and the ground.
The FACT Siesmologists 60 miles away say that explosions registering 2-3 on the Richter Scale were noted seconds before each of the Towers collapsed.
The FACT first FDNY Firefighters reaching the affected floors in the North Tower radioed back, reporting that there were 2 main pockets of fire and that they could be easily knocked down by 2 LINES.
The FACT Independant analysis of a samples removed from "Ground Zero" including some steel, found evidence of THERMITE/THERMATE a powerfull explosive used regularly by Demolition companies. It is known to cut through reinforced steel like it were butter.
The FACT Bomb Sniffing Dogs normally on patrol throughout both Towers were removed after the Power Down.
THE FACTS

  • 49.
  • At 02:52 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Piero wrote:

I feel what BBC showed us yesterday is just offensive to people's intelligence. It was so clearly a strenuous endeavour to make fun of those who don't plainly buy the "official version" offered by State authorities (as in the case of the tragedy on 7/7). I see no point in showing us a program that simply aims at discarding the "conspiracy theory" (it would be more appropriate to call it "non-governmental theory"), and that does so by appealing to nothing less than the authoritative statements of the author of the X-Files. I am ashamed by the service BBC has offered to the public, and am surprised most people do get along with that.

  • 50.
  • At 03:03 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Giulio Napolitani wrote:

Particularly liked the quote from Steve O'Brien: "It had that distinctive silver finish. In our minds, it was definitely an American Airlines aircraft". all voiced over a shaky, blurry shot of an American Airlines MD-80. Nice touch.

I take it the "alternative version" is a fantasy...

  • 51.
  • At 03:29 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Chris Noth wrote:

What if the 'official' accounting of what happened on 9/11 is false? What if, in fact, it's a lie, and a big one at that, complete with corporate/media/propaganda cover-up? Especially with corporate/media/propaganda. Without the backing from the media the story wouldn't fly. What would that make this 'war on terror'? A fraud? Since when do steel buildings free fall to the ground, like WTC 7? From fire? What about WTC 7 anyway? Since when? Never have before or since. When did jumbo jets start disappearing when they crash, like the Pentagon and Shanksville. There really was no wreckage to speak of. Where were the wings, the engines, the tails, the seats, bodies,and everything else you see when a 757 hits the ground, they don't evaporate. The Kean/Hamilton Commission did a terrible job at answering all the glaring problems. More like a white-wash. Now, in their new book, they say they think the Pentagon lied to them. Ya think? A great read on this is David Griffin's Omission's and Distortion's. They can't explain NORAD changing their timeline a total of 7 times, WTC 7, not one word, Able Danger, and a host of other relevant facts.WTC 7 is proof the 'official' story is wrong. Ever watched the video of it coming down? They didn't play it much on CNN or NBC, ever wonder why? Because it's the smoking gun of the whole thing.It's proof because it's an obvious controlled demolition, which we all know takes weeks of planning, hence, fore-knowledge of the attack, which means, inside job, and somebody way up the chain of command, and NOT the President. When people say the president knew, I think they're mistaken. He's too dumb to be in on such a plan. he looks like he doesn't have a clue what is going on ,sitting there in Sarasota. He, along with the country was hijacked that day be a group way up.Somebody ABOVE him. Probably someone wearing a highly decorated military uniform. The public has been deliberately deceived into war, by our own government. The future of this country is in serious jeopardy with these folks controlling our government. It's really too bad the media has also been hijacked along with this country. I hope you'll fight to re-open a new, real investigation. Chris Noth

  • 52.
  • At 03:41 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • robin wrote:

Sundays program about 9/11 painted a biased and unfair argument, verging on ridiculing the people who question the offical line.

BBC you should be ashamed of yourselves.

  • 53.
  • At 08:40 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

ugh.........there isn't a shady 'cover-up'. There aren't legions of government operatives/shady military figures/men in black suits etc out to 'get' you.

19 Al-Qaeda trained extremists recruited from the middle east received flight training in the US and hi-jacked four airplanes with box-cutters.

Lots of the 'facts' claimed by conspiracy theorists are offensive mistruths. No jews went to work on 9/11....ooohhhh.....except that hundreds did. And died.

500 degrees centigrade (the heat of the burning fuel) isn't enough to melt steel!......aaaahhh......except that the steel in the tower didn't melt, it was structurally weakened by the heat and buckled, collapsing in upon itself.

You can see small explosions on some of the floors below where the building is collapsing in on itself......charges planted by the CIA!......or perhaps debris being blown out of the windows of rooms with 70 floors collapsing above them.

There are other 'conspiracies' to debunk, the WTC buildings insurance, the flying of jets by remote control, WTC7, but this has already been done by others on this post.

It was terrorism.

  • 54.
  • At 08:46 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Alexandre Silva wrote:

Conspiracy Files was a SHAMEFUL report of 9/11. Besides not attempting to answer the several main questions behind 9/11 official story, this program clearly attempted to discredit, in lousy ways, the main protagonists behind the 9/11 Truth Movement without mentioning several key facts and testimonies related to 9/11. The fact is, I had my doubts concerning 9/11. But thank you BBC, after seeing your more-than-obvious attempt of brainwash, you've taken away all my doubts.

Horrific journalism, wait, my mistake, since this can't even be called journalism.
Good PROPAGANDA though.

It is despictable how the media are being totally controlled. I mean, just look at all this. First we see two huge buildings being completely desintegrated to the very bottom, and the official story is that the fires made that happen? Are you guys kidding me? Are we suppose to believe that the completely random damage caused by an airplane manages to bring a building down LIKE THAT? That is ridiculous. Then later, we see the exactly same thing happening with another building, this time without planes involved. Another building comes down to dust exactly like a controlled demolition. And then, the comments of Larry Silverstein about this building, WTC7, where he admits to "pull" the building, whereas, "pull" is a typical word for bring a building down through controlled demolition. And another thing to consider, it takes months to plan and prepare a controled demolition so they couldn't do it in just some hours.

IT IS MORE THAN OBVIOUS THAT SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT. AND THE GOVERNMENT, BY NOT ANSWERING VERY GOOD QUESTIONS, ONLY GIVES MORE CREDIT TO THE DISBELIEF ON THE OFFICIAL STORY.

  • 55.
  • At 09:04 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Georgina Morphett wrote:

I am utterly dissapointed with Sundays program. You the BBC failed us by focusing on the conspiracy theory itself and not the hard facts.
*To start with, you didn't say enough about the war games that morning, or that in the past year 67 F16s have gone out and all reached their targets.
*Operation Northwoods etc, should have got a mention.
*What happened to the Pentagon security?
*Not once has a building fallen like that before, let alone 3 in one day.
*No mention of the exit hole left in the Pentagon.
*No mention of why the clocks stopped in the Pentagon a few minutes early.
*Flight 77 could not have followed that path and hit the light poles.
*The plane parts you showed actually don't come from a 757.
*Planes have never just 'vaporized' before.
*If an Islamic extremist was going to wear a bandana, it wouldn't be a red one.
*Seizmic reports showed something happened moments before the towers fell.
*No mention of the white plane that was seen that day, why was it flying, when all planes had been grounded.
*No mention of Bush, his lack of a swift response, numerous slip ups etc.
*No financial aspect covered at all.
*No mention of the 2.3 trillian$ or the missing gold from beneath the WTC.
*Unusual share trading activities
*No mention of the Power downs just prior.
But for me the icing on the cake was at the end, just after you got that guy from the X Files to tell us we all need a security blanket. The narrator says 'The conspiracy theorists will continue, no matter how painful this maybe for the families of the victims.'
Maybe you should check out the 9/11 Family Steering Committee and the Jersey girls and see how painful it is for them.

  • 56.
  • At 09:09 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

Its all falling apart, is'nt it? At what point does a government cease to be legitimate? When it murders its own people? When it refuses to listen to its own people and instead insists on patronsingly 'educating' them via lick-spittle politicians and the corporate media. When it ignores the petions and the reasoned responses of its electorate. When instead it insults them by treating them as tax slaves or conspiracy 'nutters'. The US and British governments have ceased to serve their own people and instead serve an elite, an oligarchy who hold an agenda they do not wish to share with the democaracies because they know it is so immoral and biased towards their own power and wealth that it would be rejected out of hand. Likewise, the BBC should be stripped of its British title as it is neither patriotic nor representitive of the Great British public but serves other masters and an ideology that few in this country share. Maybe we should organise a mass refusal of the license fee (tax). If its money that motivates the Beeb then maybe this is the only way to make them LISTEN.

  • 57.
  • At 09:14 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Tony wrote:

Well if Tony Blair won't give you extra cash, then after this diabolical programme, Dubya Bush surely will. You fight the neocon corner very well and are almost as good as the Murdoch news,in keeping the real truth secret. This was a very poorly researched effort. I read somewhere it took nine months to make this. If this is the case, stick to Eastenders and leave serious documentaries to Channel Four.
Hundreds of questions need answered here, and you have failed to even scratch the surface. Investigative journalism? Guy Smith and Mike Rudin, I wouldn't pay you with washers!

  • 58.
  • At 09:21 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Keith wrote:

The programme did a total and utter dis-service to investigative journalism.

No mention of David Ray Griffin and his serious investigations into 9 11. The "official" story is the Conspiracy, not the 9 11 Truth Movement. How are so many Hijackers still alive. Alex Jones and the makers of Loose Change should be appreciated for the "risks" that they have taken.

Where was the evidence from the firefighters who heard the explosions in the basement long before the Towers were demolished.

The "official" story is impossible and implausable. Robin is right, BBC you should be ashamed of yourselves.

KP

  • 59.
  • At 09:30 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Paul Nelson wrote:

Reading the comments so far it would appear that the general concensus of opinion is that people are dissatisfied completely with the official account of the events on 9/11 and some form of cover up to the truth has been fabricated.
I felt also that the BBC investigation follows the typical psychological approach as other "monitored" controversial documentaries which uses the tactic to fuel everyone up in the first part of the programme to think there is a huge conspiracy,showing snippetts of evidence which genuine researchers of the truth have discovered,, only to slowly undermine the evidence these people have by interviewing some flaky casual "matter of fact" individuals who have obviously got interests to protect,by the end of the programme! ordinary viewers are probable left thinking the conspiracy buffs are all nutters! well done on another cover up farce documentary, you serve your master well!

  • 60.
  • At 10:07 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Steven wrote:

You did your best I suppose, but sometimes your best is never going to be good enough for anyone who wants to see some seriously deep investigating, which is what a series like this should have been all about.

If you think you've delved deeply, in the search for the truth behind the events of 9-11 for example, I think you'll find you're very much mistaken. You've just done a paddle across the surface of gigantic ocean. In fact I don't think even the mighty BBC would dare to go under the surface, because it would be too damaging the belief system of many people and you know it. I'm sure we all at some stage in our life, like to think we know what is really going on behind the scenes in this world. I won't pretend to know it all myself, there's just too much to be taken in and assessed by one person alone. But what I have seen and heard is enough to make me question my own beliefs, especially when it comes to what we think is scientifically possible. Lets just say that modern (common) scientific knowledge isn't quite what I thought it was, and that's putting it lightly.

Also what you may not have realised so far, but many people have, is that there appears to be a pattern in all of these theories. If you go deep enough, somehow they all start to link in together. But that's when it starts getting really seriously scary, and I'd advise no one to go down that dark road, without some form of light of their own. I'm sure we've all heard the saying 'Truth is stranger than fiction', well the truth about this and many other things will be revealed in their proper time, just be prepared and have your mind wide open, as we're all in for a bumpy ride that's all I can say.

I'll leave you all with this thought which I picked up along my journey, and believe it suits this discussion quite well.

We'll question anything, but our own ignorance.

  • 61.
  • At 10:31 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Sharon H. wrote:

I've just had to watch last night's programme twice as I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing the first time. The conspiracy theories would have been laughable if the subject hadn't been so tragic. I should have realised when I heard Sherlock Holmes, a fictitious character, being quoted that the theorists being interviewed obviously weren't playing with a full deck. Well done the Beeb for showing these people to be what they really are, self serving idiots! I wonder if they ever played a game called Chinese Whispers when they were children?

  • 62.
  • At 10:41 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Steve Horgan wrote:

I thought the programme was sensitive and fair. The reactions by the conspiracy theorists to factual evidence was particularly instructive. One chap sounded like the men in white coats were just off camera waiting to pounce. There was a particular contrast between the genuine scientists who modelled the airliner striking the pentagon, using state of the art computer simulation, and the conspiracy theorists who had no relevant technical knowledge whatsoever but still spouted off as if they did. I pity the people fooled by these fruitcakes.

  • 63.
  • At 10:45 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • double dutch wrote:

this 'documentary' is the "self-inflicted wound" for the BBC's credibility...

  • 64.
  • At 10:58 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Paul Winter wrote:

I watched Sundays programme on 911 with a reasonably open mind. I had only just come accross the theories about 911 on the internet and was still open to have those theories challenged and disproved. The BBC failed to this. They failed to even attempt to deal with many important issues that have been raised by those who question the official 911 explanation.

Why didn't the bbc look into the many issues that have been raised in the comments on this blog? Non of these are new. Anyone who has done any research into this subject would have been aware of them.

It would seem that the makers of this programme have failed to look at this issue objectively. They have started with a view that those who question the official version are nuts and then set out to try to prove it.

It looks as if the BBC's reputation for unbiased investigations is in tatters.

  • 65.
  • At 11:03 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Philip Croft wrote:

Well--I had so much to say--but most have said it already, BUT--I have to say how depressed I am that the once reliable BBC, whose journalistic credentials were second to none,now resemble those of the Tabloid press. I thought the 'investigation?' into the DIANE conspiracies was bad enough, but last nights 9/11 effort played havoc with my emotions--from bemused disbelief--to raging anger.Instead of being the arbitor between opposing sides--and allowing open discussion and debate, the programme immediately became a 'lets bash the loony conspiracy nuts at all cost'. None of the NEW witnesses were challenged--their word was taken as FACT, and not opinion. The closing minutes in which there was a crude attempt to placate 'The Believer's' with a 'confession' that there WAS a conspiracy--to hide the fact that the 2 rival security orgs. had failed to share intelligence and thereby--led to the attack-- ( and all set to solemn music too)--was truly laughable--so thanks for that. Of course, the whole idea, that a catastrophe as epic and complex as this--could be dealt with satisfactorily in one hour, is just silly, thereby forcing the makers to be very selective. Even the impressive list of unanswered questions entered by others above, doesent come close to the enormous total of dubious and conflicting statements and mysterious omissions--that make up the 'official' report. The doubter's here should simply do their homework .As the saying goes--If it looks, sounds, and smells like it--THAT's WHAT IT IS !!!

  • 66.
  • At 11:47 PM on 19 Feb 2007,
  • Paul Berryman wrote:

Sad to see the BBC has almost casually thrown away its much vaunted objectivity in airing a 911 piece that is so full of misinformation and straw men (a straw crowd really) that the making of the show itself has a suggestion of conspiracy surrounding it. I smell the fetid stench of American influence in the production of this hit piece. Can't see any point in wasting anymore time with your service, and probably won't bother with any State type news service anymore. You can only keep lying to us and seeking to deceive us for so long.

  • 67.
  • At 12:06 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Mani wrote:

Ha Ha Ha,

You thick puffed-up producers of this delinquent analysis don't you just have egg on your face now??

  • 68.
  • At 12:07 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • BIFF wrote:

I found the 911 programme on Sunday most disappointing as I would expect a more balanced effort from BBC .Like most people I find it difficult to think that any government would be responsible for deliberate killing of it's citizens , but there are many unanswered questions, many of which have been put by earlier posts .The BBC programme was so unbalanced that it will only fuel the flames of conspiracy theories .Considering the known facts that are out there it was a very shoddy , and lazy
example of investigative reporting , and certainly sent me like many others to seek answers elswhere .I have since watched on the web a very professional film called Mysteries of 911, 1hr 30mins in length ,which covered the many issues which BBC conveniently overlooked .It's worth a look .

  • 69.
  • At 12:21 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • ROCKY wrote:

A biased film supporting the neo-cons and US Gov. Didn't mention
1)thermite
2)insuring of WTC aginst a terrorist attack for billions of $ just months before
3)that buildings fell at free-fall
4)dozens of eyewitnesses who heard explosions
5)why the sites remained burning for weeks after
6) the New American Century

'Amateurs' can and have made better.

Very disappointed. Series maker should be fired for wasting OUR licence fee and MY time.

  • 70.
  • At 12:55 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Bernard wrote:

BBC, shame on you!

  • 71.
  • At 02:15 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Stu wrote:

Thanks BBC, for making such a thinly veiled hit piece that even the most gullable are now wondering what the fuss is about. Oh and Loose Change is back at #1 on Google Video, thanks for that too.
And I thought that this had all blown over.

  • 72.
  • At 02:55 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Chris Shaw, Australia wrote:

Here's why 9-11 Truth is so important:

9-11 is the defining moment of the new millenium. It unleashed a wrecking-ball on the world. No one is safe from it.

Under the circumstances, we are entitled to expect more than a shallow expose of 9-11 investigators, using selective clips. If the intent of your series is to debunk all such theories, this topic above all deserves more than a frivolous false positive.

In a less enlightened age, programs such as this might be swallowed whole. But this is the age of the Internet - and yes, we know better than to believe everything we see and hear. Here in Australia, we watch TV only to find out what we are SUPPOSED to believe.

  • 73.
  • At 04:21 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Erik Larson wrote:

The refusal of the BBC and Guy Smith to honestly address any of the real questions about 9/11 and the evidence pointing to inside involvement may work on people who haven't actually examined the official story, but for everyone else it just exposes that their true loyalties are not to the Truth or the People.

Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official 9/11 Story
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

The program is so shockingly biased that it had to have been with the intent to foment the truth movement by being so poorly argued.

Having now heard Guy Smith on Alex Jones show it is clear that his Colbert-ian character insists he's looked into the vast evidence and sees nothing credible but Popular Mechanics is an authority?? Complete cover-up rubbish.

but serves the purpose of airing many key arguments for a REAL INVESTIGATION. Anyone looking into the NIST reports will see they've stated that pancaking theory was not possible!

I do not believe he thinks we're that dumb, instead he says he's glad we're talking about these issues...

Hopefully the BBC will realize there's much profit to be had leading the way into real credibe investigation, not anecdotal pseudo-debunkings.

HA! Truth will out.

  • 75.
  • At 06:56 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Matthew Page wrote:

If you would like to have a better understanding of that day, and find out about a lot of the really important evidence that this program decided to completely ignore, go here.

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Debunking.htm

Using POPULAR MECHANICS as a credible source on the "official story" side of the argument was just plain laughable.

Does Guy Smith know what POPULAR MECHANICS specialise in?

I was really hoping that the Beeb would put a balanced view across.
I was disappointed.

  • 77.
  • At 09:18 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • merle wrote:

Food for thought:
'If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers' - Thomas Pynchon.
'History cannot be permanently falsified; the myth cannot stand up to the scrutiny of research; (it) will be brought into the light and torn to pieces, however artfully it has been spun.' - Dr Jakob Ruchti, 1915.
'We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows. ' - the late Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher, in a speech given at CIA HQ in 1988.

  • 78.
  • At 11:04 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Mike – a good programme, and while some are claiming you only focussed on strawmen arguments, I still think what you looked into was useful in advancing the debate about what really happened that day.

There are lots of people holding onto flawed arguments or misleading quotes who would never spend enough time on the debunking websites, but who would very likely have watched this, and perhaps been forced to question some of the things Loose Change and Fetzer are telling them.

Clarifying some of these elements can only be a good thing.

What may be not so good however is that many viewers will now come away from the programme believing ANY suggestion of US complicity in the 9/11 attacks is equally silly – a natural human reaction to want to separate themselves from "the conspiracy camp" which, on the surface, would appear to have just been debunked in your programme.

The tendency to belong to (and only argue against) one camp or the other results in...

(1) Hardcore conspiracy theorists too eager to believe, barking up the wrong tree about the melting point of steel or taking the coroner's quote out of context or misunderstanding the distance of the debris found in the lake. Angrily spouting about physics and facts when they're nothing of the sort.

(2) Sceptics concluding that just because they can debunk those particular arguments and just because some of the conspiracy theories are incredibly outlandish, that the entire possibility of active US involvement in 9/11 is therefore ridiculous – and smugly denouncing anyone purporting this theory as a loony.

Both camps need to step back and consider their line of reasoning. After all, isn't it more plausible that most of the official version is correct, but the attacks were planned and funded from somewhere we'd rather not think about, with sufficient resources and access?

  • 79.
  • At 11:13 AM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • John R wrote:

CLEARLY the reason that the US government hasn't sat down with EVERY single person who has had a question about 9/11 and gone over EVERY piece of evidence, EVERY eyewitness interview, EVERY millisecond of camera footage and EVERY engineering report again and again until we are all satisfied is because THEY have something to hide. Why else would they refuse to rebuild the WTC and fly two fuel-laden planes into it to prove us wrong? Why indeed? CLEARLY they don't want us to know THE FACTS....

There never seems to be any point to debunking conspiracy theories - every rebuttal is met with complaints of cover-up, dismissal, omission and, inevitably, charges of collusion. The theorists simply find a world in which sinister forces conspire against them much less frightening than one in which there is no grand plan and the destruction and pain is chaotic, petty and random. How cheated we would feel if we couldn't find someone to blame who didn't kill themselves in the plane crashes!

And while I'm sure the official record contains omissions and falsehoods it's far more likely to be because they're covering up their own incompetence than because they've masterminded a grand conspiracy. Given the mess they've made of Iraq I wouldn't trust them to organise the proverbial in a brewery...

  • 80.
  • At 12:10 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • RB wrote:

This documentary proved that the BBC has been dumbed down. So many real issues were never covered and we were fed trite psychobabble at the end that claimed to tie up all the loose ends.

Please let's stop pretending that this country is an open democracy anymore, I'd rather be told directly what I can and can't believe than participate in this charade.

  • 81.
  • At 01:51 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Steven Balmer wrote:

Please, anyone of the sceptics: Answer this ONE question: What happened to Building 7?


It takes days/weeks to prepare a demolition- If it was demolished then the government was involved...

Thats the truth. Dont be blue-eyed and think this hasn't happened before and cannot happen at all. It has and will in the future too.

  • 82.
  • At 01:52 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Rich B wrote:

The most effective way to cover up a conspiracy is to muddy the waters by creating a whole raft of conspiracy theories that contain elements of what actually happened mixed in with a lot of persuasive but misleading nonsense. This is then fed to a public hungry for conspiracy theories in the knowledge that it will take root and create a feeding frenzy, necessary to obscure a simpler but no less disturbing reality of the less active nature of US complicity in the attacks.

Just look at the pro and anti comments on this thread and the other 9/11 blogs to see this being played out.

e.g. Someone uses the point about steel not being hot enough to melt as evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives. Someone else then corrects them by pointing out that the steel didn't have to melt, it just had to weaken - but then proceeds to dismiss the entire conspiracy argument.

All so incredibly black and white.

The more such weak evidence is cited by conspiracy theorists, the more the planners/funders of 9/11 must be feeling extremely safe in the knowledge that people's tribal behaviour and selective blindness is so predictable. Their tracks are being covered for them by the very people seeking to expose them.

Programmes like this are no more to blame for this cover-up than are the hoardes of intellectually lazy believers unwilling or incapable of challenging their own theories, and the hoardes of debunkers lumping all 9/11 theories together.

I think there's a good chance it was an inside job (effectively contracted out). But I think the existence of 50 odd 9/11 conspiracy theories will obscure the ability to uncover that truth, with people preferring to take sides, like in a school playground (complete with name-calling!)

  • 83.
  • At 02:11 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • dmatr wrote:

@s.selmes:

1. The huge Truth movement in the USA and across the world

The size of the so-called "Truth" movement has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of its case. Incidentally, I think you'll find "Truth" does not generally mean circulating easily-disproved lies, deliberately taking quotes out of context and omitting contrary evidence.

2. The fact that it is mechanically impossible for a building to fall into its own footprint without controlled demolition, and yet strangely 3 did on that day in New York.

All 4 (not 3) WTC building collapses on 9/11 caused significant damage to, and spread debris over, a wide surrounding area. Not one of the buildings (WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 3, WTC 7) collapsed within its own footprint. The remaining WTC buildings (WTC 4, WTC 5, WTC 6) all partially collapsed and were subsequently demolished as part of the clear up operation. Incidentally, even with a controlled demolition it is practicably impossible to collapse a building within its own footprint.

3. The fact that the buildings were designed to be hit by several bigger planes than they were, and still keep standing.

The WTC towers were theoretically capable of surviving an impact from a Boeing 747. Note that this theoretical calculation assumed the plane would be travelling relatively slowly (as if lost in fog) and did not address at all the effect of burning jet fuel on the damaged structure. The towers' design was not modelled for a Boeing 747 travelling at high speed as this was not even considered a possibility.

4. The fact that most fire-workers stated they heard lots of explosions, including huge ones in basements where several people were killed.

Multiple firefighter accounts mentioned hearing multiple "explosions" - and then the realisation that these weren't explosions at all, but instead, sickeningly, the impacts of people hitting the ground after jumping from the upper floors.

5. There was no proper forensic assessment of the site because all the debris was removed and sent to China and India for re-cycling.

Some, but no means "all", of the debris (steel girders) has been recycled in China, but tonnes of debris and the site itself have been painstakingly examined, and tonnes of debris is still stored in the US (as the BBC programme showed).

6. The fact that the USA did nothing to counter the attacks - which were spaced well apart.

"Nothing" to counter the attacks? The whole US military and air-traffic control went into overdrive. They scrambled jets but were completely unprepared for an attack within US air space; all their SOP's were concerned with an attack coming from outside US air space.

7. Re- the above point, 10 heads of state and our Micheal Meacher noted that the USA had plenty of evidence that such an attack was likely but did nothing to stop it.

Incompetence, unwieldy bureaucracy and poor inter-agency communications would appear to be the most probable explanation, since there is zero evidence that anyone deliberately avoided taking action to stop the attacks.

8. The fact that the official report ignores the confusing collapse of building 7.

The collapse was considered of minor importance because the damage to WTC 7 (and WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6) was secondary damage: i.e. it was caused by falling debris from the initial terrorist attack on WTC 1 and WTC 2 that the official report was actually investigating.

  • 84.
  • At 02:22 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Stephen Lowton wrote:

Bombs in the building?Look at this,what do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

  • 85.
  • At 02:25 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Stephen Lowton wrote:

How did the BBC miss this.
Bush was the only person in the world to see the first aircraft hit the north tower on LIVE TV.

From the horses mouth.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j2VXfoy-dk

  • 86.
  • At 04:50 PM on 20 Feb 2007,
  • Einsteen wrote:

No mention that the NIST only studied collapse initiation. Their story is that once there is initiation the towers were doomed. If you try to find papers that describe the collapse you will find mathematical favourable models using a block that hammers the building below down to the ground (a first stage of collapse or a crush-down) followed by a second stage of collapse (or crush up) in which the hammering block that finally reaches the ground caves in.
Yes, the potential energy stored in a building is huge, the energy pictures are correct but that doesn't prove the dramatic observed collapse behaviour.

Someone mentioned the lost black boxes, I forgot that, however I saw a half burned passport in the movie. Is this an insult to the average IQ of the average citizen ?

  • 87.
  • At 08:45 AM on 21 Feb 2007,
  • merle wrote:

911 = fastest mandate to illegal war ever seen.
Is Richard Perle, one of the PNAC document authors and US-Israel dual loyalty honcho, aspousing a conspiracy here? You be the judge: 'This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are a lot of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now... The greatest triumph of the Iraq war is the destruction of the evil of international law.'

  • 88.
  • At 12:35 PM on 21 Feb 2007,
  • rik st. albans wrote:

The programme was a total disgrace to fair and balanced journalism.The BBC has become Fox News. Everyone,PLEASE,turn off your television sets and get involved in saving the planet from the controlled media!
"People should not be afraid of their governments,governments should be afraid of their people!"

  • 89.
  • At 12:45 PM on 21 Feb 2007,
  • Mark Bell wrote:

Can we at least stop bandying around the term 'jetfuel' like it was some kind of universal solvent. A more common British noun would be paraffin. It is also useful to know that paraffin has a very similar thermal capacity as diesel (similar amount of heat produced in burning same volume of fuel).
See? No one suggests that buildings fall down because a bus load of diesel catches on fire..spin spin spin.

  • 90.
  • At 01:42 PM on 21 Feb 2007,
  • frederick rolfe wrote:

Charlie Brooker's view of the programme:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/0,,2013682,00.html

Observe how the conspiracy theorists - sorry, 'Truth Seekers' - respond to this. Folks, if you don't want people to think you are irrational nutters, don't behave like irrational nutters. Simple.

  • 91.
  • At 03:57 PM on 22 Feb 2007,
  • frederick rolfe wrote:

And just in case the conspiracy theorists - truth seekers - think I'm being biased against them, they might like to check this out:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/21/a_war_conspiracy_documented.php

Interesting.

  • 92.
  • At 01:46 PM on 31 Jul 2007,
  • Mark O Reilly wrote:

finally just watched your documentary, the conspiracy files.
i was looking forward it but happened to miss it on the day.

I'm sorry to say it was a completely inadequate investigation, which did nothing whatsoever to answer the questions i had.

instead it focused on the most pathetic and easily dismissed 'conspiracy theories'
such as that it was some kind of Jewish plot? pure nonsense designed to make valid questions and issues seem radical vicariously.

i just wanted some basic questions answered, but sadly, the were not even asked.

The majority of people who post here with comments attacking "conspiracy theorists" have probably never took the oppotunity to do their own independant analysis and research themselves. Instead they rely on flawed official data and mainstream media to spoonfeed them. In other words, they just don't care.

And I am totally fed up with their stinking attitude. Stop calling us 'nutters', 'nutjobs', 'kooks', and 'wackos' because of our conclusions, pull your fingers out and go investigate 9/11 - you big bunch of babies.

I'm sick of the insults.

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.